Skip to main content

Full text of "The Oxford Dictionary Of Byzantium, 3 Volumes"

See other formats 


THE OXFORD 
DICTIONARY OF 


BYZANTIUM 


ADVISORY BOARD 

Oleg Grabar 
Angeliki E. Laiou 
John Meyendorff 
Nicolas Oikonomides 
Ihor Ševčenko 
Speros Vryonis, Jr. 


PROJECT MANAGERS 


Margaret Scrymser (1988-90) 
Catherine Brown Tkacz (1984-88) 


ASSISTANT EDITORS 


Susan Higman 
Roberta Goldblatt 


BIBLIOGRAPHER 


Leslie S. B. MacCoull 


The Oxford Dictionary of 


BYZANTIUM 





Prepared at Dumbarton Oaks 


Alexander P. Kazhdan 


EDITOR IN CHIEF 


Alice-Mary Talbot 


EXECUTIVE EDITOR 


Anthony Cutler Timothy E. Gregory Nancy P. Sevéenko 


EDITOR FOR ART HISTORY EDITOR FOR ARCHAEOLOGY ASSOCIATE EDITOR 
AND HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY 


VOLUME 1-2-3 


New York « Oxford 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 


1991 


Oxford University Press 

Oxford New York Toronto 

Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi 
Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo 
Nairobi Dares Salaam Cape Town 
Melbourne Auckland 


and associated companies in 
Berlin Ibadan 


Copyright © 1991 by Dumbarton Oaks 
Trustees for Harvard University 


Washington, D.C. 


Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 
200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 


Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press 
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, 
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, 


electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 
without the prior written permission of Oxford University Press. 


Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 
The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium / Alexander P. Kazhdan, editor-in-chief; 
Alice-Mary Talbot, executive editor; Anthony Cutler, editor for art history; 
Timothy E. Gregory, editor for archaeology and historical geography; 
Nancy P. Sevéenko, associate editor. 
p- cm. 
ISBN 0-19-504652-8 
1. Byzantine Empire—Civilization—Dictionaries. I. Kazhdan, A. 
P. (Alexander Petrovich), 1922- 
DFs521.093 1991 
949.5'03'03—dc20 go-23208 
CIP 


Proyecr Eprror: Jeffrey P. Edelstein 


COPYEDITORS AND PROOFREADERS: William Bissell, Eric Brandt, Constance Creede, 
Geoffrey B. Gneuhs, Philomena Mariani, Barbara Palfy, Kevin Pope, Maria Sarro, 
Nancy Snyder, James Waller 


987654321 
Printed in the United States of America 
on acid-free paper 


PREFACE 





The idea of producing a dictionary of Byzantine studies was formu- 
lated by the late Gyula Moravesik in an article published in 1949 (By- 
zantinoslavica 10 [1949] 7). Several years later, Johannes Irmscher de- 
veloped this proposal during a visit to Moscow, and plans were made 
to prepare such a dictionary as a joint German-Soviet enterprise; how- 
ever, the project was never launched. In 1968 Peter Wirth in Munich 
began publication of an ambitious work, entitled Reallextkon der Byzan- 
tinastik, rivaling Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyklopddie in scope; this dictio- 
nary collapsed after the appearance of a few fascicles. 

In America plans for the preparation of a dictionary of Byzantium 
began to materialize at Dumbarton Oaks in 1980 in conversations among 
Alexander Kazhdan, Anthony Cutler, Speros Vryonis, and Jelisaveta 
Allen. With the encouragement and support of Giles Constable, then 
director of Dumbarton Oaks, editorial and advisory boards were estab- 
lished, a preliminary list of entries was drawn up, and in 1982 an initial 
application was made to the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
After the receipt of NEH funding, the project formally commenced in 
November 1983; in 1984 an office was established at Dumbarton Oaks 
and a contract was signed with Oxford University Press. 

A number of existing encyclopedias deal to a limited extent with Byz- 
antine history and culture. In some of them Byzantium is considered 
as an integral part—but only a part—of the subject matter; to this cat- 
egory belong, first and foremost, the Lexikon des Mittelalters (as yet un- 
finished) and the recently completed Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Other 
encyclopedias include separate fields of Byzantine studies, limited chro- 
nologically (thus Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyklopddie elucidates the his- 
tory of the late Roman Empire and also treats later authors relevant 
for ancient history) or topically (there are numerous patristic, theo- 
logical, liturgical, and church historical dictionaries and encyclopedias 
as well as reference books on prosopography, topography, art, and 
iconography, including the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, the 
Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, the Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 
and the Reallextkon zur byzantinischen Kunst). Ours is, however, the first 
attempt to collect within a single work data concerning all fields of Byz- 
antine studies. 

Encyclopedias differ in that some of them (such as the Real-Encyklo- 
pddie or the Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie eccléstastiques—the latter 
still in progress) claim comprehensiveness of both information and bib- 
liography, while others are selective and therefore more concise (e.g., 
the three-volume Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiane). The Oxford 
Dictionary of Byzantium (hereafter ODB) was from the outset planned as 
a selective dictionary following the model of other Oxford dictionaries. 


vi 


PREFACE 


As a result it was necessary to make choices in three areas: the number 
of entries, their length, and the bibliographical references. 

From the very beginning we limited the ODB to approximately five 
thousand entries. It goes without saying that this is a number insuffi- 
cient to include all Byzantine names and terms; thus we had to decide 
who and what would be treated, who and what would be excluded. 
Only one category, that of the Byzantine emperors, is complete, while 
a selection has been made among saints, patriarchs, writers, places, fis- 
cal and administrative concepts, and so forth. The decision process was 
long and painful: we started it before the editorial board was fully op- 
erative, we consulted with members of the Dumbarton Oaks commu- 
nity, in 1986 we published the preliminary Working Lists of entries and 
distributed this pamphlet to leading Byzantinists. We continued to make 
changes in the list right up to the time of galley proofs, thanks to the 
understanding of the Oxford University Press. The final result is com- 
prehensive coverage of all aspects of Byzantine history and civilization, 
with special depth in subjects such as bureaucratic titles and fiscal terms, 
urban life, and rural economy. 

Our original goal was to create a work of approximately 1.1 million 
words, exclusive of bibliographies. We established the average length 
of an entry as two hundred words and of a major article as one thou- 
sand words, but we did grant our contributors some latitude. We re- 
stricted bibliographical references: we requested that only one edition 
of a text (the best) be indicated and that the “literature” section include 
no more than four or five items. As a consequence, however, of adding 
new entries in the course of our work, of increasing the wordage of 
many entries in order to permit adequate coverage of the subject mat- 
ter, and of expanding the bibliographies to incorporate the most recent 
scholarhip, the completed product is considerably longer than antici- 
pated, a three-volume work of approximately two million words, in- 
cluding bibliographies. We were able to keep revising the bibliogra- 
phies until June 1989; in only a few instances was it feasible to add 
references to new editions, articles, and monographs that appeared in 
1989 and 1990. 

We decided to divide the subject matter into about 135 “clusters” of 
entries and invited certain contributors to serve as cluster leaders re- 
sponsible for a particular topic such as fiscal system or geography of 
Asia Minor. In most instances, the cluster leader was asked to write 
both a general survey article on his or her topic of specialization as well 
as the related shorter entries. Our reasoning was that the system of 
clusters would permit more coherence within the group of entries and 
more flexibility for these contributors who, in the course of work, were 
to decide which person or object was more and which less significant; 
we also expected thereby to lessen repetitions and inconsistencies. Cer- 
tainly, the system had its shortcomings: often it was impossible to make 
a strict separation between different clusters, and some topics appeared 
in different clusters, even under different names. Some cluster leaders 
subcontracted a part of their entries, thus multiplying the legion of 
contributors. It is our judgment nevertheless that this system helped to 


PREFACE | vii 


produce a certain uniformity and to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
information. 

It was difficult to impose a consistent structure on the entries and 
especially difficult to decide whether an entry should merely state facts 
or should also include source references, scholarly discussions, and 
scholarly doubts. Thus many entries have no scientific scaffolding and 
supports, while others are heavily loaded with scholarly apparatus. This 
difference in treatment has been determined both by the preference of 
individual contributors and by the controversial nature of certain top- 
ics. In any case, we tried to avoid unilateral solutions and sometimes 
presented in the running text, or at least in bibliographical references, 
conclusions we or our contributors do not share. 

We also faced the difficult question of to what extent a dictionary 
should summarize already established data and to what extent authors 
should go beyond the déjà connu and suggest new viewpoints and new 
solutions. At the beginning, we set as our goal the summation of ele- 
mentary knowledge about Byzantium; it turned out, however, that there 
are many questions that have not even been asked and many traditional 
views that are not substantiated by the sources. We found ourselves 
obliged to touch upon topics developed by western medievalists but not 
yet studied by Byzantinists and to question a number of traditional per- 
ceptions and dates. 

Preparation of the ODB was the joint effort of more than a hundred 
contributors, dozens of cluster leaders, and a handful of editors. Could 
such an assemblage reach a unified approach and work as a team? We 
tried to achieve such a goal but were not always successful. Over a seven- 
year period we had long discussions, both at meetings and in corre- 
spondence; the editorial board insisted, surrendered, and insisted again, 
and frequently was unable to find unity within its own ranks. Neverthe- 
less we hope that in the end we managed to develop certain general 
principles, even though they could not be uniformly applied, partly 
owing to the lack of data, partly to the strength of traditional ap- 
proaches. 

First of all, we addressed issues of chronology and geography. The 
chronological scope of the dictionary was defined as the period from 
the 4th to the 15th century; classical authors such as Euripides and 
Plato are included, but discussion of them is focused on the transmis- 
sion and knowledge of their writings in Byzantium. The post-Byzantine 
tradition (Byzance aprés Byzance) was deliberately omitted. It proved much 
more difficult to set geographical limits for the ODB because of the 
constant fluctuation in the borders of the empire and the far-ranging 
impact of Byzantine culture and its contacts with distant lands. All re- 
gions that at any time formed part of the Byzantine Empire are cov- 
ered, as are sites outside the empire’s borders that had significant con- 
nections with Byzantium. In entries treating areas bordering on the 
empire, the emphasis is on relations with Byzantium or Byzantine cul- 
ture. Thus, the ODB entries on the Qur’an and Muhammad differ greatly 
from their counterparts in the Encyclopedia of Islam, in that they focus 
on Byzantine perceptions of the Holy Book and Prophet of Islam. To 


viii 


PREFACE 


take another example, in the realm of art and architecture, only those 
churches of medieval Serbia have been emphasized for which it can be 
demonstrated that Byzantine artists or architects were primarily re- 
sponsible. 

The second principle we followed was to make the entries in the ODB 
interdisciplinary in nature. We wanted to have entries in which history, 
philology, art, and liturgy were interwoven and combined; even short 
entries were sometimes written by three professionals so that a person 
or an event is viewed from several vantage points. This approach is 
closely linked to our belief that elements of Byzantine culture did not 
exist in isolation. 

This brings us to the very complex problem of whether Byzantium 
was a living, developing organism or only a guardian of ancient and 
patristic traditions. The question is complex since so much in Byzan- 
tium imitated the past and the sources themselves gloss over changes 
and alterations, but in the words of Paul Lemerle “to represent Byzan- 
tium as immutable over a period of eleven centuries is to fall into a 
trap set by Byzantium itself” (Lemerle, Cing études 251). In fields as 
disparate as literature, military strategy and organization, science, med- 
icine, law, and philosophy, the editorial board has taken the position 
that Byzantium did not merely transmit the traditions of antiquity but 
developed its own models and worldview. 

A final point is that the ODB includes many topics not normally found 
in traditional encyclopedias and dictionaries. The editors have made a 
deliberate attempt to emphasize realia and the man in the street (homo 
byzantinus), with special focus on subjects such as the family, diet, emo- 
tions, and everyday life. 

It is our hope that the ODB will provide its reader with a body of 
knowledge about Byzantium. We also expect it to demonstrate many 
areas of study that are still underdeveloped, unclear, and confused, 
and by so doing to stimulate the further evolution of our discipline. 


NOTE TO THE READER 


Entries in the ODB are arranged in alphabetical order, strictly letter 
by letter, not word by word. A space between words is thus ignored, so 
that Leo Grammatikos precedes Leonard of Chios, but Leo of Catania 
follows Leontios Scholastikos. Entries on emperors, popes, patriarchs, 
and others with identical names are arranged in chronological order. 
Cross-references, indicated by small capitals (e.g., FARMS, IRENE), will 
guide the reader to other entries that should offer pertinent related 
information. We recommend that the reader doing research on a topic 
also consult the major survey article; thus, someone interested in farms 
might also read the article on agriculture, where numerous other rele- 
vant entries will be mentioned. 

Some monuments are subjects of independent entries made under 
the name of the specific church or monastery (this is the case for the 


PREFACE 


monuments and monasteries of Constantinople, Athos, and Thessalon- 
ike), while others are discussed in entries under the name of the site 
(as for Mistra, Venice, Rome, etc.). Many artists and architects who are 
not subjects of separate entries are discussed in the major articles on 
artists and architects, respectively. Toponyms are generally listed under 
the form of the name commonly used in the Byzantine period, for 
example, Ankyra instead of modern Turkish Ankara. Modern names 
are used for sites for which the medieval name is unknown or uncer- 
tain, for example, Alahan Manastiri, Umm el-Jimal. 

References to primary sources are given in two different ways: either 
the work is cited in the form of a bibliographic abbreviation (e.g., 
Theoph. or De cer.), which can be found in the list of bibliographic 
abbreviations, or the name of the author or text is printed in small 
capitals, to indicate that the cross-referenced entry will provide infor- 
mation on editions of the works. 

Greek terms and the names of most people and places have been 
strictly transliterated, but in many instances a traditional latinized or 
anglicized form (e.g., Homer, Aeschylus, Thebes, Nicaea) was used. We 
have also adopted the anglicized form of Greek first names that are 
common in English, for example, John, Nicholas, Peter. Armenian has 
been transliterated in accordance with the guidelines of the Revue des 
études arméniennes, Arabic and Ottoman according to the rules of the 
International Journal of Middle East Studies. For Slavic languages we have 
followed the “modified Harvard system,” employed in Byzantinische Zeit- 
schrift. In Latin we have used the initial form ju-, rather than tu-, for 
example, jugum, jus; we also distinguish between v and u. 

The bibliographies are selective and emphasize monographs on a given 
subject; they are supplemented by bibliographical citations in the run- 
ning text. Usually the most important item is listed first, but in some 
cases a recent book or article was added at the end. In order to avoid 
repetition, some works have been omitted from the bibliography of an 
entry if they are listed in the bibliography of another entry cross- 
referenced in the text. For the sake of simplicity, many articles are cited 
in the reprint edition of a scholar’s articles (such as Variorum Re- 
prints), with the date of original publication indicated in parentheses. 
For books, reprint information is given wherever known. When pos- 
sible, we have tried to emphasize works in western European languages 
(especially English), but where appropriate a conscious decision was made 
to include numerous works in Greek, in Slavic and other easiern Eu- 
ropean languages, and in languages of the Middle East. 

Among the challenges faced by the editorial board was that of recon- 
ciling our contributors’ differing definitions of the term Byzantine and 
their often conflicting terminology for the successive stages of Byz- 
antine history. In early drafts of entries the period from the 4th to 7th 
century was variously termed late antique, early Christian, late Roman, 
early Byzantine, proto-Byzantine, and even late Byzantine (by scholars 
dealing with the history of Syro-Palestine and Egypt). The term Middle 
Byzantine was used by different contributors to refer to the 8th to 11th 
century, the gth to 12th century, etc. Because of the lack of precision 


ix 


x 


PREFACE 


and confusion engendered by Byzantinists’ inconsistent terminology for 
the periodization of Byzantine history, the editors have tried to substi- 
tute exact centuries wherever possible. In general, the ODB has chosen 
to use the term late Roman or late antique for the period of the 4th to 
the early or mid-7th century and to employ Byzantine for phenomena 
of the 7th century and later, but inevitably there are inconsistencies in 
our usage. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium would never have been realized 
without the assistance and goodwill of numerous institutions and indi- 
viduals. 

Three successive directors of Dumbarton Oaks have supported the 
project in manifold ways, beginning with the initial encouragement given 
by Giles Constable, who provided invaluable advice during the early 
phases of organization, preliminary overtures to the National Endow- 
ment for the Humanities, and negotiations with publishers. His succes- 
sors, Robert Thomson and Angeliki Laiou, have continued this policy 
of strong institutional commitment and have also themselves made a 
scholarly contribution to the ODB by writing and reviewing entries. 
Throughout the long years of the project, Dumbarton Oaks has pro- 
vided office space, paid some staff salaries, made accommodations 
available, and offered various kinds of administrative and logistical 
support. We are grateful to the staffs of the Financial Office (especially 
Marlene Chazan and José Garcia), the Byzantine Library (especially Ir- 
ene Vaslef, Steve Rouser, and Mark Zapatka), and the Department of 
Visual Resources (especially Natalia Teteriatnikov and Astrid Williams), 
who helped to administer our grants and finances, to track down ob- 
scure bibliographic citations and rare and missing books, and to pro- 
vide photographs for the illustrations, respectively. 

The Advisory Board, composed of six senior scholars, played an im- 
portant role in the planning of the ODB, reviewing general guidelines 
and advising on the list of entries and selection of contributors. The 
advisers have supported the project throughout its duration, as contrib- 
utors and especially as reviewers of entries written by other scholars. 

We also wish to acknowledge warmly the important contribution to 
the project of Gary Vikan, one of the two original editors for art his- 
tory, who had to leave the Editorial Board at the end of 1984. He was 
extremely helpful in the early phases of the project, especially in revis- 
ing the list of art entries and in preparing the initial application to the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. 

We would indeed be remiss if we did not pay special tribute to our 
127 contributors from seventeen different countries whose combined 
efforts were essential for the realization of this project. In order to 
avoid the translation of entries, we looked first to scholars from English- 
speaking countries, but for certain specialized topics we were not able 


PREFACE 


to adhere to this principle. Many of our contributors not only agreed 
to serve as cluster leaders and to write large numbers of entries but 
also were collaborators in the true sense of the word, working with the 
editors as a team and demonstrating a concern for the relationship of 
their entries to the ODB as a whole. 

One of the advantages of preparing the ODB at Dumbarton Oaks 
has been the availability to the editors of the many American and in- 
ternational scholars who visit the Byzantine Library to conduct their 
own research. Many of these individuals have been extremely generous 
in their willingness to read and comment upon sizable groups of en- 
tries. Entire clusters were reviewed by Ute Blumenthal (Papacy), Rob- 
ert Browning (Rhetoric, Literature, Education), Bernard Coulie (Ar- 
menia, Georgia), Paul Hollingsworth (Russian Literature), David Jacoby 
(Economy/Agrarian Relations), Leslie MacCoull (Coptic Art and Ar- 
chaeology), Cyril Mango (Culture), Michael McCormick (Papacy), John 
Meyendorff (Ecclesiastical Structure, Church Councils, Patriarchates), 
Nicolas Oikonomides (Bureaucracy, Athos), Andrzej Poppe (Russian 
Literature and Geography), Lennart Rydén (Hagiography), Ihor Sev- 
éenko (Palaeography, Antiquity, Literature, Late Byzantine Authors), 
Irfan Shahid (Ethiopia and South Arabia), and Rainer Stichel (Theol- 
ogy). Some scholars in permanent residence at Dumbarton Oaks who 
also reviewed entries are Jelisaveta Allen (Serbian Geography), Ange- 
liki Laiou (Economy, Family, Urban Life), and William Loerke (Archi- 
tecture). Furthermore we wish to acknowledge the advice from afar of 
Janos Bak (who read the entries on Hungary), Dimitri Conomos (Hym- 
nography), Elena Metreveli (Armenia, Georgia), and Isidore Twersky 
(Jews). Many other scholars read and commented on individual en- 
tries; we regret that it is not possible to mention them all by name. 

One of our greatest difficulties was in reconciling conflicting systems 
of transliteration for the many languages cited in the ODB. We are 
particularly grateful for the assistance of Steven Reinert and Elizabeth 
Zachariadou with Ottoman Turkish, of Sidney Griffith and Peter Cowe 
with Syriac, of Robert Thomson with Armenian and Georgian, of Irfan 
Shahid with Arabic, and of Leslie MacCoull with Coptic. Stefan Gero 
also counseled us on the translation of theological terminology from 
German into English. 

We would also like to recognize the difficult assignment capably ex- 
ecuted by Ruth Macrides and Kenneth Wesche, who translated from 
German the clusters on law and theology, respectively. 

The ODB project has been fortunate to enjoy throughout its course 
the services of a devoted and able staff. Catherine Brown Tkacz, who 
joined the project in January 1984 as project coordinator and then be- 
came project manager, was responsible for the challenging task of de- 
signing the computer programs and organizing office procedures. In 
addition to performing countless other duties in connection with the 
management of the project for more than four and a half years, she 
also served as assistant editor. 

After her resignation in 1988, Catherine Tkacz was succeeded as 
project manager by Margaret Scrymser, who had originally joined the 


xi 


xii 


PREFACE 


staff in 1986 as project assistant. Margaret ran the office efficiently and 
calmly for the final two years of the project, supervising staff and vol- 
unteers during a period of constant deadlines and never-ending pres- 
sure. In addition she keyed all final revisions into the computer before 
the entries were sent to press and oversaw the process of bibliographic 
verification. 

Another key staff member during the final phase of the project was 
Susan Higman, who served as assistant editor in 1989—90. She was an 
invaluable assistant to the executive editor as well as serving as liaison 
with Oxford University Press, coordinating the checking of galley proofs, 
and performing numerous other tasks. Roberta Goldblatt preceded Su- 
san as assistant editor for a few months in 1988—89. 

An essential part of the preparation of the ODB was the keying of 
more than five thousand entries, a challenging assignment because of 
the multilingual character of the material. Catherine Tkacz and Mar- 
garet Scrymser keyed a large number of entries during the early years 
of the project. We also wish to acknowledge with gratitude the skilled 
work of Gerry Guest (fifteen months, 1988—89), whose computer ex- 
pertise was invaluable, and Leilani Henderson (ten months in 1989- 
go). Jane Baun and Barbara Hartmann also did clerical work for short 
periods of time in 1986. 

For almost two years (1988—g0) Leslie MacCoull faithfully carried 
out the tedious but necessary task of verifying the more than thirty-five 
thousand bibliographic citations. Her scholarly background and lin- 
guistic ability made her ideally suited for this assignment, and we are 
much indebted to her. Monica Blanchard of the Institute of Christian 
Oriental Research at the Catholic University of America made available 
to us the specialized resources inventory of the institute’s library and 
helped with the verification of Georgian bibliography. 

A loyal group of volunteers assisted the project in many ways: pro- 
cessing new entries, filing and other clerical tasks, proofreading, main- 
taining a bibliographic inventory, bibliographic research, and providing 
computer expertise. We are enormously in the debt of this cheerful 
band of men and women, who were willing to undertake almost any 
task at hand. Without their services we would never have been able to 
complete the project within the time allotted. In order of years of ser- 
vice, we wish to express our profound thanks to Helen McKagen, Peggy 
Nalle, and Joan Theodore (six years); Eleanor Hedblom (five years); 
Jane Woods (three years); Teresa McArdle, Ginger McKaye, Betty 
Wagner, and Hal Warren (one to two years); and Jane Baun, Gianni 
Guindani, Patricia Hardesty, and Paul Hollingsworth (less than one year). 
In addition, Michael Tkacz helped out on more than one occasion over 
a four-year period. 

A special word of appreciation is due to James C. Moeser, dean of 
the College of Arts and Architecture at the Pennsylvania State Univer- 
sity, and to G. Micheal Riley, dean of the College of Humanities at the 
Ohio State University, for agreeing to release Anthony Cutler and 
Timothy Gregory, respectively, from some of their teaching duties so 
that they could carry out their editorial responsibilities. 


PREFACE 


We have benefited from the expert advice and assistance of the Ox- 
ford University Press throughout our long years of common associa- 
tion. In the early stages of the project we worked closely first with David 
Attwooll and then with William Mitchell as executive editors of refer- 
ence books. Since 1988 we have had a congenial working relationship 
with Claude Conyers, editorial director for reference books, and with 
Jeffrey Edelstein, who served as the Press’s project editor during the 
demanding final phases of the project. Among former staff members 
at Oxford University Press, we should like particularly to thank Marion 
Britt. 

A project of this magnitude and duration required considerable fi- 
nancial assistance. From the beginning we have received the indispens- 
able support of the National Endowment for the Humanities, which 
has provided both outright grants and matching federal funds. In ad- 
dition we wish to thank particularly the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation 
and Dumbarton Oaks, which supplemented Endowment funding with 
generous grants throughout the seven-year period of preparation of 
the ODB. The Getty Grant Program of the J. Paul Getty Trust and the 
Samuel H. Kress Foundation were also major benefactors, making sub- 
stantial contributions to offset costs relating to art historical portions of 
the project. We are also most appreciative of the funds provided by the 
Menil Foundation, the Gordon Fund, Capt. Nicholas Kulukundis, and 
Helen McKagen. 


THE EDITORIAL BOARD 
September 1990 


xiii 


seas ye Ay apui 


ILLUSTRATIONS 





AFRICA, PREFECTURE OF 


ASIA MINOR 
ATHENS 
ATHOS, MOUNT 
BALKANS 
BLACK SEA 
BULGARIA 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF 


CAUCASUS 
CONSTANTINOPLE 
CRUSADES 


CYPRUS 
EGYPT 
GREECE 
ITALY 
SYRIA 


‘THEME 


‘THESSALONIKE 


LIST OF MAPS 


xv 


North Africa in the Late Roman 
Period 

Cities and Regions of Asia Minor 

Athens 

Monasteries of Mount Athos 

Regions of the Balkans 

The Black Sea Region 

Cities of Bulgaria, Serbia, and 
Neighboring Regions 

The Roman Empire in the Fourth 
Century 

The Byzantine Empire in the 
Sixth Century 

The Byzantine Empire circa 1025 

The Byzantine Empire under the 
Komnenoi 

The Balkans and Anatolia circa 
1214 

The Byzantine Empire and Its 
Neighbors circa 1350 

The Caucasus Region 

Constantinople 

Routes of the First Four Cru- 
sades 

Cyprus 

Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula 

Cities and Regions of Greece 

Cities and Regions ot Italy 

Cities of Syro-Palestine 
Neighboring Regions 

Themes of Asia Minor in the 
Seventh and Early Eighth Cen- 
turies 

Later Themes and Regions of 
Asia Minor 

Thessalonike in the Fourteenth 
Century 


and 


xvi 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


LIST OF GENEALOGICAL TABLES 


AARONIOS 
AMORIAN OR PHRYGIAN DYNASTY 
ANGELOS 


ASAN 


BRYENNIOS 


CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT 


DOUKAS 


GATTILUSIO 


HERAKLEIOS 
ISAURIAN DYNASTY 
JUSTINIAN I 


KANTAKOUZENOS 


KOMNENOS 
LASKARIS 
LEKAPENOS 


Lro I 
MACEDONIAN DYNASTY 


NEMANJID DYNASTY 


PALAIOLOGOS 


Genealogy of the Aaronios Fam- 
ily in the Eleventh Century 

Genealogy of the Amorian Dy- 
nasty 

Selected Genealogy of the Ange- 
los Dynasty (1185—1204) 

Genealogy of the Asan Family in 
Byzantium in the Thirteenth 
and Fourteenth Centuries 

Genealogy of the Bryennios 
Family in the Eleventh and 
Twelfth Centuries 

Selected Genealogy of the Family 
of Constantine I 

Selected Genealogy of the Dou- 
kas Family in the Eleventh and 
Twelfth Centuries 

Selected Genealogy of the Gatti- 
lusio Family in the Levant in the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Cen- 
turies 

Selected Genealogy of the Family 
of Herakleios 

Genealogy of the Isaurian Dy- 
nasty 

Selected Genealogy of the Family 
of Justinian I 

Selected Genealogy of the Kan- 
takouzenos Family in the Four- 
teenth and Fifteenth Centuries 

Genealogy of the Komnenos 
Family 

Genealogy of the Laskaris Dy- 
nasty of Nicaea 

Genealogy of the Lekapenos 
Family in the Tenth Century 

The House of Leo I 

Selected Genealogy of the Mace- 
donian Dynasty, 867—1156 

Genealogy of the Nemanjid Dy- 
nasty (ca. 1167—1371) 

Selected Genealogy of the Pa- 
laiologos Family 


THEODOSIOS I 


Tocco 


ZACCARIA 


ILLUSTRATIONS xvii 


Selected Genealogy of the Theo- 
dosian Dynasty 

The Tocco Family in the Ionian 
Islands and Epiros in the Four- 
teenth and Fifteenth Centuries 

Selected Genealogy of the Zac- 
caria Family in the Levant 


PHOTO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


Alinari/Arı Resource, New York NATIVITY 


Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana BIRTH; BLEMMYES; BRICKS; 
Cross, CULT OF THE; GRAIN; HOUSES; IDOL; JOSHUA ROLL; 
LEO SAKELLARIOS; MENOLOGION OF BasiIL II; OCTA- 
TEUCH; PANTOLEON; PERFUMES AND UNGUENTS; PERSON- 
IFICATION; RELICS; SEASONS, PERSONIFICATIONS OF; Sy- 
MEON THE STYLITE THE ELDER 

Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid Leo VI 

Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris EMPEROR; FRIEZE GOSPELS 

Osvaldo Böhm CHALICE 

Laskarina Bouras LAMPS 

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. ALEXANDER; BRICK- 
WORK TECHNIQUES AND PATTERNS; BRIDGES; CERAMICS; 
Cuora Monastery; Curist: Types of Christ; Crgor- 
1UM; COINS; CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF: Walls; 
Deresis; DormiTion; Forty MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA; 
Hacia Sopuia: Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (inte- 
rior view); Icons: Painted Icons; Jonn II KOMNENOS; 
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM; KAPER KORAON TREASURE; LIGHT- 
ING, ECCLESIASTICAL; MARRIAGE BELT; METOCHITES, 
THEODORE; MISTRA; NEREZI; Opus SECTILE; PAMMA- 
KARISTOS, CHURCH OF Hacia MARIA; Peacocks; Pyx1Ss; 
QALAT SEM‘AN; RHIPIDION; RING, MARRIAGE; SEALING 
IMPLEMENTS; SGRAFFIrO WARE; STOUDIOS MONASTERY; 
TAXATION; VIRGIN HAGIOSORITISSA 


Ekdotike Athenon S.A., Athens CHRYSOBULL 
Hosios Loukas; PALACE 
Giraudon Art Resource Larcitio DISHES, SILVER 


Hirmer Fotoarchiv, Munich AMPULLAE, PILGRIMAGE; 
APOKAUKOS, ALEXIOS; BARBERINI Ivory; BasıL II; Book 
COVER; CAPITAL; CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT; CONSTAN- 
TINE VII PORPHYROGENNETOS; CONSTANTINOPLE, MON- 
UMENTS OF: Cisterns; EPITAPHIOS; EVANGELIST POR- 
TRAITS; GREAT Feasts; Icons: Mosaic Icons; Jonn VI 
KANTAKOUZENOS; LIMBURG AN-DER-LAHN RELIQUARY; 
MAXIMIAN; PSALTER; RAVENNA; Rossano GOSPELS; SAR- 
COPHAGUS; TEKFUR SARAYI; THEODORA 


Alison Frantz 


J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu HYPAPANTE 

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Grecory oF Na- 
ZIANZOS; JOHN KiiMax (MS illustration) 

Ingeborg Limmer SILK 


Lincoln College, University of Oxford Besaras ELPIDOS 
NuNNERY; Nun; PORTRAITS AND PORTRAITURE: An 
Overview 


Marburg/Art Resource, New York Diprycus; STARO NA- 
GORICINO; TEMPLON 


Thomas Mathews COLUMN CHURCHES 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Davin PLATES 


Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria Expedition to Mount 
Sinai, Ann Arbor ANNUNCIATION; JOHN KLiMax (icon); 
NICHOLAS OF MYRA; TRANSFIGURATION 


Monastery of St. John, Patmos HEADPIECE 

National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne CANON TABLES 

Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna ANICIA Juu- 
ANA 

Photo Lykides, Thessaloniki 

Darni; Mosaic; OHRID 


CANA, MARRIAGE AT 
Josephine Powell 


Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent, Utrecht Virgin Ho- 
DEGETRIA 

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden PAPYRUS 

Ihor Ševčenko BRYAS; SINGERS 

State Historical Museum, Moscow ICONOCLASM 

Trinity College, Cambridge CoLUMN, HONORIFIC 

Trustees of the British Museurn, London THEODORE 


PSALTER; TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY 
Victoria and Albert Museum, London Caskets AND BOXES 
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond ENKOLPION 


J. Wayman Williams CONSTANTINOPLE; DOME; GALLERY; 
Hacia Sornta: Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (exte- 
rior vicw) 


seas ye Ay apui 


ABBREVIATIONS 


a. anno 
acc. according 

acq. no. acquisition number 
A.D. anno/annis Domini 
add. additions by 

adj. adjective 

A.H. in the year of the Hijra 
a.k.a. also known as 

alt. altitude 

anc. ancient 


anon. anonymous 
app. appendix 

Apr. April 

Ar. Arabic 

Arm. Armenian 

Att. Attic 

Aug. August 

approx. approximately 


Archbp. Archbishop 

B.c. Before Christ 

Bibl. Bibliothèque, Bibliothek, Biblio- 
theca, Biblioteca, etc. 


(bibl.) bibliography 

bk(s). book(s) 

Bp. Bishop 

Byz. Byzantium, Byzantine (adj.), 


Byzantines (n.) 
C. century, centuries 


ca. circa 
cf. compare 
ch(s). chapter(s) 


cm centimeter(s) 

cod{d). codex (codices) 

col(s). column(s) 

Comm. Commentary in/on [thela], Com- 
mentarium inlde 

corr. corrected by 

Dec. December 

diam. diameter 

dim. diminutive 

diss. dissertation 

ed(s). edited by, edition(s), editor(s) 

e.g. for example 

Emp. Emperor 

Eng. English 

ep(s). epistle(s) 

esp. especially 





GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS 


ctal. ct alia, et alii 

etc. et cetera 

f the following page 

facs. facsimile 

Feb. February 

fem. feminine 

fig(s).  figure(s) 

fol(s). folio(s) 

fl. floruit 

fr. fragment 

Fr. French 

ft foot, feet 

g gram 

Georg. Georgian 

Germ. German 

Gr. Greek 

ha hectare(s) 

HE Historia ecclestastica 

Hebr. Hebrew 

Hibbd. Halbband 

ibid. ibidem, in the same place 

i.e. that is 

(ill.) work cited only because of its 
illustrations 

inf. inferior(e) 

inscr. inscription 

introd. introduction, introduction by 

Ic. Italian 

Jan. January 

kg kilogram 

km kilometer(s) 

Lat. Latin 

Lib. Library 

lit. literally 

Lit. Literature 

ul meter(s) 

m. married 


Mar. March 

masc, masculine 
Méi. Mélanges 
Metr. Metropolitan 


mm millimeter(s) 

mod. modern 

MS(S) manuscript(s) 

Mt. Mount 

n(n). note(s) 

n.d. no date (of publication) 


xix 


neut. neuter 
no(s). number(s) 
nov. novel(la) 
Nov. November 
n.s. new series 
Oct. October 


OF Old French 
or. oratio(nes) 
o.s. old series 


p(p)- page(s) 
par(s). paragraph(s) 
Patr. Patriarch 
Pers. Persian 

pic. pictura 

pl. plural 

pi(s). plate(s) 

pr. proem 

pt(s). part(s) 

r recto 


r. ruled, reigned 

R. Reihe (series) 

republ. republished 

rev. review, reviewed by 
rp. reprint 

Russ. Russian 

S. San, Santo, Santa 

sc. scilicet, namely 


Sept. September 

ser. series 

sing. singular 

sq. square 

SS. Santi 

St(s). Saint(s) 

sup. superior(e) 

supp. supplement, supplemented by 
>y. süb YUCE, süb verbo 

Syr. Syriac 


tr. translated by, translation 
Turk. Turkish, Turkic 
Univ. University 

unpub. unpublished 

v verso 

viz. videlicet 

v(v). verse(s) 

(with bibl.) with bibliography 


ABBREVIATIONS 


XX 
ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLICAL BOOKS 
Am Amos Is Isaiah Neh Nehemiah 
Apoc Apocalypse Jas James Num Numbers 
1 Chr ı Chronicles Jer Jeremiah Ob Obadiah 
2 Chr 2 Chronicles Jg Judges t Pet + Peter 
Col Colossians Jl Joel 2 Pet 2 Peter 
1 Cor 1 Corinthians Jn John Phil Philippians 
2 Cor 2 Corinthians 1Jn 1 John Philem Philemon 
Dan Daniel 2Jn 2 John Pr Proverbs 
Di Deuteronomy 3 Jn 3 John Ps Psalms 
Ec Ecclesiastes Jon Jonah Rom Romans 
Eph Ephesians Jos Joshua Ru Ruth 
Est Esther 1 Kg (3 Kg) 1 Kings 1 Sam (1 Kg) 1 Samuel 
Ex Exodus 2 Kg (4 Kg) 2 Kings 2 Sam (2 Kg) 2 Samuel 


Lam Lamentations Sof S Song of Solomon 


Ezek Ezekiel 


Ezra Ezra Lev Leviticus 1 Th 1 Thessalonians 
Gal Galatians Lk Luke 2 Th 2 Thessalonians 
Gen Genesis Mal Malachi 1 Tim 1 Timothy 
Hab Habakkuk Mic Micah 2 Tim 2 Timothy 
Hag Haggai Mk Mark Tit Titus 

Heb Hebrews Mt Matthew Zech Zechariah 

Hos Hosea Nah Nahum Zeph Zephaniah 


ABBREVIATIONS OF MANUSCRIPT CITATIONS 


Ann Arbor = Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Library Berlin, Staatsbibl. = Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek 


Athens, Benaki 


Athens, Benaki Museum (Mouseion Be- 
naki) 

Athens, Byz. Mus. = Athens, Byzantine Museum (Byzan- 
tinon Mouseion) 


Athens, Nat. Lib. = Athens, National Library (Ethnike 


Bologna, Bibl. Com. = Bologna, Biblioteca Comunale 
dell’Archiginnasio 

Bologna, Bibl. Univ. = Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 

Brescia, Bibl. Querin. = Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana 

Cambridge, Harvard = Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Col- 


Bibliotheke) lege Library 
Athos = Mt. Athos, followed by abbrev. for individual Chicago, Univ. Lib. = University of Chicago Library 
monastery: Cividale, Mus. Archeol. = Cividale, Museo Archeologico 
Chil. Chilandari Cleveland Mus. = Cleveland Museum of Art 
Dion. Dionysiou Copenhagen, Royal Lib. = Copenhagen, Det kongelige 
Doch. Docheiariou Bibliotek 


Esphig. Esphigmenou 
Greg. Gregoriou 


Erevan, Mat. = Erevan, Matenadaran 
Escorial = Biblioteca de El Escorial 
Florence, Laur. = Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Lauren- 


Iver. Iveron r 

Koutl. Koutloumousiou ziana ; S ; 

Pantel. Panteleemon Genoa, Bibl. Franz. = Genoa, Biblioteca Franzoniana 

Pantok. Pantokrator Gotha, Landesbibl. = Gotha, Thiringische Landes- 
bibliothek 


Philoth. Philotheou 
Simop. Simopetra 


Grottaferrata = Grottaferrata, Biblioteca della Badia 
Istanbul, Gr. Patr. = Istanbul, Greek Patriarchate (Patri- 


sah. “Stavröniketa archike Bibliotheke) 
Vatop. Vatopedi Istanbul, Süleymaniye = Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library 
Xenoph. Xenophontos Istanbul, Topkapi = Istanbul, Topkapi Saray: Library 


Xerop. Xeropotarnou 


Baltimore, Walters = Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 


Berlin, Kupferstichkab. = Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Mu- 
seen, Kupterstichkabinctt 


Jerusalem, Arm. Patr. = Jerusalem, Armenian Patriar- 
chate 

Jerusalem, Gr. Patr. = Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchate (Pa- 
triarchike Bibliotheke) 


Leipzig, Univ. Lib. = Leipzig, Universitatsbibliothek 
Leningrad, Publ. Lib. = Leningrad, Gosudarstvennaja 
Publiénaja Biblioteka imeni M.E. Saltykova Séedrina 

London, B.L. = London, British Library 

Madrid, Bibl. Nac. = Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional 

Megaspelaion = Mone Megalou Spelaiou, Kalabryta 

Melbourne, Nat. Gall. = Melbourne, National Gallery of 
Victoria 

Messina, Bibl. Univ. = Messina, Biblioteca Universitaria 

Meteora, Metamorph. = Meteora, Mone Metamorphoseos 

Milan, Ambros. = Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana 

Moscow, Hist. Mus. = Moscow, Gosudarstvennyy Istorites- 
kij Muzej 

Moscow, Lenin Lib. = Moscow, Publičnaja Biblioteka SSSR 
imeni V.I. Lenina 

Moscow, Univ. Lib. = Moscow, Naučnaja Biblioteka imeni 
Gor’kogo Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 

Munich, Bayer. Staatsbibl. = Munich, Bayerische Staats- 
bibliothek 

Mytilene = Mytilene (Lesbos), Gymnasion 

Naples, Bibl. Naz. = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale 

New York, Kraus = New York City, H.P. Kraus 

New York, Morgan Lib. = New York City, Pierpont Mor- 
gan Library 

Oxford, Bodl. = Oxford, Bodleian Library 

Oxford, Lincoln Coll. = Oxford, Lincoln College 

Palermo, Bibl. Naz. = Palermo, Biblioteca Nazionale 

Paris, Arsenal = Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS xxi 


Paris, B.N. = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 

Parma, Bibl. Pal. = Parma, Biblioteca Palatina 

Patmos = Patmos, Monastery of St. John 

Princeton, Theol. Sem. = Princeton Theological Seminary, 
Speer Library 

Princeton, Univ. Lib. = Princeton University Library 

Rossano = Rossano, Curia Arcivescovile 


Serres = Serres, Monastery of St. John the Baptist (Mone 
tou Prodromou) 

Sinai = Mt. Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine 

Tbilisi = Tbilisi, Georgian Academy of Sciences, Institut 
Rukopisej 

Thessalonike, Blatadon = Thessalonike, Monastery ton 
Blatadon 

Turin, Bibl. Naz. = Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale 

Vat. = Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 

Venice, Ist. Ellen. = Venice, Istituto Ellenico (San Giorgio 
dei Greci) 

Venice, Marc. = Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale di S. Marco 

Venice, San Lazzaro = Venice, Biblioteca di San Lazzaro 

Vienna, ONB = Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbiblio- 
thek 

Washington, D.O. = Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks 

Zaborda = Zaborda, Monastery of St. Nikanor (Mone tou 
Hagiou Nikanoros) 


Note: Greek papyri are cited according to the abbreviations 
in J.F. Oates, R.S. Bagnall, W.H. Willis, Checklist of Editions 
of Greek Papyri and Ostraca® (Missoula, Mont., 1978). 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Note: A superscript number following an abbreviation in- 
dicates the edition number if it is other than the first. 


AA = Archéologischer Anzeiger 

AAPA = Artistes, artisans et production artistique au moyen âge, 
ed. X. Barral i Altet, vols. 1—2 (Paris 1986-87) 

AASS = Acta Sanctorum, 71 vols. (Paris 1863—1940) 

AB = Analecta Bollandiana 

ABAW = Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- 
schaften 

Abel, Géographie = F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, 2 
vols. (Paris 1933—38) 

Åberg, Occident & Orient = N.F. Åberg, The Occident and 
the Orient in the Art of the Seventh Century, 3 vols. (Stock- 
holm 1943-47) 

ABME = Archeion ton Byzantinon Mnemeion tes Hellados 

Abramea, Thessalia = A.P. Abramea, He Byzantine Thessalia 
mechri tou 1204 (Athens 1974) 

ACO = Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 4 vols. in 27 pts. 
(Berlin-Leipzig 1922—74) 

ActaAniHung = Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungar- 
icae 


ActaArchHung = Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum 
Hungaricae 

ActaHistHung = Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hun- 
garicae 

ActaNorv = Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam perti- 
nentia, Institum Romanum Norvegiae 

Adhémar, “Trésor” = J. Adhémar, “Le trésor d’argenterie 
donné par Saint Didier aux églises d’Auxerre (VIle 
siécle),” RA® 4 (1934) 44-54 

Adontz, Etudes = N. Adontz, Etudes arméno-byzaniines (Lis- 
bon 1965) 

ADSV = Anti¢naja drevnost’ i srednie veka (Sverdlovsk) 

AFP = Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 

Agath. = Agathias, Historiarum librum quinque, ed. R. Key- 
dell (Berlin 1967) 

Age of Spirit. = Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early 
Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, ed. K. Weitzmann 
(New York 1979) 

Aggiornamento Bertaux = L'art dans l'Italie méridionale: Ag- 
giornamento dell’opera di Emile Bertaux sotto la direzione di 
Adriano Prando, 6 vols. (Rome 1978) 

AHR = The American Historical Review 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


xxii 


Ahrweiler, “Administration” = H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, 
“Recherches sur l'administration de l'empire byzantin 
aux IX—Xle siècles,” BCH 84 (1960) 1-111; rp. in Ahr- 
weiler, Structures, pt. VIII:1—109 

Ahrweiler, Byzance: Les pays = H. Ahrweiler, Byzance, les 
pays et les territoires (London 1976) 

Ahrweiler, Idéologie = H. Ahrweiler, L’idéologie politique de 
Vempire byzantin (Paris 1975) 

Ahrweiler, Mer = H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer: La marine 
de guerre, la politique et les institutions maritimes de Byzance 
aux Vile—XVe siècles (Paris 1966) 

Ahrweiler, “Smyrne” = H. Ahrweiler, “L’histoire et la géo- 
graphie de la région de Smyrne entre les deux occupa- 
tons turques (1081—1317),” TM 1 (1965) 1-204 

Ahrweiler, Structures = H. Ahrweiler, Etudes sur les struc- 
tures administratives et sociales de Byzance (London 1971) 

AIHS = Archives Internationales d'histoire des sciences 

AIPHOS = Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire 
Orientales et Slaves (Université libre de Bruxelles) 

AJA = American Journal of Archaeology 

AJPh = American Journal of Philology 

AkadAthPr = Akademia Athenon: Praktika 

Akrop. = Georgi Acropolitae Opera, ed. A. Heisenberg, 2 
vols. (Leipzig 1903) 

Alexander, History = P.J. Alexander, Religious and Political 
History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire (London 1978) 

Alexander, Patr. Nicephorus = P.J. Alexander, The Patriarch 
Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958) 

Alexandre, Pléthon = C. Alexandre, Pléthon: Traité des lois 
(Paris 1858; rp. Amsterdam 1966) 

Alex.Trall. = Alexander von Tralles, ed. T. Puschmann, 2 
vols. (Vienna 1878-79; rp. Amsterdam 1963) 

Allen, Georgian People = W.E.D. Allen, A History of the Geor- 
gian People (London 1932) 

Al-Makkari, tr. Gayangos = The History of the Mohammedan 
Dynasties in Spain, ed. P. de Gayangos, 2 vols. (London 
1840—43) 

AMAM B = Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin (Oberlin 
College) 

Amm.Marc. = Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri 
qui supersunt, ed. W. Seyfarth, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1978) 

Anastos, “Leo III’s Edict” = M.V. Anastos, “Leo III’s Edict 
Against the Images in the Year 726-27 and Italo- 
Byzantine Relations between 726 and 730,” ByzF 3 (1968) 
5-41 

AnatSt = Anatolian Studies 

Anderson, “Sinai. Gr. 339” = J.C. Anderson, “The Illus- 
tration of Cod. Sinai. Gr. 339,” ArtB 61 (1979) 167-85 

Andrews, Castles = K. Andrews, Castles of the Morea (Prince- 
ton 1953) 

Angelide, Bios tou Basileiou = Ch. Angelide, Ho Bios tou 
hosiou Basileiou tou Neou (Ioannina 1980) 

Angold, Byz. Government = M. Angold, A Byzantine Govern- 
ment in Exile: Government and Society Under the Laskarids of 
Nicaea (1204—1261) (Oxford 1975) 

Angold, Empire = M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025—- 
1204: A Political History (London—New York 1984) 

An.Komn. = Anna Comnéne: Alexiade, ed. B. Letb, P. Gau- 
tier, 3 vols. and index (Paris 1937—76) 


Ankori, Karaites = Z. Ankori, Karaites in the Byzantine Em- 
pire; The Formative Years, 970-1100 (New York—Jerusa- 
lem 1959) 

Annales DH = Annales de démographie historique 

Annales ESC = Annales: Economies—sociétés—civilisations 

AnnArchSyr = Les annales archéologiques de Syrie (from vol. 
16 onward, title changed to Annales archéologiques arabes 
syriennes) 

AnnEPHE = Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Etudes 

AnnHistCon = Annuarium historiae conciliorum 

AnnPisa = Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 

ANRW = Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt 

AntAa = Antichità Altoadnatiche 

AntAb = Antike und Abendland 

AntAfr = Antiquités africaines 

AntCl = L’Antiquité classique 

AnthGr = Anthologia graeca”, ed. H. Beckby, 4 vols. (Munich 
1965) with Germ. tr. 

Ant. Nov. = Antony of Novgorod, Kniga palomntk, ed. Ch. 
Loparev (St. Petersburg 1899) 

Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes = H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Re- 
cherches sur les douanes à Byzance (Paris 1963) 

AOC = Archives de Orient Chrétien 

Aphieroma Svoronos = Aphieroma ston Niko Svorono, ed. V. 
Kremmydas, Ch. Maltezou, N.M. Panagiotakes, 2 vols. 
(Rethymno 1986) 

ArchDelt = Archaiologikon Deltion 

ArchEph = Archaiologike Ephemeris 

ArchHistPont = Archivum historiae pontficiae 

ArchOtt = Archivum Ottomanicum 

ArchPont = Archeion Pontou 

Arg. rom. et byz. = Argenterie romaine et byzantine, ed. F. 
Baratte (Paris 1988) 

Armstrong, Philosophy = A.H. Armstrong, The Cambridge 
History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cam- 
bridge 1967) 

Arnakis, Othomanoi = G.G. Arnakis, Hoi protoi Othomanoi 
(Athens 1947) 

Arranz, “Asmatikos Hesperinos” = M. Arranz, “L'office de 
l'Asmatikos Hesperinos (‘vépres chantées’) de l'ancien 
Euchologe byzantin,” OrChrP 44 (1978) 107-30, 391— 
419 

Arranz, “Les sacrements” = M. Arranz, “Les sacrements 
de l'ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain,” OrChrP 48 
(1982) 284-335; 49 (1983) 42-90, 284-302; 50 (1984) 
43—64, 372-97; 51 (1985) 60-86; 52 (1986) 145-78; 53 
(1987) 59-106; 55 (1989) 33-62 

Arranz, “Rites d’incorporation” = M. Arranz, “Evolution 
des rites d’incorporation et de réadmission dans l'Église 
selon l’Euchologe byzantin,” Gestes et paroles dans les diverses 
familles liturgiques (Rome 1978) 31—75 

Arranz, Typicon = M. Arranz, Le typicon du monastère du 
Saint-Sauveur à Messine (Rome 1969) 

ArtB = The Art Bulletin 

L'art byz. chez les Slaves = L'art byzantin chez les Slaves: Les 
Balkans, 2 vols. (Paris 1930) 

Art et société = Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues 
(Venice 1971) 


Art] = Art Journal 

ArtVen = Arte Veneta 

Asdourian, Armenien und Rom = P.P. Asdourian, Die poli- 
tischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom (Venice 
1911) 

Asdracha, Rhodopes = C. Asdracha, La région des Rhodopes 
aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Athens 1976) 

ASRSP = Archivio della Società {alternately Deputazione] Ro- 
mana di Storia Patria 

AStCal = Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 

AStSic = Archivio storico siciliano 

Athens Cat. = Byzantine Art: An European Art (Ninth Exhi- 
bition of the Council of Europe) (Athens 1964) 

Attal. = Michael Attaleiates: Historia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn 
1853) 

AttiCAUMed = Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto 
medioevo 

AttiLinc = Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 

Averincev, Poetika = S. Averincev, Poetika rannevizantijskoj 
literatury (Moscow 1977) 

BABesch = Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 

Babić, Chapelles annexes = G. Babić, Les chapelles annexes des 
églises byzantines (Paris 1969) 

Babinger, Mehmed = F. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and 
His Time (Princeton 1978) 

BAcBelg = Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des sciences morales 
et politique de l'Académie Royale de Belge 

Balard, Romanie génoise = M. Balard, La Romanie génoise 
(XITe—début du XVe siècle), 2 vols. (Rome 1978) 

BalkSt = Balkan Studies 

Balthasar, Kosmische Lit. = H.U. von Balthasar, Kosmische 
Liturgie: Das Weltbild Maximus’ des Bekenners? (Einsiedeln 
1961) 

Baratte, “Ateliers” = F. Baratte, “Les ateliers d’argenterie 
au Bas-Empire,” JSav (1975) 193-212 

Bardenhewer, Literatur = O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der 
althirchlichen Literatur, 4 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau 1go2— 
24) 

BAR Int.Ser. = British Archaeological Reports, International 
Series 

Barker, Manuel II = J. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (1391— 
1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Bruns- 
wick, N.J., 1969) 

Barnes, Constantine & Eusebius = T.D. Barnes, Constantine 
and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass.—-London 1981) 

Barnes, New Empire = T.D. Barnes, The New Empire of 
Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Mass., 1982) 

Barzos, Genealogia = K. Barzos, He genealogia ton Komne- 
non, 2 vols. (Thessalonike 1984) 

Basil. = Basilicorum libri LX, ed. H.J. Scheltema, N. van der 
Wal, D. Holwerda, 17 vols. (Groningen 1953-88) 

BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 

BASP = Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 

Baumstark, Literatur = A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syr- 
ischen Literatur (Bonn 1922) 

Baynes, Byz. Studies = N.H. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and 
Other Essays (London 1955) 

BBA = Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS xxiii 


BBulg = Byzantinobulgarica 

BCH = Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 

Beazley, Geography = C.R. Beazley, The Dawn of Modern 
Geography, 3 vols. (London 1897—1906) 

BECh = Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 

Beck, Ideen = H.-G. Beck, Ideen und Realitaeten in Byzanz 
(London 1972) 

Beck, Jahrtausend = H.-G. Beck, Das byzantinische Jahrtau- 
send (Munich 1978) 

Beck, Kirche = H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur 
im byzantinischen Reich (Munich 1959) 

Beck, Volksliteratur = H.-G. Beck, Geschichte der byzantin- 
ischen Volksliteratur (Munich 1971) 

Beckwith, ECBA = J. Beckwith, Early Christian and Byz- 
antine Art? (Harmondsworth 1979) 

Bell-Mango, Tur ‘Abdin = G. Bell, The Churches and Mon- 
asteries of the Tur “Abdin, [ed.] M. Mundell Mango (Lon- 
don 1982) 

Belting, Bild und Kult = H. Belting, Bild und Kult: Eine 
Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich 
1990) 

Belting, I/lum. Buch = H. Belting, Das illuminierte Buch in 
der spatbyzantinischen Gesellschaft (Heidelberg 1970) 

Belting et al., Pammakaristos = H. Belting, C. Mango, D. 
Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakar- 
istos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul (Washington, D.C., 1978) 

BeneSevit, Opisanie = V.N. BeneSevit, Opisanie greceskich 
rukopisej monastyrja sv. Ekateriny na Sinae (St. Petersburg 
1911—17; rp. Hildesheim 1965) 

BeneSevit, Sinagoga v 50 titulov = V. BeneSevic, Sinagoga v 
50 titulou i drugie juriditeskie sborniki Ioanna Scholastika (St. 
Petersburg 1914; rp. Leipzig 1972) 

BEO = Bulletin d'Études Orientales de Institut Français de 
Damas 

Bernardakis, “Ornements liturgiques” = P. Bernardakis, 
“Les ornements liturgiques chez les grecs,” EO 5 (1901— 
02) 129-39 

BeSevliev, Geschichte = V. BeSevliev, Die protobulgarische Pe- 
riode der bulgarischen Geschichte (Amsterdam 1981) 

BeSevliev, Inschriften = V. BeSevliev, Die protobulgarischen 
Inschriften (Berlin 1963) 

BGA = Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, ed. M. de Goeje 
et al., 8 vols. in 7 (Leiden 1870-94); 1 vol. in 2 pts. 
(Leiden 1938-39) 

BHG = Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca®, ed. F. Halkin, 3 
vols. in 1 pt. (Brussels 1957) 

BHG Auct. = Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca”, ed. F. Halkin, 
vol. 4, Auctarium (Brussels 1969) 

BHG Nov.Auct. = Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca’, ed. F. 
Halkin, vol. 5, Novum Auctarium (Brussels 1984) 

BHL = Bibliotheca hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae ae- 
tatis, 2 vols. (Brussels 1898—1901; rp. 1949). Supplementi 
editio altera auctior (1911) 

BHM = Bulletin of the History of Medicine 

BHO = Bibliothèque hagiographique Orientale 

BHR = Bulgarian Historical Review/Revue bulgare d'Histoire 

Bibl.sanct. = Bibliotheca sanctorum, 12 vols. (Rome 1961—70) 

BICR = Bollettino dell'Istituto Centrale del Restauro (Italy) 


xxiv BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


BIFAO = Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale 
(Cairo) 

Binon, Xéropotamou = S. Binon, Les origines légendaires et 
Uhistotre de Xéropotamou et de Saint-Paul de l’Athos (Louvain 
1942) 

Bivar, “Cavalry” = A.D.H. Bivar, “Cavalry Equipment and 
Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier,” DOP 26 (1972) 271- 
gl 

BJb = Bonner Jahrbücher 

BK = Bedi Kartlisa 

Bk. of Eparch = Vizantijskaja kniga eparcha, ed. M. Ja. 
Sjuzjumov (Moscow 1962) 

Bliquez, “Surgical Instruments” = L.J. Bliquez, “Two Lists 
of Greek Surgical Instruments and the State of Surgery 
in Byzantine Times,” DOP 38 (1984) 187-204 

Blockley, Historians = R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Clas- 
sicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols. (Liv- 
erpool 1981-83) 

BMGS = Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 

BMQ = The British Museum Quarterly 

BNJbb = Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 

Boak-Dunlop, Two Studies = A.E.R. Boak, J.E. Dunlop, 
Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration 
(New York 1924) 

Boase, Cilician Armenia = The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, 
ed. T.S.R. Boase (Edinburgh-London 1978) 

den Boer, Historians = W. den Boer, Some Minor Roman 
Historians (Leiden 1972) 

Boissonade, AnecGr = J.F. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, 5 
vols, (Paris 1829—33; rp. Hildesheim 1962) 

Boissonade, AnecNova = J.F. Boissonade, Anecdota Nova 
(Paris 1844; rp. Hildesheim 1962) 

BollBadGr = Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 

BollClass = Bollettino dei classici [Note: BollClass is a contin- 
uation of BollCom|] 

BollCom = Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell’- 
Edizione Nazionale dei Classici Greci e Latini 

Bombaci, Lett.turca = A. Bombaci, La letteratura turca (Milan 
1969) 

Bombaci-Shaw, L'Impero ottomano = A. Bombaci, S.J. Shaw, 
L'Impero ottomano (Turin 1981) [= pt.2 of A. Guillou et 
al., L'Impero bizantino e lislamismo, 2 vols. (Turin 1981)} 

Bon, Morée franque = A. Bon, La Morée franque, 2 vols. 
(Paris 1969) 

Bon, Péloponnèse = A. Bon, Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 
1204 (Paris 1951) 

Bonner, Studies = C. Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets, 
Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor—London 1950) 

Books & Bookmen = Byzantine Books and Bookmen (Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1975) 

Bowman, Jews = S.B. Bowman, The Jews of Byzantium, 1204— 
1453 (University, Ala., 1985) 

Brand, Byzantium = C.M. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the 
West, 1 180—1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968) 

Braun, Liturgische Gewandung = J. Braun, Die liturgische 
Gewandung im Occident und Orient (Freiburg im Breisgau 
1907; rp. Darmstadt 1964) 

Bréhier, Institutions = L. Bréhier, Le monde byzantin, vol. 2 
(Paris 1949) 


Bréhier, Sculpture = L. Bréhier, La sculpture et les arts mi- 
neurs byzantins (Paris 1936) 

Brenk, Tradition und Neuerung = B. Brenk, Tradition und 
Neuerung in der christlichen Kunst des ersten Jahrtausends 
(Vienna 1966) 

Brightman, Liturgies = F.E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and 
Western, vol. 1 (Oxford 1896) 

Brockelmann, Litteratur = C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der 
arabischen Litteratur, 2 vols. (Leiden 1943—49), plus three 
supplemental vols. (Leiden 1937—42) 

Brock-Harvey, Women = S.P. Brock, S.A. Harvey, Holy 
Women of the Syrian Orient (Berkeley~Los Angeles—Lon- 
don 1987) 

Browning, Greek = R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek? 
(Cambridge 1983) 

Browning, “Homer” = R. Browning, “Homer in Byzan- 
tium,” Viator 6 (1975) 15-33 

Browning, “Language” = R. Browning, “The Language of 
Byzantine Literature,” in Vryonis, Past 103-34 

Browning, “Patriarchal School” = R. Browning, “The Pa- 
triarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Cen- 
tury,” Byzantion 32 (1962) 167—202; 33 (1963) 11—40; 
rp. in Browning, Studies, pt.X 

Browning, Studies = R. Browning, Studies on Byzantine His- 
tory, Literature and Education (London 1977) 

Bryen. = Nicephori Bryennii Historiarum libri quattuor, ed. P. 
Gautier (Brussels 1975) 

Bryer-Winfield, Pontos = A. Bryer, D. Winfield, The Byz- 
antine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, 2 vols. 
(Washington, D.C., 1985) 

BS = Byzantinoslavica 

BSA = Annual of the British School at Athens 

BSAC = Bulletin de la Société d'archéologie copte 

BSC Abstracts = Byzantine Studies Conference: Abstracts of Pa- 
pers 

BS/EB = Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines 

BSHAcRoum = Académie Roumaine, Bulletin de la section 
historique (Academia romana, Sectiunea istorici—Bulle- 
tin) 

BSOAS = Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 
(London University) 

BSR = Papers of the British School at Rome 

Buchthal, Miniature Painting = H. Buchthal, Miniature 
Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford 1957) 

Buchthal, Paris Psalter = H. Buchthal, The Miniatures of the 
Paris Psalter (London 1938) 

Buchthal-Belting, Patronage = H. Buchthal, H. Belting, 
Patronage in Thirteenth-Century Constantinople: An Atelier 
of Late Byzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy (Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1978) 

Buckland, Roman Law = W.W. Buckland, A Text-book of 
Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian? (Cambridge 1950) 

BullBudé = Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé 

Bull]RylandsLib = Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 

BulllstDirRom = Bullettino dell'Istituto di dirilto romano (Rome) 

BullSocAntFr = Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires 
de France 

Burns, Ostro-Goths = T.S. Burns, A History of the Ostro-Goths 
(Bloomington, Ind., 1984) 


Bury, Adm. System = J.B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative 
System in the Ninth Century (London 1911; rp. New York, 
n.d.) 

Bury, ERE = J.B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman 
Empire: From the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (a.D. 
802-867) (London 1912) 

Bury, LRE = J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire®, 
2 vols. (London 1923; rp. New York 1958) 

Butler, Arab Conquest = A.J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of 
Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman Dominion? 
(Oxford 1978) 

Byzantios = Byzantios: Festschrift fiir Herbert Hunger zum 70. 
Geburtstag, ed. W. Hérandner, J. Koder, O. Kresten, E. 
Trapp (Vienna 1984) 

Byz. Aristocracy = The Byzantine Aristocracy: IX-XIII Centu- 
ries, ed. M. Angold (Oxford 1984) 

ByzAus = Byzantina Australiensia 

ByzF = Byzantinische Forschungen 

ByzMetabyz = Byzantina Metabyzantina 

Byz. Saint = The Byzantine Saint: University of Birmingham 
14 Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, ed. S. Hackel 
(London 1981) 

Byz. Sigillography = Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, ed. N. 
Oikonomides (Washington, D.C., 1987) 

Byz. und der Westen = Byzanz und der Westen, ed. I. Hutter 
(Vienna 1984) 

BZ = Byzantinische Zeitschrift 

Caetani, Islam = L. Caetani, Annali dell’Islam, 10 vols. in 11 
pts. (Milan 1905—26; rp. Hildesheim—New York 1972) 

CAG = Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 23 vols. (Berlin 
1882—1909) 

CahArch = Cahiers archéologiques 

CahCM = Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, X°—XII* siècles 

Cameron, “Academy” = Alan Cameron, “The Last Days 
of the Academy at Athens,” Proceedings of the Cambridge 
Philological Society n.s. 15 (1969) 7—29; rp. in Cameron, 
Literature, pt.XII1:7—30 

Cameron, Circus Factions = Alan Cameron, Circus Factions 
(Oxford 1976) 

Cameron, Literature = Alan Cameron, Literature and Society 
in the Early Byzantine World (London 1985) 

Cameron, Procopius = Averil Cameron, Procopius and the 
Sixth Century (Berkeley 1985) 

Canard, L'expansion = M. Canard, L'expansion 
islamique et ses répercussions (London 1974) 

Cannadine-Price, Rituals = Rituals of Royalty: Power and 
Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. D. Cannadine, S. 
Price (Cambridge 1987) 

Caspar, Papsttum = E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, 2 
vols. (Tübingen 1930-33) 

Cavallo-Gribomont-Loerke, Rossanensis = Codex purpureus 
Rossanensis: Museo dell’Arcivescovado, Rossano Calabria: 
Commentarium, G. Cavallo, J. Gribomont, W.C. Loerke 
(Rome-Graz 1987) 

CCAG = Catalogus Codicum astrologorum graecorum, 12 vols. 
(Brussels 1898—1953) 

CChr, ser. gr. = Corpus Christianorum, series graeca 

CChr, ser. lat. = Corpus Christianorum, series latina 

CEB = Congrès international des Études Byzantines: Actes 


arabo- 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS XXV 


Cedr. = Georgius Cedrenus, ed. 1. Bekker, 2 vols. (Bonn 
1838-39) 

CEFR = Congrès international d'études sur les frontières ro- 
maines: Actes (Bucharest-Cologne-Vienna) 

CEH = The Cambridge Economic History of Europe”, ed. M.M. 
Postan (Cambridge 1966) 

CHAfr = The Cambridge History of Africa, 8 vols. (Cambridge 
1975—86) 

Chalandon, Comnène = F. Chalandon, Les Comnène, 2 vols. 
(Paris 1900-12; rp. New York, n.d.). Vol. 1, Essai sur le 
règne d'Alexis Ier Comnène (1081—1118). Vol. 2, Jean H 
Comnène (1118—1143) et Manuel I Comnéne (1143—1180) 

Chalandon, Domination normande = F. Chalandon, Histoire 
de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 2 vols. (Paris 
1907; rp. 1960, 1969) 

Chalk. = Laonici Chalcocondylae Historiarum demonstrationes, 
ed. E. Darkó, 2 vols. in ı pt. (Budapest 1922—27) 

Charanis, Demography = P. Charanis, Studies on the Demog- 
raphy of the Byzantine Empire (London 1972) 

Charanis Studies = Charanis Studies: Essays in Honor of Peter 
Charanis, ed. A.E. Laiou (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980) 
Chatzinicolaou-Paschou, CBMG = A. Marava-Chatzinico- 
laou, Ch. Toufexi-Paschou, Catalogue of the Illuminated 
Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece, 2 

vols. (Athens 1978—85) 

Chesnut, Three Christologies = R.C. Chesnut, Three Mono- 
physite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mab- 
bug and Jacob of Sarug (Oxford 1976) 

Cheynet-Vannier, Etudes = J.-C. Cheynet, J.-F. Vannier, 
Etudes prosopographiques (Paris 1986) 

ChHist = Church History 

Chil. = Actes de Chilandar, ed. L. Petit [= VizVrem 17 (1911) 
supp. 1; rp. Amsterdam 1968] 

CHIsl = The Cambridge History of Islam, ed. P.M. Holt, A.K.S. 
Lambton, B. Lewis, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1970) 

Chitty, Desert = D.J. Chitty, The Desert A City: An Introduc- 
tion to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism 
under the Christian Empire (Oxford 1966) 

Chorik.Gaz. = Choricti Gazaei opera, ed. R. Foerster (Leip- 
zig 1929) 

Chortasm. = Johannes Chortasmenos (ca.1370—ca. 14 36/37), 
ed. H. Hunger (Vienna 1969) 

Christ, Literatur = W. von Christ, Geschichte der griechischen 
Literatur, 3 vols. (Munich 1912—24) 

Christensen, Sassanides = A.E. Christensen, L'Iran sous les 
Sassanides? (Copenhagen 1944; rp. Osnabrück 1971) 
Christ-Paranikas, Anth.Carm. = W. Christ, M. Paranikas, 
Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum (Leipzig 1871; 

rp. 1963) 

Chron. Pasch. = Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, 2 vols. 
(Bonn 1832) 

Chron. Tocco = Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia di anonimo, ed. 
G. Schird (Rome 1975) 

Chvostova, Osobennosti = K. Chvostova, Osobennosti agrar- 
nopravovych otnošenij v pozdnej Vizantiy XIV-XV vv. (Mos- 
cow 1968) 

CIC = Corpus luris Civilis?, ed. T. Mommsen, P. Krueger, 
et al., 3 vols. (Berlin 1928—29) 

CIG = Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols. (Berlin 1828— 
77) 


xxvi | BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


CIL = Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, 18 vols. (Berlin 1862— 
1989) 

Classical Tradition = Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, ed. 
M. Mullett, R. Scott (Birmingham 1981) 

ClMed = Classica et mediaevalia 

ClPhil = Classical Philology 

ClRev = Classical Review 

Clugnet, Dictionnaire = L. Clugnet, Dictionnaire grec-français 
des noms liturgiques en usage dans l'église grecque (Paris 1895) 

CMAG = Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs, 8 vols. 
(Brussels 1924-32) 

CMH = The Cambridge Medieval History, 8 vols. (Cam- 
bridge—New York 1911—36); vol. 4, 2nd ed. 1966—67 

Cod.Just. = Codex Justinianus, in CIC, vol. 2 

Cod.Theod. = Codex Theodosianus, 2 vols. in 3 pts., ed. T. 
Mommsen, P.M. Meyer (Berlin 1905); Eng. tr. C. Pharr, 
The Theodosian Code (Princeton 1952) 

Colwell-Willoughby, Karahissar = The Four Gospels of Kara- 
hissar, ed. E.C. Colwell, H.R. Willoughby, 2 vols. (Chi- 
cago 1936) 

Conomos, Communion = D.E. Conomos, The Late Byzantine 
and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music (Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1985) 

Constantelos, Philanthropy = D. Constantelos, Byzantine 
Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New Brunswick, N.J., 
1968) 

Constantinides, Education = C.N. Constantinides, Higher 
Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth 
Centuries (1204—ca.1310) (Nicosia 1982) 

Corinth = American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Cor- 
inth; Results of Excavations, 17 vols. (1932—85) 

CorsiRav = Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina [title 
varies] 

da Costa-Louillet, “Saints de CP” = G. da Costa-Louillet, 
“Saints de Constantinople aux VIII‘, FX* et X® siècles,” 
Byzantion 24 (1955—56) 179-263, 453-511; 25-27 (1957) 
783-852 

CPG = Clavis patrum graecorum, ed. M. Geerard, 5 vols. 
(Turnhout 1974-83) 

CQ = Classical Quarterly 

CRAI = Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscrip- 
tions et belles-lettres 

Cramer, Anec.Gr.Paris. = Anecdota graeca e codd. manuscriptis 
Bibliothecae regiae parisiensis, ed. J.A. Cramer, 4 vols. 
(Oxford 1839-41) 

Croke-Emmett, Historians = History and Historians in Late 
Antiquity, ed. B. Croke, A. Emmett (Sydney—Oxford— 
New York 1983) 

CSCO = Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 

CSHB = Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae 

Cupido Legum = Cupido Legum, ed. L. Burgmann, M.T. 
Fogen, A. Schminck (Frankfurt am Main 1985) 

Cutler, Aristocratic Psalters = A. Cutler, The Aristocratic Psal- 
ters in Byzantium (Paris 1984) 

Cutler, Transfigurations = A. Cutler, Transfigurations: Stud- 
ies in the Dynamics of Byzantine Iconography (University 
Park, Pa.—-London 1975) 

Cutler-Nesbitt, Arte = A. Cutler, J.W. Nesbitt, L’arte bizan- 
tina e il suo pubblico (Turin 1986) 


DA = Deutsches Archiv fiir Geschichte [alternately Erforschung} 
des Mittelalters 

DACL = Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 

Dagron, CP imaginaire = G. Dagron, Constantinople imagi- 
naire: Etudes sur le recueil des Patria (Paris 1984) 

Dagron, Langue = G. Dagron, “Aux origines de la civilisa- 
tion byzantine: Langue de culture et langue d’Etat,” RH 
241 (1969) 23-56 

Dagron, Naissance = G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale: 
Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris 1974) 

Dagron-Mihdescu, Guérilla = G. Dagron, H. Mihăescu, Le 
traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l'empereur Nicéphore 
Phocas (963—969) (Paris 1986) 

Dalton, Antiquities = O.M. Dalton, Catalogue of Early Chris- 
tian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East in the 
Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnog- 
raphy of the British Museum (London 1901) 

Darkevič, Svetskoe iskusstvo = V.P. Darkevit, Svetskoe iskus- 
stvo Vizanty (Moscow 1977) 

Darrouzés, Ecclés. = J. Darrouzés, Documents inédits d’ecclé- 
stologie byzantine (Paris 1966) 

Darrouzés, “Ekthesis Nea” = J. Darrouzés, “Ekthésis Néa: 
Manuel des pittakia du XIVe siècle,” REB 27 (1969) 5— 
127 

Darrouzés, Epistoliers = J. Darrouzeés, Epistoliers byzantins du 
X° siècle (Paris 1960) 

Darrouzés, Littérature = J. Darrouzés, Littérature et histoire 
des textes byzantins (London 1972) 

Darrouzés, “Notes” = J. Darrouzés, “Notes sur Euthyme 
Tornikés, Euthyme Malakés et Georges Tornikés,” REB 
23 (1965) 148-67 

Darrouzés, Offikia = J. Darrouzés, Recherches sur les ddqi- 
kia de l'église byzantine (Paris 1970) 

Darrouzés, Torntkés = Georges et Démétrios Tornikés: Lettres et 
discours, ed. J. Darrouzés (Paris 1970) 

Davidson, Minor Objects = G.R. Davidson, Corinth X1. The 
Minor Objects (Princeton 1952) 

Davidson, Road to Byz. = H.R. Ellis Davidson, The Viking 
Road to Byzantium (London 1976) 

Dawes-Baynes, Three Byz. Sts. = E. Dawes, N. Baynes, Three 
Byzantine Saints? (Crestwood, N.Y., 1977) 

DChAE = Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias 

DDC = Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 7 vols. (Paris 1935- 
65) 

De adm. imp. = Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando 
imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, tr. R. Jenkins (Washington, 
D.C., 1967); vol. 2, Commentary (London 1962) 

De cer. = De ceremontis aulae byzantinae, ed. J.J. Reiske, 2 
vols. (Bonn 1829-30) 

De. cer., ed. Vogt = Le livre des cérémonies, ed. A. Vogt, 2 
vols. (Paris 1935—39) 

Deichmann, Ravenna = F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna, 
Hauptstadt des spatantiken Abendlandes, 3 vols. in 5, pts. 
(Wiesbaden 1969-89) 

Delatte, AnecdAth = A. Delatte, Anecdota atheniensia, 2 vols. 
(Paris 1927—39) 

Delbrück, Consulardiptychen = R. Delbrück, Die Consulardip- 
tychen und verwandte Denkmäler (Berlin-Leipzig 1929) 

Delbrück, Spatant. Kaiserport. = R. Delbrück, Die spdtantike 
Kaiserportréts (Berlin 1933; rp. 1978) 


Delehaye, Saints militaires = H. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques 
des saints militaires (Paris 1909) 

Delehaye, Saints stylites = H. Delehaye, Les saints stylites 
(Brussels-Paris 1923) 

Demougeot, Unité = E. Demougeot, De l'unité à la division 
de l'empire romain, 395—410 (Paris 1951) 

Demus, Byz. Mosaic = O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decora- 
tion (London 1948; rp. New Rochelle, N.Y., 1976) 

Demus, Mosaics of S. Marco = O. Demus, The Mosaics of San 
Marco in Venice, 2 vols. in 4 pts. (Chicago 1984) 

Demus, Norman Sicily = O. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman 
Sicily (London 1949) 

DenkWien = Denkschriften der [kaiserlichen] Akademie der Wis- 
senschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 

Dennis, Miltary Treatises = G.T. Dennis, Three Byzantine 
Military Treatises (Washington, D.C., 1985) 

Der Nersessian, “Cilician Armenia” = S. Der Nersessian, 
“The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia,” in HC 2:630-59 
Der Nersessian, L’illustration 11 = S. Der Nersessian, L’il- 
lustration des psautiers grecs du moyen âge, ll, Londres Add. 

19.352 (Paris 1970) 

De them. = Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De thematibus, 
ed. A. Pertusi (Vatican 1952) 

Devreesse, Manuscrits = R. Devreesse, Introduction à l'étude 
des manuscrits grecs (Paris 1954) 

DHGE = Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 

DictBibl = Dictionnarre de la Bible, 5 vols. in 10 pts. (Paris 
1912—28) 

DictSpir = Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 

DIEE = Deltion tes Historikes kai ethnologikes hetaireias tes Hel- 
lados 

Diehl, L'Afrique = C. Diehl, L’Afrique byzantine (Paris 1896) 

Diekamp, AnalPatr = F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica (Rome 
1938) 

Dieten, Erläuterungen = J.-L. van Dieten, Niketas Choniates: 
Erläuterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer Biogra- 
phie (Berlin—New York 1971) 

Dieten, Patriarchen = J.L. van Dieten, Geschichte der Patri- 
archen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610-715) (Amster- 
dam 1972) 

Digest = Digesta, ed. T. Mommsen (= CIC, vol. 1) 

Dindorf, HistGr = Historici graeci minores, ed. L. Dindorf, 2 
vols. (Leipzig 1870—71) 

Dion.Phour., Hermeneia = Dionysius of Phourna, Herme- 
neia tes zographikes technes kai hat kyriai autes anekdotoi pegat, 
ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (St. Petersburg 1909) 

Dionys. = Actes de Dionysiou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris 1968) 

Ditten, Russland-Exkurs = H. Ditten, Der Russland-Exkurs 
des Laontkos Chalkokondyles (Berlin 1968) 

Dittenberger, Orientis = Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, 
ed. W. Dittenberger, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1903-05) 

Djuri¢, Byz. Fresk. = V. Djuri¢, Byzantinische Fresken in Ju- 
goslawien (Munich 1976) 

DMA = Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols. (New York 
1982—89) 

Dmitrievskij, Opisanie = A.A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgi- 
českich rukopisej, 3 vols. (Kiev 1895—1917) 

Dobroklonskij, Feodor = A.P. Dobroklonskij, Prep.Feodor, 
ispovednik i igumen studijskij, 2 vols. (Odessa 1913—14) 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS | xxvii 


DOC = A.R. Bellinger, P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byz- 
antine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the 
Whittemore Collection, 3 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1966- 
73) 

DOCat = Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval An- 
tiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, vols. 1—2 by M.C. 
Ross (Washington, D.C., 1962—65), vol. 3 by K. Weitz- 
mann (1972) 

Docheiar. = Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris 
1984) 

Dodd, Byz. Silver Stamps = E. Cruikshank Dodd, Byzantine 
Silver Stamps (Washington, D.C., 1961) 

Délger, Beiträge = F. Délger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der by- 
zantinischen Finanzverwaltung, besonders des 10. und 11. 
Jahrhunderts (Leipzig 1927; rp. Hildesheim 1960) 

Dolger, Byzanz = F. Dölger, Byzanz und die europäische Staat- 
enwelt (Ettal 1953; rp. Darmstadt 1964) 

Dölger, Diplomatik = F. Dölger, Byzantinische Diplomatik (Et- 
tal 1956) 

Dölger, Paraspora = F. Dölger, Paraspora (Ettal 1961) 

Dölger, Sechs Praktika = F. Dölger, Sechs byzantinische Prak- 
tika des 14.Jahrhunderts für das Athoskloster Iberon (Munich 
1949) 

Dölger, Schatz. = F. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Hei- 
ligen Berges (Munich 1948) 

Dölger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre = F. Dölger, J. Ka- 
rayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre (Munich 1968) 

Donner, Conquests = F.M. Donner, The Early Islamic Con- 
quests (Princeton 1981) 

DOP = Dumbarton Oaks Papers 

Douk. = Ducas: Istoria turco-bizantină (1341—1462), ed. V. 
Grecu (Bucharest 1958) 

DPAC = Dizionario patristico e di antichità, 3 vols. (Casale 
Monferrato 1983—88) 

DSB = Dictionary of Scientific Biography 

DTC = Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 

Duffy, “Cyrus & John” = J. Duffy, “Observations on So- 
phronius’ Miracles of Cyrus and John,” JThSt n.s. 35 (1984) 
71—90 

Dufrenne, L'illustration I = S. Dufrenne, L'’illustration des 
psautiers grecs du moyen âge (Paris 1966) 

Dujčev, Medioevo = 1. Dujtev, Medioevo bizantino-slavo, 3 
vols. (Rome 1965-71) 

Dujtev, Proucvanija = 1. Dujtev, Proučvanija virchu biilgar- 
skoto srednovekovie (Sofia 1943) 

Dunbabin, Mosaics = K.M.D. Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Ro- 
man North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage 
(Oxford 1978) 

Dvornik, Photian Schism = F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism: 
History and Legend (Cambridge 1948) 

EAEHL = Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the 
Holy Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah, 4 vols. (Jerusalem 1975- 
78) 

East of Byzantium = East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in 
the Formative Period, ed. N.G. Garsoian, T.F. Mathews, 
R.W. Thomson (Washington, D.C., 1982) 

EChR = Eastern Churches Review 

Ecloga = L. Burgmann, Ecloga, Das Gesetzbuch Leons I]. und 
Konstantios’ V. (Frankfurt am Main 1983) 


xxviii 


EEBS = Epeteris Hetaireias Byzantinon Spoudon 

EEPhSPA = Epistemonike Epeteris tes Philosophikes Scholes tou 
Panepistemiou Athenon 

EEPhSPTh = Epistemonike Epeteris tes Philosophikes Scholes tou 
Panepistemiou Thessalonikes 

EESM = Epeteris Hetairetas Steriohelladikon Meleton 

EEThSA = Epistemonike Epeteris tes Theologikes Scholes tou 
Panepistemiou Athenon 

EEThSPTh = Epistemonike Epeteris tes Theologikes Scholes tou 
Panepistemiou Thessalontkes 

Egenolff, Orthog. = P. Egenolff, Die orthographischen Stücke 
der byzantinischen Litteratur (Leipzig 1888) 

Egeria = /tinerarium Egeriae, ed. P. Maraval (Paris 1982) 

EHR = English Historical Review 

Ehrhard, Uberlieferung = A. Ehrhard, Uberlieferung und Be- 
stand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der 
griechischen Kirche, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1936-39) 

EI = The Encyclopedia of Islam, 4 vols. (Leiden-London 1913— 
34) 

EI? = The Encyclopedia of Islam, vols. 1— (Leiden-London 
1960-~) 

EkAl = Ekklesiastike Aletheia 

EKEE = Epeteris tou Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon (Niko- 
sia) 

EkkiPhar = Ekklesiastikos Pharos 

EO = Echos d’Orient 

EpChron = Epeirotika Chronika 

EphLit = Ephemerides Liturgicae 

EpMesArch = Epeteris tou Mesaionikou Archeiou 

Esphig. = Actes d’Esphigménou, ed. J. Lefort (Paris 1973) 

EtBalk = Etudes balkaniques 

Eusebios, De mart. = Eusebius, De martyribus Palestinae in 
Eusebius Werke 2.2. Die Kirchengeschichte, ed. E. Schwartz 
(Leipzig 1908) g07—50 

Eusebios, HE = Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica in Eusebius 
Werke 2.1—3. Die Kirchengeschichte, ed. E. Schwartz (Leip- 
zig 1903—09) 

Eusebios, Onomastikon = Eusebius, Onomastikon in Eusebius 
Werke 3.1. Das Onomasticon der biblischen Ortsnamen, ed. E. 
Klostermann (Leipzig 1904) 

Eusebios, VC = Eusebios, Vita Constantini, in Eusebius Werke 
1.1. Uber das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, ed. F. Winkel- 
mann (Berlin 1975) 

Eust. Comm. Il. = Eustathii: Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 
pertinentes, ed. M. van der Valk, 3 vols. (Leiden 1971— 
87) 

Eust. Comm. Od. = Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis 
Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, ed. G. Stallbaum, 2 vols. 
(Leipzig 1825—26) 

Eust. Thess., Capture = Eustathios of Thessalonike, La es- 
pugnazione di Tessalonica, ed. S. Kyriakides (Palermo 1961) 

Eust. Thess., Opuscula = Eustathios of Thessalonike, Opus- 
cula, ed. T.L.F. Tafel (Frankfurt 1832; rp. Amsterdam 
1964) 

Falkenhausen, Dominazione = V. von Falkenhausen, La 
dominazione bizantina nell'Italia meridionale dal IX all’xI 
secolo (Bari 1978) 

Falkenhausen-Amelotti, “Notariato & documento” = V. von 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Falkenhausen, M. Amelotti, “Notariato e documento 
nell'Italia meridionale greca (X-XV secolo),” in Per una 
storia del notariato meridionale (Rome 1982) 7—69 

Fassoulakis, Raoul = S. Fassoulakis, The Byzantine Family of 
Raoul-Ral(ljes (Athens 1973) 

Fedotov, Mind = G.P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, 
2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1946—66) 

Felix, Byz. & Isl. = W. Felix, Byzanz und die islamische Welt 
im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (Vienna 1981) 

FelRav = Felix Ravenna 

Fennell-Stokes, Russ. Lit. = J. Fennell, A. Stokes, Early Rus- 
sian Literature (London 1974) 

Ferjančić, Despoti = B. Ferjančić, Despoti u Vizantiji i južno- 
slovenskim zemljama (Belgrade 1960) 

Ferjančić, Tesalija = B. Ferjančić, Tesalija u XIII i XIV veku 
(Belgrade 1974) 

Ferluga, Byzantium = Ja. Ferluga, Byzantium on the Balkans 
(Amsterdam 1976) 

Festschrift Stratos = Byzantion: Aphieroma ston Andrea N. Strato, 
2 vols. (Athens 1986) 

Festschrift Wessel = Festschrift für Klaus Wessel zum 70. Ge- 
burtstag, ed. M. Restle (Munich 1988) 

Festugière, Hist. monachorum = A.-J. Festugière, Historia 
monachorum in Aegypto (Brussels 1971) 

FGHBulg = Fontes graeci historiae bulgaricae 

FHG = Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, ed. K. Müller, 5 
vols. (Paris 1841-83) 

Ficker, Phundag. = G. Ficker, Die Phundagiagiten (Leipzig 
1908) 

Fikhman, Egipet = I.F. Fikhman, Egipet na rubeie dvuch 
epoch (Moscow 1965) 

Fine, Early Balkans = J.V.A. Fine, Jr., The Early Medieval 
Balkans (Ann Arbor 1983) 

Fine, Late Balkans = J.V.A. Fine, Jr., The Late Medieval 
Balkans (Ann Arbor 1987) 

FM = Fontes Minores [part of Forschungen zur byzantin- 
ischen Rechtsgeschichte] 

FoliaN = Folia neohellenica 

Foss, “Twenty Cities” = C. Foss, “Archaeology and the 
‘Twenty Cities’ of Byzantine Asia,” AJA 81 (1977) 469— 
86 

Foss-Winfield, Fortifications = C. Foss, D. Winfield, Byz- 
antine Fortifications: An Introduction (Pretoria 1986) 

Frantz, “Byz. Hluminated Ornament” = M.A. Frantz, 
“Byzantine Illuminated Ornament,” ArtB 16 (1934) 43- 
76 

Frend, Monophysite Movement = W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of 
the Monophystte Movement (Cambridge 1972) 

Friedlander, Kunstbeschreib. = P. Friedlander, Johannes von 
Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius: Kunstbeschreibungen justintan- 
ischer Zeit (Leipzig-Berlin 1912) 

Friend, “Portraits” = A.M. Friend, Jr., “The Portraits of 
the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts,” Art 
Studies (1927) 115-47; (1929) 3—29 

Frolow, Reliquaires = A. Frolow, Les reliquaires de la Vraie 
Croix (Paris 1965) 

Frolow, Relique = A. Frolow, La relique de la Vraie Croix 
(Paris 1961) 


FSI = Fonti per la storia d'Italia (Istituto storico Italiano, 
Rome) 

Furlan, Icone a mosaico = I. Furlan, Le icone bizantine a 
mosaico (Milan 1979) 

Furlan, Marciana = I. Furlan, Codici greci illustrati della Bi- 
blioteca Marciana, 5 vols. (Milan-Padua 1978—88) 

Gabras, Letters = Die Briefe des Michael Gabras (ca.1290- 
nach 1350), ed. G. Fatouros, 2 vols. (Vienna 1973) 

Galatariotou, “Typika” = C. Galatariotou, “Byzantine Kte- 
torika Typika,” REB 45 (1987) 77-138 

Galavaris, Liturgical Homilies = G. Galavaris, The Illustra- 
tions of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus 
(Princeton 1969) 

Gamillscheg-Harlfinger, Repertorium = E. Gamillscheg, D. 
Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten (Vienna 
1981) 

Gardthausen, Palaeographie = V. Gardthausen, Griechische 
Palaeographie, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1911-13) 

Garsoian, Armenia = N.G. Garsoian, Armenia between Byzan- 
lium and the Sasanians (London 1985) 

Garsoian, Epic Histories = N.G. Garsoian, The Epic Histories 
Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Cambridge, Mass., 1989) 
Garsoian, Paulictan Heresy = N.G. Garsotan, The Paulician 

Heresy (The Hague—Paris 1967) 

Garzya, Storia = A. Garzya, Storia e interpretazione di testi 
bizantini (London 1974) 

Gautier, “Blachernes” = P. Gautier, “Le Synode des Blach- 
ernes (fin 1094),” REB 29 (1971) 213-84 

Gay, Italie = J. Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin 
(Paris 1904; rp. New York, n.d.) 

GBA = Gazette des beaux-arts 

Geanakoplos, Michael Pal. = D.J. Geanakoplos, Emperor 
Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258—1282: A Study in 
Byzantine-Latin Relations (Cambridge, Mass., 1959) 

Gelzer, Themen = H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen 
Themenverfassung (Leipzig 1899) 

Gelzer, Verwaltung Agyptens = M. Gelzer, Studien zur byzan- 
tinischen Verwaltung Agyptens (Leipzig 1909) 

Genes. = losephi Genesii regum libri quattuor, ed. A. 
Lesmiller-Werner, I. Thurn (Berlin-New York 1978) 
Gerland, Geschichte = E. Gerland, Geschichte des lateinischen 
Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel, 3 vols. (Homburg v.d. 

Höhe 1905; rp. Darnıstadt 1966) 

Germanos, Liturgy = St. Germanus of Constantinople: On the 
Divine Liturgy (Crestwood, N.Y., 1984), with Eng. tr. P. 
Meyendorff 

Gero, Constantine V = S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during 
the Reign of Constantine V (Louvain 1977) 

Gero, Leo HI = S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the 
Reign of Leo ill (Louvain 1973) 

Gerstinger, Wien. Gen. = H. Gerstinger, Die Wiener Genesis: 
Farbenlichtdruckfaksimile der griechischen Bilderbibel aus dem 
6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, cod. Vindob. theol. graec. 31 
(Vienna 1931) 

GGM = Geographi Graeci Minores, ed. C. Müller, 6 vols. 
(Paris 1882) 

Gill, Personalities = J. Gill, Personalities of the Council of Flor- 
ence (New York 1964) 

GlasSAN = Glas Srpske Akademije Nauka 


xxix 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Goar, Euchologion = J. Goar, Euchologion sive Rituale Grae- 
corum (Venice 1730; rp. Graz 1960) 

Goftart, Caput = W. Goffart, “Caput” and Colonate: Towards 
a History of Late Roman Taxation (Toronto 1974) 

Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt. = A. Gold- 
schmidt, K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulp- 
turen des X.-XII. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Berlin 1930-34; 
rp. 1979) 

Gonimos = Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies pre- 
sented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75, ed. J. Duffy, J. 
Peradotto (Buffalo, N.Y., 1988) 

GOrThR = The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 

Goubert, Byz. avant l'Islam = P. Goubert, Byzance avant l'Islam, 
2 vols. in 3 pts. (Paris 1951—65) 

Gouillard, “Synodikon” = J. Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de 
POrthodoxie,” TM 2 (1967) 1-313 

Grabar, Ampoules = A. Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte 
(Monza-Bobbio) (Paris 1958) 

Grabar, L'empereur = A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzan- 
lin (Paris 1936; rp. London 1971) 

Grabar, Fin Ant. = A. Grabar, L'art de la fin de l'Antiquité et 
du Moyen Age, 3 vols. (Paris 1968) 

Grabar, Iconoclasme = A. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin: Le 
dossier archéologique? (Paris 1984) 

Grabar, Martyrium = A. Grabar, Martyrium: Recherches sur 
le culte des reliques et l'art chrétien antique, 3 vols. (Paris 
1943—48) 

Grabar, Revêtements = A. Grabar, Les revêtements en or et en 
argent des icones byzantines du moyen âge (Venice 1975) 
Grabar, Sculptures I = A. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines de 

Constantinople {IV°—X" siècle) (Paris 1963) 

Grabar, Sculptures II = A. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines du 
moyen age, IT (XI°—XIV* siècle) (Paris 1976) 

Grabar-Manoussacas, Skylitzés = A. Grabar, M. Manoussa- 
cas, L’illustration du manuscrit de Skylitzés de la Bibliothèque 
Nationale de Madrid (Venice 1979) 

Graf, Literatur = G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen ara- 
bischen Literatur, 5 vols. (Vatican 1944-53) 

GRBS = Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 

Great Palace, 1st Report = The Great Palace of the Byzantine 
Emperors, being a First Report on the Excavations carried out 
in Istanbul on behalf of the Walker Trust (The University of 
St. Andrews 1935—1938) (London 1947) 

Great Palace, 2nd Report = The Great Palace of the Byzantine 
Emperors: Second Report, ed. D. Talbot Rice (Edinburgh 
1958) 

Greg. = Nicephorus Gregoras: Byzantina historia, ed. L. Scho- 
pen, I. Bekker, 3 vols. (Bonn 1829-55) 

Grégoire, “Etudes” = H. Grégoire, “Etudes sur le neu- 
vieme siècle,” Byzantion 8 (1933) 514-74 

Grégoire, Inscriptions = H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions 
grecques chrétiennes d’Asie Mineure (Paris 1922) 

GregPal = Gregorios ho Palamas 

Grierson, Byz. Coins = P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London 
1982) 

Grierson, “Tombs & Obits” = P. Grierson, “Fhe Tombs 
and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337—1042),” DOP 
16 (1962) 1-63 

Griffith, “Apologetics in Arabic” = S.H. Griffith, “Euty- 


XXX BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


chius of Alexandria on the Emperor Theophilus and 
Iconoclasm in Byzantium: A Tenth Century Moment in 
Christian Apologetics in Arabic,” Byzantion 52 (1982) 
154-90 

Grillmeier-Bacht, Chalkedon = A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht, Das 
Konzil von Chalkedon, 3 vols. (Wurzburg 1951~54) 

Grousset, Arménie = R. Grousset, Histoire de l'Arménie: Des 
origines à 1071 (Paris 1947) 

Grumel, Chronologie = V. Grumel, La chronologie (Paris 1958) 

Grumel, “Patriarcat” = V. Grumel, “Le patriarcat et les 
patriarches d'Antioche sous la seconde domination byz- 
antine (g6g—1084),” EO 33 (1934) 129-47 

GSU FIF = Godiinik na Sofijskyja universitet: Filosofsko- 
istoričeski fakultet. Early vols. (1908/9- 1949/50) called Sof- 
ijskija universitet Filosofsko-istoriko-filologzceski fakultet 

GSU JuF = Godignik na Sofijskija universitet: Juridiceski fak- 
ultet 

Guilland, “Curopalate” = R. Guilland, “Etudes sur l’his- 
toire administrative de Empire Byzantin: Le curopa- 
late,” Byzantina 2 (1970) 185—249 

Guilland, Institutions = R. Guilland, Recherches sur les insti- 
tutions byzantines, 2 vols. (Amsterdam 1967) 

Guilland, Titres = R. Guilland, Titres et fonctions de l'Empire 
byzantin (London 1976) 

Guilland, Topographie = R. Guilland, Etudes de topographie 
de Constantinople byzantine, 2 vols. in 1 pt. (Amsterdam 
1969) 

Guillou et al., Bizantini a Frederico I = A. Guillou et al., H 
Mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Frederico I (Turin 1983) 

Guillou, Byz. Italy = A. Guillou, Studies on Byzantine Italy 
(London 1970) 

Guillou, Ménécée = A. Guillou, Les archives de Saint-Jean- 
Prodrome sur le Mont Ménécée (Paris 1955) 

HA = Handes Amsorya 

Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo = L. Hadermann-Mis- 
guich, Kurbinovo: Les fresques de Saint-Georges et la peinture 
byzantine du XII" siècle (Brussels 1975) 

Haldon, Praetorians = J. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians (Bonn 
1984) 

Haldon, Recruitment = J.F. Haldon, Recruitment and Con- 
scription in the Byzantine Army C. 550—950: A Study of the 
Origins of the Stratiotika Ktemata (Vienna 1979) 

Halkin, Saints moines = F. Halkin, Saints moines d'Orient 
(London 1973) 

Harlfinger, Kodikologie = D. Harlfinger, ed. Griechische Ko- 
dikologie und Textiiberlieferung (Darmstadt 1980) 

Harm. = G.E. Heimbach, Const. Harmenopuh, Manuale legum 
sive Hexabiblos (Leipzig 1851; rp. Aalen 1969) 

Harrison, Saraçhane = R.M. Harrison, Excavations at Sar- 
achane in Istanbul, 2 vols. (Princeton—Washington, D.C., 
1986) 

Hasluck, Cyzicus = F.W. Hasluck, Cyzicus (Cambridge 1910) 

HC = A History of the Crusades, ed. K.M. Setton, vols. 1-6 
(Madison, Wisc., 1969—89) 

Heath, Mathematics = T. Heath, A History of Greek Mathe- 
matics, 2 vols. (Oxford 1921) 

Hecht, Aussenpolitik = W. Hecht, Die byzantinische Aussen- 
politik zur Zeit der letzten Komnenenkaiser (1180—1185) 
(Neustadt an der Aisch 1967) 


Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles = C.J. Hefele, H. Leclercq, His- 
toire des conciles, 11 vols. in 2) pts. (Paris 1907-52) 

Heimbach, Basil. = Basilicorum libri LX, ed. C.W.E. Heim- 
bach, 6 vols. (Leipzig 1833—70) 

Heisenberg, Neue Quellen = A. Heisenberg, Neue Quellen 
zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchen- 
union (Munich 1923) 

HellCont = L’Hellénisme contemporain 

Hendy, Coinage = M.F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the 
Byzantine Empire, 1081-1261 (Washington, D.C., 1969) 

Hendy, Economy = M.F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine 
Monetary Economy C. 300—1450 (Cambridge 1985) 

Hesseling, Octateuque = D.C. Hesseling, Miniatures de 
lOctateuque grec de Smyrne (Leiden 1909) 

Heyd, Commerce = W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant 
au moyen age”, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1936; rp. Amsterdam 
1967) 

HGM = Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin, ed. T. Pusch- 
mann, M. Neuberger, J. Pagel, 3 vols. (Jena 1902-05, 
rp. Hildesheim 1971) 

Hierokl. = Le Synekdémos d’Hiéroklés et lopuscule géogra- 
phique de Georges de Chypre (Brussels 1939) 

HilZb = Hilandarski Zbornik 

HistJb = Historisches Jahrbuch 

HistZ = Historische Zeitschrift 

Hoddinott, Bulgaria = R.F. Hoddinott, Bulgaria in Antiq- 
uity: An Archaeological Introduction (London 1975) 

Hoeck, “Damaskenos-Forschung” = J.M. Hoeck, “Stand und 
Aufgaben der Damaskenos-Forschung,” OrChrP 17 (1951) 
5-60 

Hohlweg, Beiträge = A. Hohlweg, Beiträge zur Verwaltungs- 
geschichte des Ostrémischen Reiches unter den Komnenen 
(Munich 1965) 

Holy Image = Holy Image, Holy Space: Icons and Frescoes from 
Greece, ed. M. Acheimastou-Potamianou (Baltimore 1988) 

Holum, Theodosian Empresses = K. Holum, Theodosian Em- 
presses (Berkeley 1982) 

Honigmann, Ostgrenze = E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des 
byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 [= A. Vasiliev, 
Byzance et les Arabes, vol. 3] (Brussels 1935) 

Horna, “Epigramme” = K. Horna, “Die Epigramme des 
Theodoros Balsamon,” WS 25 (1903) 165—217 

HruSevs'kyi, Istorija = M. HruSevs’kyi, Istorija Ukrajiny-Rusy, 
10 vols. (Kiev-Lvov 1905-193; rp. New York 1954-58) 

HStCiPhil = Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 

HThR = Harvard Theological Review 

Huber, Heilige Berge = P. Huber, Heilige Berge (Zurich 1980) 

HUkSt = Harvard Ukrainian Studies 

Hunger, “Buch- und Schriftwesen” = H. Hunger, “An- 
tikes und mittelalterliches Buch- und Schriftwesen,” in 
Geschichte der Textiiberlieferung der antiken und mittelalter- 
lichen Literatur, ed. H. Hunger et al., vol. 1 (Zurich 1961) 
25-147 

Hunger, Grundlagenforschung = H. Hunger, Byzantinistische 
Grundlagenforschung (London 1973) 

Hunger, Lit. = H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Lit- 
eratur der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Munich 1978) 

Hunger, Reich = H. Hunger, Reich der neuen Mitte: Der 


christliche Geist der byzantinischen Kultur (Graz-Vienna- 
Cologne 1965) 

Hunger-Kresten, PairKP = H. Hunger, O. Kresten, Das Reg- 
ister des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (Vienna 1981—) 

Hunger-Sevéenko, Blemmydes = H. Hunger, I. Ševčenko, 
Des Nikephoros Blemmydes ‘Basilikos Andrias’ und dessen Me- 
taphrase von Georgios Galesiotes und Georgios Oinaiotes (Vi- 
enna 1986) 

Hussey, Church & Learning = J.M. Hussey, Church & Learn- 
ing in the Byzantine Empire, 867—1185 (London 1937) 
Hutter, CBM = I. Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Minia- 

turenhandschriften, vol. 1— (Stuttgart 1977—-) 

ÍA = Islam Ansiklopedisi 

Iconoclasm = Iconoclasm, ed. A.A. Bryer, J. Herrin (Bir- 
mingham 1977) 

ICS = Illinois Classical Studies 

IE] = Israel Exploration Journal 

IFZ = Istortko-filologicesky žurnal (Erevan) 

IGLSyr = Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, ed. L. 
Jalabert, R. Mouterde et al., vols. 1— (Paris 1929~) 

Ihin, Apsesmaleret = C. Ihm, Die Programme der christlichen 
Apsismaleret vom vierten Jahrhundert bis zur Mitte des achten 
Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden 1960) 

Illuminated Greek MSS = Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from 
American Collections: An Exhibition in Honor of Kurt Weitz- 
mann, ed. G. Vikan (Princeton 1973) 

ILS = Inscriptiones latinae selectae, ed. H. Dessau, 3 vols. in 
5 pts. (Berlin 1892—1916) 

inalcik, “Edirne” = H. Inalcik, “The Conquest of Edirne 
(1361),” ArchOlt 3 (1971) 185—210 

Institutes = Institutiones (Corpus Iuris Civilis), ed. J. Lokin, N. 
van der Wal (Groningen 1987) 

IntCongChrArch = International Congress of Christian Ar- 
chaeology: Acts 

IntCongClassArch = International Congress of Classical Ar- 
chaeology: Acts, Proceedings 

IRAIK = Izvestija Russkogo Arheologiteskogo Instituta v Kon- 
stantinopole 

Iskusstvo Vizantii = [A. Bank, O.S. Popova,] Iskusstvo Vizantii 
v sobranijach SSSR, exhibition catalog, 3 vols. (Moscow 
1977) 

IstGl = Istoriski Glasnik 

IstMitt = Istanbuler Mitteilungen 

IstPreg = Istoriceski pregled 

IstSrpskNar = Istorija Srpskog naroda, 6 vols. (Belgrade 1981- 
86) 

ItMedUm = Italia medioevale e umanistica 

Ivir. = Actes de U'Iviron, ed. J. Lefort, 2 vols. (Paris 1985) 

IzvAN SSSR = I zvestya Akademiji Nauk SSSR 

IzvANSSSR.OL = Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie lit- 
eratury i jazyka 

IzvBůlgArchInst = Izvestija na Bilgarskija Archeologičeski In- 
stitut 

IzuInstBilglst = Izvestija na Instituta za Bilgarska istorija (So- 
fia); after 1951: Izvestija na Instituta za istorija 

Bi = Izvestija na Biilgarskoto istoričeskoto družestvo (So- 

a) 


IzvNarMus-Varna = Izvestija na narodnija musej—Varna 


XXXİ 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


IzwOR]JaS = Ixvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka 1 slovesnosti 

Jacoby, Féodalité = D. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale: 
Les “Assises de Romanie” (Paris 1971) 

Jacoby, Recherches = D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerra- 
née orientale du XIe au XVe siècle (London 1979) 

Jacoby, Société = D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance 
et en Romanie latine (London 1975) 

Jakobson, SredKrym = A. Jakobson, Srednevekouyj Krym 
(Moscow-Leningrad 1964) 

Jamison, Admiral Eugenius = E. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius 
of Sicily, His Life and Work (London 1957) 

Janin, Constantinople byz. = R. Janin, Constantinople byz- 
antine: Développement urbain et répertoire topographique” (Paris 
1964) 

Janin, Églises centres = R. Janin, Les églises et les monastères 
des grands centres byzantins (Paris 1975) 

Janin, Églises CP = R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de 
Vempire byzantin, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat 
oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères? (Paris 1969) 

JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society 

JBAA = Journal of the British Archaeological Association 

JbAChr = Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 

JbGOst = Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 

JoKSWien = Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 

JbKw = Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 

JbNumGeld = Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 

JORGZM = Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmu- 
seums (Mainz) 

JDAI = Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 

Jeffreys, “Chroniclers” = E.M. Jeffreys, “The Attitudes of 
Byzantine Chroniclers Towards Ancient History,” Byzan- 
tion 49 (1979) 199-238 

Jeffreys, Popular Literature = E.M. and M.J. Jeffreys, Pop- 
ular Literature in Late Byzantium (London 1983) 

JEH = Journal of Ecclesiastical History 

Jenkins, Studies = R.J.H. Jenkins, Studies on Byzantine His- 
tory of the gth and roth Centuries (London 1970) 

Jerphanion, Églises rupestres = G. de Jerphanion, Une nou- 
velle province de lart byzantin: Les églises rupestres de Cap- 
padoce, 2 vols. in 4 pts. (Paris 1925—42) 

JGS = Journal of Glass Studies 

JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies 

JMedHist = Journal of Medieval History 

JMRS = Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 

JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies 

JÖB = Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik (before 1969, 
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft) 

Johnstone, Church Embroidery = P. Johnstone, The Byzantine 
Tradition in Church Embroidery (London 1967) 

Jolivet-Lévy, “L'image du pouvoir” = C. Jolivet-Lévy, 
“L'image du pouvoir dans l'art byzantin à l'époque de la 
dynastie macédonienne (867—1056),” Byzantion 57 (1987) 
441-790 

Jones, Cities = A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman 
Empire? (Oxford 1971) 

Jones, LRE = A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire: 284- 
602, 3 vols. (Oxford 1964) 


xxxii | BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Jones, “Papal Manuscripts” = A. Jones, “William of Moer- 
beke, the Papal Greek Manuscripts and the Collection of 
Pappus of Alexandria in Vat. gr. 218,” Scriptorium 40 
(1986) 16-31 

Jones, Siege of CP = J.R.M. Jones, The Siege of Constantinople 
1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam 1972) 

JoshStyl = The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, tr. W. Wright 
(Cambridge 1882; rp. Amsterdam 1968) 

JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 

JRS = Journal of Roman Studies 

JSAH = Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 

JSav = Journal des Savants 

JThSt = Journal of Theological Studies 

Juzbagjan, “Skilica” = K. Juzbagjan, “Skilica o zachvate An- 
ijskogo carstva v 1045 g.,” VizVrem 40 (1979) 76-91 

JWalt = Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 

JWarb = Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 

Kadar, Zoological Illuminations = Z. Kadar, Survivals of Greek 
Zoological Illuminations in Byzantine Manuscripts (Budapest 
1978) 

Kaegi, Decline = W.E. Kaegi, Jr., Byzantium and the Decline 
of Rome (Princeton 1968) 

Kaegi, “New Evidence” = W.E. Kaegi, Jr., “New Evidence 
on the Early Reign of Heraclius,” BZ 66 (1973) 308-30; 
rp. in W.E. Kaegi, Jr., Army, Society and Religion in Byzan- 
tium (London 1982), pt.IX 

Kaegi, Unrest = W.E. Kaegi, Jr., Byzantine Military Unrest 
(Amsterdam 1981) 

Kaiseraugst = Der Spétrémische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, 
ed. H.A. Cahn, A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, 2 vols. (Der- 
endingen 1984) 

Kalavrezou, “Eudokia Makrem.” = I. Kalavrezou-Max- 
einer, “Eudokia Makrembolitissa and the Romanos Ivory,” 
DOP 31 (1977) 305-25 

Kalavrezou, Steatite = I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons 
in Steatite (Vienna 1985) 

Kalokyris, Crete = K. Kalokyris, The Byzantine Wall Paint- 
ings of Crete (New York 1973) 

Kantak. = loannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris historiarum libri 
quattuor, ed. L. Schopen, 3 vols. (Bonn 1828—32) 

Karayannopulos, Finanzwesen = J. Karayannopulos, Das 
Finanzwesen des friihbyzantinischen Staates (Munich 1958) 

Karayannopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde = J. Karayannopu- 
los, G. Weiss, Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324— 
1453), 2 vols. (Wiesbaden 1982) 

Karlin-Hayter, Studies = P. Karlin-Hayter, Studies in Byz- 
antine Political History (London 1981) 

Karpov, Trapezundskaja imperija = S. Karpov, Trapezund- 
skaja imperija i zapadnoevropejskie gosudarstvua (Moscow 1981) 

Kašanin, Srpska književnost = M. Kašanin, Srpska književnost 
u srednjem veku (Belgrade 1975) 

Kaser, Privatrecht = M. Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, 2 
vols. (Munich 1971-75) 

Kaser, Zivilprozessrecht = M. Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozess- 
recht (Munich 1966) 

Kastam. = Actes de Kastamonitou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris 
1978) 

Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnošenija = A.P. Kazhdan, Agrarnye ot- 
nosenya v Vizantu, XI—XIV vv. (Moscow 1952) 


Kazhdan, Arm. = A.P. Kazhdan, Armjane v sostave gospod- 
stvujuščego klassa Vizantiskoj imperii v XI-XII vv. (Erevan 
1975) 

Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod = A.P. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 
v Vizanty, IX—X vv. (Moscow 1960) 

Kazhdan, Gosp.klass. = A.P. Kazhdan, Social’nyj sostav gos- 
podstvujuščego klassa Vizantu XI—XII vv. (Moscow 1974) 
Kazhdan, “Iz ekonomičeskoj žizni” = A. Kazhdan, “Iz 
ekonomičeskoj žizni Vizantii XI—XII vv. Naturaľnoe i 

denežnoe chozjajstvo,” VizOč (1981) 169—212 

Kazhdan, “Simeon” = A. Kazhdan, “Predvariteľnye za- 
mečanija 0 mirovozzrenii vizantijskogo mistika x—xi vv. 
Simeona,” BS 28 (1967) 1-38 

Kazhdan-Constable, Byzantium = A. Kazhdan, G. Consta- 
ble, People and Power in Byzantium (Washington, D.C., 
1982) 

Kazhdan-Epstein, Change = A.P. Kazhdan, A. Wharton 
Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and 
Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley 1985) 

Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies = A. Kazhdan, S. Franklin, Studies 
on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries 
(Cambridge 1984) 

Kek. = Sovety i rasskazy Kekaumena, ed. G.G. Litavrin (Mos- 
cow 1972) 

Kelly, Doctrines = J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines? 
(London 1960) , 

Kennedy, Abbasid Caliphate = H, Kennedy, The Early Ab- 
basid Caliphate {London 1981) 

Kennedy, Rhetoric = G.A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under 
Christian Emperors (Princeton 1983) 

Kent-Painter, Wealth = J.P.C. Kent, K.S. Painter, Wealth of 
the Roman World, A.D. 300—700 (London 1977) 

Kessler, “Acts” = H.L. Kessler, “Scenes from the Acts of 
the Apostles on Some Early Christian Ivories,” Gesta 18 
(1979) 109-19 

Kinn. = Joannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab loanne et Alexio 
Comnenis gestarum, ed. A. Meineke (Bonn 1836) 

Kitzinger, Art of Byz. = E. Kitzinger, The Art of Byzantium 
and the Medieval West: Selected Studies (Bloomington, Ind., 
1976) 

Kitzinger, Making = E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Mak- 
ing: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean 
Art, 3rd—7th Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1977) 

Kleinchroniken = Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, ed. P. 
Schreiner, 3 vols. (Vienna 1975—79) 

Koder, Lebensraum = J. Koder, Der Lebensraum der Byzanti- 
ner: Historisch-geographischer Abriss ihres mittelalterlichen 
Staates in östlichen Mittelmeerraum (Graz 1984) 

Koder-Weber, Liutprand = J. Koder, T. Weber, Liutprand 
von Cremona in Konstantinopel (Vienna 1980) 

Konidares, Nomtke theorese = I.M. Konidares, Nomike Theo- 
rese ton monasteriakon typikon (Athens 1984) 

Kosev et al., Bitlgarya = D. Kosev et al., Istorija na Bilgarija, 
2 vols. (Sofia 1954) 

Kosm. Ind. = Cosmas Indicopleustés, Topographie chrétienne, 
ed. W. Wolska-Conus, 3 vols. (Paris 1968-73) 

Kotter, Schriften = Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 
ed. B. Kotter, 7 vols. (Berlin-New York 1969-88) 

Koukoules, Bios = Ph. Koukoules, Byzantinon bios kat poli- 
tasmos, 6 vols. in 7 pts. (Athens 1948-57) 


Kourouses, Gabalas = S. Kourouses, Manouel Gabalas eita 
Matthaios metropolites Ephesou (Athens 1972) 

Koutloum. = Actes de Kutlumus*, ed. P. Lemerle, 2 vols. (Paris 
1988) 

Kratkovskij, Geog. Lit. = 1.U. Kratkovskij, Arabskaja geo- 
grafiteskaja literatura [= vol. 4 of his Izbrannye socinenija] 
(Moscow-Leningrad 1957) 

Krautheimer, ECBArch = R. Krautheimer, S. Ćurčić, Early 
Christian and Byzantine Architecture* (Harmondsworth 1986) 

Kreki¢, Dubrovnik = B. Kreki¢, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Le- 
vant au moyen âge (Paris—The Hague 1961) 

Kresten, “Phantomgestalten” = O. Kresten, “Phantomge- 
stalten in der byzantinischen Literaturgeschichte,” JOB 
25 (1976) 207-22 

Kresten, “Styppeiotes” = O. Kresten, “Zum Sturz des 
Theodoros Styppeiotes,” JOB 27 (1978) 49-103 

KretChron = Kretika Chronika 

Kriaras, Mythistoremata = E. Kriaras, Byzantina Hippotika 
Mythistoremata (Athens 1955) 

Kritob. = Critobult Imbriotae Historiae, ed. D.R. Reinsch 
(Berlin—New York 1983) 

KrSoobInstArch = Kratkie soobscenya Instituta archeologti 

Krumbacher, GBL = K. Krumbacher, Geschichte des byzan- 
tinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Ost- 
römischen Reiches (§27—1453)* (Munich 1897) 

Kulakovskij, Istorija = Ju.A. Kulakovskij, Istorija Vizantii, 3 
vols. (Kiev 1912—15; rp. London 1973) 

KurSanskis, “Descendance d’Alexis IV” = M. KurSanskis, 
“La descendance d’Alexis IV, empereur de Trébizonde,” 
REB 37 (1979) 239-47 

Kustas, Studies = G.L. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric 
(Thessalonike 1973) 

Kuzev-Gjuzelev, Biilgarski = A. Kuzev, V. Gyjuzelev, 
Bilgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, vol. 1— (Sofia 
1981—) 

KyprSp = Kypriakai Spoudai 

Lactant., De mort. pers. = Lactantius, De mortibus persecuto- 
rum, ed. J.L. Creed (Oxford 1984) with Eng. tr. 

Laiou, CP & the Latins = A.E. Laiou, Constantinople and the 
Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus H, 1282-1328 
(Cambridge, Mass., 1972) 

Laiou, Peasant Society = A.E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant 
Society in the Late Byzantine Empire (Princeton 1977) 

LakSp = Lakontkai spoudai 

Lamma, Comneni = P. Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, 2 vols. 
(Rome 1955-57) 

Lampe, Lexikon = G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexikon 
(Oxford 1961-68) 

Lampros, Athos = S.P. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek 
Manuscripts on Mount Athos, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1895- 
1900) 

Lampros, Leukoma = S.P. Lampros, Leukoma byzantinon au- 
tokratoron (Athens 1930) 

Lampros, “Mark. kod.” = S.P. Lampros, “Ho Markianos 
kodix 524,” NE 8 (1911) 3-59, 123—g2 

Lampros, Pal. kai Pel. = S.P. Lampros, Palaiologeia kai Pe- 
loponnesiaka, 4 vols. (Athens 1912—30) 

Lange, Byz. Reliefikone = R. Lange, Die byzantinische Relief- 
ikone (Recklinghausen 1964) 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS | xxxiii 


Lassus, Livre des Rois = }. Lassus, L'illustration byzantine du 
Livre des Rois (Paris 1973) 

Laurent, Bulles metr. = V. Laurent, Les bulles métriques dans 
la sigillographie byzantine (Athens 1932) 

Laurent, Coll. Orghidan = V. Laurent, La Collection C. Orgh- 
idan: Documents de sigillographie byzantine (Paris 1952) 

Laurent, Corpus = V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l'em- 
pire byzantin, 2 vols. in 5 pts. (Paris 1963-81) 

Laurent, Méd. Vat. = V. Laurent, Les sceaux byzantins du 
Médaillier Vatican (Vatican 1962) 

Laurent, “Proscomidie” = V. Laurent, “Le rituel de la 
proscomidie et le métropolite de Créte Elie,” REB 16 
(1958) 116—42 

Lausberg, Handbuch = H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literar- 
ischen Rhetorik, 2 vols. (Munich 1973) 

Lavra = Actes de Lavra, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. 
Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, 4 vols. (Paris 1970- 
82) 

Lawson, Folklore = J.C. Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and 
Ancient Greek Religion (Cambridge 1910; rp. New York 
1964) 

Lazarev, Storia = V. Lazarev, Storia della pittura bizantina 
(Turin 1967) 

LCI = Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. E. Kirsch- 
baum, W. Braunfels, 8 vols. (Rome-Freiburg-Basel- 
Vienna 1968—76) 

LCMS = Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of A.M. 
Friend (Princeton 1955) 

Lefort, “Fiscalité” = J. Lefort, “Fiscalité médiévale et in- 
formatique: Recherche sur les barémes pour l'imposition 
des paysans byzantins au XIVe siècle,” RH 252 (1974) 
315-56 

Legrand, Bibliothèque = E. Legrand, Bibliothèque grecque vul- 
gaire, 10 vols. (Paris 1880—1913) 

Lemerle, Agr. Hist. = P. Lemerle, The Agrarian History of 
Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century (Galway 
1979) 

Lemerle, Aydin = P. Lemerle, L’émirat d’Aydin: Byzance et 
l'Occident (Paris 1957) 

Lemerle, Cing études = P. Lemerle, Cing études sur le XI* 
stécle byzantin (Paris 1977) 

Lemerle, Humanism = P. Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism: The 
First Phase (Canberra 1986) 

Lemerle, Miracles = P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des 
miracles de Saint-Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans 
les Balkans, 2 vols. (Paris 1979-81) 

Lemerie, “Pauliciens’ = P. Lemerie, “L'histoire des Pauii- 
ciens d’Asie Mineure d'après les sources grecques,” TM 
5 (1973) 1-113 

Lemerle, Philippes = P. Lemerle, Philippes et la Macédoine 
orientale à l'époque chrétienne et byzantine (Paris 1945) 

Leo Diac. = Leonis Diaconi Caloénsis Historiae, ed. C.B. Hase 
(Bonn 1828) 

Leo Gramm. = Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia, ed. 1. 
Bekker (Bonn 1842) 

Lepelley, Cités = C. Lepelley, Les cités de l'Afrique romaine 
au Bas-empire, 2 vols. (Paris 1979—81) 

Letopis’ = Letopis’ istoriko-filologičeskogo obščestva pri imperator- 
skom Novorossijskom universitete: Vizantijskoe otdelenie 


XXXiV 


Leutsch-Schneidewin, Corpus = Corpus Paroemiographorum 
Graecorum, ed. E.L. Leutsch, F.G. Schneidewin, 2 vols. 
(Göttingen 1839—51; rp. Hildesheim 1958) 

Levčenko, Rus-VizOin = M.V. Levčenko, Očerki po istorii 
russko-vizantijskich otnošenij (Moscow 1956) 

Lewis-Holt, Historians = B. Lewis, P.M. Holt, Historians of 
the Middle East (London 1962) 

Lib.ann. = Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Liber annuus 

Lib.pont. = Le Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 3 vols. 
(Paris 1886-1957) 

Liebeschuetz, Antioch = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City 
and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Ox- 
ford 1972) 

Lilie, Handel und Politik = R.-J. Lilie, Handel und Politik: 
Zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen Kom- 
munen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen 
und der Angeloi (1081-1204) (Amsterdam 1984) 

Lipšic, Očerki = E. Lipšic, Ocerki istorti vizantyskogo obščestva 
i kul'tury (Moscow-Leningrad 1961) 

Litavrin, Bolgaria i Vizantija = G.G. Litavrin, Bolgaria i Vi- 
zantija v XI—XII vv. (Moscow 1960) 

Litavrin, VizObščestvo = G.G. Litavrin, Vizantijskoe obščestvo 
1 gosudarstvo v X-XI vv. (Moscow 1977) 

Liverpool Papers = Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 

Ljubarskij, Psell = Ja. Ljubarskij, Michail Psell: Ličnosť i 
tvoréestvo (Moscow 1978) 

LMA = Lexikon des Mittelalters, 4 vols. (Munich 1977—89) 

Loenertz, ByzFrGr I = R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco- 
Graeca (Rome 1970) 

Loenertz, ByzFrGr IT = R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco- 
Graeca (Rome 1978) 

Loenertz, Calécas = R.-J. Loenertz, Correspondance de Man- 
uel Calécas (Vatican 1950) 

Loenertz, “Despotat d’Epire” = R.-J. Loenertz, “Aux ori- 
gines du Despotat d’Epire et de la Principauté d’Achaie,” 
Byzantion 43 (1974) 360-94 

Longnon, Compagnons = J. Longnon, Les compagnons de Ville- 
hardouin (Geneva 1978) 

Longnon, Empire latin = J. Longnon, L'Empire Latin de Con- 
stantinople et la principauté de Morée (Paris 1949) 

Longnon-Topping, Documents = Documents sur le régime des 
terres dans la principauté de Morée au XIVe siècle, ed. J. 
Longnon, P. Topping (Paris 1969) 

Lowden, Prophet Books = J. Lowden, Illuminated Prophet Books: 
A Study of Byzantine Manuscripts of the Major and Minor 
Prophets (University Park, Pa.—London 1988) 

LThK = Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche 

MAcBelg = Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, de Lettres 
et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 

McCormick, Eternal Victory = M. McCormick, Eternal Vic- 
tory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and 
the Early Medieval West (Cambridge 1986) 

Macrides, “Justice” = R. Macrides, “Justice under Manuel 
I Komnenos: Four Novels on Court Business and Mur- 
der,” FM 6 (1984) 99—204 

Macrides, “Killing, Asylum & Law” = R.J. Macrides, “Kill- 
ing, Asylum, and the Law in Byzantium,” Speculum 63 
(1988) 509-38 

Magdalino-Nelson, “Emp. in 12th C.” = P. Magdalino, R. 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Nelson, “The Emperor in Byzantine Art of the Twelfth 
Century,” ByzF 8 (1982) 123-83 

Maguire, Art & Eloquence = H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence 
in Byzantium (Princeton 1981) 

Maguire, “Depiction of Sorrow” = H. Maguire, “The De- 
piction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine Art,” DOP 31 
(1977) 122-74 

Maguire, Earth & Ocean = H. Maguire, Earth and Ocean. 
The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art (University 
Park, Pa., 1987) 

Mai, Novae Patrum Bibl. = A. Mai, Novae patrum bibliothecae, 
10 vols. (Rome 1852—1905) 

Mai, ScriptVetNovaColl = A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova 
collectio, 10 vols. (Rome 1825-38) 

Mainstone, Hagia Sophia = R.J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: 
Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church 
(London-Budapest 1988) 

Maistor = Maistor: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies 
for Robert Browning, ed. A. Moffatt (Canberra 1984) 

Majeska, Russtan Travelers = G.P. Majeska, Russian Travel- 
ers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries 
(Washington, D.C., 1984) 

Maksimović, ByzProvAdmin = Lj. Maksimović, The Byzantine 
Provincial Administration under the Palaiologoi (Amsterdam 
1988) 

Malal. = Joannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf (Bonn 
1831) 

MAMA = Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua 

Manandian, Trade & Cities = H. Manandian, The Trade and 
Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade (Lisbon 
1965) 

Mango, Art = C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire: 
312—1453, Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 
1972) 

Mango, Brazen House = C.A. Mango, The Brazen House: A 
Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople 
(Copenhagen 1959) 

Mango, Byzantium = C. Mango, Byzantium: The Empire of 
New Rome (London 1980) 

Mango, Byz.Arch. = C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New 
York 1976) 

Mango, Byz. Image = C. Mango, Byzantium and its Image 
(London 1984) 

Mango, “La Perse Sassanide” = C. Mango, “Deux études 
sur Byzance et la Perse Sassanide,” TM g (1985) 91- 
118 

Mango, Materials = C. Mango, Materials for the Study of St. 
Sophia at Istanbul (Washington, D.C., 1962) 

Mango, Silver = M.M. Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium: 
The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures (Baltimore 1986) 

Mansi = G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima 
collectio, 53 vols. in 58 pts. (Paris-Leipzig 1901—27) 

Marrou, Education = H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in 
Antiquity (Madison, Wisc., 1982) 

Martin, Heavenly Ladder = J.R. Martin, The Illustration of 
the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus (Princeton 1954) 

Martin, Iconoclastic Controversy = E.J. Martin, A History of 
the Iconoclastic Controversy (London 1930) 

Martin, Rhetorik = J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik (Munich 1974) 


Mateos, La parole = J. Mateos, La célébration de la parole 
dans la liturgie byzantine [= OrChrAn 191] (Rome 1971) 
Mateos, Typicon = J. Mateos, Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise, 

2 vols. (Rome 1962—63) 

Mathews, Byz. Churches = T.F. Mathews, The Byzantine 
Churches of Istanbul (University Park, Pa., 1976) 

Mathews, Early Churches = T.F. Mathews, The Early Churches 
of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (University Park, 
Pa., 1971) 

MatlssArch = Materialy i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR 

Matranga, AnecGr = Anecdota graeca, ed. P. Matranga, 2 
vols. (Rome 1850) 

Matschke, Fortschritt = K.-P. Matschke, Fortschritt und Reak- 
tion in Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1971) 

Matthews, Aristocracies = J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies 
and Imperial Court A.D. 364—425 (Oxford 1975) 

Matzulewitsch, Byz. Antike = L. Matzulewitsch, Byzantinische 
Antike: Studien auf Grund der Silbergefässe der Ermitage 
(Berlin-Leipzig 1929) 

Mayer, “Psellos’ Rede” = A. Mayer, “Psellos’ Rede über 
den rhetorischen Charakter des Gregorios von Nazianz,” 
BZ 20 (1911) 27—100 

MDAI AA = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti- 
tuts, Athenische Abteilung 

MDAI K = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti- 
tuts, Abteilung Kairo 

MDAI RA = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti- 
tuts, Römische Abteilung 

Medea, Cripte = A. Medea, Gli affreschi delle cripte eremitiche 
pugliesi, 2 vols. (Rome 1939) 

MedHum = Medievalia et humanistica 

MedSt = Medieval Studies 

Meester, De monachico statu = P. Placidus de Meester, De 
monachico statu iuxta disciplinam byzantinam (Vatican 1942) 

MEFR = Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (École française 
de Rome) 

MEFRA = Mélanges de l'École française de Rome: Antiquité 

MEFRM = Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome: Moyen âge— 
Temps modernes 

Mél.Diehl = Mélanges Charles Diehl, 2 vols. (Paris 1930) 

Mél. Dujéev = Byzance et les slaves: Mélanges Ivan Dujéev (Paris 
1979) 

Mél.Mansel = Mansel’e Armagan: Mélanges Mansel, 3 vols. 
(Ankara 1974) 

MélScRel = Mélanges de science religieuse 

MélUnivjos = Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph (Beirut) 

Mém.L.Petit = Mémorial Louis Petit: Mélanges d'histoire et d'ar- 
chéologie byzantines (Bucharest 1948) 

Mentzou, Symbolai = K.P. Mentzou, Symbolai eis ten meleten 
tou oikonomikou kai koinonikou biou tes proimou byzantines 
periodou (Athens 1975) 

Mercati, CollByz = S.G. Mercati, Collectanea Byzantina, 2 
vols. (Bari 1970) 

Mercati, Notizie = G. Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio 
Cidone, Manuel Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota (Vatican 1931) 

Mesarites, “Apostles” = “Nikolaos Mesarites: Description 
of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople,” 
ed. and tr. G. Downey, TAPAS n.s. 47 (1957) 855-924 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS XXXV 


Meyendorff, Byz. Theology = J. Meyendorff, Byzantine The- 
ology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York 
1974) 

Meyendorff, Palamas = J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory 
Palamas (London 1964) 

Meyendorff, Russia = J. Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise 
of Russia (Cambridge 1981) 

Meyer, Haupturkunden = P. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden fiir 
die Geschichte der Athoskléster (Leipzig 1894) 

MGH = Monumenta Germaniae historica 

MGH AuctAnt = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Aucto- 
rum antiquissimorum, 15 vols. (Berlin 1877—1919) 

MGH Epist. = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Episto- 
larum, 8 vols. (Berlin 1887—1939) 

MGH Leges = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Legum, 5 
vols. (Hannover 1835—89) 

MGH Poet. = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Poetarum 
latinorum medii aevi, 6 vols. in 11 (Berlin-Leipzig-Weimar 
1880—1951) 

MGH SRG = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores 
rerum Germanicarum, n.s. 13 vols. (Berlin-Weimar 1g20— 
67). Earlier series: Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scrip- 
tores rerum germanicarum, 62 vols. (Hannover 1871—1965) 

MGH SRL = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores 
rerum Langobardicarum et italicarum saec. VI-IX (Hannover 
1878) 

MGH SRM = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Seripteres 
rerum merovingicarum, 7 vols. (Hannover 1885—1920) 
MGH SS = Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptorum, 

32 vols. (Hannover 1826—1934) 

Mich.Akom. = Michael Akominatou tou Choniatou ta sozo- 
mena, ed. S. Lampros, 2 vols. (Athens 1879-80; rp. 
Groningen 1968) 

Mich. Ital. = Michel Italikos: Lettres et discours, ed. P, Gautier 
(Paris 1972) 

Mihaljčić, Kraj carstva = R. Mihaljčić, Kraj Srpskog carstva 
(Belgrade 1975) 

Miljković-Pepek, Mihail i Eutihij = P. Miljković-Pepek, De- 
loto na zografite Mihail i Eutihij (Skopje 1967) 

Miller, Essays = W. Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient (Cam- 
bridge 1921) 

Miller, Trebizond = W. Miller, Trebizond: The Last Greek Em- 
pire (London-Toronto 1926; rp. Amsterdam 1968) 

Millet, Broderies = G. Millet, Broderies religieuses de style by- 
zantin, 2 vols. (Paris 1939—47) 

Millet, Recherches = G. Millet, Recherches sur l'iconographie de 
lévangile aux XIV", XV° et XVI® sièrles (Paris 1916: rp. 
1960) 

Mill. Mont-Athos = Le millénaire du Mont-Athos, 963—1963, 
2 vols. (Chevetogne 1963—64) 

Miquel, Géographie = A. Miquel, La géographie humaine du 
monde musulman jusqwau milieu du 1 zre siècle“, 2 vols. (Paris— 
The Hague 1973) 

Mitsakis, Hymnographia = K. Mitsakis, Byzantine Hymnogra- 
phia (Thessalonike 1971) 

MM = F. Miklosich, J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii 
aevi sacra et profana, 6 vols. (Vienna 1860—go) 

MMJ = Metropolitan Museum Journal (New York) 

MN = American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 


XXXVI 


MonPiot = Monuments et mémotres publiés par l’Académie des 
inscriptions et belles-lettres: Fondation Eugène Piot 

Montfaucon, Pal. Graeca = B. de Montfaucon, Palaeogra- 
phia graeca (Paris 1708) 

Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica = Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantino- 
turcica’, 2 vols. (Berlin 1958) 

Moravesik, Studia Byz. = Gy. Moravesik, Studia Byzantina 
(Amsterdam-Budapest 1967) 

Morgan, Pottery = C.H. Morgan, The Byzantine Pottery 
(Cambridge, Mass., 1942) 

Moritz, Zunamen = H. Moritz, Die Zunamen bei den byzantin- 
ischen Historikern und Chronisten (Landshut 1897-98) 

Morrisson, “Dévaluation” = C. Morrisson, “La dévaluation 
de la monnaie byzantine au XI siècle,” TM 6 (1976) 3- 
47 

Morrisson, “Logarike” = C. Morrisson, “La Logariké: Ré- 
forme monétaire et réforme fiscale sous Alexis Ier Com- 
nène,” TM 7 (1979) 419-64 

Mouriki, Nea Moni = D. Mouriki, The Mosaics of the Nea 
Moni on Chios (Athens 1985) 

Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends” = D. Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends 
in Monumental Painting of Greece during the Eleventh 
and Twelfth Centuries,” DOP 34-35 (1980—81) 77-124 

Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikon = W. Miiller-Wiener, Bildlextkon 
zur Topographie Istanbul (Tübingen 1977) 

Miinch]b = Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 

Muséon = Le Muséon 

MusHelv = Museum helveticum 

NachGétt = Nachrichten von der Akademie [Gesellschaft] der 
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 

NC = Numismatic Circular (Spink & Son, Ltd.) 

NChron = Numismatic Chronicle 

NE = Neos Hellenomnemon 

Nelson, Preface & Miniature = R.S. Nelson, The Iconography 
of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book (New 
York 1980) 

Nicol, Epiros I = D.M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros (Oxford 
1957) 

Nicol, Epiros II = D.M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, 1267— 
1479 (Cambridge 1984) 

Nicol, Kantakouzenos = D.M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family of 
Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), ca.1100—1460 (Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1968) 

Nicol, Last Centuries = D.M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of 
Byzantium, 1261-1453 (London 1972) 

Nicol, Meteora = D.M. Nicol, Meteora: The Rock Monasteries 
of Thessaly? (London 1975) 

Nik.Chon. = Nicetas Choniates, Historia, ed. J.L. van 
Dieten (Berlin-New York 1975) 

Nikeph. = Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opus- 
cula historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig 1880) 

NNM = Numismatic Notes and Monographs (American Num- 
ismatic Society) 

Néldeke, Die Ghassdnischen Fürsten = T. Néldeke, Die Ghas- 
sdnischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna’s (Berlin 1887) 

NotDign = Notitia dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck (Berlin 1876) 


Notices et extraits = Notices el extraits des manuscrits de la Bib- 
liothèque Nationale (Paris) 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Notitiae CP = Notitiae episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopoli- 
tanae, ed. J. Darrouzès (Paris 1981) 

“Novellen Herakleios” = J]. Konidaris, “Die Novellen des 
Kaisers Herakleios,” FM 5 (1982) 33-106 

Nov.Leo VI = Les novelles de Léon VI, le sage, ed. P. Noailles, 
A. Dain (Paris 1944) 

NS = Notizie degli scavi di antichita 

Obolensky, Byz. and the Slavs = D. Obolensky, Byzantium 
and the Slavs: Collected Studies (London 1971) 

Obolensky, Byz. Commonwealth = D. Obolensky, The Byz- 
antine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500—1453 (London 
1971) 

OC = Onentalia Christiana 

O'Flynn, Generalissimos = J.M. O'Flynn, Generalissimos of the 
Western Roman Empire (Edmonton 1983) 

Ohnsorge, Abend. & Byz. = W. Ohnsorge, Abendland und 
Byzanz (Darmstadt 1958) 

Oikonomides, “Chancery” = N. Oikonomides, “The Chan- 
cery of the Grand Komnenoi,” ArchPont 35 (1979) 299- 
332 

Oikonomides, “Chancellerie” = N. Oikonomides, “La 
chancellerie impériale de Byzance du 19e au 15¢ siècle,” 
REB 43 (1985) 167-95 

Oikonomides, Dated Seals = N. Otkonomides, A Collection 
of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, D.C., 1986) 

Oikonomides, Documenis = N. Oikonomides, Documents et 
études sur les institutions de Byzance (VIle—XVe s.) (London 
1976) ; 

Oikonomides, “Evolution” = N. Oikonomides, “L’évolu- 
tion de l'organisation administrative de empire byzantin 
au XIe siècle (1025~1118),” TM 6 (1976) 125-52 

Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires = N. Oikonomides, Hommes 
d'affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIHe—XVe siècles) 
(Montreal 1979) 

Oikonomides, “Ivory Pyxis” = N. Oikonomides, “John VII 
Palaeologus and the Ivory Pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks,” 
DOP 31 (1977) 329-37 

Oikonomides, Listes = N. Oikonomides, Les listes de pré- 
seance byzantines du IX" et X® siècle (Paris 1972) 

Oikonomides, “Ottoman Influence” = N. Oikonomides, 
“Ottoman Influence on Late Byzantine Fiscal Practice,” 
SüdostF 45 (1986) 1—24 

Oikonomides, Seals = N. Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals 
(Washington, D.C., 1985) 

Okeanos = Okeanos: Essays Presented to Ihor Ševčenko on His 
Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. Mango, O. Pritsak [= HUkSt 7] 
(Cambridge, Mass., 1984) 

Olster, “Politics of Usurpation” = D. Olster, “The Politics 
of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: The Reign of 
Phocas” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Chicago, 1986) 

Omont, Evangiles = H. Omont, Evangiles avec peintures byz- 
antines du XI* siècle, 2 vols. (Paris, n.d.) 

Omont, Miniatures = H. Omont, Miniatures des plus anciens 
manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale du VI° au XIV° 
siècle? (Paris 1929) 

Oppenheim, Monchskleid = P. Oppenheim, Das Monchskleid 
im christlichen Altertum (Freiburg im Breisgau 1931) 

OrChr = Oriens christianus 

OrChrAn = Onentalia christiana analecta 


OrChrP = Orientalia christiana periodica 

Orlandos, Monast.Arch. = A. Orlandos, Monasteriake archi- 
tektonike (Athens 1958) 

Orlandos, Palaiochr. basilike = A.K. Orlandos, He xylostegos 
palaiochristianike basilike tes mesogetakes lekanes, 2 vols. (Ath- 
ens 1952-57) 

Orlandos, Patmos = A.K. Orlandos, He architektonike kai hai 
byzantinai toichographiai tes Mones tou Theologou Patmou 
(Athens 1970) 

OSP = Oxford Slavonic Papers 

OstkSt = Ostkirchliche Studien 

Ostrogorsky, Bilderstr. = G. Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Ge- 
schichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Breslau 1929) 

Ostrogorsky, Byz. Geschichte = G. Ostrogorsky, Zur byzantin- 
ischen Geschichte (Darmstadt 1973) 

Ostrogorsky, Féodalité = G. Ostrogorsky, Pour Uhistoire de 
la féodalité byzantine (Brussels 1954) 

Ostrogorsky, History = G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byz- 
antine State, 3rd revised ed. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969) 

Ostrogorsky, Paysannerie = G. Ostrogorsky, Quelques prob- 
lemes d'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine (Brussels 
1956) 

Ostrogorsky, Serska oblast = G. Ostrogorsky, Serska oblast 
posle Dušanove smrti (Belgrade 1965) 

Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde = G. Ostrogorsky, Die ländliche 
Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. Jahrhundert 
(Amsterdam 1969) 

Outremer = Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading 
Kingdom of Jerusalem Presented to Joshua Prawer, ed. B.Z. 
Kedar, H.E. Mayer, R.C. Smail (Jerusalem 1982) 

Ovadiah, Corpus = A. Ovadiah, Corpus of the Byzantine 
Churches in the Holy Land (Bonn 1970) 

Pachym., ed. Bekker = Georgi Pachymeris de Michaele et 
Andronico Palaeologis libri tredecem, ed. 1. Bekker, 2 vols. 
(Bonn 1835) 

Pachym., ed. Failler = Georges Pachymérés: Relations histo- 
niques, ed. A. Failler, vol. 1— (Paris 1g84—), with Fr. tr. 
by V. Laurent 

Pallas, Monuments paléochrétiens = D. Pallas, Les monuments 
paléochrétens de Grèce découverts de 1959 à 1973 (Vatican 
1977) 

Pallas, Passion und Bestattung = D.I. Pallas, Die Passion und 
Bestattung Christi in Byzanz: Der Ritus—das Bild (Munich 
1965) 

Panagopoulos, Monasteries = B.K. Panagopoulos, Cistercian 
and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece (Chicago 
1979) 

Pantel. = Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, ed. P. Lemerle, G. Da- 
gron, S. Cirković (Paris 1982) 

Pantokr. = Actes du Pantokrator, ed. L. Petit (St. Petersburg 
1903) 

Papadakis, Crisis in Byz. = A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium: 
The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of 
Cyprus (1283-1289) (New York 1983) 

Papadopoulos, Antioch. = Ch. Papadopoulos, Historia tes 
ehhlestas Antiocheias (Alexandria 1951) 

Papadopoulos, Hierosolym. = Ch. Papadopoulos, Historia tes 
ekhlesias Hierosolymon (Jerusalem-Alexandria 1910) 

Papadopoulos, Wandmalereien = K. Papadopoulos, Die 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


XXXVii 


Wandmalereien des XI. Jahrhunderts in der Kirche Panagia 
ton Chalkeon in Thessaloniki (Vienna 1966) 

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Analekta = A. Papadopoulos- 
Kerameus, Analekta Hierosolymitikes stachyologias, 5 vols. 
(St. Petersburg 1891—98; rp. Brussels 1963) 

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Noctes Petr. = A. Papadopoulos- 
Kerameus, Noctes Petropolitanae (St. Petersburg 1913) 

Papadopulos, Genealogie = A.Th. Papadopulos, Versuch et- 
ner Genealogie der Palaiologen, 1259—1453 (Speyer 1938) 

Papas, Messgewänder = T. Papas, Studien zur Geschichte der 
Messgewänder im byzantinischen Ritus (Munich 1965) 

PAPhS = Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 

Parastaseis = Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The 
Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, ed. Av. Cameron, J. Herrin 
(Leiden 1984) 

ParPass = Parola del passato 

Pasadaios, Keramoplastihos = A. Pasadaios, Ho keramoplasti- 
kos diakosmos ton byzantinon kterion tes Konstantinoupoleos 
(Athens 1973) 

Patlagean, Pauvreté = E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et 
pauvreté sociale à Byzance: 4e—7e siècles (Paris-The Hague 
1977) 

Patlagean, Structure = E. Patlagean, Structure soctale, famille, 
chrétienté à Byzance (London 1981) 

Patmou Engrapha = Byzantina engrapha tes mones Patmou 
(Athens 1980), vol. 1, ed. E.L. Vranouse, vol. 2, ed. M. 
Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou 

Paton, Greek Anth. = Greek Anthology, tr. W.R. Paton, 5 vols. 
(London—New York 1925-26); for Greek edition, see 
AnthGr 

Pazaras, Anaglyphes sarkophagot = Th. Pazaras, Anaglyphes 
sarkophagoi kai epitaphies plakes tes meses kai hysteres Byz- 
antines periodou sten Hellada (Thessalonike 1988) 

PBR = Patristic and Byzantine Review 

Peeters, Tréfonds = P. Peeters, Orient et Byzance: Le tréfonds 
oriental de l'hagiographie byzantine (Brussels 1950) 

Peira = Peira, in Jus Graecoromanum, ed. J. & P. Zepos, vol. 
4 (Athens 1931) 1-260 

PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly 

Pertusi, Caduta = A. Pertusi, La caduta di Costantinopoli, 2 
vols. (Rome-Milan 1976) 

PG = Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed. 
J.-P. Migne, 161 vols. in 166 pts. (Paris 1857—66) 

PGEB = La paléographie grecque et byzantine (Paris 1977) 

Philes, Carmina, ed. Martini = Manuelis Philae carmina in- 
édita, ed. E. Martini (Naples 1900) 

Philes, Carmina, ed. Miller = Manuelis Philae carmina, ed. 
E. Miller, 2 vols. (Paris 1855-57; rp. Amsterdam 1967) 

Philostorg., HE = Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. 
Bidez, F. Winkelmann (Berlin 1972) 

Philotheos, Kletor. = Kletorologion of Philotheos, ed. N. 
Oikonomides, in his Les listes de préséance byzantines du IXe 
et Xe siècle (Paris 1972) 

Photios, Bibl. = Photios, Bibliothèque, ed. R. Henry, 8 vols. 
(Paris 1959-77) 

PhysMedGr = Physici et medici graeci minores, ed. J.L. Ideler, 
2 vols. (Berlin 1841—42; rp. Amsterdam 1963) 

Piltz, Kamelaukion = E. Piltz, Kamelaukion et mitra (Stock- 
holm 1977) 


xxxviii | BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Pingree, “Astrological School” = D. Pingree, “The Astro- 
logical School of John Abramius,” DOP 25 (1971) 189— 
215 

Pingree, “Chioniades & Astronomy” = D. Pingree, “Greg- 
ory Chioniades and Palaeologan Astronomy,” DOP 18 
(1964) 133-60 

Pitra, Analecta = J.B. Pitra, Analecta sacra [et classica) Spici- 
legio Solesmensi parata, 7 vols. (Paris 1876-82, 1891; rp. 
Farnsborough 1967) 

PKJIF = Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor 

PL = Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latina, ed. 
J.-P. Migne, 221 vols. in 222 pts. (Paris 1844—80) 

Place of Book Illum. = K. Weitzmann, W.C. Loerke, E. Kit- 
zinger, H. Buchthal, The Place of Book Illumination in 
Byzantine Art (Princeton 1975) 

PLP = Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, vol. 1- 
(Vienna 1976—) 

PLRE = The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 
1, ed. A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, J. Morris (Cam- 
bridge 1971), vol. 2, ed. J.R. Martindale (1980) 

PO = Patrologia Orientalis, ed. R. Graffin, F. Nau, vol. 1— 
(Paris 1904—) 

Podskalsky, Rus’ = G. Podskalsky, Christentum und theolo- 
gische Literatur in der Kiever Rus’ (988—1237) (Munich 
1982) 

Podskalsky, Theologie = G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philo- 
sophie in Byzanz (Munich 1977) 

Polemis, “Chronology” = D.I. Polemis, “Notes on Elev- 
enth-Century Chronology (1059-1081),” BZ 58 (1965) 
60—76 

Polemis, Doukai = D. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contribution to 
Byzantine Prosopography (London 1968) 

Polites, Katalogoi = L.N. Polites, Sympleromatikoi katalogoi 
cheirographon Hagiou Orous (Thessalonike 1973) 

Poljakova, Roman. = S. Poljakova, Iz istorii vizantijskogo ro- 
mana (Moscow 1979) 

Poljakova, Viz. leg. = S. Poljakova, tr., Vizantijskie legendy 
(Leningrad 1972) 

Polychronion = Polychronion: Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. 
Geburtstag, ed. P. Wirth (Heidelberg 1966) 

Popescu, InscrGrec = E. Popescu, Inscripfiile grecești și latine 
din secolele IV—XII descoperite în România (Bucharest 1976) 

Poppe, Christian Russia = A. Poppe, The Rise of Christian 
Russia (London 1982) 

Poppe, “Organisation diocésaine” = A. Poppe, “L'organi- 
sation diocésaine de la Russie aux Xle—XIle siècles,” 
Byzantion 40 (1970) 165-217; rp. in Poppe, Christian 
Russia, pt. VIII 

PPSb = Pravoslavnij Palestinskiy Sbornik (1881—1916) (See 
also PSb) 

PPTS = Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 

Praecepta Milit. = Praecepta Militaria, ed. Ju.A. Kulakovskij, 
“Strategika imperatora Nikifora,” ZAPANIst-fil 8.9 (St. 
Petersburg 1908) 1—58 

PraktArchEt = Praktika tes en Athenats Archaiologikes Hetair- 
eias 

Prawer, Royaume latin = J. Prawer, Histoire du Royaume latin 
de Jérusalem, 2 vols. (Paris 1969—70) 

Preger, Scriptores = T. Preger, ed., Scriptores originum Con- 
stantinopolitanarum (Leipzig 1901—07; rp. New York 1975) 


Preisigke, Wörterbuch = F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der grie- 
chischen Papyrusurkunden, 4 vols. (Berlin 1925-31), suppl., 
ed. E. Kiessling (Amsterdam 1971) 

Prestige, God = G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Though? 
(London 1952) 

Princeton Exped. to Syria = Publications of the Princeton Uni- 
versity Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904—1905 and 
1909, 7 vols. (Leiden 1907—49) 

Pringle, Defence = D. Pringle, The Defence of Byzantine Africa 
from Justinian to the Arab Conquest (Oxford 1981) 

Prinzing, “Brief Heinrichs” = G. Prinzing, “Der Brief Kai- 
ser Heinrichs von Konstantinopel vom 13. Januar 1212,” 
Byzantion 43 (1973) 395-431 

Prismata = Prismata: Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien 
(Wiesbaden 1977) 

PrOC = Proche-Orient Chrétien 

ProcBrAc = Proceedings of the British Academy 

Prokopios, Buildings = Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, ed. 
J. Haury, G. Wirth, vol. 4 (De aedificiis) (Leipzig 1964) 

Prokopios, SH = Procopit Caesariensis opera omnia, ed. J. 
Haury, G. Wirth, vol. 3 (Historia arcana) (Leipzig 1963) 

Prokopios, Wars = Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, ed. J. 
Haury, G. Wirth, vols. 1-2 (Leipzig 1962—63) (De Bello 
Persico I-IV [= Wars I—II], De Bello Vandalico I—II [= 
Wars III—IV], De Bello Gothico I-IV [= Wars V-VHI)) 

Prot. = Actes de Prétaton, ed. D. Papachryssanthou (Paris 
1975) 

Pryor, “Oaths” = J.H. Pryor, “The Oaths of the Leaders 
of the First Crusade to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus: 
Fealty, Homage—riovrts, Sovdeia,” Parergon: Bulletin of 
the Australian and New Zealand Association for Medieval and 
Renaissance Studies n.s. 2 (1984) 111-41 

PSb = Palestinskij Sbornik (1954-; continues PPS) 

Psellos, Chron. = Michel Psellos: Chronographie, ed. E. Re- 
nauld, 2 vols. (Paris 1926-28) 

Psellos, Scripta min. = Michaelis Pselli: Scripta minora, ed. E. 
Kurtz, F. Drexl, 2 vols. (Milan 1936-41) 

pseudo-Kod. = pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des offices, ed. J. 
Verpeaux (Paris 1966) 

PSRL = Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej 

QFItArch = Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Ar- 
chiven und Bibliotheken 

Quasten, Patrology = J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (West- 
minster, Md., 1950—60) 

Queller, Fourth Crusade = D.E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade: 
The Conquest of Constantinople, 1201—1204 (Philadelphia 
1977) 

RA = Revue archéologique 

Rabe, Prolegomenon = Prolegomenon sylloge, ed. H. Rabe 
(Leipzig 1831) 

RAC = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 
1950-) 

RACr = Rivista di archeologia cristiana 

Radojčić, Slikarstvo = S. Radojčić, Staro srpsko slikarstvo (Bel- 
grade 1966) 

Rahlfs, Verzeichnis = A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen 
Handschriften des alten Testaments (Berlin 1914) 

Ramsay, Asia Minor = W.M. Ramsay, The Social Basis of 
Roman Power in Asia Minor (Aberdeen 1941) 


Ramsay, Cities = W.M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of 
Phrygia, 2 vols. (Oxford 1895-97) 

Raybaud, Gouvernement = L.P. Raybaud, Le gouvernement et 
l'administration centrale de l'empire byzantin sous les premiers 
Paléologues (Paris 1968) 

Rayonnement grec = Rayonnement grec: Hommages à Charles 
Delvoye, ed. L. Hadermann-Misguich, G. Raepsaet (Brus- 
sels 1982) 

RB = Reallemkon der Byzantinistek, 6 fascs. (Amsterdam 1968—- 
76) 

RBK = Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 

RBMAS = Rerum britannicarum Medii Aevi scriptores (Great 
Britain) 

RBPH = Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 

RE = Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen- 
schaft 

REA = Revue des études anciennes 

REArm = Revue des études arméniennes 

REAug = Revue des études augustiniennes 

REB = Revue des études byzantines 

Rec.Dujéev (1980) = Biilgarsko srednovekovie, ed. V. Giu- 
zelev, I. Božilov, et al. (Sofia 1980) 

RechScRel = Recherches de science religieuse 

Reg = F. Dölger, P. Wirth, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des 
oströmischen Reiches, vol. 1— (Munich-Berlin 1924—) 

Regel, Fontes = W. Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, 2 vols. 
(St. Petersburg 1892—1917; rp. Leipzig 1982) 

RegPatr = Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, 
ed. V. Grumel, V. Laurent, J. Darrouzès, 2 vols. in 8 
pts. (Paris 1932—79) 

REGr = Revue des études grecques 

REI = Revue des études islamiques 

Reinert, Myth = S. Reinert, Greek Myth in Johannes Malalas’ 
Account of Ancient History Before the Trojan War (Los An- 
geles 1981) 

RendPontAcc = Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Ar- 
cheologia, Rendiconti 

RepFontHist = Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi, vol. 
1- (1962-) 

RepKunstw = Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 

RES = Revue des études slaves 

RESEE = Revue des études sud-est européennes 

Restle, Wall Painting = M. Restle, Byzantine Wall Painting 
in Asia Minor, 3 vols. (Greenwich, Conn., 1968) 

RevBibl = Revue biblique 

Revlst = Revista de istorie 

RH = Revue historique 

Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma = G.A. Rhalles, M. Potles, Syn- 
tagma ton theion kai hieron kanonon, 6 vols. (Athens 1852— 
59; rp. 1966) 

RHC = Recueil des historiens des Croisades 

RHC Arm. = Documents arméniens, 2 vols. (Paris 1869—1906) 

RHC Grecs = Historiens grecs, 2 vols. (Paris 1875—81) 

RHC Lois = Lois, 2 vols. (Paris 1841—43) 

RHC Occid. = Historiens occidentaux, 5 vols. in 8 pts. (Paris 
1844-95) 

RHC Orient. = Historiens orientaux, 5, vols. in 6 pts. (Paris 
1872—1906) 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS XXXİX 


RHE = Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 

RhetGr, ed. Spengel = Rhetores graeci, ed. L. Spengel, 3 
vols. (Leipzig 1894—96) 

RhetGr, ed. Walz = Rhetores graeci, ed. C. Walz, g vols. in 
10 pts. (Stuttgart-Tübingen 1832—36) 

RHGF = Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 24 
vols. in 25 pts. (Paris 1738-1904) 

RhM = Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 

RHR = Revue de l'histoire des religions 

RHSEE = Revue historique du sud-est européen 

RHT = Revue d'histoire des textes 

Riant, Exuviae = P. Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopoli- 
tanae, 3 vols. (Geneva 1877—1904) 

RIASA = Rivista dell'Istituto nazionale di archeologia e storia 
dell'arte 

Rice, Art of Byz. = D. Talbot Rice, The Art of Byzantium 
(London 1959) 

Richard, Opera minora = M. Richard, Opera minora, 3 vols. 
(Turnhout 1976-77) 

Richards, Popes = J. Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in 
the Early Middle Ages. 476-752 (London-Boston-Henley 
1979) 

RicSlav = Ricerche slavistiche 

RIS = Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed. L.A. Muratori, 25 
vols. in 28 pts. (Milan 1723—51) 

RIS? = Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (Citta di Castello- 
Bologna 1g00-) 

Ritzer, Mariage = K. Ritzer, Le mariage dans les Eglises chré- 
tiennes du Ter au XIe siècle (Paris 1970) 

RivStChht = Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 

RJ] = Rechtshistorisches Journal 

RM = Russia Medwaevalis 

RN = Revue numismatique 

ROC = Revue de l'Orient chrétien 

Rodley, Cave Mons. = L. Rodley, Cave Monasteries of Byz- 
antine Cappadocia (Cambridge 1985) 

ROL = Revue de l'Orient latin 

RémHistMut = Römische Historische Mitteilungen 

Roots of Egypt. Christ. = The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. 
B. Pearson, J. Goehring (Philadelphia 1986) 

Rothstein, Dynastie der Lahmiden = G. Rothstein, Die Dynas- 
tie der Lahmiden in al-Hira (Berlin 1899) 

RPhil = Revue de philologie, de littérature et d'histoire anciennes 

RQ = Rémische Quartalschrift fiir christliche Altertumskunde und 
[fiir] Kirchengeschichte 

RSBN = Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 

RSBS = Rivista di studt bizantini e slavi 

RSR = Revue des sciences religieuses 

Rudakov, Kultury = A.P. Rudakov, Oderki vizantiyskoj kul’- 
tury po dannym greceskoj agiografii (Moscow 1917; rp. Lon- 
don 1970) 

Runciman, Romanus = S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus 
Lecapenus and His Reign: A Study of roth-Century Byzantium 
(Cambridge 1929; rp. 1988) 

Rydén, “Samonas” = L. Rydén, “The Portrait of the Arab 
Samonas in Byzantine Literature,” Graeco-Arabica 3 (1984) 
101—08 


xl BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Sacopoulo, Astnou = M. Sacopoulo, Asinou en 1106 et sa 
contribution à l'iconographie (Brussels 1966) 

Sansterre, Moines grecs = J.-M. Sansterre, Les moines grecs et 
orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne (mi- 
lieu du VI° s.—fin du IX" s.), 2 vols. (Brussels 1980) 

Sathas, MB = K.N. Sathas, Mesatonike Bibliotheke, 7 vols. 
(Athens-Venice-Paris 1872—94; rp. Hildesheim 1972) 

Sava Nemanjić = Medjunarodni naučni skup. Sava Nemanjié— 
i istorija i predanje, Sveti Sava, ed. V. Djuri¢ (Belgrade 
1979) 

Sawvides, Byz. in the Near East = A.G.C. Sawvides, Byzantium 
in the Near East: Its Relations with the Seljuk Sultanate of 
Rum in Asia Minor, the Armenians of Cilicia and the Mongols 
A.D. C. 1192—1237 (Thessalonike 1981) 

SBAW = Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- 
schaften. Philosophisch{-philologische] und historische Klasse 

SBN = Studi bizantini e neoellenici 

SBNG = Studi bizantini e neogreci (Galatina 1983) 

Sbornik . . . V.N. Lazareva = Vizantija, Juinye slavjane i 
Drevnjaja Rus’, Zapadnaja Evropa: iskusstvo i kul’tura: Sbor- 
nik statej v čest’ V.N. Lazareva (Moscow 1973) 

SbWien = Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 

SC = Sources chrétiennes 

Ščepkina, Miniatjury = M.V. Ščepkina, Miniatjury Chludov- 
skoj psaltyri: Grečeskij illjustrirovanny; kodeks IX veka (Mos- 
cow 1977) 

Schartau, Observations = B. Schartau, Observations on the 
Activities of the Byzantine Grammarians of the Palaeologian 
Era, 2 vols. (Odense 1970-73) 

Scheltema, L'enseignement = H.J. Scheltema, L'enseignement 
de droit des antécesseurs (Leiden 1970) 

Scheltema, “Kommentarverbot” = H.J. Scheltema, “Das 
Kommentarverbot Justinians,” Tijdschrift 44 (1976) 307— 
31 

SChH = Studies in Church History 

Schilbach, Met. Quellen = E. Schilbach, Byzantinische metro- 
logische Quellen” (Thessalonike 1982) 

Schilbach, Metrologie = E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrolo- 
gie (Munich 1970) 

Schlumberger, Phocas = G. Schlumberger, Un empereur by- 
zantin au dixième siècle: Nicéphore Phocas (Paris 1890) 

Schlumberger, Sig. = G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de 
l'empire byzantin (Paris 1884) 

Schminck, Rechtsbücher. = A. Schminck, Studien zu mittelby- 
zantinischen Rechtsbüchern (Frankfurt am Main 1986) 

SCIV = Studii şi Cercetări de istorie veche 

SCN = Studii si Cercetări de numismatică 

Scranton, Architecture = R.L. Scranton, Mediaeval Architec- 
ture in the Central Area of Corinth (Princeton 1957) 

Script.incert. = [Scriptor incertus] Historia de Leone Bardae 
armenii filio in Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia, ed. I. 
Bekker (Bonn 1842) 335-62 

SEC = Studies in Eastern Chant 

Seeliger, “Drei Jiinglinge” = H.R. Seeliger, “Palai martyres: 
Die drei Jiinglinge im Feuerofen als Typos in der spat- 
antiken Kunst, Liturgie und patristischen Literatur,” in 
Liturgie und Dichtung, ed. H. Becker, R. Kaczynski, vol. 
2 (St. Ottilien 1983) 257-334 


Seemann, Wallfahrtslit. = K.-D. Seemann, Die altrussische 
Wallfahrtsliteratur (Munich 1976) 

Seibt, Bleisiegel = W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in 
Osterreich, vol. 1— (Vienna 1978-) 

SemKond = Seminarium Kondukovianum 

Serb. und Mak. = R. Hamann-MacLean, H. Hallensleben, 
Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien von 11. 
bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert, 4 vols. (Giessen 1963—76) 

Setton, Catalan Domination = K.M. Setton, Catalan Domi- 
nation of Athens, 1311—1388 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948; 
revised ed. London 1975) 

SettStu = Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’- 
alto medioevo 

Ševčenko, “Hagiography” = I. Ševčenko, “Hagiography of 
the Iconoclast Period,” in Iconoclasm, pp. 113-31; rp. in 
Ševčenko, Ideology, pt.V 

Sevéenko, Ideology = 1. Ševčenko, Ideology, Letters and Cul- 
ture in the Byzantine World (London 1982) 

Sevéenko, Metaphrastian Menologion = N.P. Ševčenko, Illus- 
trated Manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Menologion (Chicago 
1990) 

Ševčenko, Nicholas = N.P. Ševčenko, The Life of St. Nicholas 
in Byzantine Art (Turin 1983) 

Ševčenko, Soc. & Intell. = 1. Ševčenko, Society and Intellec- 
tual Life in Late Byzantium (London 1981) 

Sezgin, GAS = F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrift- 
tums, g vols. (Leiden 1967—84) 

Shahid, Byz. & Arabs (4th C.) = 1. Shahid, Byzantium and the 
Arabs in the Fourth Century (Washington, D.C., 1984) 

Shahid, Byz. & Arabs (5th C.) = I. Shahid, Byzantium and the 
Arabs in the Fifth Century (Washington, D.C., 1989) 

Sharf, Jewry = A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the 
First Crusade (London 1961) 

Shboul, Al-Mas‘udi = A.M.H. Shboul, Al-Mas‘iud? and His 
World (London 1979) 

Shelton, Esquiline = K.J. Shelton, The Esquiline Treasure 
(London 1981) 

Shepard, “Russians Attack” = J. Shepard, “Why did the 
Russians Attack Byzantium in 1043?” BNJbb 22 (1985) 
147-212 

SicGymn = Siculorum gymnasium 

SIG = Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, 
4 vols. (Leipzig 1915-24) 

Silbergefiisse = Spdtantike und friihbyzantinische Silbergefisse aus 
der Staatlichen Ermitage Leningrad, ed. A. Effenberger 
(Berlin 1978) 

Simon, “Ehegiiterrecht” = D. Simon, “Das Ehegtiterrecht 
der Peira: Ein systematischer Versuch,” FM 7 (1986) 
193—238 

Simon, “Provinzialrecht” = D. Simon, “Provinziairecht und 
Volksrecht,” FM 1 (1976) 102-16 

Simon, Rechtsfindung = D. Simon, Rechtsfindung am byzan- 
tenischen Reichsgericht (Frankfurt am Main 1973) 

Sinogowitz, Strafrecht = B. Sinogowitz, Studien zum Straf- 
recht der Ekloge (Athens 1956) 

Skabalanovié, Gosudarstvo = N. Skabalanovit, Vizantijskoe 
gosudarstvo i cerkov’ v XI veke (St. Petersburg 1884) 

Skawran, Development = K.M. Skawran, The Development of 
Middle Byzantine Fresco Painting in Greece (Pretoria 1982) 


Skoulatos, Personnages = B. Skoulatos, Les personnages by- 
zantins de l’Alexiade (Louvain 1980) 

Skyl. = loannes Scylitzes: Synopsis historiarum, ed. 1. Thurn 
(Berlin—New York 1973) 

SkylCont = E.Th. Tsolakes, He synecheia tes Chronographias 
tou Ioannou Skylitse (Thessalonike 1968) 

SIEERev = The Slavonic and East European Review 

Smetanin, Viz.obiéestvo = V.A. Smetanin, Vizantijskoe ob- 
ščestvo XII-XIV vekov po dannym epistolografti (Sverdlovsk 
1987) 

Sodini et al., Aliki I = Aliki, I, 2 pts. in 1: J. Servais, Les 
deux sanctuaires; J.-P. Sodini, A. Lambraki, T. Koželj, Les 
carrières de marbre à l'époque paléochrétienne (Athens-Paris 
1980) 

Sodini, “L’artisanat urbain” = J.-P. Sodini, “L'artisanat ur- 
bain à I’époque paléochrétienne (IV°—VII* s.),” Ktéma 4 
(1979) 71-119 

Sodini-Kolokotsas, Aliki I] = J.-P. Sodini, K. Kolokotsas, 
Aliki, II: La basilique double (Paris 1984) 

Sokr., HE = Socrates; Ecclesiastical History’, ed. R. Hussey, 
revised W. Bright (Oxford 1893) 

Solovjev-Modin, Grčke povelje = Grčke povelje srpskih vladara, 
ed. A. Solovjev, V.A. Mošin (Belgrade 1936; rp. London 
1974) 

Soteriou, Eikones = G. & M. Soteriou, Etkones tes Mones 
Sinai, 2 vols. (Athens 1956-58) 

Soteriou, “Leitourgika amphia” = G.A. Soteriou, “Ta lei- 
tourgika amphia tes Orthodoxou Hellenikes ekklesias,” 
Theologia 20 (1949) 603-14 

Soteriou, Mnemeia tes Kyprou = G. Soteriou, Ta byzantina 
mnemeia tes Kyprou, 2 vols. (Athens 1935) 

Soulis, Dusan = G.C. Soulis, The Serbs and Byzantium During 
the Reign of Tsar Stephen Dusan (1331-1355) and His 
Successors (Washington, D.C., 1984) 

SovArch = Sovetskaja archeologija 

Sozom., HE = Sozomenos, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez, 
J-C. Hansen (Berlin 1960) 

Spatharakis, Corpus = I. Spatharakis, Corpus of Dated Illu- 
minated Greek Manuscripts to the Year 1453, 2 vols. (Leiden 
1981) 

Spatharakis, Portrait = I. Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byz- 
antine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden 1976) 

Speck, Univ. von KP = P. Speck, Die kaiserliche Universitat 
von Konstantinopel (Munich 1974) 

Sphr. = Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii, ed. V. Grecu (Bucha- 
rest 1966) 

SpicSol = Spicilegium Solesmense, 4 vols. (Paris 1852—58) 

Spieser, Thessalonique = J.-M. Spieser, Thessalonique et ses 
monuments du IVe au Vle siècle (Paris 1984) 

Splendeur de Byz. = Splendeur de Byzance, ed. J. Lafontaine- 
Dosogne (Brussels 1982) 

SpomSAN = Spomenik Srpske Akademije Nauke: Otdeljenje dru- 
Stuenth nauka 

ST = Studi e testi 

Starr, Jews = J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire, 641- 
1204 (Athens 1939) 

StB = Studi bizantini 

StBalc = Studia balcanica 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS xli 


Stein, Histoire = E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2 vols. 
(Paris 1949-59) 

Stein, Op. minora = E. Stein, Opera minora selecta (Amster- 
dam 1968) 

Stein, Studien = E. Stein, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantin- 
ischen Reiches vornehmlich unter den Kaisern Justinus I] und 
Tiberius (Stuttgart 1919) 

Stein, “Untersuchungen” = E. Stein, “Untersuchungen zur 
spatbyzantinischen Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsge- 
schichte,” Mitteilungen zur osmanischen Geschichte 2.1—2 
(1924) 1-62 

StGreg = Studi gregoriani 

StGThK = Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 

Stichel, Die Namen Noes = R. Stichel, Die Namen Noes, seines 
Bruders und seiner Frau (Göttingen 1979) 

StltalFCl = Studi italiani de filologia classica 

StMed = Studi Medievali 

StMilRoms = Studien zu den Militdrgrenzen Roms 

Stockle, Ziinfte = A. Stockle, Spatrémische und byzantinische 
Ziinfte (Leipzig 1911) 

Stornajolo, Omilie = C. Stornajolo, Miniature delle omilte di 
Giacomo Monaco (Cod. vatic. gr. 1162) e dell’ evangeliario 
greco urbinate (Cod. vatic. urbin. gr. 2) (Rome 1910) 

StP = Studia Patristica (Papers of the International Confer- 
ences on Patristic Studies) 

Strat.Maurik. = Das Strategikon des Maurikios, ed. G.T. Den- 
nis, E. Gamillscheg (Vienna 1981) 

Stratos, Byzantium = A.N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh 
Century, 5 vols. (Amsterdam 1968-80) 

Stratos, Studies = A. Stratos, Studies in 7th-Century Byzantine 
Political History (London 1983) 

Strube, West. Eingangsseite = C. Strube, Die westliche Ein- 
gangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in iustinianischer 
Zeit (Wiesbaden 1973) 

Strunk, Essays = O. Strunk, Essays on Music in the Byzantine 
World (New York 1977) 

StS! = Studia Slavica (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 

Studien Deichmann = Studien zur spdtantiken und byzantin- 
ischen Kunst: Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet, ed. O. 
Feld, U. Peschlow, 3 vols. (Bonn 1986) 

StVen = Studi Veneziani 

SubGr = Subseciva Groningana 

SiidostF = Siidost-Forschungen 

Sumner, “Philippicus, Anastasius II & Theodosius 
III” = G.V. Sumner, “Philippicus, Anastasius II and 
Theodosius III,” GRBS 17 (1976) 287-94 

Svoronos, “Actes des fonctionnaires” = N. Svoronos, “Re- 
marques sur les actes des fonctionnaires,” in PGEB 423- 
27 

Svoronos, Cadastre = N.G. Svoronos, Recherches sur le ca- 
dastre byzantin et la fiscalité aux XI® et XII" siècles: Le cadastre 
de Thèbes (Paris 1959) 

Svoronos, Etudes = N. Svoronos, Etudes sur l'organisation 
intérieure, la société et l'économie de l’Empire Byzantin (Lon- 
don 1973) 

SVThQ = St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 

Symp. Gračanica = L'art byzantin au début du XIV" siècle. Sym- 
posium de Gračanica 1973. Vizantijska umetnost početkom XIV 
veka: Naučni skup u Gračanici 1973 (Belgrade 1978) 


xlii | BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Symp. Sopoćani = L'art byzantin du XIII siècle. Symposium de 
Sopoćani, 1965 (Belgrade 1967) 

Synax.CP = Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propy- 
laeum ad Acta sanctorum Novembris, ed. H. Delehaye (Brus- 
sels 1902) 

Synthronon = Synthronon: Art et archéologie de la fin de l'Antiquité 
et du Moyen Age (Paris 1968) 

Syropoulos, Mémoires = Les mémoires du grand ecclésiarque de 
Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence 
(1438-1439), ed. V. Laurent (Rome 1971) 

Szévérffy, Hymnography = J. Sz6vérffy, A Guide to Byzantine 
Hymnography, 2 vols. (Brookline, Mass.-Leyden 1978-79) 

Tafel-Thomas, Urkunden = G.L.F. Tafel, G.M. Thomas, 
Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Re- 
publik Venedig, 3 vols. (Vienna 1856-57) 

Tafrali, Thessalonique = O. Tafrali, Thessalonique au quator- 
zième siècle (Paris 1913) 

Taft, “Bibl. of Hours” = R.F. Taft, “Select Bibliography 
on the Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours,” appendix to 
“The Byzantine Office in the Prayerbook of New Skete,” 
OrChrP 48 (1982) 358-370 

Taft, East & West = R.F. Taft, Beyond East and West: Prob- 
lems in Liturgical Understanding (Washington, D.C., 1984) 

Taft, Great Entrance = R.F. Taft, The Great Entrance: A 
History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-anaphoral Rites 
of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom [= OrChrAn 200] 
(Rome 1975) 

Taft, “Liturgy of Great Church” = R.F. Taft, “The Liturgy 
of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure 
and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm,” DOP 34- 
35 (1980-81) 45-75 

Taft, Liturgy of the Hours = R.F. Taft, The Liturgy of the 
Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and 
its Meaning for Today (Collegeville 1986) 

Taft, “Mount Athos” = R.F. Taft, “Mount Athos: A Late 
Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite,” DOP 42 
(1988) 179-94 

Taft, “Pontifical Liturgy” = R.F. Taft, “The Pontifical Lit- 
urgy of the Great Church according to a Twelfth- 
Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060,” 
OrChrP 45 (1979) 279-307; 46 (1980) 89—124 

Talley, Liturgical Year = T.J. Talley, The Origins of the Li- 
turgical Year (New York 1986) 

TAPA = Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philo- 
logical Association 

TAPhS = Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 

Tarchnisvili, Georg.Lit. = M. Tarchni8vili, Geschichte der 
kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Vatican 1955) 

Tardo, Melurgia = L. Tardo, L'antica melurgia bizantina 
(Grottaferrata 1938) 

Taubenschlag, Law of GRE = R. Taubenschlag, The Law of 
Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (332 B.C.—640 
A.D.)? (Warsaw 1955) 

Tchalenko, Villages = G. Tchalenko, Villages antiques de la 
Syrie du Nord: Le massif du Bélus à l’époque romaine, 3 vols. 
(Paris 1953-58) 

Tekeyan, Controverses = P. Tekeyan, Controverses christolo- 
giques en Arméno-Cilicie dans la seconde moitié du XII® siècle 
(1165—1198) (Rome 1939) 


Temps chrétien = Le temps chrétien de la fin de l'Antiquité au 
Moyen Age (Paris 1984) 

ThEE = Threskeutike kai Ethike Enkyklopaideia 

TheolSt = Theological Studies 

Theoph. = Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 
vols. (Leipzig 1883-85; rp. Hildesheim 1963) : 

TheophCont = Theophanes Continuatus, ed. 1. Bekker (Bonn 
1838) 

Theoph.Simok. = Theophylaktos Simokattes, Oikumenike 
historia, ed. C. de Boor, revised P. Wirth (Stuttgart 1972) 

Thierry, Nouvelles églises = N. and M. Thierry, Nouvelles 
églises rupestres de Cappadoce: Région de Hasan Dağı (Paris 
1963) 

Thompson, Goths = E.A. Thompson, The Goths in Spain 
(Oxford 1969) 

Thompson, Romans & Barbarians = E.A. Thompson, Ro- 
mans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire 
(Madison, Wisc., 1982) 

Thomson, “Early Russian Authors” = F. Thomson, “Quo- 
tations of Patristic and Byzantine Works by Early Russian 
Authors as an Indication of the Cultural Level of Kievan 
Russia,” Slavica Gandensia 10 (1983) 64—109 

ThQ = Theologische Quartalschrift 

TIB = Tabula Imperii byzantini, ed. H. Hunger (Vienna 
1976—) 

Tijdschrift = Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 

Tikhomirov, Ancient Rus = M.N. Tikhomirov, The Towns 
of Ancient Rus (Moscow 1959) 

Timm, Agypten = S. Timm, Das christlich-koptische Agypten 
in arabischer Zeit, vol. 1— (Wiesbaden 1984-) 

TM = Travaux et mémoires 

TODRL = Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury Instituta rus- 
skoj literatury Akademii nauk SSSR 

Toumanoff, “Caucasia” = C. Toumanoff, “Caucasia and 
Byzantium,” Traditio 27 (1971) 111—158 

Toumanoff, Caucasian Hist. = C. Toumanoff, Studies in 
Christian Caucasian History (Washington, D.C., 1963) 

Treadgold, Byz. Revival = W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Re- 
vival, 780—842 (Stanford 1988) 

Treadgold, Byz. State Finances = W. Treadgold, The Byz- 
antine State Finances in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries (New 
York 1982) 

Treasures = S.M. Pelekanides, P.C. Christou, Ch. Tsioumis, 
S.N. Kadas, The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated 
Manuscripts, 3 vols. (Athens 1973—79) 

Treasury S. Marco = The Treasury of San Marco, Venice, ed. 
D. Buckton (Milan 1984) 

Treitinger, Kaiseridee = O. Treitinger, Die oströmische Kai- 
ser- und Reichsidee* (Jena 1938; rp. Darmstadt 1956) 

Trinchera, Syllabus = F. Trinchera, Syllabus graecarum mem- 
branarum (Naples 1865) 

Troianos, Ekklesiastike Dikonomia = S.N. Troianos, He ekkle- 
siastike dikonomia mechri tou thanatou tou Ioustinianou (Ath- 
ens 1964) 

Troianos, Peges = S.N. Troianos, Hoi peges tou byzantinou 
dikatou (Athens 1986) 

Troianos, Potnalios = S.N. Troianos, Ho “Potnalios” tou Ek- 
logadiou (Frankfurt am Main 1980) 


Trombley, “Paganism” = F.R. Trombley, “Paganism in the 
Greek World at the End of Antiquity,” HTAR 78 (1985) 
327-52 

Trombley, “Trullo” = F.R. Trombley, “The Council in 
Trullo (691-692): A Study of the Canons Relating to 
Paganism, Heresy, and the Invasions,” Comitatus 9 (1978) 
1-18 

TU = Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist- 
lichen Literatur 

Turyn, CodVat = A. Turyn, Codices graeci Vaticani saeculis 
XIII et XIV scripti (Vatican 1964) 

Tusculum-Lexikon = Tusculum-Lexikon®, ed. W. Buchwald, A. 
Hohlweg, O. Prinz (Munich 1982) 

UčZaplnsiSlav = Učenye zapiski Instituta slavjanoveden’ja, 
Akademii nauk SSSR 

al-Umari = M. Quatremére, “Notice de l'ouvrage qui a 
pour titre: ‘Mesalek alabsar fi memalek alamsar,’” Notices 
et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Royale 13 (1838) 
151-384 

Underwood, Kariye Djami = P.A. Underwood, The Kariye 
Djami, 4 vols. (New York—Princeton 1966—75) 

Uspenskij, Seral’sky kodeks = F. Uspenskij, Konstantinopol- 
skij Seral’skij kodeks Vos’miknizija [= IRAIK 12] (Sofia 1907) 

Uthemann, Vae Dux = K.-H. Uthemann, Anastasii Sinaitae: 
Viae Dux (Turnhout-Leuven 1981) 

van de Paverd, Messliturgie = F. van de Paverd, Zur Ge- 
schichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel 
gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts: Analyse der Quellen bei 
Johannes Chrysostomos (Rome 1970) 

Van der Vin, Travellers = J.P.A. Van der Vin, Travellers to 
Greece and Constantinople, 2 vols. (Leiden 1980) 

van der Wal-Lokin, Historiae = M. van der Wal, J.H.A. 
Lokin, Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio (Groningen 
1985) 

Vannier, Argyroi = J.-F. Vannier, Familles byzantines: Les 
Argyrot (IX°-XII* siècles) (Paris 1975) 

Vasil’evskij, Trudy = V.G. Vasil’evskij, Trudy, 4 vols. (St. 
Petersburg 1908—30; rp. The Hague 1968) 

Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes = A.A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, 
vol. 1 (Brussels 1935), vol. 2.1 (1968), vol. 2.2 (1950), 
vol. 3 (see Honigmann, Ostgrenze) 

Vasiliev, History = A.A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine 
Empire (2nd Eng. ed., revised, Madison, Wisc., 1952) 
Vasiliev, Russtan Altack = A.A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack 

on Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946) 

Vasmer, Slaven = M. Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland 
(Berlin 1941; rp. Leipzig 1970) 

Vazelon = F.J. Uspenskij, V.V. Benegevic, Vazelonskie akty 
(Leningrad 1927) 

VDI = Vestnik Drevnej Istori 

VetChr = Vetera Christianorum 

Veyne, Private Life = P. Veyne, ed., A History of Private Life, 
1: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Cambridge, Mass.— 
London 1987) 

V{SWG = Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschafisge- 
schichte 

VigChr = Vigiliae Christianae 

Vikan, “Art, Medicine, & Magic” = G. Vikan, “Art, Medi- 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS xliii 


cine, and Magic in Early Byzantium,” DOP 38 (1984) 
65—86 

Vikan, Pilgrimage Art = G. Vikan, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art 
(Washington, D.C., 1982) 

Vikan-Nesbitt, Security = G. Vikan, J. Nesbitt, Security in 
Byzantium (Washington, D.C., 1980) 

Villehardouin = G. de Villehardouin, La conguéte de Con- 
stantinople, ed. E. Faral, 2 vols. (Paris 1938—39) 

Vitae Athanasii = Vitae duae antiquae sancti Athanasii Athoni- 
tae, ed. J. Noret (Turnhout 1982) 

Vita Euthym. = Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP, ed. P. Karlin- 
Hayter (Brussels 1970) 

Vizlzvori = Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, vol. 
1— (Belgrade 1955-) 

VizObozr = Vizantijskoe obozrenie 

VizOé = Vizantijskie očerki, 4 vols. (Moscow 1961—82) 

VizSb = Vizantijskij sbornik (Moscow-Leningrad 1945) 

VizVrem = Vizantiyskiy vremennik 

Vlasto, Entry = A.P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs into Chris- 
tendom (Cambridge 1970) 

Vogt, Basile ler = A. Vogt, Basile Ier, empereur de Byzance 
(867-886) (Paris 1908) 

Vogt, “Léon VI” = A. Vogt, “La jeunesse de Léon VI le 
Sage,” RH 174 (1935) 389-428 

Volbach, Early Christian Art = W.F. Volbach, Early Christian 
Art (New York 1961) 

Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten = W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten 
der Spatantike und des frühen Mittelalters? (Mainz 1976) 
ValkSiidost = Die Völker Siidosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, 

ed. B. Hansel (Munich 1987) 

Vryonis, Byzantium = S. Vryonis, Jr., Byzantium: Its Internal 
History and Relations with the Muslim World (London 1971) 

Vryonis, Decline = S. Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval 
Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from 
the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley 1971; 
rp. 1986) 

Vryonis, Past = The “Past” in Medieval and Modern Greek 
Culture, ed. S. Vryonis (Malibu, Calif., 1978) 

Wagner, Carmina = Carmina graeca medi aevi, ed. W. Wag- 
ner (Leipzig 1874; rp. Athens n.d.) 

Walter, Art & Ritual = C. Walter, Art and Ritual of the 
Byzantine Church (London 1982) 

Wattenbach, Holtzmann, Schmale, Deutsch. Gesch. Sachsen 
u. Salier = W. Wattenbach, R. Holtzmann, F.-J. Schmale, 
Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Die Zeit der 
Sachsen und Salier, 3 vols. (rp. Darmstadt 1967-71) 

Wattenbach, Levison, Löwe, Deutsch. Gesch. Vorzeit u. Ka- 
rol. = W. Wattenbach, W. Levison, H. Löwe, R. Buch- 
ner, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit 
und Karolinger, 5 pts. in 1 vol. (Weimar 1952—73) 

Wattenbach-Schmale, Deutsch. Gesch. Heinr. V = W. Wat- 
tenbach, F.J. Schmale, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im 
Mittelalter. Vom Tode Kaiser Heinrichs V. bis zum Ende des 
Interregnum, vol. 1— (Darmstadt 1976-) 

Weiss, Kantakuzenos = G. Weiss, Joannes Kantakuzenos—Ar- 
istokrat, Staatsmann, Kaiser und Mönch—in der Gesellschafts- 
eniwicklung von Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden 
1969) 


xliv BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS 


Weitzmann, Ancient Book Illum. = K. Weitzmann, Ancient 
Book Illumination (Cambridge, Mass., 1959) 

Weitzmann, “Grado Chair” = K. Weitzmann, “The Ivories 
of the so-called Grado Chair,” DOP 26 (1972) 43-91 
Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. = K. Weitzmann, Greek Mythology in 

Byzantine Art (Princeton 1951; rp. 1984) 

Weitzmann, Grundlagen = K. Weitzmann, Geistige Grundla- 
gen und Wesen der Makedonischen Renaissance (Cologne- 
Opladen [1963]), tr. as “The Character and Intellectual 
Origins of the Macedonian Renaissance” in Weitzmann, 
Studies, 176-223 

Weitzmann, Joshua Roll = K. Weitzmann, The Joshua Roll: 
A Work of the Macedonian Renaissance (Princeton 1948) 

Weitzmann, Late Ant. Ill. = K. Weitzmann, Late Antique and 
Early Christian Book Illumination (New York 1977) 

Weitzmann, Roll & Codex = K. Weitzmann, Illustrations in 
Roll and Codex? (Princeton 1970) 

Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela = K. Weitzmann, The Minia- 
tures of the Sacra Parallela: Parisinus Graecus 923 (Prince- 
ton 1979) 

Weitzmann, Sinai Icons = K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of 
Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The Icons, vol. 1 (Princeton 
1976) 

Weitzmann, Studies = K. Weitzmann, Studies in Classical 
and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler 
(Chicago-London 1971) 

Weitzmann-Kessler, Cotton Gen. = K. Weitzmann, H.L. 
Kessler, The Cotton Genesis: British Library Codex Cotton 
Otho B. VI (Princeton 1986) 

Wellesz, Music = E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music 
and Hymnography* (Oxford 1961) 

Wenger, Quellen = L. Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen 
Rechts (Vienna 1953) 

Wessel, Byz, Enamels = K. Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from 
the 5th to the 13th Century (Greenwich, Conn., 1967) 

Westerink, Prolegomena = L.G. Westerink, Anonymous Pro- 
legomena to Platonic Philosophy (Amsterdam 1962) 

Whitby, Maurice & His Historian = M. Whitby, The Emperor 
Maurice and His Historian (Oxford 1988) 

Wickham, Italy = C. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy: Central 
Power and Local Society 400—1000 (London 1981) 

Wilkinson, Pilgrims = J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims: Be- 
fore the Crusades (Warminster 1977) 

Wilson, Scholars = N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (Bal- 
timore 1983) 

Winfield, “Painting Methods” = D.C. Winfield, “Middle 
and Later Byzantine Wall Painting Methods,” DOP 22 
(1965) 61-139 

Winfield, “Reports” = D.C. Winfield, “Reports on Work at 
Monagri, Lagoudera, Hagios Neophytos, Cyprus,” DOP 
25 (1971) 259-64 

Winkelmann, Quellenstudien = F. Winkelmann, Quellenstu- 
dien zur herrschenden Klasse von Byzanz im 8. und g. Jahr- 
hundert (Berlin 1987) 

Wirth, Untersuchungen = P. Wirth, Untersuchungen zur by- 
zantinischen Rhetorik des zwölften Jahrhunderts mit besonderer 
Berücksichtigung der Schriften des Erzbischofs Eustathios von 
Thessalonike (Munich 1960) 

Wolff, Latin Empire = R.L. Wolff, Studies in the Latin Empire 
of Constantinople (London 1976) 


Wolfram, Goths = H. Wolfram, History of the Goths (Berke- 
ley 1988) 

Wolfson, Philosophy = H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the 
Church Fathers* (Cambridge, Mass., 1970) 

Wroth, Western & Provincial Byz. Coins = W. Wroth, Western 
& Provincial Byzantine Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and 
Lombards, and of the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea, and 
Trebizond in the British Museum (London 1911; rp. Chi- 
cago 1966) 

WS = Wiener Studien 

WSIJb = Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 

WZKM = Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes 

Xénoph. = Actes de Xénophon, ed. D. Papachryssanthou (Paris 
1986) 

Xerop. = Actes de Xéropotamou, ed. J. Bompaire (Paris 1964) 

YCS = Yale Classical Studies 

Zaborov, Krest. poch. = M.A. Zaborov, Vvedenie v istorio- 
grafiju krestovych pochodov (Moscow 1966) 

Zachariä, Geschichte = K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Ge- 
schichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts? (Berlin 1892; rp. 
Aalen 1955) 

Zachariä, Kleine Schriften = K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, 
Kleine Schriften zur römischen und byzantinischen Rechtsge- 
schichte, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1973) 

Zacharia, “Nomokanones” = K.E. Zachariä von Lingen- 
thal, “Die griechischen Nomokanones,” Mémoires de 
l'Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg’ 23:7 
(St. Petersburg 1877); rp. idem, Kleine Schriften 1:614— 
31 

Zacharia, Prochiron = C.E. Zacharia, Ho Prochetros Nomos: 
Imperatorum Basilii, Constantini et Leonis Prochiron (Hei- 
delberg 1837; rp. in part in Zepos, Jus 2) 

Zachariadou, Menteshe & Aydin = E.A. Zachariadou, Trade 
and Crusade: Venetian Crete and the Emirates of Menteshe 
and Aydin (1300—1415) (Venice 1983) 

Zacos, Seals = G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2 vols. in 6 
pts. [vol. 1 co-authored with A. Veglery, vol. 2 ed. J.W. 
Nesbitt] (Basel-Berne 1972-84) 

Zakythinos, Despotat = D.A. Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de 
Morée, 2 vols., revised ed. with add. Ch. Maltezou (Lon- 
don 1975) 

ZapANIst-fil = Zapiski Akademii Nauk: Istoriko-filologiceskoe ot- 
delenie 

ZaplmpRusArch = Zapiski Klassičeskogo otdelenija Imperator- 
skogo russkogo archeologičeskogo obščestva 

ZaplstFilFakSPetUniv = Zapiski Istoriko-filologičeskogo fakul- 
teta S.-Peterburgskogo Universiteta 

ZbFilozFak = Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta (Belgrade) 

ZbLikUmet = Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 

ZDMG = Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlindischen Gesell- 
schaft 

ZDPV = Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 

Zeit. Iustinians = B. Rubin, Das Zeitalter Iustinians, vol. 1 
(Berlin 1960) 

Zepos, Jus = J. & P. Zepos, eds., Jus graecoromanum, 8 vols. 
(Athens 1931; rp. Aalen 1962) 

Zhishman, Eherecht = J. Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orien- 
talischen Kirche (Vienna 1964) 

Zhishman, Stifterrecht = J. von Zhishman, Das Stifterrecht (to 


ktetorikon dikaion) in der morgenlandischen Kirche (Vienna 
1888) 

Zilliacus, Weltsprach. = H. Zilliacus, Zum Kampf der Welt- 
sprachen im spdtrémischen Reich (Helsinki 1935) 

ZKirch = Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 

ZKunst = Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte 

Zlatarski, Jst. = V. Zlatarski, [storia na Biilgarskata diriava, 
3 vols. (Sofia 1918-40; rp. 1971—72) 

ZMNP = Žurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvestenija 

ZNTW = Zeitschrift fiir die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 

Zogr. = Actes de Zographou, ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, B. 
Korablev (St. Petersburg 1907) 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS xlv 


Zon. = Ioannes Zonaras: Epitome historiarum, ed. M. Pinder, 
M. Büttner-Wobst, 3 vols. (Bonn 1841-97) 

Zosim. = Zosimus: Historia nova,, ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig 
1887) 

ZPapEpig = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 

ZRVI = Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 

ZSavKan = Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsge- 
schichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 

ZSavRom = Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsge- 
schichte: Romanistische Abteilung 

ZSlavPhil = Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 

ZWTh = Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 


seas ye Ay apui 


DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS 


P.A.A. 


JS.A. 


MJ.A. 


G.B. 


JB. 


B.B. 


Ch.Th.B. 


L.Ph.B. 


S.B.B. 


C.M.B. 





Panagiotis A. Agapitos 
Specialist in Byzantine literature, 
Athens 


Margaret B. Alexiou 
George Seferis Professor of Modern 
Greek Studies, Harvard University 


Jelisaveta Stanojevich Allen 
Bibliographer, Dumbarton Oaks 


Michael J. Angold 
Reader in History, University of 
Edinburgh 


Gordana Babić 

Professor of Byzantine and Serbian 
Medieval Art and Chair of Medieval 
Art in Yugoslavia, University of 
Belgrade 


János M. Bak 
Professor of History, University of 
British Columbia 


Barry Baldwin 
Professor of Classics, University of 
Calgary 


Mark C. Bartusis 
Associate Professor of History, Northern 
State University, South Dakota 


Charalambos Th. Bouras 
Professor of Architectural History, 
National Technical University of Athens 


Laskarina Bouras 
Curator of the Byzantine Collection, 
Benaki Museum, Athens 


Steven B. Bowman 
Associate Professor of Judaic Studies, 


University of Cincinnati 


Charles M. Brand 
Professor of History, Bryn Mawr 
College 


xl vii 


T.S.B. 


R.B. 


L.Br. 


D.B. 


L.B. 


S.D.C. 


A.J.C. 


A.W.C. 


S.M.C. 


D.E.C. 


L.I.C. 


Thomas S. Brown 
Senior Lecturer in Medieval History, 
University of Edinburgh 


Robert Browning 
Professor Emeritus of Classics, 
University of London 


Leslie Brubaker 
Professor of Art History, Wheaton 
College 


David Buckton 
Curator of the Early Christian and 
Byzantine Collections, British Museum 


Ludwig Burgmann 
Researcher, Max-Planck-Institut für 
europäische Rechtsgeschichte 


Sheila D. Campbell 
Fellow, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval 
Studies, Toronto 


Andrew J. Cappel 
Specialist in Byzantine history, New 
Haven, Connecticut 


Annemarie Weyl Carr 
Professor of Art History, Southern 
Methodist University 


Sedgley M. Schmidt Claire 
Lecturer in History of Art, George 
Washington University, and Assistant 
for the Index of Byzantine Scholarly 
Literature, Dumbarton Oaks 


Dimitri E. Conomos 
Professor of Historical Musicology, 
University of British Columbia 


Lawrence I. Conrad 

Lecturer in Arab-Islamic Medicine, 
Wellcome Institute for the History of 
Medicine, London 


xlviii 


C.N.C. 


B.C. 


S.C. 


A.C. 


1.Dj. 


J.D. 


A.S.E. 


E.A.F. 


M.Th.F. 


J.F. 


C.F. 


DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS 


Costas N. Constantinides 
Associate Professor of Byzantine 
History, University of Ioannina 


Brian Croke 
Director of Programs and Policy, 
Catholic Education Commission, Sydney 


Slobodan Ćurčić 
Professor of Art and Archaeology, 
Princeton University 


Anthony Cutler 
Research Professor of Art History, 
Pennsylvania State University 


Ivan Djuri¢ 

Professor, Faculty of Philosophy, 
University of Belgrade, and Member, 
Byzantine Institute, Serbian Academy of 
Arts and Science, Belgrade 


John Duffy 
Professor of Classics, University of 
Maryland 


Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz 
Professor Emeritus, University of 
Michigan, and Senior Academic 
Associate, University of Melbourne 


Vera von Falkenhausen 
Professor of Byzantine Philology, 
Universita della Basilicata, Potenza 


Gianfranco Fiaccadori 

Professor of History of Handicraft and 
Material Culture in the Middle Ages, 
Universita degli Studi di Udine 


Elizabeth A. Fisher 
Associate Professor of Classics, George 
Washington University 


Marie Theres Fogen 
Researcher, Max-Planck-Institut fiir 
europdische Rechtsgeschichte 


Jaroslav Folda 
Professor of Art History, University of 
North Carolina, Chapel Hill 


Clive F. W. Foss 

Professor of History and Classical 
Archaeology, University of 
Massachusetts, Boston 


S.C.F. 


M.E.F. 


E.G. 


N.G.G. 


A.G. 


O.G. 


T.E.G. 


Ph.G. 


S.H.G. 


P.G. 


A.C.H. 


J.H. 


Simon Franklin 
Lecturer in Russian, University of 
Cambridge 


Margaret E. Frazer 

Curator of Early Christian and 
Byzantine Art, Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York 


Ernst Gamillscheg 

University Docent and Director, 
Fachbibliothek für Byzantinistik und 
Neogrdzisttk, Universitat Wien 


Nina G. Garsoian 

Centennial Professor of Armenian 
History and Civilization, Columbia 
University 


Anna Gonosova 

Associate Professor of Byzantine and 
Medieval Art, University of California, 
Irvine 


Oleg Grabar 
Aga Khan Professor Emeritus of Islamic 
Art, Harvard University 


Timothy E. Gregory 
Professor of History, Ohio State 
University 


Philip Grierson 
Professor Emeritus of Numismatics, 
University of Cambridge 


Sidney H. Griffith 

Director, Early Christian Studies 
Programs, and Professor of Semitic and 
Egyptian Languages and Literature, 
The Catholic University of America 


Peter Grossman 

Specialist in history of architecture, 
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 
Cairo 


Angela Constantinides Hero 
Adjunct Professor of Byzantine History, 
City University of New York, Queens 
College 


Judith Herrin 

Stanley J. Seeger Hellenic Fund 
Professor of Byzantine History, 
Princeton University 


R.B.H. 


P.A.H. 


K.G.H. 


J-M.H. 


EM. 


MJJ. 


D.W. 


MJ. 


W.E.K. 


Ap.K. 


A.K. 


R. Bruce Hitchner 
Associate Professor of History, 
University of Dayton 


Paul A. Hollingsworth 
Historian, Falls Church, Virginia 


Kenneth G. Holum 
Associate Professor of History, 
University of Maryland 


Wolfram Hérandner 
Professor, Institut fiir Byzantinistik und 
Neogrdzistik, Universitat Wien 


John M. Howe 
Associate Professor of History, Texas 
Tech University 


Johannes Irmscher 

Honorary Professor for Classical, 
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 
Rumboldt-Universitét zu Berlin 


Elizabeth M. Jeffreys 

Honorary Research Associate, University 
of Sydney 

Michael J. Jeffreys 

Sir Nicholas Laurantus Professor of 
Modern Greek, University of Sydney 


D. W. Johnson 

Associate Professor of Semitic and 
Egyptian Languages and Literatures, 
The Catholic University of America 


Mark J. Johnson 
Assistant Professor of Art History, 
Brigham Young University 


Walter Emil Kaegi 
Professor of History, University of 
Chicago 


loli Kalavrezou 
Dumbarton Oaks Professor of Byzantine 
Art, Harvard University 


Apostolos Karpozilos 
Professor of Medieval Greek Philology, 
University of Ioannina 


Alexander Kazhdan 

Senior Research Associate (Byzantine), 
Dumbarton Oaks, and Editor in Chief, 
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 


DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS 


F.K. 


K.M.K. 


D.K. 


R.E.K. 


B.K. 


N.E.L. 


A.R.L. 


J-H.L. 


L.S.B.MacC, 


M.McC. 


E.M. 


RJ.M. 


xlix 


Frances Kianka 
Manuscript editor, Dumbarton Oaks 


Katherine M. Kiefer 
Art historian, Princeton, New Jersey 


Dale Kinney 
Professor of Art History, Bryn Mawr 
College 


Ruth E. Kolarik 
Associate Professor of Art History, The 
Colorado College 


Bariša Kreki¢ 
Professor of East European History, 
University of California, Los Angeles 


Angeliki E. Laiou 

Dumbarton Oaks Professor of Byzantine 
History, Harvard University, and 
Director, Dumbarton Oaks 


Nora E. Laos 
Visiting Instructor of History of 
Architecture, University of Ilinois 


A. R. Littlewood 
Professor of Classics and Byzantine 
Studies, University of Western Ontario 


William Loerke 
Professor Emeritus of Byzantine Art 
History, Dumbarton Oaks 


John H. Lowden 
Lecturer in the History of Art, 
University of London 


Leslie S. B. MacCoull 

Senior Research Scholar in Papyrology, 
Society for Coptic Archaeology, 
Washington, D.C. 


Michael McCormick 
Professor of History, Johns Hopkins 
University 


Eric McGeer 
Instructor in Byzantine History, 
Université de Montréal 


R. J. Macrides 

Honorary Lecturer in Byzantine Studies 
and Modern Greek, University of St. 
Andrews 


I DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS 


P.M. 


G.P.M. 


C.M. 


M.M.M. 


Z.U.M. 


JM. 


S.M.-P. 


R.S.N. 


J.W.N. 


S.M.O. 


D.O. 


N.O. 


D.O'M. 


Paul Magdalino 
Lecturer in Medieval History, 
University of St. Andrews 


George P. Majeska 
Associate Professor of History, 
University of Maryland 


Cyril Mango 

Bywater and Sotheby Professor of 
Byzantine and Modern Greek Language 
and Literature, University of Oxford 


Marlia M. Mango 
Art historian, Oxford 


Zvi "Uri Ma‘oz 
District Archaeologist, Israel Antiquities 
Authority, Kazrin 


John Meyendorff 

Dean and Professor of Church History 

and Patristics, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox 

Theological Seminary, and Professor of 
History, Fordham University 


Svetlana Mojsilovic-Popovi¢ 
Architect and architectural historian, 
Institute for the Protection of Historical 
Monuments, Republic of Serbia, 
Belgrade 


Robert S. Nelson 
Associate Professor of Art History, 
University of Chicago 


John W. Nesbitt 
Research Associate (Byzantine 
Sigillography), Dumbarton Oaks 


Steven M. Oberhelman 
Professor of Classics, Texas ASM 
University 


Sir Dimitri Obolensky 
Professor Emeritus of Russian and 
Balkan History, University of Oxford 


Nicolas Oikonomides 
Professor of Byzantine History, 
University of Athens 


Dominic J. O’Meara 

Professor of Metaphysics and History of 
Ancient Philosophy, Université de 
Fribourg 


C.O.-F. 


A.P. 


D.P. 


G.P. 


S.W.R. 


Js. 


E.Sch. 


AS. 


E.CS. 


N.S. 


Cathérine Otten-Froux 
Medieval historian, Strasbourg 


Aristeides Papadakis 

Professor of History and Director of 
Religious Studies, University of 
Maryland, Baltimore County 


David Pingree 
Professor of the History of Mathematics, 
Brown University 


Gerhard Podskalsky, s.J. 

Professor of Ancient Church History, 
Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule, 
Frankfurt, and Professor of Byzantine 
and Slavonic Theology, Fakultät S.J. 
St. Georgen, Frankfurt 


Andrzej Poppe 
Professor of History and Mediaevahst, 
Uniwersytet Warszawski 


Omeljan Pritsak 

Mykhailo S. Hrushevshyt Professor 
Emeritus of Ukrainian History, 
Harvard University 


Steven W. Reinert 
Associate Professor of History, Rutgers 
University, New Brunswick 


John Scarborough 

Professor of History of Pharmacy and 
Medicine and Professor of Classics and 
Ancient History, University of Wisconsin 


Erich Schilbach 
Specialist in Byzantine metrology, 
Munich 


Andreas Schminck 
Researcher, Max-Planck-Institut fiir 
europäische Rechtsgeschichte 


Ellen C. Schwartz 
Professor of Art History, Eastern 
Michigan University 


Nikolaj I. Serikoff 
Research Associate, Institute of Oriental 
Studies, Academy of Sciences, Moscow 


Ihor Ševčenko 

Dumbarton Oaks Professor of Byzantine 
History and Literature, Harvard 
University 


N.P.S. 


LA.Sh. 


A.Sh. 


D.S. 


K.S. 


R.S. 


R.F.T. 


A.M.T. 


A.T. 


J.A.T. 


Nancy Patterson Ševčenko 
Associate Editor, The Oxford Dictionary 
of Byzantium 


Irfan A. Shahîd 

Professor of Arabic Studies, Georgetown 
University; Project Director, Dumbarton 
Oaks 


Ahmad M. H. Shboul 
Senior Lecturer in Arabic and Islamic 
Studies, University of Sydney 


Dieter Simon 

Professor of Law, Johann Wolfgang 
Goethe-Universität, and Director, Max- 
Planck-Institut für europäische 
Rechtsgeschichte 


Kenneth Snipes 
Associate Professor of History, 
Manhattan College 


Rainer Stichel 

Professor, Seminar für Byzantinistik, 
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität 
Münster 


Robert F. Taft, s.j. 
Ordinary Professor of Oriental Liturgy, 
Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 


Alice-Mary Talbot 
Executive Editor, The Oxford 
Dictionary of Byzantium 


Alice Taylor 
Art historian, Los Angeles 


Natalia Teteriatnikov 
Curator of Visual Resources, 
Dumbarton Oaks 


Francis J. Thomson 
Professor of English, Rijksuniversitair 
Centrum te Antwerpen 


Robert W. Thomson 
Mashtots Professor of Armenian 
Studies, Harvard University 


Janet A. Timbie 
Specialist in Coptic literature, Chevy 
Chase, Maryland 


DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS li 


C.B.T. 


M.W.T. 


E.T. 


J-T. 


F.R.T. 


K.-H.U. 


S.V. 


AJ.W. 


N.G.W. 


E.A.Z. 


Catherine Brown Tkacz 
Humanities Administrator, National 
Endowment for the Humanities, 
Washington, D.C. 


Michael W. Tkacz 
Lecturer in Philosophy, The Catholic 
University of America 


Erich Trapp 
Professor of Byzantine Studies, 
Universität Bonn 


James Trilling 
Art historian, Providence, Rhode Island 


Frank R. Trombley 

University Lecturer in Classics and 
Byzantine History, King’s College, 
University of London 


William Tronzo 
Associate Professor of Art History, Johns 
Hopkins University 


Karl-Heinz Uthemann 
University Docent, Vrije Universiteit, 
Amsterdam 


Gary Vikan 

Assistant Director for Curatorial Affairs 
and Curator of Medieval Art, Walters 
Art Gallery, Baltimore 


Speros Vryonis, Jr. 

Alexander S. Onassis Professor of 
Hellenic Civilization and Culture and 
Director, Onassis Center of Hellenic 
Studies, New York University 


Annabel Jane Wharton 
Associate Professor of Art History, Duke 
University 


John Wilkinson 
Former Director, British School of 
Archaeology, Jerusalem 


Nigel G. Wilson 
Fellow and Tutor of Classics, University 
of Oxford 


Elizabeth A. Zachariadou 

Professor of Turkish History, Institute 
of Mediterranean Studies, Rethymnon, 
Crete 


seas ye Ay apui 


The Oxford Dictionary of 
BYZANTIUM 


seas ye Ay apui 





AARON (‘Aapwv), brother of Moses and first 
high priest of the Israelites, plays a significant 
supporting role in a number of events in Moses’ 
life, notably those illustrated in the extensive cycle 
(between Ex 4:14 and Num 20:29) in the Octa- 
TEUCHS. An attempt to show Aaron in the priestly 
vestments described at length in Exodus 28 is also 
made in the illustrated MSS of Kosmas INDIKO- 
PLEUSTES, in the text of which their symbolism is 
considered (Kosm. Ind. 2:74-81). Usually Aaron 
is identified merely by the priestly diadem. He 
occasionally appears among the Prophets in mon- 
umental art as a companion to Moses, or as the 
bearer of the rod, considered one of the PRE- 
FIGURATIONS Of the Virgin. In Palaiologan churches 
more complex Marian connections with Aaron 
were derived from the liturgy (G. Engberg, DOP 
21 [1967] 279-83). 


ur. H. Dienst, LCI 1:2-4. -J-H.L. 


AARONIOS (’Aapwrtos, “Aapwr), Byz. noble 
family descended from the last Bulgarian tsar, 
Jonn VLADISLAV, whose wife Maria was granted 
the title ZOSTE PATRIKIA soon after 1018 and set- 
tled in Constantinople. Her older sons were in- 
volved in plots and rebellions: Presianos ca.1029, 


ALOUSIANOS in 1040. The third son, Aaron, who 
gave the name to the lineage, was governor of 
Iberia (ca.1047), Mesopotamia (ca.1059), and per- 
haps of Ani and Edessa; his son Theodore, gov- 
ernor of Taron, fell in battle against the Turks in 
1055/6. Another Aaron governed Mesopotamia 
in 1112. Seals of Radomir Aaron, strategos and 
doux, are preserved, but his identification remains 
problematic; he probably belonged to the family, 
since Radomir was also the name of Maria’s fifth 
son. The Aaronioi were in double affinity with 
the KoMNENOI: Isaac I married Maria’s daughter, 
Catherine, and Alexios I married the grand- 
daughter of Troian, IRENE Doukaina. In 1107, 
however, the Aaronioi were exiled for participa- 
tion in a plot against Alexios I. THEOPHYLAKTOS 
of Ohrid dedicated two epigrams to a certain 
Aaron whose relationship with the lineage re- 
mains unclear. After Alexios I’s reign, the family 
became obscure; Isaac Aaron from Corinth, in- 
terpreter at Manuel I’s court, apparently did not 
belong to the aristocracy. In 1393 Alexios Aaron 
went as ambassador to Russia. The Alousianoi 
belonged to this lineage. (See genealogical table.) 

LIT. M. Lascaris, “Sceau de Radomir Aaron,” BS 3 (1931} 


404-13; rev. I. Dujéev, zufstDr 11-12 (1931-32) 375-84. 
I. Dujéev, “Presiam-Persian,” Exikovedsko-etnografski izsledo- 


GENEALOGY OF THE AARONIOS FAMILY IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 


JOHN VLADISLAV m. Maria 


Troian 
{Traian} 


Presianos Alousianos 


(Prousianos) 


Aaron, 
governor of 
Iberia 


daughter 
m. ROMANOS IV 
DIOGENES 


Basil, Samuel 
governor of Edessa Alousianos 


Based on Zlatargkij, Zst. 535. 


Radomir 


Theodore, 
governor of Tarn (?) 





son Catherine 
(Clement?) m. Isaac I 
KOMNENOS 


five more daughters, 
one of whom m. Romanos 
Kourkouas 


Radomir Aaron Maria m. Andronikos Doukas 


IRENE DOUKAINA m. ALEXIOS I KOMNENOS 


2 ABASGIA 


vanija v pamet na akademik Stojan Romanski (Sofia 1960) 479- 
82. PLP, nos. 3-7. -A.K 


ABASGIA. See ABCHASIA. 


‘ABBASID CALIPHATE (750-1258), ruled by a 
dynasty whose members were descendants of the 
uncle of Muhammad, al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Mut- 
talib ibn Hashim. His great-grandson Muhammad 
and his son Ibrahim prepared the revolt in Khu- 
rasan against the UMAYYAD CALIPHATE. Although 
the Umayyads captured Ibrahim, his brothers Abu’l 
‘Abbas and Abu Ja‘far energetically continued the 
struggle. Proclaimed caliph in 749, Abu’l ‘Abbas 
became known as al-Saffah, “the Bloody.” His 
brother, Abū Ja‘far al-Mansur, made Baghdad 
his residence. The ‘Abbasid dynasty counted 
among its most illustrious caliphs HARON AL- 
RasHip. The dynasty weakened after Turkish 
mercenaries became important in the caliphate of 
Mu‘tasim in the 830s, and the Mongols under 
Hulagu destroyed it at Baghdad in 1258. (See 
table for a list of ‘Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad.) A 
few of the ‘Abbasid family escaped to Egypt, where 
one became nominal caliph under the name of 
al-Mustansir. The last ‘Abbasid caliph was al- 
Mutawakkil, who surrendered all civil and reli- 
gious authority to the Ottoman sultan Selim I in 
1517 and died in 1538. 

The early ‘Abbasid caliphs, culminating in Hā- 
rin, showed zeal in fighting the Byz. The last 


‘Abbasid Caliphs of Baghdad 





Date of 

Accession 
Caliph (A.D/A.H.) Caliph 
al-Saffah 750/132 al-Muhtadi 
al-Manstr 754/136 al-Mu‘tamid 
al-Mahdi 775/158 al-Mu‘tadid 
al-Hadi 785/169 al-Muktafi 
al-Rashid 786/170 al-Muktadir 
al-Amin 809/193 al-Kahir 
AL-Ma’MUN 813/198 al-Radi 
AL-Mu‘TasiM 833/218 al-Muttaki 
al-Wathik 842/227 al-Mustakfi 
al-Mutawakkil 847/232 al-Muti‘ 
al-Muntasir 861/247 al-Ta’is 
al-Masta‘in 862/248 al-Kadir 
al-Mu‘tazz 866/252 al-Ka’im 


major campaign by an ‘Abbasid caliph against 
Byz. occurred under al-Mu‘rasim in 838. Yet there 
were important cultural contacts, including em- 
bassies in which such scholars as PHoTIOS and 
Jonn (VII) Grammatixos participated. These 
contacts led to exchanges of information and 
copying of MSS on mathematics, astronomy, as- 
trology (esp. in the caliphate of al-Ma’mon), lit- 
erature, and music (and probably musical instru- 
ments, such as water organs). This intercourse 
probably reached its zenith in the gth-C. Muslim 
geographers (see ARAB GEOGRAPHERS) who wrote 
important descriptions of Byz. during the ‘Ab- 
basid caliphate. The deterioration of central au- 
thority in Baghdad reduced Byz. diplomatic con- 
tact with Baghdad and increased it with the border 
emirs. 

LIT. Kennedy, Abbasid Caliphate. J. Lassner, The Shaping 


of Abbasid Rule (Princeton 1980). Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 1, 2, 
pts. 1—2. —W.E.K. 


ABBREVIATIONS (sometimes called compen- 
dia), found in inscriptions, papyri, and MSS, were 
frequently substituted for words, syllables, or the 
ending of words or single letters to save time and 
space. Sometimes the abbreviations include rec- 
ognizable Greek letters, usually in LIGATURE; more 
commonly they are composed of a variety of strokes 
and dots, similar to modern shorthand. The 
breathings and accents are often included. A par- 
ticular kind of abbreviation is the nomina sacra, 
first used for Christian sacred names in papyri 





Date of Date of 
Accession Accession 
(A.D./A.H.) Caliph (A.D./A.H.) 
860/255, al-Muktadi 1075/467 
870/256 al-Mustazhir 1094/487 
892/279 al-Mustarshid 1118/512 
902/289 al-Rashid 1135/529 
908/295 al-Muktafi 1136/530 
932/320 al-Mustandjid 1160/555 
934/322 al-Mustadi’ 1170/566 
940/329 al-Nāşir 1180/575 
944/333 al-Zāhir 1225/622 
946/334 al-Mustansir 1226/623 
974/363 al-Musta‘sim_ 1242/640 
991/381 
1031/422 














ABBREVIATIONS. Sample abbreviations. 


and unciAL MSS, for example, XC for Xpiorós. 
In MINUSCULE MSS from the gth C. onward, the 
nomina sacra occur in nonbiblical contexts also 
(e.g., anthropos, pater), even for compounds like 
patriarches or philanthropia. The abbreviations for 
endings in book script are sometimes identical 
with elements from TACHYGRAPHY. MONOGRAMS 
sometimes use an abbreviated form of a name. 
ut. T.W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Manu- 
scripts (Oxford 1889; rp. Amsterdam 1967). L. Traube, 
Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung 
(Munich 1907; rp. Darmstadt 1967). C.H. Roberts, Manu- 
script, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London 
1979) 26-48. A. Paap, Nomina sacra in the Greek Papyri of 
the First Five Centuries A.D. (Leiden 1959). Devreesse, Man- 
uscrits 39—43. -E.G., A.M.T. 


ABCHASIA (‘ABac-yia), northern portion of an- 
cient Colchis bordering on the eastern shore of 
the Black Sea. In the 4th C. Abchasia became part 
of the kingdom of Lazixa; it probably developed 
only in the 6th C., even though Theodoret of 
Cyrrhus mentioned its existence in 423. Similarly, 
though the Arabic version of AGATHANGELOS claims 
that Abchasia was christianized at the order of St. 
GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR, the surviving Arme- 
nian version lacks this information, pointing again 
to a post-6th-C., date. 

Byz. became familiar with Abchasia during the 
Lazic wars of the 6th C. when they built the 
fortresses of SEBASTOPOLIS and Pitiunt (mod. Pi- 
tzunda); a large proportion of Byz. eunuchs were 
said to have come from this region. The empire 
maintained some sovereignty over this area from 
the period of Justinian I to that of Herakleios and 
of the Arab invasions, when power passed to the 
native Anch‘abadze eristavi, who assumed the title 
of kings of Abchasia late in the 8th C. They 
expanded their territories toward western Iberia 
(K‘art'li) until checked by the BaGratips of Tao 
in the 10th C. In 98g Bagrat III, son of Gurgan, 
kouropalates of K‘art'li, inherited Abchasia through 


‘ABD AL-MALIK 3 


his mother Guranduxt Anch‘abadze. Although 
Basil II prevented his inheriting from his adoptive 
father Davip oF Tayk‘/Tao in 1000/1, Bagrat 
received the title of kouropalates from Byz. His 
inheritance of K‘art‘li from his natural father in 
1008 joined the crowns of Abchasia and K‘art‘li 
to form the first united kingdom of Georgia. 

LIT. A. Kollautz, RB 1:21—49. C. Toumanoff, Studies in 
Christian Caucasian History (Washington, D.C., 1963) 203, 
256, 269, 497f. W.E.D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People 
(London 1932) 80-83. -N.G.G. 


‘ABD AL-MALIK, son of Marwan I; Umayyad 
caliph (685-705); born 646/7, died g Oct. 705. 
Campaigning already at 16 under Mu‘Awiya, ‘Abd 
al-Malik was a determined foe of Byz. through- 
out his reign. He particularly aimed at eliminating 
Byz. influence in the caliphate: Arabs replaced 
bureaucrats of Greek descent, Arabic became the 
official language, and coins were minted without 
Greek inscriptions or Byz. images. After his acces- 
sion, internal opposition, the invasion of Armenia 
by Leontros, and raids by the MARDAITES com- 
pelled him to renew the agreement that had been 
made between Constantine IV and Mu‘awiya. The 
ten-year treaty, signed most likely in 688, required 
Justinian II to withdraw the Mardaites from Leb- 
anon and ‘Abd al-Malik to pay a weekly tribute 
of 1,000 solidi, one horse, and one slave, and 
stipulated that the revenues from Cyprus, Ar- 
menia, and Georgia be shared equally. During 
this period ‘Abd al-Malik probably received Byz. 
help in building the Dome of the Rock in Jeru- 
salem. 

In the early 6gos hostilities flared. Although 
Theophanes the Confessor (Theoph. 365.8—21) 
blames Justinian for attempting to resettle Cyprus 
and refusing to accept ‘Abd al-Malik’s new coin- 
age, the aggressor was likely ‘Abd al-Malik, who 
eliminated his final domestic rival in 6g2 and may 
have resented the appearance of Christ’s image 
on Justinian’s own coinage. His brother Muham- 
mad defeated Justinian in 693 as a result of the 
desertion from the Byz. ranks of NeEBouLos and 
his Slavic troops. ‘Abd al-Malik’s son, ‘Ubayd Al- 
lah, invaded Armenia and captured Theodosiou- 
polis in 700, and in 702 Muhammad attacked 
Armenia IV and took Martyropolis. Despite a Byz. 
invasion of Syria, ‘Abd al-Malik had effectively 
subdued Armenia by 703. During a lull in the 
fighting the caliph reportedly allowed Tiberios II 


4 | ‘ABDISHO‘ BAR BERIKA 


to repatriate Cypriot captives and repopulate Cy- 
prus with them. He also attacked Byz. lands in 
the West; armies sent from Egypt in 694-98 cap- 
tured Carthage (see JOHN PATRIKIOS) and ended 
Byz. control of North Africa. 

LIT. Stratos, Byzantium 5:19—40, 77-84. P. Grierson, “The 


Monetary Reforms of ‘Abd al-Malik,” Journal of the Economic 
and Social History of the Orient 3 (1960) 241-64. —P.A.H. 


‘ABDISHO*‘ BAR BERIKA, or Ebedjesus, a poly- 
math monk, Nestorian metropolitan of Soba (Ni- 
sibis) and Armenia, and prolific writer in Syriac; 
died 1318. ‘Abdish6‘ composed influential works 
of biblical commentary, theology, and liturgical 
poetry. For the Byzantinist, his most important 
writings are the List of all the Ecclesiastical Writers 
and the Collection of the Synodical Canons. The 
former is a bibliography of church books, metri- 
cally composed and arranged in four parts: books 
of the Old Testament, books of the New Testa- 
ment, books of the Greek fathers, and books of 
the Syrian fathers. The Collection of the Synodical 
Canons, in the form that goes back to ‘Abdisho‘, 
bears the name Nomokanon and is a systematic 
presentation of the church laws: the first division 
gives laws affecting lay persons; it is followed by 
a second part containing laws dealing with church 
organization and the clergy. Some MSS also in- 
clude a Syriac version of the Apostolic Canons, 
and the canons of the synod of the Nestorian 
katholikos Timothy I (780—823). 

ED. J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana 
3.1 (Rome 1725) 3-362. G.P. Badger, The Nestorians and 
their Rituals, vol. 2 (London 1852) 361-79. Mai, Script- 
VetNovaColl 10:1-331. 

LIT. J. Dauvillier, DDC 5 (1953) 91—134. Graf, Literatur 
2:214—16. W. Selb, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht, vol. 1 (Vienna 
1981) 76-78, 223-26. -S.H.G. 


ABEL. See CAIN AND ABEL. 


ABGAR. See MANDYLION. 


ABINNAEUS ARCHIVE, the papyri of Flavius 
Abinnaeus, Roman praefectus alae of Dionysias in 
the Fayyam, covering the years 340/1-351. The 
documents, 80 in Greek and two in Latin, prob- 
ably came from Philadelphia in the Fayyam and 
were acquired in 1893 by the British Museum and 
the University of Geneva. They include letters, 
petitions, contracts, accounts, and Abinnaeus’s 


narrative of his appearance before Constantius II 
and Constans at Constantinople in 337/8. He had 
accompanied envoys from the BLEMMYEs to the 
capital and later was stationed among them for 
three years. He served as garrison commander at 
Dionysias, was dismissed, but sought successfully 
to be reinstated. He married Aurelia Nonna, an 
Alexandrian. His papers illustrate the extent to 
which 4th-C. civilians in Egypt appealed to the 
military power for justice. His correspondents in- 
clude Christian clerics and lay people, soldiers, 
and ordinary inhabitants of his district. His ar- 
chive forms a small but rich source for provincial 
administration in the post-Constantinian period. 

ED. H.I. Bell et al., The Abinnaeus Archive (Oxford 1962), 


corr. Berichtigungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden aus 
Agypten, vol. 5 (Leiden 1969) 1~3. -L.S.B.MacC. 


ABIOTIKION (aBtwrixcov, from abiotos, lit. “un- 
livable”), a charge on the transfer of the property 
of an individual who died intestate and without 
children. Andronikos IF's novel of May 1306 (Reg 
4, NO.2295) states that in this case the property of 
the deceased should not be divided solely between 
the fisc and “those churches or monasteries that 
held [the person] as paroikos” (Zepos, Jus 1:534.31— 
32), but a third part must go to the surviving 
spouse. It is unclear from the novel whether the 
ecclesiastical institution was granted its share as 
the parotkos’s lord or for memorial rites (mnemo- 
syne). A charter of 1311 shows that the lord could 
replace the fisc: a certain Doukopoulos confirmed 
the transfer to the Docheiariou monastery of two- 
thirds of the property of “his inherited paroikot” 
(i.e., the mnemosyne and the lord’s share) and trans- 
mitted to the monastery another third part (me- 
ridikon triton) that he had received from another 
paroikos who had died without children (Docheiar., 
no.11.1—8). The term abiotikion is known from 
1259 on (Lavra 2, no.71.80) as a tax on the child- 
less recipients of an inheritance: thus an act of 
1400 (?) mentions the collectors of abiotikion (MM 
2:342.28) who demanded that a widow display 
“the hyperpyra listed in the will.” Adiotikion is 
mentioned in several chrysobulls, usually together 
with the PHONIKON and PARTHENOPHTHORIA. In 
1440 the abiotikion in Monemvasia was used for 
the repair of the fortifications (E. Vranoussi, EtBalk 
14 [1978] no.4:83-85). 

The right of the state and the church to inherit 
the property of a person who died intestate was 


recognized by Byz. law: Constantine VII enjoined 
that in such a case two-thirds of the hypostasis be 
given to the relatives or the fisc and one-third to 
God for the salvation of the soul of the deceased 
(Zepos, Jus 1:237.3—-6). The novel of 1306 pre- 
scribed that after the death of a child who had 
only one parent his property was to be divided 
between the surviving parent, the parents of the 
deceased parent, and the church. This regulation, 
dubbed trimoiria by modern legal historians, prob- 
ably originated from local customs (N. Matzes, 
BNJbb 21 [1971—74] 177-92). (See also INTESTATE 
SUCCESSION.) 

LIT. P. Lemerle, “Un chrysobulle d’Andronic II Paléo- 
logue pour le monastére de Karakala,” BCH 60 (1936) 
440-42. A. Karpozelos, “Abiotikion,” Dodone 8 (1979) 73- 


80. M. Tourtoglou, “To ‘abiotikion,’” in Xenion: Festschrift 
für P.J. Zepos, vol. 1 (Athens—Freiburg im Breisgau—Cologne 


1973) 633-46. -A.K. 


ABLABIUS (’ABAq@fros), an influential family in 
the eastern part of the later Roman Empire. The 
family founder was Flavius Ablabius, a Cretan. A 
man of humble origin, he served under the gov- 
ernor of Crete, then went to Constantinople where 
he amassed a fortune. He became a member of 
the senate under Constantine I and was praeto- 
rian prefect from 329 to 337 (PLRE 1:3) or after 
326 (O. Seeck, RE 1 [1894] 103). Constantius II 
dismissed Ablabius and banished him to his es- 
tates in Bithynia; he was eventually executed. In 
354 his daughter Olympias married Aršak III, 
king of Armenia. Flavius’s son Seleukos, a pagan, 
supported Julian, but Seleukos’s daughter OLyM- 
pias became the staunchest ally of John Chryso- 
stom. The family was still influential at court in 
431 when Cyril of Alexandria proposed to bribe 
Ablabius, domestikos of the quaestor. 

The Ablabii were an educated and intelligent 
family: although none of their works survives, it 
is known that Flavius wrote verses on Constantine; 
Seleukos reportedly composed a history of Juli- 
an’s Persian campaign; a certain Ablabius com- 
piled a history of the Goths based on Gothic 
legends; and the death of a physician Ablabius 
was lamented by Theosebeia, a poet of the 
5th/6th C. (AnthGr, bk.7, no.559). The Ablabii are 
a rare example of a relatively stable aristocratic 
family in the East. 

LIT. PLRE 1:2—4, 1132; 2:1-2. M. Arnheim, The Sena- 


ie Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972) 
is -A.K. 


ABRAHA | 5 


ABORTION (du Bdrwors), usually motivated by 
illegitimate conception, was practiced in Byz. but 
condemned by both imperial legislation and church 
canons. Justinian’s Dicest included excerpts of 
early Roman law that frowned on the practice; 
both those who concocted abortifacient potions 
and the women who underwent the abortion were 
punished. Especially among prostitutes, however, 
the use of abortifacients persisted; according to 
the scurrilous account of the young THEODORA 
by Proxopios (SH 17.16), ingredients for these 
drugs were well known and easily available in the 
6th C. Abortion spikes are preserved in collections 
of Roman SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; Aetios of Amida 
records recipes for abortifacient drugs in his 16th 
Sermo (ed. S. Zervos, Aetios: Pert tou en metra pathous 
[Leipzig 1901] 18—22). Zonaras mentions the use 
of a weight to compress the abdomen (Rhalles- 
Potles, Syntagma 3:63f). In the 14th C. the price 
of an abortifacient drug was five hyperpyra, a 
cloak, and a glass vase (MM 1:548.25—26). Signif- 
icantly, 6th-C. Byz. medical thought held that 
abortion was impossible after the fetus had taken 
on “human form.” Aetios writes that abortifa- 
cients were to be used only in the third month of 
pregnancy. Civil and canon law, however, and lay 
opinion equated abortion with murder, notwith- 
standing the age of the embryo. (See also Con- 
TRACEPTION.) 

ut. C. Cupane, E. Kislinger, “Bemerkungen zur Ab- 
treibung in Byzanz,” JOB 35 (1985) 21—49. S. Troianos, 
“He amblose sto byzantino dikaio,” Byzantiaka 4 (1984) 


171—8g9. M.-H. Congourdeau, “Un procès d’avortement au 
14e siècle,” REB 40 (1982) 103-15. -Jj.S., AM.T. 


ABRAHA (“A8papos), Axumite ruler of HIMYAR 
in South Arabia, from 535-58 (Lundin, infra 86). 
According to Prokopios (Wars 1.20.4), Abraha was 
a Christian, the slave of a Roman trader in ADULIS 
in Ethiopia. A soldier or officer in the Axumite 
army occupying Himyar, he led a revolt against 
Esimphaios (probably Sumayfa‘ Ashwa‘), the rep- 
resentative of ELESBOAM in South Arabia. He as- 
sumed power but acknowledged vassalage to Axum 
by paying tribute. Abraha consolidated Himyar 
and in 547 carried out a successful expedition in 
central Arabia. 

Abraha maintained an alliance with the Roman 
Empire, and Justinian I attempted to use him in 
military operations against Iran; although the em- 
peror sent several embassies to Himyar, he could 
not persuade Abraha to act. Abraha possibly shifted 
South Arabia from Monophysitism to Orthodoxy; 


6 | ABRAHAM 


he built a pilgrimage church (al-Qalis, from ekkle- 
sia) at San‘a’ (I. Shahid, DOP 33 [1979] 27, 81f). 
LIT. A. Lundin, Juznaja Aravija v VI veke (Moscow- 


Leningrad 1961) 61—87. S. Smith, “Events in Arabia in the 
6th c.,” BSOAS 16 (1954) 431-41. —-A.K. 


ABRAHAM ( Aßpaáp), Old Testament patriarch 
(Gen 11—25). In patristic literature Abraham was 
interpreted as an ideal of asceticism and obedi- 
ence to God: his departure from Canaan indi- 
cated the necessity of purification in order to 
achieve the Promised Land. He is said to have 
lived 175 years in hesychia, praotes, and justice, and 
his demise is described in an apocryphal Testa- 
ment of Abraham. 

From the early period, Abraham appears in a 
number of scenes, such as the PHILOXENIA. The 
most popular seems to have been the Sacrifice of 
Isaac (Gen 22), found already in the Synagogue 
at Dura Euroros and included in the COMMEN- 
DATIO ANIMAE. The dramatic nature of this scene 
was explored, for example, by Gregory of Nyssa, 
in terms that imply familiarity with an image (PG 
46:572CD). This text was cited in support of holy 
images at the Second Council of Nicaea (Mansi 
13:gC—12A). John Chrysostom (PG 54:432.38— 
433-8) and others emphasized that Christ was 
both the beloved son (like Isaac) and the sacrificial 
lamb. These eucharistic connotations were some- 
times exploited visually, as at S. Vitale in Ravenna. 
Narrative cycles of Abraham’s life are found, no- 
tably at S. Maria Maggiore in Rome (432-40), in 
5th/6th-C. Genesis MSS, and in the later Kosmas 
INDIKOPLEUSTES and OcTATEUCH MSS, which may 
derive from earlier sources. Christ’s parable of 
the rich man and of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom 
(Lk 16:19—-31) provided Abraham with a place in 
New Testament illustration, notably in the icon- 
ography of the Last JUDGMENT. On the basis of 
his appearance, St. DaviD OF THESSALONIKE was 
described by his 8th-C. biographer as a new Abra- 
ham (vita, ed. Rose, 11.2, 12.28—29). 

SOURCE. Le Testament grec d'Abraham, ed. F. Schmidt 
(Tubingen 1986). 

uT. K. Wessel, RBK 1:11-22. E. Lucchesi-Palli, LCI 


1:20-35. F. Cocchini, F. Bisconti, DPAC 1:12-16. 
-J.H.L. 


ABRAMIOS, JOHN, astrologer and astronomer; 
fl. Constantinople and Mytilene, 1370—90. Abra- 
mios (’ABpatos) practiced magic and cast HOR- 


oscores on behalf of Andronikos IV and his son 
John VII, in their quarrels with John V and 
Manuel II. His most important role was as the 
editor of texts of classical AsTROLOGY, the author 
of treatises on ASTRONOMY (opposed to the Pto- 
lemaic tradition of Theodore METOCHITES, Ni- 
kephoros Grecoras, and Isaac Arcyros, Abra- 
mios followed the Islamic tradition of Gregory 
CHIONIADES, George CHRYSOKOKKES, and Theo- 
dore MELITENIOTES), and as the founder of a 
school in which these activities were continued 
until ca.1410. His successors were Eleutherios Ze- 
belenos, also known as Eleutherios Elias (born 
1343), and Dionysios (PLP, nos. 6012, 5441). 

A number of MSS of astronomical, astrological, 
medical, magical, and rhetorical content pro- 
duced by Abramios and his school survive. They 
produced editions of PToLEmMy, pseudo-Ptolemy, 
HEPHAISTION OF THEBES, OLYMPIODOROS OF AL- 
EXANDRIA, and RHETORIOS OF EGypt. These edi- 
tions are characterized by changes in both the 
grammar and the order of the presentation of 
the technical material of the original texts, and by 
the insertion of extraneous material into them. 
These MSS also contain some examples of Greek 
translations of Arabic astrological texts, notably 
the Mysteries of Abū Ma‘shar and the Introduction 
of Ahmad the Persian. 

In 1376 Abramios wrote a treatise on the con- 
junctions and oppositions of the sun and moon 
based on the New Tables of Isaac Argyros, but 
criticized his source because he followed Ptolemy 
rather than the Persian Tables popularized by 
Chrysokokkes. This led to the computation by 
both sets of tables of the dates, and sometimes 
the details, of 39 lunar and solar ECLIPSES between 
1376 and 1408, and an inept attempt to prove 
that the Islamic value for the rate of precession 
of the equinoxes is superior to that of Ptolemy. 

LIT. Pingree, “Astrological School” 191—215. Idem, “The 


Horoscope of CP,” in Prismata 305-15. PLP, no.57. 
—D.P. 


ABRITUS ("AGpirros), late Roman city at Hisar- 
lik near Razgrad in northeastern Bulgaria, where 
in 251 Decius was defeated and killed. The city 
continued to exist despite successive invasions un- 
til the end of the 6th C., when the Avars destroyed 
it. In the 7th or 8th C. a Bulgarian settlement was 
established on the ruins of the Roman city, but it 


was abandoned in the late 10th C. as a result of 
an attack by the Pechenegs or Rus’. 

Excavations since 1953 have revealed a city built 
on the typical Roman grid pattern, with Ionic 
colonnades along the principal streets. Many stat- 
ues, reliefs, mosaics, and inscriptions bear witness 
to the prosperity and culture of Abritus in Roman 
times, but little is known of the Bulgarian site. 

uit. T. Ivanov, Abritus: Rimski kastel i rannovizantijski grad 
v Dolna Mizija, vol. 1 (Sofia 1980). S. Stojanov, Zlatno 
monetno sitkrovisce ot Abritus V v. na n.e. (Sofia 1982). Hod- 
dinott, Bulgaria 156-65, 259. -R.B. 


ABU AL-FIDA’, more fully Isma‘il ibn ‘Ali Abū 
al-Fida’, Syrian scholar-prince related to the 
Ayyabid rulers of Hamah; born Damascus Nov./ 
Dec. 1273, died Hamah (EPIPHANEIA) 27 Oct. 
1331. A man of wide-ranging military and polit- 
ical experience, he participated in the campaigns 
against the Franks and established a political po- 
sition in Hamah (1299), becoming governor in 
1310. Invested as sultan of Hamah in 1320, he 
retained the title until his death. A generous pa- 
tron, he was also esteemed for his poetry and 
learning. He may have known some Greek; he 
was certainly interested in Byz. affairs and Greek 
culture, about which he sought information from 
travelers and pilgrims. 

His two extant Arabic works, though largely 
derivative, remain useful. The Concise History of 
Mankind, a universal history based on 1BN AL- 
ATHĪR, ends with the memoirs of Abū al-Fida’ 
(1285—1329). Though preoccupied with the Franks 
and Mongols, he discusses developments in Ar- 
MENIA and CAPPADOCIA in the Palaiologan period, 
provides valuable details on the social relations 
between Christians and Muslims in Asia Minor, 
and recounts the fall of RHopEs to the Hospital- 
lers in 1308. In his descriptive geography, Survey 
of the Countries (written in 1321), material on SyRIA 
includes well-informed personal observations. For 
Byz. lands, he relies on eyewitnesses for the to- 
pography and monuments of Constantinople, the 
cities of Asia Minor, and possibly details on Byz. 
administrative geography. 

ED. Al-Mukhtasar fi akhbar al-bashar (Cairo 1907). The 
Memoirs of a Syrian Prince, tr. P.M. Holt (Wiesbaden 1983). 
Taqwim al-buldan, ed. J.T. Reinaud, L.M. de Slane (Paris 
1840). Géographie d’Aboulféda, tr. J.T. Reinaud, S. Guyard, 
2 vols. in 3 pts. (Paris 1848-83). 


Lit, Brockelmann, Litteratur 2:44—46, supp. 2:44. H.A.R. 
Gibb, EI? 1:118f. -L.LC. 


ABU FIRAS | 7 


ABU BAKR (ABovBayxapos, ’Avorakpns), first 
caliph and successor of Muhammad from 8 June 
632; born shortly after 570, died Madina 22/3 
Aug. 634. After crushing rebels in the Riddah 
Wars following the death of Muhammad, Abu 
Bakr’s armies scored major early successes against 
the Byz., including the battles in the ‘Arabah (May 
633) and at al-Fustat or the camp of Areopolis 
(Ar. Mab, mod. Rabba), and at Dathin and Ajna- 
dayn (July 634), as well as the occupation of much 
of the land east of the Dead Sea; in his lifetime 
the Muslims seized Transjordania and southern 
Palestine from the Byz. Abu Bakr skillfully se- 
lected his generals and directed them from Ma- 
dina, but did not personally fight against Byz. 
armies or visit conquered Byz. territories or towns. 
He possessed great leadership qualities, which 
contributed significantly to the consolidation and 
advance of Islam. He also showed a sense for 
military strategy and operations, although Hera- 
kleios and contemporary Byz. commanders prob- 
ably did not consider him a serious opponent. His 
motives and calculations concerning Byz. can only 
be inferred, for no contemporary source details 
his decision to invade Byz. Syria. The invasion of 
Iraq also took much of his attention. Most scholars 
now accept the historicity of his caliphate, which 
Crone and others had challenged (P. Crone, M. 
Cook, Hagarism [Cambridge 1977] 28, 178, n.72, 
partly retracted in P. Crone, M. Hinds, God’s Ca- 
liph (Cambridge 1986] 111-19). 

LIT. Donner, Conquests 82-90, 127-34. W.M. Watt, EI 


1:10g—11. Caetani, Islam 2.1:510—719; 3:1-119. a 


ABU FIRAS, more fully al-Harith ibn Sadd ibn 
Hamdan al-Taghlibi, Arab prince, warrior, and 
poet; born Iraq 932, died Syria 4 Apr. 968. His 
mother was of Byz. origin, and after his father’s 
death in 935 he grew up under her care and the 
patronage of his Hamdanid cousin SAYF AL-DAWLA 
at Aleppo. He participated in several expeditions 
against Byz. and in 962 was wounded and cap- 
tured by Theodosios Phokas. Kept in chains at 
Charsianon, he later enjoyed princely treatment 
in Constantinople, was focal in negotiating a gen- 
eral exchange of prisoners, and was finally re- 
leased in 966. Legend credits him with a spectac- 
ular escape from an alleged earlier imprisonment. 
While governor of Manbij, he was killed during 
his unsuccessful revolt against Sayf al-Dawla’s son. 


8 ABU MINA 


As poet-warrior Abū Firas reflected the ideal of 
Arab chivalry and sincerity; spontaneity and verve 
characterize his poetry. He is most esteemed for 
his Byzantine Poems (Riimiyyat) composed during 
his captivity, expressing defance in adversity, 
yearning for loved ones, and reproach to Sayf al- 
Dawla for delay in ransoming him. His poems, 
often with his own illuminating historical notes, 
provide important information on expeditions, 
frontier toponymy, Byz. prosopography (e.g., the 
PHoKAS and MALEINOS families), conditions of 
prisoners, and Byz.-Arab mutual perceptions, as 
in his debate with Nikephoros Phokas on the 
fighting abilities of Byz. and Arabs. 


ED. Diwdn [Collected Poems], ed. S. Dahhan (Beirut 


1944). 
LIT. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.2:349—70. M. Canard, 


“Quelques noms de personnages byzantins dans une piéce 
du poète arabe Abu Firas (X° siécle),” in Byzance et les 
musulmans (London 1973), pt-IX (1936), 451—60 (with N. 
Adontz). Sezgin, GAS 2:480—83. H.A.R. Gibb, EJ? 1:119f. 

~A.Sh. 


ABU MINA, famous Early Christian settlement 
(the ancient name is unknown) and pilgrimage 
center in Mareotis, west of ALEXANDRIA, where 
the underground tomb of St. Menas was vener- 
ated from the late 4th C. onward. The inner core 
consists of a large square, with XENODOCHEIA on 
the north and churches on the south. The MAR- 
TYRION over the saint’s tomb is the most important 
of the churches. Its earliest foundations date from 
the late 4th C.; enlarged several times, it was 
rebuilt under Justinian I as a tetraconch. To the 
east is a large transept basilica (early 6th C.), to 
the west a baptistery. At the south rear lies an 
unusual semicircular structure which probably held 
INCUBATION rooms for sick pilgrims. There are 
also two baths within the town, colonnaded streets, 
and many private houses. Other churches have 
been found in the environs of Abi Mina. A ba- 
silica to the north is a very regular building extra 
muros, Closely connected with a residential quarter 
that perhaps served as the residence for non- 
Chalcedonians. A church to the east, another te- 
traconch, is surrounded by several houses for 
anachoretes. All churches and official buildings 
were built of local limestone. For their decoration 
extensive use was made of marble spolia from 
destroyed buildings in Alexandria. The famous 
MENAS FLASKS were produced as pilgrim souvenirs 
at Abt Mina from the early 6th C. onward. 


During the Persian invasions of 616-20 Aba 
Mina was almost totally destroyed, and it was 
rebuilt only modestly afterwards. After the Arab 
conquest (639-42) the town, which was formerly 
Chalcedonian, came into the hands of the Coptic 
Monophysite church, and presumably about the 
time of the Coptic patriarch Michael I (744-68) 
the martyrion was rebuilt as a five-aisled basilica. 
The site was finally abandoned after the 10th C. 

uit. C.-M. Kaufmann, Die Menasstadt I (Leipzig 1910). 
P. Grossmann, “Abū Mina,” MDAI K 38 (1982) 1831—54. 
Idem, Abii Mind: A Guide to the Ancient Pilgrimage Center 
(Cairo 1986). —P.Gr. 


ABYDIKOS (&ßvôıkós), an official in control of 
navigation. The name is evidently derived from 
Asybos and originally designated the inspector 
of sea traffic through the Hellespont. Ahrweiler 
suggests that he was a successor to the archon or 
komes of the Straits (ten Stenon) or of Abydos, 
known from an edict of Anastasios I, from Pro- 
kopios, and other sources. The term later ac- 
quired a generic meaning; abydikot of Thessalo- 
nike, Amisos, Chrepos, and Euripos are mentioned 
on seals. His function could be combined with 
that of KOMMERKIARIOS. A military rank on the 
staff of the DROUNGARIOS TOU PLOIMOU, abydikos 
was equivalent to, and commonly replaced, the 
rank of komes. It remains under discussion whether 
the abydikos was the same official as the PARAPHY- 
Lax of Abydos mentioned frequently on seals. 
Abydikoi are attested until the early 11th C. 


LIT. Ahrweiler, Structures, pt] (1961), 239-46. 
Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes 179-81. Zacos, Seals 
1.2:1200f,. ~A.K., E.M. 


ABYDOS ("Afvéo0s), city on the Hellespont, near 
modern Canakkale. Abydos and Hieron were the 
two customs posts where taxes were assessed on 
shipping to and from Constantinople. Abydos was 
administered by an archon or komes ton Stenon who 
commanded a small fleet, stopped illegal trans- 
port of weapons, checked travel documents, and 
collected taxes. The amounts were fixed by a 
decree of Anastasios I that forbade excessive 
charges (J. Durliat, A. Guillou, BCH 108 [1984] 
581-98). Justinian I replaced this system with a 
customs house (demosion teloneion) under a komes 
with a fixed salary. Abydos long retained its func- 
tion: its archon or komes is attested through the 


ioth C. Taxes collected there were reduced by 
Empress Irene in 801; the Venetians won a special 
reduction in 992. This function was so important 
that the name ABYDIKOS was applied to similar 
officials throughout the empire. Abydos was a 
strategic naval base subordinate to the theme of 
the Aegean Sea; it later became a separate com- 
mand under its own strategos (or katepano, men- 
tioned in 1086: Lavra 1, no.48.3). Its role and 
location made Abydos the frequent target of for- 
eign and domestic enemies from the 7th through 
the 12th C. It was taken by the Venetians in 1204 
and remained Latin until its reconquest by John 
III Vatatzes. By that time it had yielded in im- 
portance to KALLipouts; the last period of its his- 
tory is obscure. Originally a suffragan bishopric 
of Kyzikos, Abydos became a metropolis in 1084. 
No remains have been reported. 

uit. H. Ahrweiler, “Fonctionnaires et bureaux mari- 
times à Byzance,” REB 19 (1960) 239-46. Antoniadis- 
Bibicou, Douanes 179-81. -C.F. 


ACADEMY OF ATHENS, a school of higher 
education, claiming descent from Plato’s Acad- 
emy, which preserved the traditions of NEOPLA- 
TONISM. It flourished in the 4th C. and attracted 
both pagan and Christian students, including Basil 
the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, and Julian the 
Apostate. STUDENTS formed close groups around 
their TEACHERS, and fights between different 
groups were common. By the end of the 4th C. 
and in the 5th C. the Academy had acquired a 
predominantly pagan character with such teach- 
ers as Ploutarchos, Syrianos, and the philosopher 
PROKLOoS. The teachers emphasized the impor- 
tance of ancient traditions and the role of the 
“divine philosopher” as opposed to the “tyrant.” 
After the death of Proklos (485), Alexandria briefly 
evolved into the leading center of philosophical 
study, but at the beginning of the 6th C., under 
Damasxios, the Academy again became the most 
influential pagan school. Malalas (Malal. 451.16- 
18) records that in 529 Justinian I forbade the 
teaching of philosophy and law in Athens, but 
some teaching continued there. Circa 532 leading 
philosophers from Athens emigrated to Persia; 
disappointed in CHosroes I, who turned out not 
to be an ideal philosopher-king, they came back 
to the Byz. Empire. Damaskios, however, re- 
turned not to Athens but to Emesa in his native 


ACCIAJUOLI | 9 


Syria. The Academy continued to function and, 
despite confiscations, still possessed substantial 
funds in the 560s. According to the autobiogra- 
phy of ANANIAS oF Srrak, an anonymous “doctor 
from Athens” was a famous teacher in Constan- 
tinople at the beginning of the 7th C. (Lemerle, 
Humanism g2f). 

The commentaries on Plato and Aristotle by 
such teachers as Proklos and Simplikios provide 
an idea of the range and quality of teaching in 
Athens. The Life of Proklos by Marinos and the 
Life of Isidore by Damaskios give a picture of the 
activity and attitudes of teachers at the Academy. 

tir. Cameron, Literature, pt.XIH (1969), 7-30. F. 
Schemmel, “Die Hochschule von Athen im IV. und V. 
Jahrhundert p. Ch. n.,” Neue Jahrbücher fiir das klassische 
Altertum 22 (1908) 494-513. G. Fernandez, “Justiniano y 


la clausura de la escuela de Atenas,” Erytheia 2.2 (1983) 
24-30. —A.K., R.B. 


ACANTHUS (éxavéos), classical Greek term for 
a perennial plant, common to the Mediterranean, 
whose leaf form inspired decorative motifs in 
architectural sculpture, particularly the Corin- 
thian CcapiTaL. In the 5th and 6th C., the tradi- 
tional, naturalistic form of the acanthus was mod- 
ified by flattening the leaves against a deeply 
undercut ground and creating a lacy texture of 
light and dark, solid and void, punctuated by 
deeply drilled points (Grabar, Sculptures I, pls. 
XIX-XX). The organic Roman form thus became 
an abstract motif used as an element of overall 
pattern. “Wind-blown” capitals of the 5th C. pre- 
serve the naturalistic treatment of the individual 
leaves but twist the entire form, denying its mass. 
The motif was further applied to a wide range of 
architectural features—IMPOST BLOCKS, capitals, 
architraves, and archivolts. The acanthus re- 
mained an abiding decorative feature in sculpture 
and other media. Delicate, lacy friezes decorated 
arcades and marked interior divisions between 
domes, drums, and bodies of churches. Acanthus 
motifs were also used On ICON FRAMES, ARCOSOLIA, 
and templon barriers, as at Hosios Loukas and 
the Cora (Grabar, Sculptures II, pls. XVII-XX, 
CVIf). 

LIT. R. Kautsch, Kapitellstudien (Berlin-Leipzig 1936) 5- 
152. -K.M.K. 


ACCIAJUOLI (Argaïwàns), name of a Floren- 
tine banking family, one branch of which rose to 


10 | ACCIDIE 


prominence in 14th-15th-C. Greece; etym. Ital. 
acciao (“steel”). The Acciajuolis first made their 
fortune in Italy in the 12th C. through the oper- 
ation of a steel foundry; they then turned to 
banking. By the 14th C. they had amassed consid- 
erable wealth and were closely linked with the 
Angevins of Naples. In addition to holdings in 
Italy, Niccolo Acciajuoli (died 8 Nov. 1365) ac- 
quired extensive lands in Greece, particularly in 
Elis, Messenia, and Kephalenia (P. Topping, Stud- 
ies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205—1715 [London 1977] 
pts. V, VI). In 1358 he was granted the CORINTH 
region by Robert II, son of Catherine of Valois. 
He undertook the repair of fortifications at the 
Isthmus of Corinth. 

The family reached its height in Greece during 
the reign of Nerio I Acciajuoli (died 25 Sept. 
1394), lord of Corinth (1371—94), who took ATH- 
ENS from the CaTALANS on 2 May 1388 and 
founded a Florentine duchy of Athens (which 
included THEBES). Nerio I was succeeded as duke 
of Athens by his illegitimate son Antonio I, who 
enjoyed a lengthy and relatively peaceful reign 
(1403-35). The Acciajuoli family maintained its 
rule over Athens until 4 June 1456, when the city 
fell to the Turks. Franco Acciajuoli, the last duke 
of Athens (1455—56), spent his final years as lord 
of Thebes (1456—60) until he was murdered at 
the command of Menmen II. The Greek branch 
of the family intermarried with the PALAIOLOGOS 
and Tocco families. 

The Acciajuoli property in the Morea, known 
from acts of donation, included fields, vineyards, 
meadows, forestland, etc. The documents list the 
paroikoi who were attached to the land, as well as 
their animals, and enumerate the rental payment 
owed by each peasant, usually in cash. 

uit. C. Ugurgieri della Berardenga, Gli Acctaioli di Fi- 
renze nella luce dei loro tempi (1160—1834), 2 vols. (Florence 
1962). Setton, Catalan Domination 66-68 and n.5, 174-211. 
PLP, no.1606—15. J. Longnon, P. Topping, Documents sur 


le régime des terres dans la principauté de Morée au XIVe siècle 
(Paris—The Hague 1969). -A.M.T. 


ACCIDIE. See AKEDIA. 


ACCLAMATIONS (sing. evonpia, todvxpovior). 
Cadenced unison shouts, which applauded or crit- 
icized magnates and esp. emperors, characterized 
Byz. public life. Against the silence attending the 


emperor’s appearances or the reading of his words, 
acclamations manifested public reaction. Thus, 
acclamations by the army and people formed the 
key consensual act in an imperial CORONATION. 
Acclamations at public meetings (e.g., church 
councils) were increasingly written down, painted, 
or inscribed in public places in the 4th—5th C. 
and developed their own iconography. Chants or 
loyal petitions improvised at the circus offered 
Byz. crowds a rare channel of communication 
with their rulers; acclamations concerning pro- 
vincial officials were forwarded to the prince as 
evidence of public opinion (Cod.Theod. 1 16.6). 

Acclamations grew more complex and formal- 
ized as the FACTIONS orchestrated their perfor- 
mance. The gth- and 1oth-C. acclamations of De 
ceremoniis show uniformly obsequious texts per- 
formed at every ceremony by imperial employees 
under the praipositos (McCormick, Eternal Victory 
223-25). This elaborateness and professional per- 
formance pushed acclamations toward political 
poetry and culminated, for example, in Theodore 
Propromos. The army and public continued to 
voice shorter, more formulaic shouts, like those 
appearing on coins (e.g., DOC 3.1:177), as re- 
sponses to the factions’ acclamations and esp. to 
demonstrate loyalty in crises. Usurpers suppos- 
edly extorted them by force (John Mauropous, 
no.186.25, ed. Lagarde, p.183) and their potential 
insincerity fooled no one (THEMISTIOS, Orationes 
8, 1:156.1-3). At gth- and 1oth-C. state banquets 
and AUDIENCES, organs gave the cue for all to 
stand and join the factions in acclaiming the em- 
peror (Oikonomides, Listes 203.31—34). 

In all periods LEGITIMACY, divine support, or- 
thodoxy, victory, and long life were favorite themes. 
Acclamations often observed a responsorial pat- 
tern, whereby persons were acclaimed, starting 
with God or the emperor and proceeding in order 
of precedence, followed by specific praises or re- 
quests. Acclamations’ content thereby illuminates 
the ceremonies they accompanied. Late Roman 
acclamations mixed Greek and Latin, but gave 
way to overwhelmingly Greek texts by the 10th 
C.; a few fossilized Latin acclamations continued 
to be performed on special occasions. Rough iso- 
syllaby and rhythm of stress accent determined 
the metrical structure of acclamations (P. Maas, 
BZ 21 [1912] 28—51; Cameron, Circus Factions 
329-33) and anticipated developments of Byz. 
prosody like POLITICAL VERSE. 


ur. T. Klauser, RAC 1:216-33. C. Roueché, “Accla- 
mations in the Later Roman Empire: New Evidence from 
Aphrodisias,” JRS 74 (1984) 181—g9. —M.McC. 


ACCLAMATIONS, APOTROPAIC, words or 
phrases expressing religious conviction in brief, 
exclamatory form, often found on AMULETS. At 
first simple utterances of shared religious feeling, 
such acclamations lent themselves naturally—be- 
cause of the frequency with which they invoke 
the power of the deity—to eventual apotropaic 
use; for instance, praise of God invokes his aid 
against demons. Some (e.g., Hygieza, “health”) are 
little more than banal expressions of good luck, 
while others (e.g., Heis Theos ho nikon ta kaka, “One 
God conquering evil!”) are more specifically di- 
rected against evil spirits. The roots of Christian 
apotropaic acclamations lie in the ceremonial pro- 
tocol of the Hellenistic and Roman imperial courts, 
for example, the TrisaGion (Hagios, Hagios, Ha- 
gios), which appears frequently on amulets of the 
5th through 7th C. 


uit. E. Peterson, Heis Theos (Gouingen 1926). -G.V. 


ACHAIA (‘Axaia). The toponym Achaia has sev- 
eral meanings in the Byz. period. 

1. It was a late Roman province embracing the 
PELOPONNESOS and central GREECE south of Ther- 
mopylai, identified by HieRoKLes with HELLAS 
and credited with 79 cities. The capital was Cor- 
INTH. Under Diocletian, Achaia was part of the 
diocese of Moesia, but it was later transferred to 
Macedonia under the praetorian prefect of 
ILLYRICUM. Most of the province (with the excep- 
tion of its western parts) was eventually included 
in the theme of Hellas. The ecclesiastical province 
of Achaia survived, but presumably designated 
only the Peloponnesos; Patras is listed as its met- 
ropolitan see from the 8th or gth C. 

2. In a general geographic sense, the term re- 
fers to the northwestern Peloponnesos, whose main 
city was Patras. Aside from a narrow coastal strip 
along the Gulf of Corinth, Achaia is mountainous 
and sparsely populated. Among the churches of 
the region is the Panagia at Mentzaina, a timber- 
roofed basilica, dated to the mid-1oth C. (A.G. 
Moutzale, Archaiologika Analekta Athenon 17 [1984] 
21—42). 

3. Achaia was also the name of a Frankish prin- 


ACHAIA, PRINCIPALITY OF | 11 


cipality founded in southern Greece after the 


Fourth Crusade (see ACHAIA, PRINCIPALITY OF). 
-T.E.G. 


ACHAIA, PRINCIPALITY OF, sometimes called 
principality of Morea (to be distinguished from 
the Byz.-controlled despotate of the Morea), the 
Frankish territory in the Peloponnesos ruled by 
the prinses of Achaia from 1205 to 1430. In the 
aftermath of the Fourth Crusade and the Latin 
conquest of Constantinople in 1204, two Frankish 
Crusaders, WILLIAM (I) OF CHAMPLITTE and GEOF- 
FREY (I) VILLEHARDOUIN, seized control of vir- 
tually the entire Byz. Peloponnesos and became 
the first two princes of Achaia. The Frankish 
principality reached the peak of its power under 
WILLIAM I] VILLEHARDOUIN, who constructed for- 
tresses at MISTRA, Maina, and Monemvasia. After 
William II was captured by the Byz. at the battle 
of PELAGONIA (1259), however, and forced to cede 
the castles to Emp. Michael VIII Palaiologos, the 
Byz. regained a foothold in the Morea. During 
their remaining 170 years of empire, the Byz. 
gradually reconquered the Peloponnesos, until 
finally bringing an end to the principality only 30 
years before the despotate of Morea fell, in turn, 
to the Ottomans. Both the Western and Greek 
versions of the CHRONICLE OF THE Moreta are 
important sources for the first century of the 
principality. 

The French conquerors imposed a feudal sys- 
tem upon their Greek territory. The prince of 
Achaia was nominally a vassal of the Latin em- 
peror of Constantinople; in reality, however, he 
controlled more territory than his suzerain and 
was supported by a larger army. His chief resi- 
dence was ANprRAviIDA. The prince had the right 
to mint coins, which were produced at the active 
port of Clarenza (see CHLEMOUTSI). The prince’s 
authority was limited by the power of his barons, 
who were considered his peers; they had privaie 
armies and built (or restored) castles throughout 
the principality at such sites as Old Navarino, 
Kyparissia, and Karytaina. After Achaia became 
a dependency of the kingdom of Sicily in 1267 
and after the death of William II in 1278, many 
princes of Achaia held the title only nominally 
and rarely, if ever, visited the Peloponnesos. The 
French settlers were always outnumbered by their 
Greek subjects, who sometimes preferred the tol- 
erant French rule to Byz. administration, but were 


12 ACHEIROPOIETA 


Princes of Achaia 
Ruler 


WILLIAM I OF CHAMPLITTE 


Reign Dates 


1205-1209 
GEOFFREY I VILLEHARDOUIN 1209-1226/31 


GEOFFREY lI VILLEHARDOUIN 1226/3 1-1246 


WILLIAM II VILLEHARDOUIN 1246-1278 
CHARLES I oF ANJOU 1278-1285 
Charles II of Anjou 1285-1289 
Florent of Hainaut 1289-1297 
Isabeau de Villehardouin 1297-1301 
Philip of Savoy 1301-1307 
PHILIP I oF TARANTO 1307-1313 
Louis of Burgundy 1313-1316 
Mahaut de Hainaut 1316-1321 
John of Gravina 1322-1333 
Robert of Taranto 1333-1364 
Philip II of Taranto in rivalry with 

Marie de Bourbon 1364-1370 
Philip II of Taranto 1370-1373 
Jeanne of Naples 1373-1381 
Jacques de Baux 1381-1383 
Period of competition between 

Marie de Bretagne, Hospitallers, 

Louis I] of Clermont, Pope Urban 

VI, Amadeo of Savoy, and Mahiot 

de Coquerel 1383-1396 
Pierre de Saint-Superan (NAVARRESE 

COMPANY) 1396-1402 
Marie Zaccaria 1402-1404 
Centurione II ZACCARIA 1404-1430 


Source: Based on Bon, Morée franque 696. 


reluctant to relinquish their Orthodoxy. A Latin 
ecclesiastical hierarchy was established with the 
principal archbishop at Patras, subordinate to the 
Latin patriarch of Constantinople; Greek priests 
came under the jurisdiction of Latin bishops. (See 
table for a list of the princes of Achaia.) 

Lit. A. Bon, La Morée franque, 2 vols. (Paris 1969). Long- 
non, Empire latin 187-355. Idem, HC 2:235—74. P. Top- 
ping, HC 3:104—66. D. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale 
(Paris 1971). G. Dmitriev, “K voprosu o polozenii krest’jan 
v latinskoj Grecii,” ZRVI 14-15 (1973) 55-64. K. Andrews, 


Castles of the Morea (Athens 1953; rp. Amsterdam 1978). 
-A.M.T. 


ACHEIROPOIETA (åxsiporoinrta, lit. [objects] 
“not made by hands”). First used by the Apostle 


Paul (2 Cor 5:1) to describe metaphorically the 
resurrected body of Christ, the term acheiropoieta 
was applied to images of sacred persons that came 
into existence miraculously, usually at the will of 
that person. The most famous acheiropoieta not 
only appeared miraculously, they could also rep- 
licate themselves miraculously. Acheiropoieta are 
cited first and most often in the period between 
Justinian I and Iconoclasm, the most important 
of them emerging in the context of the Persian 
Wars: the MANDYLION, the KERAMion, and the 
images of the KAMOULIANAI Christ, which Hera- 
kleios carried into battle like a new LABARUM. The 
same period yields reports of other achetropoveta: 
the imprint of Christ’s face on a cloth in Memphis, 
his imprint on the column of his flagellation in 
Jerusalem, and an acheiropoieton of the Virgin Mary 
at Lydda (Diospolis). Several of these are de- 
scribed in the LETTER OF THE THREE PATRIARCHS, 
but only the Mandylion and Keramion continued 
to be represented after Iconoclasm. Few other 
acheiropoieta are known. With rare exceptions they 
represent either Christ or Mary. It is no longer 
possible to associate the shroud described by Ni- 
cholas MEsaRITES in 12th-C. Constantinople with 
that most enigmatic of acheiropoveta, the imprinted 
linen cloth known as the Shroud of Turin. 

LIT. E. von Dobschiitz, Christusbilder (Leipzig 1899). Gra- 
bar, /conoclasme 37-59. G. Vikan, “Ruminations on Edible 
Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of Byzantium,” 


Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989) 47—59. Av. Cameron, 
The Sceptic and the Shroud (London 1980). -A.W.C, 


ACHEIROPOIETOS CHURCH. The Church of 
the Acheiropoietos ("Axetpozrotntos, lit. “not-made- 
by-hands”) in Thessalonike is so named because 
it housed a miraculous icon (see ACHEIROPOIETA) 
of the Virgin Hodegetria (A. Xyngopoulos, Hel- 
lenika 13 [1954] 256-62). Dedicated to the Virgin, 
the Acheiropoietos was a wooden-roofed, three- 
aisled basilica, approximately 28 m wide and 36.5 
m long (nave alone). The aisles are screened from 
the nave by high stylobates, there are galleries 
above the two side aisles, and the outer narthex 
was flanked by towers. Perhaps the earliest of the 
churches still standing in the city, it was probably 
built between 450 and 470; bricks from the fabric 
of the building have been dated to ca.450 (M. 
Vickers, BSA 68 [1973] 285—94) and the mosaics 
of birds, chalices, and crosses in the soffits of the 
nave arcade in the church are assigned to the 
period 450-60 (Ch. Bakirtzes in Aphieroma ste 


mneme St. Pelekanide [Thessalonike 1983] 310-29). 
The present marble pavement dates from the 
time of the church, but floor mosaics from two 
earlier buildings, probably of secular character, 
lie under it. Fine (but damaged) frescoes of the 
13th C. (figures of the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia) 
adorn the south aisle (A. Xyngopoulos, ArchEph 
[1957] 6-30). 

LIT. Krautheimer, ECBArch gg—102. S. Pelekanides, Pa- 
laiochristianika mnemeia Thessalonikes. Acheiropotetos. Mone 
Latomou? (Thessalonike 1973) 11-41. D. De Bernardi Fer- 
rero, “La Panagia Acheiropoietos di Salonicco,” CorstRav 
22 (1975) 157-69. A. Xyngopoulos, “Peri ten Acheiropoie- 


ton Thessalonikes,” Makedonika 2 (1941-52) 472-87. 
-T.E.G., N.P.S. 


ACHELOUS (Axed @or), a river (or, according to 
Skyl. 203.95, a fortress) near ANCHIALOS where 
SyYMEON OF BuLGaRIA won a decisive victory over 
the Byz. on 20 Aug. 917 (in Skyl., 6 Aug.). The 
Byz. army, commanded by Leo PHokas, domestikos 
ton scholon, was accompanied by the fleet under 
Romanos (I) LEKAPENOS. Romanos headed for the 
mouth of the Danube, where he expected to find 
Pecheneg auxiliaries; the Serbian prince Peter was 
also expected to join the Byz. Symeon launched 
his attack before these forces could unite. Skylitzes 
(Skyl. 203.94—204.37) provides two explanations 
of the defeat. According to the first version, Leo 
Phokas’s horse bolted and returned riderless to 
camp, causing the soldiers to think that Leo had 
fallen in battle. The second version recounts that 
Leo was pursuing the Bulgarians when he heard 
a rumor that Romanos Lekapenos had diverted 
to Constantinople in order to seize the imperial 
power; immediately Leo headed for camp to Jearn 
the truth. Whatever the cause, the Byz. were 
routed, many commanders were killed (includ- 
ing Constantine Lips), and Leo barely escaped to 
MESEMBRIA. 


uit. Zlatarski, Ist. 1.2:380-g1. Runciman, Romanus 55f. 
—A.K. 


ACHILLEIS (’AxAAnis), an anonymous late Byz. 
romance of chivalry, written in unrhymed politi- 
cal verse and surviving in three versions {N [Na- 
ples]: 1,820 lines; L (London, British Museum]: 
1,363, but with lacunas; O [Oxford]: 761); all 
apparently derive from a single, lost archetype. 
The romance describes the birth of Achilles late 
in his parents’ marriage, his precocious childhood 
(cf. DIGENES AKRITAS and IMBERIOS AND MARGA- 


ACHILLES 13 


RONA), his experience of the power of Eros, court- 
ship, marriage, and intense grief at his wife’s 
death. Although the hero is named Achilles, his 
companion Patroklos and his people the Myrmi- 
dons, the romance has no other connection with 
the world of antiquity (Naples version, vv. 1759- 
1820 on Achilles’ role in the Trojan War, based 
on Constantine MANASSES, are a later addition). 
Rather, the world which the Achilleis reflects, 
with its tournaments and jousting, is the mixed 
Frankish-Greek society of the 14th C., which is 
also part of the background of BELTHANDROS AND 
CHRYSANTZA and LiBISTROS AND RHODAMNE. The 
language, like that of the other verse romances 
of chivalry, is mixed, but closer to the popular 
speech of the day than the learned. 

ED. L and N—L’Achilléide byzantine, ed. D.C. Hesseling 
(Amsterdam 1919). O—S. Lampros, ed., NE 15 (1921) 
367-408. Ital. tr. P. Stomeo, “Achilleide, poema bizantino 
anonimo,” Studi Salentini 7 (1959) 155-97- 

LIT. Beck, Volksliteratur 129-32. R. Keydell, “Achilleis. 
Zur Problematik und Geschichte eines griechischen Ro- 
mans,” ByzF 6 (1979) 83—99. A.F. van Gemert, W.F. Bak- 
ker, “He Achelleida kai he Historia tou Belisariou,” Hellen- 
ika 33, (1981) 82-97. O.L. Smith, “Versions and Manuscripts 
of the Achilleid,” Neograeca Medii Aevi: Texte und Ausgabe, 
ed. H. Eideneier (Cologne 1986) 315-24. —-E.M.J.,M.J.J. 


ACHILLES, the principal Greek hero of the Iliad. 
Achilles retained his popularity well beyond late 
antiquity. This popularity can be explained by the 
search for the ideal warrior, still as apparent in 
the 11th-C. Kynegetika (Weitzmann, Gr. Myth., fig. 
103) as in the 5th-C. illustrated Iliad in Milan 
(Ambros. F 205 inf.). The education (PAIDEIA) of 
Achilles by the centaur Cheiron was contrasted 
with Christian principles of upbringing (M. Hen- 
gel, Achilleus in Jerusalem [Heidelberg 1982] 45- 
47), but still literally depicted on bone caskets and 
in MSS of the homilies of Gregory of Nazianzos 
(Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 165-68). Later, Christian 
rlietoricians (e.g., Prokorios ur Gaza) tried iv 
adapt the theme of the paideia of Achilles to their 
own moralistic ideas; it appears as an exemplary 
education in many Byz. writers. 

The Byz. gradually divested Achilles of his mil- 
itary prowess: in similes of Niketas Choniates, in 
the Histories of Tzetzes, even in the commentary 
of Eustathios of Thessalonike on the Iliad, Achilles 
is primarily a physician, a musician, a sober man. 
In his commentary on the Odyssey (Eust. Comm. 
Od. 1696.65, vol. 1:431), Eustathios critically notes 
that Homer was pany philachilleus, “too pro-Achil- 


14 ACHILLES TATIUS 


lean.” Already in Homer, Achilles had some fea- 
tures of a semibarbarian prince; Leo the Deacon 
(Leo Diac. 150.4-20) developed the idea that 
Achilles was “Tauroscythian,” endowed with the 
typical cruelty of the Rus’. 

ur. D. Kemp-Lindemann, Darstellungen des Achilleus in 
griechischer und römischer Kunst (Bern 1975) 248-51. C. 
Delvoye, “Eléments classiques et innovations dans l’illustra- 
tion de la légende d'Achille au Bas-Empire,” AntCl 53 
(1984) 184-99. ~A.C., A.K. 


ACHILLES TATIUS (AxtdAdevs Tários), author 
of the novel Leukippe and Kleitophon and, according 
to the Soupa, other works of varied scope; born 
Alexandria, fl. end of 2nd C. The Souda also 
states, almost certainly incorrectly, that he became 
a Christian and a bishop. The ROMANCE, in care- 
fully wrought prose with many EKPHRASEIS, is 
narrated throughout in the first person; it relates 
the lurid adventures and dramatic separations (by 
pirates, shipwrecks, false deaths, and so on) of 
the hero and heroine before they can be reunited 
and married. A papyrus roll of the 3rd to 4th C. 
containing the romance is being edited at the 
university libraries of Duke and Cologne (W.H. 
Willis in XVH Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia 
[Naples 1984] 1:163-66). Despite reservations about 
the romance’s moral qualities (see, e.g., Photios, 
Bibl., cod.87; Psellos, De Chariclea et Leucippe iudi- 
cium), the novel seems to have maintained an 
intermittent readership, perhaps because of its 
potential for allegorical interpretation in terms of 
the salvation of a Christian soul as well as its 
Atticist prose style. When in the 12th C. novels 
began to be written once more, that of Achilles 
was taken as a model by Eustathios MAKREMBO- 
LITES, used by Theodore PRopRomos, and quoted 
in the Grottaferrata version of DIGENES AKRITAS. 

ED. Leucippe and Cleitophon, ed. E. Vilborg, 2 vols. (Stock- 
holm 1955, 1962). Eng. tr., S. Gaselee, Achilles Tatius (Cam- 
bridge-London 1969). 

LIT. T. Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford 1983) 41- 
54. Hunger, Lit. 2:121-25. S.V. Poljakova, “Evmatij i Achill 


Tatij,” Antiénost’ i sovremennost’ (Moscow 1972) 380~—86. 
-E.M,J., M.}.J. 


ACHMET BEN SIRIN (Axper 6 vids Tnpeip), 
author of the longest and most important Byz. 
tract on DREAMS. Achmet is the pseudonym of a 
Christian Greek who used in his ONEIROKRITIKON 
widely divergent sources: Arabic (N. Bland, JRAS 
16 [1856] 118-71; M. Steinschneider, ZDMG 17 


[1863] 227-44), Byz. (dream books of AsTRAM- 
PSYCHOS and the prophet DanieL), late Roman 
(Artemidoros, 2nd C.), and his own dream ma- 
terial. The pagan material, particularly in the first 
14 chapters, has been reworked to conform to 
Christian orthodoxy. The treatise is dedicated to 
“the protosymboulos Ma’mun,” the caliph of “Ba- 
bylon,” whose dream interpreter Achmet pur- 
ports to be, and contains the interpretations of 
hundreds of dream symbols attributed to Persian, 
Egyptian, and Indian seers. These attributions, 
patently false, are a scheme to project cosmopol- 
itan erudition. The date of composition lies some- 
where between 813 (the year of ascent of Caliph 
Ma’min) and the early 11th C., when the dream 
book appears in the marginalia and text of two 
MSS (D. Gigli, Prometheus 4 [1978] 65-86, 173- 
88; S.M. Oberhelman, BZ 74 [1981] 326f). The 
name Achmet also appears as the author of an 
astrological treatise, datable to the end of the 8th 
or the beginning of the goth C. (E. Riess, RE 1 
[1894] 248). 

ED. Onetrocniticon, ed. F. Drexl (Leipzig 1925). The Onet- 
rocriticon of Achmet, tr. S.M. Oberhelman (Binghamton 1989). 

LIT. F. Drexl, Achmets Traumbuch (Freising 1909). Idem, 


“Studien zum Text des Achmet,” BZ 33 (1933) 13-31, 
271-92. —S.M.O. 


ACHYRAOUS (Axvpdous, Lat. Esseron), for- 
tress of Mysia overlooking the Makestos River in 
northwestern Anatolia, near modern Balıkesir. 
First mentioned in 812 as a village by THEODORE 
oF Stoupios, Achyraous became important only 
in 1139, when John II Komnenos made it a pow- 
erful and strategic fortified city to assure control 
of the region and its roads. Achyraous was then 
made a bishopric, under Kyzixos, and, in the late 
12th C., an ecclesiastical metropolis. At that time, 
it apparently became the center of a separate civil 
province. After Latin occupation in 1204—20, 
Achyraous was a major Laskarid fortress. Al- 
though strengthened by Michael VIII in 1282, it 
barely survived a Turkish attack in 1302, was 
temporarily rescued by the Catalans in 1304, but 
fell to the Turks of Karası soon after. The well- 
preserved fortress is built in a distinctive masonry 
with much brick decoration. Mt. Kyminas in the 
immediate vicinity contained important monastic 
settlements in the gth—10th C. 

LIT. C. Foss, “The Defenses of Asia Minor against the 


Turks,” GOrThR 27 (1982) 161-66. Hasluck, Cyzicus 93f. 
-C.F. 


ACOLYTE (dxoédovos), the “follower” in a Fu- 
NERAL cortege, Justinian’s novel 5g, regulating the 

ayment of funeral expenses out of the endow- 
ments of the GREAT CHURCH, mentions ekolouthoi 
among the various corporations that specialized 
in the performance of the necessary obsequies. 
There were to be three akolouthoi per cortege 
(asketrion). The acolytes who constituted the lowest 
clerical order in the Roman church (H. Leclercq 
in DACL 1:348—56) apparently did not have a 
counterpart in Byz. —P.M. 


ACQUISITION. The most common legal means 
of obtaining property were transfer (Lat. traditio; 
Gr. paradosis), possession by prescriptive right 
(LONGI TEMPORIS PRAESCRIPTIO), occupatio, and ac- 
quisition ex lege. Property was obtained, for ex- 
ample, in fulfillment of a sale-, gift-, or dowry- 
CONTRACT through a physical transfer; from the 
time of Justinian I this transfer could take place 
informally, in contrast to the earlier formal act, 
the manctpatio. In case of a purchase (SALE), pay- 
ment had to accompany the transfer in order for 
the acquisition of the property to be complete. 
Occupatio, appropriation with the intent to keep 
the object as property, was the legal basis for the 
acquisition of an object which had no owner. 
Acquisition ex lege (i.e., an acquisition where the 
acquirer does not participate in the transaction), 
involved primarily the acquisition of an inheri- 
tance by the lawful heir of the testator. The ac- 
quisition of possession was based on the effective 
tenure of an object and by the wish to have it: 
corpore et animo (Gr. somati kai psyche, lit. “in body 
and soul”). —M.Th.F. 


ACRE, KINGDOM OF. After the Third Crusade 
recovered Acre from Saladin (12 July 1191) but 
failed to regain Jerusalem, Acre became the cap- 
ital of the kings of Jerusalem and a major center 
for the production of CRUSADER ART. John of 
Brienne was king there (1210—25) before becom- 
ing Latin emperor in Constantinople. Restricted 
to a coastal strip, the kingdom of Acre was dom- 
inated by Italian merchant communities in the 
cities. A conflict between Venetians and Genoese 
over a house belonging to the Church of St. Sabas 
in Acre (1256—70) drove Genoa to ally itself with 
Micuaex VIII, thereby facilitating his seizure of 
Constantinople. The Venetian-Genoese struggles, 
however, spread into Byz. waters, where much 


ACTA ARCHELAI 15 


harm was done to Byz. Acre fell to the Mamliks 
on 18 May 1291. 


LIT. Prawer, Royaume latin. —-C.M.B. 


ACROCORINTH. See CORINTH. 


ACROSTIC (a&xpooriyxis), a composition in prose 
or verse in which the initial letters of each section 
form a word, phrase, or alphabetic sequence. Ac- 
rostics are regularly found in hymns, both kon- 
TAKIA and KANONES, where the first letters of each 
OIKOS, or verse, are linked to form the author’s 
name (e.g., Tod Pwpavod), an indication of the 
subject matter (e.g., Eis tov "lwond Pwpavod eros), 
or to make an alphabet (as in the AKATHISTOS 
Hymn); letters can be doubled to allow the text to 
expand (e.g., Ets rov Xyxyppuvocoocatropov) and 
some phonetic spelling is permissible (e.g., Tam- 
vod). Alphabetic acrostics link chapters and entries 
in the gnomologia (see GNOME) and MIRRORS OF 
Princes, hortatory works to which are related a 
series of shorter penitential alphabets in prose 
and verse and in the vernacular as well as the 
learned languages (Krumbacher, GBL 717-20). 
Acrostics are found in secular enkomia, spelling 
the name of the recipient (e.g., in the works of 
DIOSKOROS oF APHRODITO). Alphabetic acrostics 
are also used for love songs, as in the EROTOPAIG- 
NIA. 

LIT. K. Krumbacher, “Die Akrostichis in der grie- 
chischen Kirchenpoesie,” SBAW (1903) 551—691. W. Weyh, 


“Die Akrostichis in der byzantinischen Kanonesdichtung,” 
BZ 17 (1908) 1—69. Hunger, Lit. 2:165. —E.M.]J. 


ACTA ARCHELAI, anti-Manichaean document 
in the form of a disputation involving, on the 
Christian side, Archelaos, bishop of Kaschara in 
Mesopotamia (ca.270), and for the Manichaeans 
Turbo and Mant himself. Although the dispute 
is certainly not historical, the text contains au- 
thentic documents and genuine tradition concern- 
ing MANICHAEANISM. The Acta were written be- 
fore 350 by an otherwise unknown Hegemonios 
and were cited by authors such as EPIPHANIOS of 
Salamis and Soxrates. Only a few fragments of 
the original Greek version survive, but the full 
text exists in a defective Latin translation. 

ED. PG 10:1405—1528. Hegemonius: Acta Archelai, ed. C.H. 
Beeson (Leipzig 1906). 

LIT. G. Hansen, “Zu den Evangelienzitaten in den ‘Acta 
Archelai, ” StP 7 (1966) 473-85. A.L. Kac, “Manichejstvo 


16 ACTIONS 


v Rimskoj imperii po dannym Acta Archelai,” VDZ, no.3 
(1955) 168-79- -T.E.G. 


ACTIONS (åywyai). Under the classical formu- 
lary procedure of Rome, actions were written 
statements of grievance (formulae) that were allot- 
ted to the parties by the PRAETOR on the basis of 
their descriptions of the conflict, so that they 
could bring their lawsuit before the judge. The 
substantive claims set forth in this formal state- 
ment were closely connected with the relevant 
OBLIGATION; as a rule every obligatio had its own 
actio and, inversely, where there was no obligatio 
(see PacTa) there was no actio. With the elimina- 
tion of the formulary system in 342 (Cod. Just. II 
57.1), the procedural aspect of the action became 
irrelevant. Action became the name for the sub- 
stantive claim (obligatio) that a plaintiff brought 
against a defendant. The name of the action had 
to be mentioned in the first sentence of the plain- 
tiff’s writ (editio actionis). Consequently, lists were 
compiled of the names of actions; of these, only 
the work De acTioniBus from the 6th C. has been 
edited. 

Actions in the Post-Justinianic Period. The 
Byz. developed a detailed system of classification 
of actions (e.g., Synopsis Basilicorum A. 24.1). In 
charters, however, the term (which is common) 
has a vague meaning of “claim,” with the conno- 
tation of an illegal procedure. It is used primarily 
in formulas assuring legal protection for a buyer 
or grantee against the seller (grantor) or a third 
person who was thus prohibited from initiating 
any claims concerning the transferred object (e.g., 
Ivir. 1, n0.3.19—20; Xénoph., no.g.45, etc.). A doc- 
ument of 1377 (Lavra 3, no.148) describes a nomi- 
mos agoge (with no further definition) brought 
against the monastery; the plaintiffs eventually 
dropped the claim, refusing to turn to “any Chris- 
tian agoge” that could assist them, and they sub- 
sequently guaranteed the property of the Lavra. 
There is a difference between the elaborate cate- 
gorization of actions in legal texts and the simple 
interpretation of the agoge in documents as a claim 
in general. -A.K. 


ACTOR. In Roman law actors (Lat. histriones) and 
MIMES were considered as belonging to an infa- 
mous profession and were classified with those 
whom the emperor expelled from the army for 


shameful behavior (Digest 3:2.1). Despite the de- 
fense of actors by some intellectuals (LIBANIOS, 
CHORIKIOS OF Gaza), this negative attitude toward 
actors prevailed in Byz.: clerics were forbidden 
not only to participate in performances, but even 
to see a show. Various decrees, secular and eccle- 
siastical alike (esp. the rules of the Council in 
TRULLO), restricted theatrical performances. As 
late as the 15th C. Manuel II characterized the 
theatrical show as typical of the Ottoman court 
and found it reprehensible. The principal accu- 
sation against actors was the sexual promiscuity 
allegedly characteristic of their way of life: musi- 
cians, dancers, and actors are frequently men- 
tioned in the same context as prostitutes. Never- 
theless, in the late Roman Empire actors were to 
be found everywhere; a law of 409 prevented 
local urban authorities from transferring actors, 
charioteers, and wild animals from their cities and 
thus lessening the appeal of popular festivities 
(Cod. Just. XI 41.5). With the decline of the THE- 
ATER, actors assumed the role of clowns and jest- 
ers. 

LIT. F. Tinnefeld, “Zum profanen Mimos in Byzanz 
nach dem Verdikt des Trullanums (691),” Byzantina 6 (1974) 
321-43. W. Puchner, “Byzantinischer Mimos, Pantomimos 
und Mummenschanz im Spiegel der griechischen Patristik 


und ekklesiastischer Synodalverordnungen,” Maske und Ko- 
thurn 29 (1983) 311-17. —Ap.K., A.K. 


ACTS (IIpaéeis rv àmoortóňwv), the historical 
portion of the New TESTAMENT that describes 
events after Christ’s Crucifixion. The Byz. unan- 
imously considered Luke to be the author of the 
Acts, but MS tradition links it more closely to the 
Epistles than to the Gospels: among almost 3,000 
uncial and minuscule MSS of the New Testament 
listed by K. Aland (Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen 
Handschriften des Neuen Testaments [Berlin 1963)]), 
approximately 335 contain the Acts together with 
the Epistles, but without the Gospels, while only 
ten contain the Gospels and Acts without the 
Epistles. The major Byz. commentary on Acts is 
that of Jonn Curysostom. A full exegesis of Acts 
was falsely attributed to the 10th-C. Thessalian 
bishop Oikoumenios—Beck (Kirche 418) dates it 
to the end of the 8th C. Another complete com- 
mentary, by THEOPHYLAKTOs of Ohrid, draws upon 
that of Chrysostom. Other commentaries are 
known in fragments from CATENAE. 

Chrysostom highly appreciated the book of Acts: 


it is no less beneficial for us, he says (PG 60:13f), 
than the Gospels, since it demonstrates the reali- 
zation (ergon) of what was prophesied by Christ 
and presented in the Gospels. The book, he con- 
tinues (col.15.15—16), related the acts of PAuL, 
who labored more than any other; Chrysostom 
completes his work with a panegyric of Paul. 
Chrysostom’s interpretation of Acts is permeated 
by his ethical ideals of poverty over wealth and 
pious ignorance over pseudophilosophy; he uses 
his material for attacks on theatrical perfor- 
mances. The commentary of DipyMos THE BLIND, 
on the other hand, emphasizes Christological 
problems. Referring to Chrysostom, Didymos (PG 
39:1672AB) discusses the contradiction between 
Acts and Paul in the story of the miracle on the 
road to Damascus. The contradiction is resolved 
by pointing out that in one case the text states 
that his companions heard Paul’s voice, while in 
the other they saw only the light and did not hear 
the voice of the Lord. Lections from Acts (to- 
gether with the Epistles) formed the liturgical 
book called the PRAXAPOSTOLOS. Various APOC- 
RYPHAL acts described the exploits of individual 
apostles. 

Acts Illustration. Illustration of Acts is rare in 
Byz. art. In monumental painting, only the 21- 
scene cycle in the narthex at Dečani (14th c.) in 
Serbia illustrates Acts itself, rather than episodes 
from hagiographical cycles, such as the scenes of 
PETER and Paul at MONREALE. Only two MSS of 
Acts—both 12th C.—contain anything more than 
a prefatory portrait of its author, Luke: Paris, 
B.N. gr. 102, fol. 7v (see Kessler, infra), has a grid 
of four scenes—Peter and Jonn at the Beautiful 
Gate, the martyrdom of James, Peter liberated 
from prison, and the stoning of Stephen—and 
Chicago, Univ. Lib. 965, preserves 13 of its orig- 
inal 19 framed illustrations. The earlier SACRA 
PARALLELA contains 17 vignettes illustrating epi- 
sodes from Acts. These four monuments, though 
chronologically diverse, reveal consistencies in the 
selection and interpretation of subject matter that 
occur also in byzantinizing cycles from Italy and 
indicate that a coherent Byz. tradition of Acts 
illustration did exist. It was extensive, settling on 
particular passages and illustrating them densely: 
ASCENSION, PENTECOST, activities of Peter, Paul, 
PHILIP, and Stephen. In contrast to the illustration 
of hagiographical cycles, Acts illustration was strictly 
canonical. 


ACTS, DOCUMENTARY 17 


LIT. A.W. Carr, “Chicago 2400 and the Byzantine Acts 
Cycle,” BS/EB 3.2 (1976) 1—29. L. Eleen, “Acts Illustration 
in Italy and Byzantium,” DOP 31 (1977) 253-78. H. Kess- 
ler, “Paris. gr. 102: A Rare Illustrated Acts of the Apostles,” 
DOP 27 (1973) 209-16. —J.1., A.K., A.W.C. 


ACTS, DOCUMENTARY, documents of a for- 
mal nature, preserved in original or in copy, and 
varying according to their author and the nature 
and importance of the question they concern. 
Physical Characteristics. Normally acts were 
written On PAPYRUS, PARCHMENT, OF PAPER in black 
or brown INK; emperors (and later despotai) used 
purple ink for their signatures (and for some 
other words, esp. in CHRYSOBULLS); the SEBASTO- 
KRATORS and CAESARS used blue ink, the PROTO- 
VESTIARIOS green ink. Purple parchment, use of 
gold or silver ink, and documents with miniatures 
(12th, 14th C.) or with decorated initials (12th C.) 
are rare. The script varies. In the 10th—12th C. a 
notarial script is typical of official chanceries. Nor- 
mally acts were written in Greek; the language 
varies from moderately educated (chanceries) to 
popular (some private deeds). Letters of foreign 
relations were written in other languages (above 
all in Latin) or were accompanied by translations 
(few mentions of cryptographic or coded letters 
survive). The contents of the document were 
guaranteed by the author’s autograph signature 
at the bottom, or by his protaxis, i.e., writing his 
name at the top of the document; if the author 
was illiterate, protaxis and subscription could be 
replaced by a signon, i.e., an autograph cross in 
the quarters of which the notary wrote the au- 
thor’s name and titles. Some public documents 
and most private ones bear also the signatures 
(autograph, if possible) of witnesses and, if one 
took part, of the tabellion or taboullarios (see No- 
TARY) who signed as a privileged witness. In some 
cases, the transaction was further confirmed by 
the signature of a bishop or an official, obvivusly 
with the hope that thus the document would re- 
ceive public fides. The authenticity of the docu- 
ment was also guaranteed by a SEAL, hanging from 
a string of variable value and color at the bottom 
of an open document or securing a folded one: 
the seals were made of gold (only the emperor), 
of silver (rare; some despotai), lead and wax (gen- 
eral use, including emperors and despotai). Several 
annotations also survive; their interpretation is 
not always sure: recognition that the contents of 


18 ADAM AND EVE 


the act reflect what was intended to be said; reg- 
istration; Or MONOCONDYLES on the place where 
two different sheets were glued together. Major 
chanceries had secret signs guaranteeing the au- 
thenticity of their acts, such as having the final 
word (kratos) of the CHRYSOBULLS written at the 
beginning of a line; other secrets of the patriar- 
chal chancery (place of seal, way of folding, etc.) 
are described in the EkTHESIS NEA. 
Composition. Most acts contain some (if not all) 
of the following parts. At the very beginning 
(protocol) and at the very end (eschatocol) of the 
document are formulas and pieces of information 
identifying author, addressee, and date. At the 
beginning is an znvocatio, usually to the Holy Trin- 
ity; the intitulano, with the name and titles of the 
author (emperors, patriarchs, certain officials) or 
the protaxis or signon (in private deeds); eventually 
indication of the addressees (inscriptio). The date 
is part of the protocol in certain documents, such 
as excerpts from decisions of the synod, some acts 
of public officials (until the 11th C.), as well as 
some private deeds of the late Roman period and, 
in southern Italy, of the 1oth—14th C. Justinian I 
required a ready-made protocol with the date on 
which it was drafted. The eschatocol contains the 
date on which the document was written (egraphe) 
or issued (datum, Gr. apelythe) and the subscrip- 
tion(s). The date is expressed according to one of 
several CHRONOLOGIES: by consular years (until 
the 8th C.), regnal years (introduced in 537 and 
still used in the 11th C. in Italy), anno mundi (year 
of the creation), and INDICTION. The body of the 
act is composed of the PROOIMION (arenga), a rhe- 
torical introduction with philosophical and/or po- 
litical considerations; the exposition of the affair 
(narratio); the decision or arrangement or order 
(dispositio); eventual spiritual or temporal sanc- 
tions for recalcitrants; and special clauses. 
Probatory Value. The value of an act as evi- 
dence was limited, since its authenticity and valid- 
ity could be contested at any time. An act of a 
state authority (instrumentum publicum) could be 
contested by the state itself (e.g., the privileges 
granted by an authentic imperial chrysobull would 
not be recognized by the authorities unless the 
chrysobull had been registered in time at the 
appropriate government services). An individual, 
however, could contest only its formal authenticity 
and bore the onus of proof. In the absence of 
notarial RECORDS (minutes) with probatory value, 


the diplomatic authenticity as well as the contents 
of private deeds could be contested in court. In 
such cases proof had to be brought in order to 
support them: testimony of the parties them- 
selves, witnesses (including, first of all, the taboul- 
larios who drafted the deeds), judicial oaths, and 
graphological examination of the signatures (for 
the deceased). 

Types of Acts. All chanceries and public or 
ecclesiastical authorities issued simple letters 
(grammata pittakia; see PrrrakiaA), which, when 
sealed, were called s1ciLtia. The imperial chan- 
cery also issued chrysobulls, EDICTS, NOVELS 
(novellae), pragmaticae sanctiones, sacrae (sakrat), 
PROSTAGMATA, prostaxeis, HORISMOI, RESCRIPTA, Ly- 
seis, etc. Horismoi and parakeleuseis were also issued 
by despotai and other state or church dignitaries 
(caesars, patriarchs); entalmata, SEMEIOMATA, and 
HYPOMNEMATA were documents typical of the pa- 
triarchal chancery and of that of public servants, 
who also issued fiscal acts, such as apographzka 
grammalta, PRAKTIKA, periorismot, isokodika (see Ko- 
pix), etc. All kinds of private documents survive: 
WILLs, deeds confirming SALES, exchanges, and 
DONATIONS as well as documents that offer guar- 
antees, make special agreements, etc. 

LIT. Délger, Schatz. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkunden- 
lehre 23-56. Oikonomides, “Chancellerie” 174-89. Svo- 
ronos, “Actes des fonctionnaires” 423-27. Falkenhausen- 


Amelotti, “Notariato & documento” 40—62. A. Guillou et 
al., “Table ronde,” in PGEB 532f. -N.O. 


ADAM AND EVE, the original ancestors of hu- 
mankind, occupied an important place in Byz. 
theological doctrine. Adam ("AéSdaj), whose name 
was interpreted as “man” or “earth,” was created 
perfect, but committed grave sin (ORIGINAL SIN) 
by his own free will; his sin was considered more 
serious than that of Eve (Eta). Adam’s sin led to 
the loss of grace and to death, but Christ came to 
redeem his fall. Thus Christ was proclaimed a 
Second Adam, and Adam the prefiguration (typos) 
of Christ—either through similarity (created with- 
out human father) or in contrast (obedience ver- 
sus disobedience, damnation versus salvation). Ex- 
egetes ascribed double prefigurative significance 
to Eve: as the typos of the church, since she was 
created from Adam’s rib and the church emerged 
from the open wound of Christ on the Cross, and 
as an antithesis to the VIRGIN Mary. 


Representation in Art. Adam and Eve are de- 
picted already at the Christian building at Dura 
Europos and play a significant role in art of the 
pre-Justinianic period, culminating in extensive 
cycles in the illustrated Cotton and Vienna GEN- 
esis MSS. Later they continue to occur in cycles 
which presumably reflect early models, such as 
the illustrated OcTATEUCHS, the nave mosaics of 
the Cappella Palatina at Palermo and the cathe- 
dral at Monreale, and the narthex mosaics at S. 
Marco in Venice. Brief cycles, closely related icon- 
ographically, also appear on ivory CasKETSs (Gold- 
schmidt-Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt. 1, e.g., nos. 
67—69, 84), where their function is unclear. From 
the gth C., the Anastasis provided an important 
new context for Adam and Eve with the youthful 
Adam of Genesis now a white-bearded patriarch; 
from the 12th C. the idealized features of Eve 
become lined and wrinkled. 

LIT. A. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image 
(Princeton 1986). K. Wessel, RBK 1:40-54. S.E. Robinson, 
The Testament of Adam: An Examination of the Syriac and Greek 
Traditions (Chico, Calif., 1982). H. Maguire, “Adam and 
the Animals: Allegory and Literal Sense in Early Christian 
Art,” DOP 41 (1987) 363-73. ~A.K., J-H.L. 


ADDAI, DOCTRINE OF. See DOCTRINE OF AD- 
DAI. 


ADDRESS, FORMS OF, various modes of excla- 
mation, appeal, harangue, and greeting, pre- 
served primarily in letters (both papyri and col- 
lections) as well as in documents and speeches; on 
rare occasions narrative texts preserve traces of 
formulas of oral address while recreating dia- 
logues. Zilliacus (infra) suggests that in the 4th— 
6th C. a radical change of the form of addressing 
people took place, because of the bureaucratiza- 
tion of society, on the one hand, and its christian- 
ization, on the other. “Classicizing” authors, such 
as Libanios and Julian, retain the traditional lit- 
erary forms of address: agathe, anthrope, kale, etc. 
In the papyri of the 5th—6th C., however, ancient 
forms of address practically disappear, being re- 
placed by pious epithets (theotimetos, theophylaktos) 
or complicated adjectives with prefixes pan- and 
hyper-. The usage of the pluralis reverentiae (“plural 
of reverence”), unknown in the Christian milieu 
before the 4th C., was established thereafter, and 
from the 5th C. onward it became the rule in 
addressing the emperor. Some ancient epithets 


ADELPHOPOIIA 19 


(philos, philtatos, etc.) continued to be used 
throughout the Byz. period, while at the same 
time formulaic addresses were established: the 
emperor was “your majesty” (basileia sou), the 
bishop, “the most holy lord” (hagzotate despota). 
Terms of family relationship, father, brother, 
nephew, were also common, strictly distinguishing 
the type of connection between the correspon- 
dents. Platonizing forms of address (® A@ore) 
continue in works of high style until the end of 
the empire. 

UT. H. Zilliacus, “Anredeformen,” RAC, Supp. manera 
4 (1986) 481-97. -A.K 


ADELPHATON (dde\¢G7ov), a “fellowship” in a 
monastery, which provided the holder (adelpha- 
tarios) with a living allowance (sitereston) for life. 
An adelphaton was normally granted in return for 
a gift of immovables or money (100 nomismata 
was the going rate in the 14th C.—N. Oikono- 
mides in Dionys. 59) and guaranteed in a contract 
between the monastery and the beneficiary. Adel- 
phata might also, however, be in the gift of the 
monastery’s patron, as with the adelphaton at the 
Mancana, which Manuel I gave to Manganeios 
PRopromos. There were two categories of adel- 
phatarioi: esomonitai, who joined the monastic com- 
munity in some capacity, and exomonitat, who con- 
tinued to live outside it. The institution is first 
attested in the 11th C. It always aroused some 
disapproval because it was seen to involve and 
encourage stMony and lack of commitment to the 
monastic life; hence periodic attempts to restrict 
it to esomonitai, to keep it nonheritable, and even, 
in some monastic typika, to prohibit it altogether 
(e.g., Typikon of Charsianeites, EEBS 45 [1981- 
82] 491f, 497, 510). 

LIT. E. Herman, “Die Regelung der Armut in den by- 
zantinischen Klöstern,” OrChrP 7 (1941) 444749- M. Živo- 
jinović, “Adelfali u Vizaniiji i seduovekuvioj Srbiji,” ZRVI 
11 (1968) 241-70. I. Konidaris, Nomike theorese ton monas- 


leriakon typikon (Athens 1984) 223-30. A.-M.M. Talbot, 
“Old Age in Byzantium,” BZ 77 (1984) 276f. —P.M. 


ADELPHOPOIIA (&Se\dozrotia), the adoption 
of a brother or sister. Like ADOPTION and baptis- 
mal sponsorship (see GODPARENTS), with which it 
is always mentioned in treatises on prohibited 
degrees of marriage, adelphopoiia was considered 
a SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP between two people, cre- 


20 | ADLOCUTIO 


ated by the prayers of a ritual (Goar, Euchologion 
706—08). Unlike these other spiritual relation- 
ships, however, adelphopotia was not recognized by 
civil or canon law and was therefore inconsequen- 
tial with regard to rights of inheritance and MAR- 
RIAGE IMPEDIMENTS (Demetrios CHOMATENOS, ed. 
Pitra, cols. 31—32, 725-26; John Pepiasimos, ed. 
A. Schminck, FM 1 [1976] 156.375—-81). A state- 
ment in the Peira (49.11), however, indicates that 
adelphopoua could be acknowledged as creating a 
marriage impediment between the two people 
who had contracted the tie. Repeated prohibitions 
against adelphopoua, including those in monastic 
TYPIKA, show that the practice was widespread. 
Adelphopoiia was contracted by members of the 
ecclesiastical hierarchy (e.g., the patriarch Thomas 
I of Constantinople [607-10] and Theodore of 
Sykeon: Life of Theodore of Sykeon, ed. Festugiére, 
106.1—6). It could confirm a friendship, as in the 
case of Romanos IV Diogenes and Nikephoros 
Bryennios (An.Komn. 2:196.10—16) and carried 
with it an obligation of mutual help and support 
(e.g., DANELIS’s son John and Basil I: TheophCont 
228.6-7). 

LIT. G. Michailides-Nouaros, “Peri tes adelphopoiias en 
te archaia Helladi kai en to Byzantio,” Tomos Konstantinou 


Harmenopoulou (Thessalonike 1952) 284-go. Patlagean, 
Structure, pt.XII (1978), 625-36. -R.J.M. 


ADLOCUTIO (lit. “address”), public address of 
the emperor to his soldiers or the civilian popu- 
lace, usually at the conclusion of a campaign. Two 
depictions of adlocutio survive from the period of 
the TerrarcHy. On the ARCH OF GALERIUS in 
Thessalonike the emperor stands frontally on a 
platform in the center of the composition and 
addresses his army, represented by cavalry and 
footsoldiers assembled on both sides of him. On 
a relief on the ARCH OF CONSTANTINE in Rome 
the emperor proclaims to the Roman citizens the 
new era to follow his victory over Maxentius (312). 
He stands on the Rostra in the Forum Romanum 
and is flanked by senators on either side. In both 
reliefs the viewer, because of the symmetry of the 
composition and the frontality of the emperor, 
becomes the direct recipient of the imperial mes- 
sage. These are the latest extant examples in mon- 
umental art; the last-known numismatic represen- 
tation of adlocutio is on a silver medallion of 
Constantine I dated to 315. Thereafter the subject 


disappears from the repertoire of Late Antique 
art. 

uit. R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (New 
Haven 1963) 165-73. H.P. L’Orange, A. von Gerkan, Der 
spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens (Berlin 1939) 80— 
89. H.P. Laubscher, Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens in 
Thessaloniki (Berlin 1975) 47f, ggf, 127-30. -LK. 


ADMIRAL. See AMERALIOS. 


ADMONITION (zapaivects, vovOecia, vové- 
Tnots), a genre of didactic literature. To designate 
its products, Gregory of Nazianzos and John 
Chrysostom used the term parainetikos (other 
church fathers considered parts of the Bible 
“paraenetic”), while KEXAUMENOS used the title 
logos nouthetikos for a section of his work, going 
back to Xenophon and to the theoretician of rhet- 
oric, Demetrios (both 4th C. s.c.). Byz. “parae- 
netic” speech differed from late Roman deliber- 
ative oratory (Kennedy, Rhetoric 19—23) in that it 
was ethically rather than politically oriented and 
was presented in written form. The BASILIKOS 
Locos, a kind of enkomion, in fact contained sub- 
stantial elements of admonition. So did the Mir- 
RORS OF PRINCES, as indicated by the title kephalaia 
parainetika of the Mirror attributed to Emp. Basil 
I. In the 11th and 12th C. admonitions were 
produced addressing various sectors of society 
(e.g., the so-called Strategikon by Kekaumenos, 
SpaneAas): biblical and ancient precepts were mixed 
with contemporary anecdotes, and the language 
was plain and even close to the VERNACULAR. The 
paraenetic genre flourished in the monastic milieu 
from the 4th C. onward and usually affected the 
standard language: CHAPTERS (kephalaia) of sen- 
tences (GNOMAI) inculcated rules of ascetic con- 
duct, SERMONS had a didactic purpose, and HA- 
GIOGRAPHY also aimed at ethical indoctrination. 
ur. 1l. Rosenthal-Kamarinea, “Die byzantinische Mahn- 


rede im 12. Jahrhundert,” FoliaN 4 (1982) 182-89. 
-A.K., LS. 


ADNOUMIASTES (é&dvovyiacrns), always used 
with the epithet megas, described by a 14th-C. 
ceremonial book (pseudo-Kod. 250.13-20) as a 
subaltern of the MEGAS DOMESTIKOS; his function 
was to issue horses and weapons to soldiers. In 
documents from 1290 onward the megas adnoumi- 


astes appears as an administrator of land dona- 
tions. There could be at least two adnoumiastai at 
one time, as shown in a synodal decision (of 1337/ 
8?) involving two megaloi adnoumiastai, Alexios 
Hyaleas and George Kokalas. The last known 
megas adnoumiastes is not George Katzaras in 1351 
(Dochetar., no.27.1—2), as stated by Guilland, but 
John Marachas in 1402 (PLP, no.16829). 


uit. Guilland, Insttutions 1:594—-96. Raybaud, Gouverne- 
ment 240. Maksimović, Administration 191f. -A.K. 


ADNOUMION (dévovp0v, from Lat. ad nomen), 
an annual census and mobilization to enumerate 
and inspect soldiers of the provincial armies (the- 
mata). The Life of St. PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL, 
referring to a campaign against the Arabs in the 
later 8th C., describes an adnoumion at which sol- 
diers were expected to present themselves with 
their horse and weapons (ed. M.-H. Fourmy, M. 
Leroy, Byzantion g [1934] 125.34-127.26). The 
1oth-C, DE RE MILITARI (ed. Dennis, Military Trea- 
tises 320.3—322.41) recommends general adnoumia 
before and after campaigns to maintain accurate 
records of available manpower and equipment. 
The muster-lists recording these totals were kept 
at the bureau of the LOGOTHETES TOU STRATIOTI- 
Kou. The megas adnoumiastes, marshaller, was in 
the 14th C. responsible for horses and equipment; 
he assisted the megas domestikos during the display 
of troops (pseudo-Kod. 250.13—20); the sign of 
his office was a silver staff with a dove on its haft. 


LIT. Ahrweiler, Structures, pt. VIII (1960), 8f. —E.M. 


ADOMNAN or Adamnan of Hy, Irish church- 
man and writer; abbot on the island of Iona, the 
Inner Hebrides (from 679); born ca.624, died 23 
Sept. 704. His works, in Latin, include a treatise 
On the Holy Places (De locis sanctis), written before 
686 or 688. It relies chiefly on eyewitness testi- 
mony dictated by Arculf, bishop of an unidenti- 
fied see in Gaul, whose ship was blown off course 
and landed on Britain’s west coast. Arculf visited 
the Holy Land in or before 683 or 684, traveled 
to Alexandria and from there, via Crete, to Con- 
stantinople, where he stayed for some eight months. 
He then sailed to Rome, probably via Sicily (whence 
his information on travel conditions, e.g., 211.8— 
10, 221.20—21, 222.8—10). Book 1, on the churches 


ADOPTIANISM | 21 


(Arculf sketched plans preserved in later MSS) 
and relics (E. Nestle, BZ 4 [1895] 338-42) of 
Jerusalem and its environs, is based almost exclu- 
sively on Arculfs nine-month stay there, while 
book 2’s description of other sites depends more 
on written sources: e.g., the bustling shipping at 
Alexandria (223.55—60) is borrowed from “He- 
gesippus.” Book g relates information Arculf col- 
lected in Constantinople on the city’s legendary 
foundation (227.2—36), on Iconoclastic incidents 
involving an icon of St. George and its cult among 
the army at Diospolis, and on an icon of the Virgin 
(229.1-231.58, 233.1-31). It also describes Ar- 
culf’s impression of Hagia Sophia (J. Strzygowski, 
BZ 10 [1901] 704f) and the ceremony of the 
veneration of the relic of the cross by the emperor 
and his court (228.21—38). 

ED. L. Bieler, Itineraria et alia geographica [= CChr, ser. 
lat. 175] (Turnhout 1965) 175-234. Wilkinson, Pilgrims 


93—116, 192-97. 
Lit. F. Brunhdlzl, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des 
Mittelalters, vol. 1 (Munich 1975) 173-78. —M.McC. 


ADOPTIANISM, Christologies that depict Christ 
as a man whom God assumes or adopts as his 
Son, either at his baptism or resurrection. The 
adoption may be likened to the Servant of God 
in Deutero-Isaiah, or to the bestowal of the spirit 
on the Old Testament prophets. Or, it may con- 
form to certain Hellenistic concepts (e.g., apothe- 
osis) often associated with docetic or Gnostic views 
(see GNostTicisM). All of these forms share a strictly 
monotheistic conception of God, and for that rea- 
son they have been viewed in connection with 
MONARCHIANISM. Adoptianism, in contrast to 
MODALISM, retains the transcendence of God the 
Father while the Son is solely a reality within 
history, and the Spirit, in the history of salvation, 
is the unique gift of God, but not God himself. 
To the extent that the Christology of the An- 
TIOCHENE SCHOOL emphasized the full reality ot 
Jesus’ humanity, it could easily tend toward Adop- 
tianism, as confirmed in Paul of Samosata (con- 
demned in 268: H. de Riedmatten, Les actes du 
procès de Paul de Samosate [Fribourg 1952]). Later 
Antiochenes (Diodoros of Tarsos, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Nestorios), however, established their 
notions on the basis of the consubstantiality (see 
Homoousios) of the Father and the Son/Logos. 
Nevertheless, in their Christology they preferred 


22 | ADOPTION 


the image of “indwelling” (enotkesis), which lends 
itself to an Adoptianist interpretation. 
ur. G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate? (Louvain 1929). A. 


Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, From the Apostolic 
Age to Chalcedon (451)? (Atlanta 1975). —K.-H.U. 


ADOPTION (vioéecia). In Byz. legal practice 
adoption did not establish PATRIA POTESTAS; the 
adopted child/adult could inherit from an adop- 
tive parent only if the latter died intestate (Epa- 
nagoge aucta 15.9) or expressly designated the 
adopted child as heir (Sathas, MB 6:628-31). Leo 
VI extended the right to adopt to eunuchs and 
unmarried women (novs. 26, 27) and stipulated 
that an ecclesiastical blessing, not any civil proce- 
dure, was to be the essential constitutive act of 
adoption (nov.24; Balsamon in commentary on 
canon 53 of Trullo—Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 
2:429-31). Adoption thus became a SPIRITUAL 
RELATIONSHIP “above those of the flesh,” like bap- 
tismal sponsorship (see GODPARENT) with which it 
shared a common terminology and similar MAR- 
RIAGE IMPEDIMENTS. From notarial contract for- 
mulas and case histories it emerges that children 
were given up for adoption by widows/widowers 
who could not afford to raise their offspring, 
while children were adopted by childless couples 
in order to obtain descendants and heirs. Michael 
PsELLOs’s adoption of a daughter is the best doc- 
umented case (A. Leroy-Molinghen, Byzantion 39 
[1969] 284-317). Couples with children of their 
own might also adopt (D. Simon, S. Troianos, FM 
2 [1977] 276-83; G. Ferrari, Bollettino dell’Istituto 
storico italiano 33 [1913] 65, 81f). A series of (pro- 
posed) adoptions by childless imperial couples in 
the 11th C. indicates a desire to provide an heir 
to the throne (Zoe’s adoption of MIcHAEL [V] 
KALAPHATES, nephew of her husband Michael IV), 
but also an attempt to forestall coups by their 
prospective adopted sons (Michael VI’s adoption 
of Isaac Komnenos; Nikephoros Botaneiates’ 
adoption of Nikephoros Bryennios). 

In painting, the legitimization of paternity was 
expressed by the act of holding an adopted child 
upon the “father’s” knees. Probably derived from 
images of Abraham and Lazarus, as in the PARIS 
Grecory (Omont, Miniatures, pl.XX XIV), by the 
11th C. this pose was used for the “Ancient of 
Days” (see CHRIST) and, from the 12th C., in 
images of the Trinity. A political extension of 


the motif occurs in the Madrid MS of John Sky- 
LITZES (Papadopoulos, infra, figs. 1, 2) where both 
foreign princes adopted by the emperor and Byz. 
adopted by foreign rulers are shown on the knees 
of their “parents.” 

LIT. A.P. Christophilopoulos, Scheseis goneon kai teknon 
kata to Byzantinon dikaion (Athens 1946) 75-84. S.A. Papa- 
dopoulos, “Essai d'interprétation du thème iconographique 


de la paternité dans l'art byzantin,” CahArch 18 (1968) 121— 
136. -RJ.M., A.C. 


ADOPTIVE BROTHERS. See ADELPHOPOIIA. 


ADORATION OF THE MAGI. According to 
Matthew 2:1-12, the Magi (Mayor) led by a star 
arrived at Jerusalem in search of the child who 
was born to become the Messiah or the king of 
the Jews; they were directed to Bethlehem, found 
Mary and Jesus, paid homage to him, and gave 
him three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 
Matthew says only that they came from the Ori- 
ent; some church fathers (e.g., Epiphanios) con- 
sidered them as coming from Arabia, others (Dio- 
doros of Tarsos, Cyril of Alexandria) from Persia, 
and others (e.g., the 5th-C. theologian Theodotos 
of Ankyra—PG 77:1364C) from Chaldaea. The 
number of the Magi was usually stated as three 
(primarily on the basis of the number of gifts), 
but the Syrian and Armenian tradition counts a 
dozen Magi. Later exegetes invented various names 
for the Magi; thus the 12th-C. writer Zacharias of 
Chrysopolis (Besancon in France) writes that their 
Greek names were Apellius, Amerus, and Damas- 
cus, meaning faithful, humble, and merciful, re- 
spectively (PL 186:83D). 
Identified as kings already in the grd C., the 
Magi were interpreted as symbols of the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles, and so figured prominently 
in Early Christian art. As in Matthew, they were 
at first depicted as approaching the enthroned 
Virgin and Child, independent of the scene of 
the Nativity. Frequent pairings of the Adoration 
and Nativity on sarcophagus lids, ivories, and 
ampullae proclaim their common theme (the 
theophany of the Incarnation), not their narrative 
unity. The Adoration appears independently of 
the Nativity still in certain 11th-12th-C. monu- 
ments (churches in GÖREME; DaPHNI) and, more 
frequently, in Palaiologan imagery influenced by 
the AkaTHISTOs Hymn. Usually, however, post- 


Iconoclastic art integrates the Adoration and even 
the journey and departure of the Magi with the 
Nativity, because the Magi were commemorated 
on Christmas. Their original Persian costume is 
later assimilated to that of Old Testament priests; 
they mount horses, acquire names (Melchior, Bal- 
thasar, Kaspar) representing three races descend- 
ing from Noah, and are extensively depicted in 
the FRIEZE GosPELs. A homily by JOHN or EuBOEA 
in Jerusalem, Gr. Patr. Taphou 14 (11th C.) and 
Athos, Esphig. 14 (12th C.) (Treasures II figs. 342- 
392), is illustrated with 17 images of the Magi, 
many of them otherwise unparalleled. 

uit. Millet, Recherches 196-51. G. Vezin, L’Adoration et le 


cycle des Mages dans lart chrétien primitif (Paris 1950). H. 
Lesétre, Dict Bibl 4.1:543—52. -A.W.C., A.K. 


ADRAMYTTION. See ATRAMYTTION. 


ADRIANOPLE ('Aôptævovnroàis, also Orestias, 
mod. Edirne), city in Thrace on the middle HE- 
BROS River (navigable from Adrianople to the sea) 
and on the major military road Belgrade-Sofia- 
Constantinople. It was an important stronghold 
protecting Constantinople from invasions from 
the north, but is rarely mentioned as an admin- 
istrative center: the 1oth-C. Taktikon of Escurial 
lists the doux of Adrianople immediately after that 
of Thessalonike; in the 1040s the magistros Con- 
stantine Arianites held that position (Skyl. 458.48- 
49). As a bishopric Adrianople is known from the 
end of the 4th C., but its place in the ecclesiastical 
hierarchy declined from 27th in the 7th C. to 
4oth in the 10th C., despite its growing number 
of suffragans—from 5 to 11 (Laurent, Corpus 
5-1:544). A center of the Macedonian nobility, 
esp. in the 11th and 12th C., Adrianople pro- 
duced at least three usurpers: Leo Tornikios, 
Nikephoros BrYENNIOS, and Alexios BRANAS; on 
the other hand, Macedonian troops supported 
Constantinople against eastern generals during 
the revolts of Nikephoros Phokas and Isaac Kom- 
nenos. In the 14th C. the demos of Adrianople 
became active, and in 1341 its revolt preceded the 
outbreak of the ZEALoTs in Thessalonike. 
Located at the intersection of important stra- 
tegic routes, Adrianople was often the center of 
military activity: on 3 July 324 Constantine I de- 
feated Licinius near Adrianople, on g August 378 
Valens was routed here by the Goths (see ADRI- 


ADRIANOPLE, BATTLE OF 23 


ANOPLE, BATTLE OF), in 586 the Avars besieged 
Adrianople in vain. In the gth—1oth C. Adriano- 
ple was a strong point in wars against the Bulgar- 
ians: Emp. Nikephoros I reportedly appointed an 
Arab experienced in “mechanics” to help defend 
the city, but to no avail (Theoph. 498.7—11); both 
Krum and Symeon managed to seize Adrianople 
temporarily. In the 11th C. resistance to the Pech- 
enegs was based at Adrianople. Frederick 1 Bar- 
barossa occupied the city and in 1190 signed there 
a treaty with Constantinople. Kalojan defeated 
Baldwin I of Constantinople at Adrianople on 14 
Apr. 1205. In the 13th C. the city changed hands 
several times, being captured by the armies of 
Nicaea, Epiros, and Bulgaria. John III Vatatzes 
established Nicaean rule over Adrianople in 1242— 
46. In 1307 the Catalan Grand Company besieged 
it. Turkish begs seized it probably ca.1369, 
but the Ottoman sultan Murad I did not enter 
Adrianople before the winter of 1376—77 (L. 
Steinherr-Beldiceanu, TM 1 [1965] 439-61). It 
served as the Ottoman capital until their capture 
of Constantinople in 1453. 

Hagia Sophia, an important domed quatrefoil 
church of the 5th—6th C., with ambulatories and 
galleries, was photographed in the 1gth C., but 
no longer exists (N. Mavrodinov, 6 CEB, vol. 2 
{Paris 1951] 286—go). 

LIT. P. Axiotes, He Adrianoupolts apo ton archatotaton chronon 
mechri tou 1922 (Thessalonike 1922). Asdracha, Rhodopes 
137-48. E.A. Zachariadou, “The Conquest of Adrianople 


by the Turks,” StVen 12 (1970) 211-17. Kleinchronaken 2:297— 
99- -T.E.G., N.P.Š. 


ADRIANOPLE, BATTLE OF, the scene of a 
major defeat of the Roman army by the GoTHS 
on g Aug. 378. In 376 the Goths, under pressure 
from the Huns, crossed the Danube, probably in 
the area of DorosTOLON, and were allowed to 
settle as FOEDERATI on Roman territory. Harsh 
treatment by Roman officials led the Goths to 
rebel, and some common people from Adrianople 
joined them. In 377 Valens left Antioch for Con- 
stantinople and sought assistance from Gratian, 
the emperor in the West. Valens led his troops to 
Adrianople, while Gratian’s army was marching 
from Gallia to Sirmium. Relying on false recon- 
naissance information that the Gothic force was 
only 10,000 strong, Valens decided to launch an 
attack before the arrival of the Western army. 
Fritigern, the Gothic commander, sent envoys 


24 | ADRIATIC SEA 


proposing an eternal peace treaty, but his over- 
tures were rejected. The Roman cavalry, which at 
first attacked successfully, was soon exhausted, 
and the counterattack of Ostrogothic and Alan 
mounted warriors destroyed the Roman infantry. 
Valens stood firm for a while, with his select 
infantry, but then had to retreat. 

The defeat was overwhelming; probably only a 
third of the Roman army was able to escape, and 
Valens was killed. According to one version, he 
was killed by an arrow, his body was stripped on 
the spot and later could not be recognized; an- 
other version relates that he was wounded, brought 
to a hut, and burned with the hut by his pursuers. 
Even though Fritigern was unable to take Adri- 
anople, the Goths rampaged all over Thrace and 
reached the walls of Constantinople; only lavish 
gifts diverted them from the siege of the city. At 
news of the defeat, Gratian recalled his troops to 
the upper Rhine. Orthodox tradition connects 
Valens’ defeat with his Arian persuasion. 

tir. W. Ensslin, RE 2.R. 7 (1948) 2118—26. J. Irmscher, 
H. Paratore, M. Rambaud, De pugna apud Hadrianopolim 
quibusque de causis Romani imperii opes laborare coeperint (Rome 
1979). —A.K. 


ADRIATIC SEA (’ASptarixov 7édayos), the nar- 
row waterway extending north of the IONIAN SEA 
from the Straits of Otranto; it lies between Italy 
on the west and Dalmatia on the east. Along the 
Italian coast there are few harbors between Bari 
and Ravenna, and steep mountains rise along the 
eastern shore, but there are many islands and 
harbors on this side, with major entrepôts at ZARA, 
DUBROVNIK, and DyRRACHION. At the northern 
end of the Adriatic Sea are AQUILEIA and VENICE. 
Byz. maintained control of most of the cities along 
the east coast until the late 11th C., despite Slavic 
settlement and Arab raids as far north as Du- 
brovnik. The developing maritime power of Ven- 
ice, from the 11th C. onward, made the Adriatic 
Sea a virtual Venetian lake. 

LIT. A. Ducellier, La façade maritime de l’Albanie au moyen 
âge (Thessalonike 1981). A. Carile, “La presenza bizantina 
nell'Alto Adriatico fra VII e IX secolo,” in Studi Jesolani 
(Udine 1985) 107-29. A. Guillou, “La presenza bizantina 


nell'arco Adriatico,” in Aquileia nella “Venetia et Histria” 
(Udine 1986) 407-21. -T.EG. 


ADSCRIPTICII (évamdypado., “registered”), 
landless cultivators recorded in census registers 


under the name of the owner on whose estate 
they lived and who was responsible for their tax 
liabilities; the term first appears in 451 (ACO, 
tom.II, vol. 1, pt.2:353.9). Tenant adscriptici 
formed one type of coroni, but adscript status 
also encompassed some agricultural slaves and 
day laborers. Children of adscripticii normally in- 
herited this status, while free proprietors could 
become adscriptici by alienating all their land or 
possibly through PATROCINIUM VICORUM. Accord- 
ing to 5th- and 6th-C. legal texts, the condition 
of adscripticu approximated that of SLAVERY 
(Cod.Just. XI 48.21): they could not possess per- 
sonal property nor in most cases sue their masters 
(Cod.Just, XI 48.19; XI 50.1—2), they could not 
leave the land nor could an estate be sold without 
the adscripticn attached to it, and they could marry 
or receive ordination only with their master’s con- 
sent (Cod.Just. 1 3.36). In reality, their condition 
might differ substantially from such legal pre- 
scriptions; some 6th-C. Egyptian adscriptic not 
only owned personal property, but even entered 
into contractual agreements with their landlord 
(P.Oxy. 1896). The adscripticu disappeared during 
the 7th C., although the term occurs anachronist- 
ically in later law codes (e.g., Ecloga ad Procheiron 
mutata 10.15). 

LIT. Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 19-24. A. Segré, “The Byz- 
anune Colonate,” Traditio 5 (1947) 103-33. W. Schmitz, 
“Appendix I der Justinianischen Novellen—eine Wende 
der Politik Justinians gegentiber Adscripticii und Coloni?” 


Historia 35, (1986) 381—86. I.F. Fichman, “Byli li objazany 
barščinoj egipetskie kolony-adscripticii?” Klio 63 (1981) 605- 
08. -AJ.C. 


ADULIS ("Aôovàıs), an Axumite trading city and 
episcopal see, located at the foot of the bay south- 
east of Massawa on the Red Sea coast of Abyssinia. 
It was visited by Kosmas INDIKOPLEUSTES, who 
transmits (2:49-50, 54—65) the Greek text of a 
victory inscription of Ptolemy III Euergetes from 
a monument there, a copy of which was requested 
by ELEsBoaM from the ruler of Adulis. The bishop 
of Adulis attended the Council of Chalcedon. 
Archaeological excavation has unearthed Axu- 
mite coins and the remains of a church with a 
semicircular apse. The city appears to have been 
destroyed by the Arab navy in the early 8th C. 
LIT. R. Paribeni, Ricerche nel luogo dell'antica Adulis (Rome 
1908). F. Anfray, “Deux villes axoumites: Adoulis et Ma- 
tara,” in IV Congresso Internationale di Studi Etiopici, vol. 1 
(Rome 1974) 745-72- —L.S.B.MacC. 


ADULTERY (uorxeta), or marital infidelity, was 
contrasted with fornication or illicit sexual inter- 
course; Gregory of Nyssa (PG 45:228C) defined 
erneia as the satisfaction of desire without of- 
fending another person, whereas moicheia is “a 
plot (epiboule) and injury (adikia).” On the ladder 
of sins described in the vita of BASIL THE YOUNGER, 
the toll houses for moicheia and porneia were po- 
sitioned separately (ed. Veselovskij 1:31.28, 33.16). 
Some authors, however, equated fornication and 
adultery, since the only permissible union was in 
marriage. Canon law condemned adultery; both 
porneia and moicheia were considered as grounds 
for DIVORCE, whereafter REMARRIAGE of the ag- 
grieved partner was permissible. 

Late Roman civil law introduced severe mea- 
sures against adultery. In his law of 326 Constan- 
tine I (Cod.Just. IX g,29.4) established the death 
penalty for adultery for both the guilty parties. 
Justinian I (nov.134.10) retained the principle of 
Constantine’s legislation but emphasized the pos- 
sibility of reconciliation of the married couple: 
within a two-year period the marriage could be 
restored, but if the husband died before the end 
of this period, the adulterous wife was to be con- 
fined in a monastery for life. The Ecloga (17.27) 
introduced MUTILATION (cutting-off of noses) as 
the punishment for both men and women who 
committed adultery, and the Procheiron—in overt 
contradiction of Christian morality—allowed the 
husband to murder his wife’s lover if they were 
caught in flagrante delicto (Hunger, Grundlagenfor- 
schung, pt.XI [1967], 311). It is difficult to judge 
to what extent these strict laws were applied in 
practice: many conflicts of this kind were probably 
resolved within the family, as described in the vita 
of Mary THE YOUNGER, who was beaten by her 
husband on suspicion of infidelity. Cuckolds were 
mocked and deer antlers used as a symbol of their 
disgrace (Nik.Chon. 322.55—59). Adultery by men 
seems to have been rarely punished in actuality. 

Adultery could lead to property problems. Ac- 
cording to novel 32 of Leo VI the husband of an 
adulterous wife was to receive her DOWRY as a 
“consolation” for his dishonor; her remaining 
property was to be divided between her children 
and the convent to which she retired. 

The history of imperial adultery suggests cer- 
tain changes in Byz. attitudes toward marital in- 
fidelity: Constantine VI’s open adultery provoked 
the MogecHtan Controversy, and Leo VI’s infi- 


ADVENTUS 25 


delity with Zoe, daughter of Stylianos Zaoutzes, 
initially had to be concealed; in the 11th C., how- 
ever, Constantine 1X overtly kept his mistress 
SKLERAINA in the palace. In the 12th C. Manuel I 
and Andronikos I officially promoted their ILLE- 
GITIMATE CHILDREN. 

LIT. Zhishman, Eherecht 578-600. Kazhdan-Constable, 
Byzantium 71-75. J. Beaucamp, “La situation juridique de 


la femme à Byzance,” CahCM 20 (1977) 156-58. 
-J.H., A.K. 


ADVENTUS (damravrynais), ceremonial arrival 
rooted in ancient society and religion. Although 
Byz. adventus ceremonies were held to greet bish- 
ops, officials, and saints’ relics, the most spectac- 
ular adventus welcomed the emperor into a City. 
The two main ritual elements of adventus were 
the occursus (synantesis, hypantesis, etc.) of a dele- 
gation out of a city to welcome the arriving party 
and its escort (propompe) into the city. The point 
of encounter was carefully defined (e.g., De cer. 
495-1—13), since distance from the city and the 
delegation’s composition symbolized the partici- 
pants’ relationship. ACCLAMATIONS or eistteriot 
poems (e.g., on AGNES OF FRANCE), panegyrics, 
incense, lights, and crown offerings were tradi- 
tional components of Byz. imperial adventus cer- 
emonies. The route of the PROCESSION was deco- 
rated, included a visit to a shrine, and might have 
concluded with a banquet. Because the adventus 
expressed the bonds between the welcoming com- 
munity and arriving emperor, it took on a deeper 
meaning as a demonstration of loyalty and con- 
sensus, particularly at an emperor’s first entry, for 
example, Nikephoros II Phokas (De cer. 437.20— 
440.11). This made adventus important in imperial 
propaganda and explains its role in art and on 
coins. The adventus of an imperial fiancée lent 
unusual prominence to aristocratic women, for 
example, Irene, the bride of Leo IV (Theoph. 
444.15—19; cf. pseudo-Kod. 286f). The ceremony 
was also adapted to other circumstances such as 
triumphs or conditional surrenders. —M.McC. 

Representation in Art. Depictions of the adven- 
tus ceremonies in Byz. art are very few. The mon- 
umental ARCH or GALERIUS in Thessalonike and 
the ARCH OF CONSTANTINE in Rome show the 
standard Roman iconography: the emperor arriv- 
ing in a chariot accompanied by cavalry and foot 
soldiers. On the silver LARGITIO DISH of Constan- 
tius II and on several commemorative medallions, 


26 | AEDICULA 


one as late as Justinian I, the scene is abbreviated, 
showing the emperor on horseback, led by a NIKE 
figure and followed by a soldier. A fresco in the 
Church of St. DEMETRIOS in Thessalonike, prob- 
ably depicting the adventus of Emp. Justinian II 
into that city, is the last surviving representation 
commemorating a contemporary event. The two 
examples from the 11th C. usually interpreted as 
depictions of adventus deviate from the earlier 
examples. On a silk wall hanging in Bamberg a 
mounted emperor is flanked by two Tycue fig- 
ures who present him with a crown and a helmet. 
More problematical is a scene on the ivory casket 
in Troyes, since the two emperors shown may be 
riding away in opposite directions from a fortified 
city placed in the center; it may depict a departure 
ceremony (PROFECTIO). Of a different nature are 
the miniatures of triumphal entries in the Madrid 
MS of John Sky.irzes, since they illustrate a his- 
torical narrative and thus are not commemorative. 
Usually these show the emperors mounted and 
accompanied by horsemen approaching a city. 
The miniature depicting the triumphal arrival 
of John I Tzimiskes in Constantinople (Grabar- 
Manoussacas, Skylitzés, no.443) shows an icon of 
the Virgin and Child on a wagon leading the 
procession. 

LIT. E.H. Kantorowicz, “The ‘King’s Advent’ and the 
Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina,” ArtB 26 
(1944) 207-31. S.G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late 
Antiquity (Berkeley 1981) 17—89, pls. 9—11, 13, 16, 22—23. 
Grabar, L'empereur 48, 50—54, pls. VI, X. —-LK. 


AEDICULA (Lat., lit. “small building”), the ar- 
chitectural frame of an opening (door, window, 
or niche), consisting of two columns or pilasters 
supporting a pediment; more specifically a shrine 
framed by two or four columns supporting an 
entablature, a pediment, an arch, or a roof. The 
motif, commonly used in Roman architecture and 
popular in 5th- and 6th-C. Syria (e.g., the “Prae- 
torium” at PHAINA) and Egypt (e.g., the White 
Monastery, or Deir-el-Abiad at Sonac), was mod- 
ified in Byz. From the 10th C. onward, the aedi- 
cula played a major role in the articulation of the 
TEMPLON screen, where it was often used for fram- 
ing icons of Christ, the Virgin, and saints. These 
usually appeared in pairs, referred to as PROSKY- 
NETARIA, that flanked the main section of the 
templon, as in the Theotokos Church at Hosros 
Loukas, at NEREzI, and at the CHora. The aedi- 


cula continued to be used in a more general 
decorative role, albeit less frequently, during the 
last centuries of Byz. architecture, for example, 
in the squinches under the main dome of the 
Paregoretissa at ARTA. 

uit. N. Okunev, “Altarnaja pregrada XII veka v Ne- 
reze,” SemKond 3 (1929) 5—23. A.K. Orlandos, He Parego- 
ritissa tes Artes (Athens 1963), figs. 64, 76. L. Bouras, Ho 
glyptos diakosmos tou naou tes Panagias sto monasteri tou Hosiou 
Louka (Athens 1980) 105—og. Ø. Hjort, “The Sculpture of 
Kariye Camii,” DOP 33 (1979) 224-37- -S.C. 


AEGEAN SEA (Alyaiov méňayos), the Byz. mare 
internum between Asia Minor, Greece, and Crete, 
characterized by a rugged coastline and many 
islands that differ widely in size, physical condi- 
tion, and economy. The larger islands seem to 
have been more densely populated than the smaller 
ones, at least in the later period (J. Koder, ByzF 
5 [1977] 232f). Some islands (Crete, Lesbos, Lem- 
nos) were rich in agricultural products, and in the 
later period the northern islands supplied Mt. 
Athos with grain; at the beginning of the 12th C. 
the pilgrim Danii IGUMEN from Rus’ was sur- 
prised by the amount of livestock on the Aegean 
islands. 

The natural protection of the islands made them 
into places of refuge during the Slavo-Avar in- 
vasion (S. Hood, BSA 65 [1970] 37-45), even 
though some Slav boats penetrated to individual 
islands. The Arab onslaught changed the situa- 
tion, esp. when in the 820s they seized Crete— 
some islands (like Paros) were deserted and only 
occasional hermits inhabited them. From the 1oth 
C. onward the Byz. constructed numerous for- 
tresses to guard the islands: they were built on 
high rocks protected by nature and fortified with 
massive walls (H. Eberhard, JOB 36 [1986] 188). 
Malamut (infra) suggested that in the 11th—12th 
C. the islands prospered economically, whereas 
Wirth (infra) noted that from the late 11th C. 
onward they were virtually dependent on Venice. 

In late antiquity the islands were divided be- 
tween the provinces of Achaia and Insulae (Is- 
lands); by the late 7th C. some were put under 
the command of the strategos of the KARABISIANOI 
and later included in the theme of the Kisyr- 
RHAIOTAI. The gth-C. TAKTIKON of Uspenskij 
(53-18—tg) mentions the droungario: of the Ae- 
gean Sea and of the Kolpos; according to Ahr- 
weiler (Mer 77—81), the territory was divided into 


two administrative units—the Aegean Sea in the 
north, and Kolpos, centered around Samos and 
including most of the Cyclades. The vita of Davin, 
SYMEON, AND GEORGE OF MYTILENE mentions the 
strategos of the island [of Lesbos], but the extent 
of his power is unknown. In the late 11th C. the 
theme of Kyklades was administered by a Arites; it 
included Chios, Kos, Karpathos, and Ikaria. In 
the 12th C. Rhodes, Chios, and Kos were sepa- 
rated from the theme, and each governed by a 
doux. In 1198 a province called “Dodecanese” is 
known, with its center probably in Naxos. 

After 1204 most of the southern Aegean Sea 
fell under Venetian control, while the islands along 
the coast of Asia Minor were retained by the Latin 
Empire. The campaign of Licario against Euboea 
in 1275—76 restored much of the Aegean to Byz. 
control, although the duchy of Naxos maintained 
Latin power on that island and Andros. By the 
end of the 13th C., however, the Byz. navy had 
collapsed and the islands were lost to the Vene- 
tians, Genoese, the Hospitallers, and Turkish pi- 
rates. 

Lit. E. Malamut, Les îles de l'Empire byzantin: VIIIe—XHe 
siècles, 2 vols. (Paris 1988). P. Wirth, “Die mittelalterliche 
griechische Inselwelt im Lichte der byzantinischen Kaiser- 
diplome,” ByzF 5 (1977) 415-31. -T.E.G. 


AELIA CAPITOLINA. See JERUSALEM. 


AELIANUS, CLAUDIUS, Roman rhetorician who 
wrote in Greek; born Praeneste ca. 170, died ca.235. 
His On the Characteristics of Animals, an unsyste- 
matic collection of largely paradoxical animal sto- 
ries, was a major source of Byz. zoological lore 
used by writers in many genres and esp. by T1mo- 
THEOS OF Gaza (the 12th-C. paraphrase of whose 
work contains 32 parallels), Theophylaktos Sı- 
MOKATTES, John TzeTzeEs, Michael GLykas, Man- 
uel Prices (J.F. Kindstrand, StltalFCl 4 [1986] 
119-39), and various anonymous zoological ex- 
cerptors. A new Byz. edition, represented by the 
15th-C. MS Florence, Laur. 86.8, rearranged the 
stories thematically. The surviving MSS of Aeli- 
anus’s Miscellaneous Stories (Varia Historia), a simi- 
lar collection of mainly human anecdotes, trans- 
mit a Byz. epitome of a fuller text that was known 
to Sropaios, the Soupa, PsELLos, and Ev- 
STATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE. Aeltanus’s 20 surviv- 
ing Letters of imaginary peasants were uninfluen- 


AER 27 


tial but are contained in two independent MSS of 
the 10th and 15th C. On Providence and On Divine 
Truths, attributed to Aelianus by the Souda, are 
probably alternative titles of a single stoicizing 
treatise now lost. Aelianus is almost certainly to 
be distinguished from the author of the Tactics, a 
work seldom used in Byz. scholarship. 

LIT. E.L. De Stefani, “Gli excerpta della ‘Historia ani- 
malium’ di Eliano,” St/talFCl 12 (1904) 145-80. M.R. Dilts, 


“The Testimonia of Aelian’s Varia historia,” Manuseripta 15 
(1971) 3-12. ~A.R.L. 


AELIUS ARISTIDES. See ARISTEIDES, AILIOS. 


AER (åńp). The largest of three liturgical veils, 
the aer was carried in the GREAT ENTRANCE 
procession and placed over the eucharistic ele- 
ments after their deposition on the altar. Litur- 
gical commentaries interpret the aer as the shroud 
of Christ as well as the stone that sealed the Holy 
Sepulchre; later commentaries even refer to aeres 
as EPITAPHIOI (Symeon of Thessalonike, PG 
155:288A). Initially, aeres were made of plain linen 
or silk (e.g., a white aer in De cer. 15.20; a silk aer 
in the Patmos inveNTORY [ed. Astruc 21.32—33]), 
but in the late 12th C. they began to be embroi- 
dered with images, esp. the Amnos (H. Belting, 
DOP 34-35 [1980—81] 12—15). 

All surviving aeres date from the late Byz. pe- 
riod. They are made of silk, gold-embroidered 
with images of the Dead Christ, angels, symbols 
of the evangelists and, by the end of the 14th C., 
the Lamentation (threnos), as well as with liturgical 
and dedicatory texts. The eucharistic phrases to- 
gether with the specific designation of the cloths 
as aeres in the dedicatory inscriptions help to dif- 
ferentiate the aeres from epitaphioi, which are often 
similar in appearance. Important examples in- 
clude the (lost) aer of Andronikos II Palaiologos, 
and that of Stefan Uroš II Milutin (Belgrade, 
Museum for Ecclesiastical Art), both from the 
early 14th C. The fine mid-14th-C. Thessalonike 
aer (Athens, Byz. Museum) is embroidered with a 
three-part composition: a central AMNos panel 
flanked by two smaller side panels showing the 
Communion of the Apostles (see Lorp’s SUPPER). 

LIT. Soteriou, “Leitourgika amphia” 607-10. Millet, 


Broderies 86—109, pls. 176—216. Johnstone, Church Embroi- 
dery 25f, pls. 93-96. Taft, Great Entrance 216-19. -A.G. 


28 | AERIKON 


AERIKON (deptxor, also aer), a supplementary 
fiscal levy first mentioned by Prokopios (SH 21.1— 
2) as imposed by the praetorian prefect of Con- 
stantinople during Justinian I’s reign. F. Délger 
(BZ 30 [1929-30] 450-57) hypothesizes that the 
name originated from a fine for violating laws 
mandating sufficient distance (aer, “air”) between 
buildings in cities (e.g., Cod. Theod. IV 24, Cod.Just. 
VIII 10, 12.5¢). The Taktika oF Leo VI (ch.20.71) 
indicates that the stratiotai were obliged to pay 
state taxes (phoroi) and aertkon. In the 11th C., 
aerikon appears either as a fine for felony (ptazsma) 
(novel of 1086—Zepos, Jus 1:312.1 5—24) collected 
by a bishop and/or a praktor or as a supplementary 
tax imposed on a village in the amount of 4—20 
nomismata (Skyl. 404.56—58). 

In 13th- and 14th-C. documents, the aer (aerikon 
in Trebizond) is frequently encountered as a sup- 
plementary charge alongside the ENNOMION of 
bees (Dochetar., no.53.23), ANGAREIAI, and MITA- 
TON (Koutloum., no.10.61—62), etc. The aer ap- 
pears as a fixed sum, and the fine for murder 
and PARTHENOPHTHORIA as well as the tax for the 
TREASURE TROVE were considered its parts (e.g., 
Chil., no.g2.146—48). This suggests that for Byz. 
the distinction between “fine” and “tax” was far 
from absolute. Aer could be granted by the em- 
peror to privileged monasteries. Ostrogorsky 
(Féodalité 362-64) hypothesizes, although without 
any source evidence, that the state grant of a 
monetized aerikon (aer) to a landowner also im- 
plied the transfer of the rights of [low] justice 
over the paroikoi held by the recipient. 

uit. B. Pantenko, “O Tajnoj istorii Prokopija,” VizVrem 
3 (1896) 507-11. Solovjev-MoSin, Grčke povelje 383-85. 1. 
Tornarites, “To ainigma tou byzantinou aerikou,” in Ar- 
cheion Byzantinou Dikatou, vol. 1 (1930) 3-212; vol. 2 (1931) 
307~66 and Parartema, no.1 (1933) 140-58. M.A. Tourto- 


glou, To phonikon kai he apozemiosis tou pathontos (Athens 
1960). —M.B. 


AESCHYLUS (Aioywvados), Greek tragic poet; born 
Eleusis 525/24 B.C., died Sicily 456. The Attic 
tragedian least known in the Byz. period, Aeschy- 
lus was listed as an Athenian king in the chronicle 
of Malalas (Malal. 72.9) and was even ignored by 
the learned compiler of the Souda. The earliest 
MS of Aeschylus’s seven extant plays dates from 
the 10th or early 11th C. Subsequent evidence of 
revived interest in Aeschylus is found in PsEL- 
Los—who commends Aeschylus for his profun- 


dity and gravity but finds him generally hard to 
understand (cf. A.R. Dyck, The Essays on Euripides 
and George of Pisidia [Vienna 1986] 44.58-64)— 
and in two dramatic works, CHRISTOS PASCHON, 
which contains some 20 quotations from Aeschy- 
lus, and the Katomyomachia of Theodore PRroprRo- 
mos, which shows some verbal borrowings. An- 
notated editions of Aeschylus’s most widely studied 
plays, the triad of The Persians, Prometheus, and 
Seven against Thebes, were produced in the 14th 
C. by THomas Macistros and Demetrios TRI- 
KLINIOS. The latter also edited the Eumenides and 
Agamemnon. Triklinios’s autograph MS (Naples, 
Bibl. Naz. 2 F 31) is the primary authority for 
most of the Agamemnon. The number of surviving 
MSS and of quotations in Byz. authors indicates 
that Aeschylus stood third in popularity after Eu- 
RIPIDES and SOPHOCLES. 

ED. Demetrii Triclinii in Aeschyli Persas scholia®, ed. L. 
Massa Positano (Naples 1963). Scholia graeca in Aeschylum 
quae extant omnia, ed. O.L. Smith, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1976- 
82). 

Lit. R.D. Dawe, The Collation and Investigation of Manu- 
scripts of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1964). O.L. Smith, Studies in 
the Scholia on Aeschylus I: The Recensions of Demetrius Triclinius 
(Leiden 1975). K. Treu, “Zur Papyrustiberlieferung des 
Aischylos,” in Atschylos und Pindar: Werk und Nachwirkung, 
ed. E.G. Schmidt (Berlin 1981) 166—69. —A.C.H. 


AESOP (Aiowzros), a Phrygian slave who lived in 
Samos in the 6th C. 8.c. and was renowned as the 
author of metaphorical animal FABLES, in prose, 
with a moral point. Originally traditional tales, 
but then a recognized literary device that was 
classed as a PROGYMNASMA, all such fables came to 
be attributed to Aesop, the fables of APHTHONIOS 
being an exception. The first collection, now lost 
but possibly known to ARETHAS OF CAESAREA, Was 
made in the 4th C. B.c. Aesop’s fables are known 
in three major revisions: (1) the Augustana, prob- 
ably first compiled in the end or grd C.; (2) the 
Vindobonensis, of uncertain date; and (3) the 
Accursiana, in which Maximos PLANOUDES had a 
hand. The fables of Syntipas are Greek versions 
of a Syriac translation of Aesop. Similar moraliz- 
ing anecdotes with animal characters exist in the 
PHYSIOLOGOs and the ANIMAL EPICS, while a scat- 
tering of late Byz. non-Aesopic fables attest to the 
enduring attraction of the genre. Also attributed 
to Aesop are a collection of PROVERBS and GNOMAI. 
The Life of Aesop, written originally in Egypt in 
the 2nd C., turns the legendary information on 


Aesop’s career into a diverting narrative, whose 
popularity continued into late Byz. and beyond; 
linguistically it provides useful evidence for the 
development of spoken Greek. 

A MS in New York (Morgan Lib. 397), a signif- 
icant witness for the text of the Aesopic corpus, 
includes an important series of miniatures (M. 
Avery, ArtB 23 [1941] 103-16). Accompanied by 
brief texts, incidents from at least three of Aesop’s 
fables are depicted in a rock-cut chamber above 
the narthex at Eskı Gümüş (M. Gough, AnatSt 15 
[1965] 162-64). 


ED. Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum, ed. A. Hausrath, H. 
Hunger, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1959-70). B.E. Perry, Aesopica, 
vol. 1 (Urbana, Ill., 1952). 

ut. B.E. Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus (Cambridge, Mass.— 
London 1965) xi—xlvi. Beck, Volksliteratur 28-31. 

-E.MJ., A.C. 


AESTHETICS. The aesthetic principles of the 
Byz. were revealed both in works of literature 
(esp. EKPHRASIS, EPIGRAM, and literary portrait) 
and objects of visual art. The ekphraseis retained 
the ancient principle that an art object was to 
imitate nature, and even hagiography stressed the 
resemblance of the icon to the original (the ste- 
reotype of recognition of a saint by means of an 
icon). However, the concept of corporeal BEAUTY 
as a reflection of absolute (divine) beauty contra- 
dicted this naturalistic approach. The main goal 
of art was to represent the eternal, not the ephem- 
eral; therefore, it focused on humans (placed in 
a conventional LANDSCAPE), on the spiritual ele- 
ments of the human body (the face, esp. the eyes), 
on stability (movement and disorderly gestures 
were signs of barbaric character), on FRONTALITY 
(a rear or profile view was reserved for the devil 
or the enemy). In his ceremonial pose man was 
an “imitation of a statue,” rather than the statue 
being a copy of a live human being. In literary 
portraits the person described was usually per- 
ceived not as an entity, but as a construction, 
consisting of certain parts (forehead, eyes, nose, 
etc., down to the soles of the feet), each element 
being characterized separately. 

The idea of uniqueness was alien; even the 
drama of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection was 
miraculously repeated in liturgy and church dec- 
oration. Each event belonged not only to its his- 
torical place and time, but simultaneously to the 
€ver-repeating cycle of the divine plan, and the 


AETHICUS ISTER | 29 


transfer from concrete historicity to eternal mys- 
tery was performed by symbolic interpretation, 
direct references to the Bible or classical texts, 
stylistic parallels, and use of stereotyped imagery 
and vocabulary. Since all events were symbolically 
or metaphorically interconnected, the world was 
an enormous enigma or RIDDLE, and both the 
author and the reader could reach a solution only 
through a thicket of obscurity. Because art was a 
demonstration of the divine plan, each phenom- 
enon registered had its profound meaning, and 
each personage had his place on the moral scale. 
Art was didactic and interpretive, and seemingly 
distant events and images (including those of pa- 
gan gods) explained the fundamentals of contem- 
porary politics and ideology. 

Despite this black-and-white didactic approach, 
the Byz. recognized the artistic pleasure that could 
be conveyed by rhetorical skill, richness of vocab- 
ulary, nuanced imagery, descriptions of curiosities 
and miracles, conflict of opposites, and unex- 
pected turns of the plot. General aesthetic prin- 
ciples underwent alterations due to historical 
changes in taste, individual sTyLe, or particulari- 
ties of genres. 

Lit. P.A. Michelis, An Aesthetic Approach to Byzantine Art 
(London 1955). G. Mathew, Byzantine Aesthetics (London 
1963). H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Prince- 
ton 1981). S. Averincev, Poetika rannevizantysko; literatury 
(Moscow 1977). V. Byčkov, Vizantijskaja estetika: teoretičeskie 


problemy (Moscow 1977). A.F. Losev, Istorija antitnoj estetiki: 
Poslednie veka, 2 vols. (Moscow 1988). -A.K. 


AETHERIA. See EGERIA. 


AETHICUS ISTER, conventional name for the 
author of a Latin cosmography allegedly trans- 
lated from Greek by the priest Hieronymus, 
sometimes identified with Jerome. The book was 
known by the oth C., but neithe: ihe daie of 
compilation nor the identity of the author and 
translator can be established. References to Con- 
stantinople and Augustine (as well as to some 
other 4th-C. theologians) suggest a terminus post 
quem of 400. It is plausible that the author origi- 
nated from the area of the lower Danube (he calls 
himself “Scythian by nation”) and emigrated to 
the West. The book describes the cosmos (includ- 
ing paradise, the Devil, and angels) and pays 
special attention to peoples not mentioned in 
Scripture and to marvelous countries and islands 


30 AETIOS 


at the edge of the earth; Alexander the Great’s 
expedition is related in detail. Greece, Macedonia, 
Cyprus, and other islands of the “Great Sea” are 
presented in much greater depth than other re- 
gions of the Mediterranean, Asia Minor being 
only briefly described and Italy hardly mentioned. 
The author is interested in seafaring and char- 
acterizes various types of ships. His sobriquet 
“philosophus” has no relation to philosophy, but 
is reminiscent of the “wise philosophers” who 
serve as informants in the COSMOGRAPHER OF Ra- 
VENNA and in the PARASTASEIS SYNTOMOI CHRON- 
IKAI. 

ED. A. D’Avezac-Macaya, Ethicus et les ouvrages cosmo- 
graphiques intitulés de ce nom (Paris 1852). For other ed. see 
Tusculum-Lexikon 14f. 

LIT. N. Vornicescu, Aethicus Histricus. Un filosof străromân 
de la Histria Dobrogeană (Craiova 1986). -A.K. 


AETIOS (Aérios), “Neo-Arian” (Anomoian) the- 
ologian; born Antioch? ca.goo or ca.313 (Kopeck, 
infra), died Chalcedon 366/7. Born to the family 
of a low official, he embarked on a career as a 
goldsmith or physician. He then became inter- 
ested in “logical studies” (as Philostorgios puts it) 
and traveled throughout Cilicia (Anazarbos, Tar- 
sos), making contacts with the Arian clergy and 
participating in theological discussions. In the 330s 
and 340s he taught in Antioch and Alexandria, 
inciting the enmity of the leaders of the Nicene 
party, esp. BASIL OF ANKYRA. As a friend of the 
caesar GALLUS he came under the suspicion of 
Constantius I] and was exiled in 360; Julian, how- 
ever, recalled Aetios from exile, appointed him 
bishop, and granted him an estate on Lesbos. He 
probably supported the rebellion of PRokopios 
and was consequently forbidden to enter Con- 
stantinople in 366. 

Aetios was reputed to be a talented debater with 
a gift for sarcasm; he held a radical position 
condemning any attempt to seek reconciliation 
with the Orthodox. He supported the doctrine of 
anomoion (unlikeness) in opposition to the theory 
of the Homoousion: the Ingenerate God (the Fa- 
ther) had no common essence with the created 
deity of the Logos. Aetios further asserted that 
the Son had one nature, will, and energy, being 
different from the Father (V. Grumel, EO 28 
[1929] 159-66). Little survives from Aetios’s lit- 
erary works: his manifesto of 359 or 360 (the 


Syntagmation) is preserved (in a revised form?) in 
EpipHANIOS of Salamis (Panarion, bk. 76, ch.11); 
in addition a letter to a certain “Mazon tribunus” 
is known as are several fragments cited by later 
theologians. 

ED. and LIT. L.R. Wickham, “The Syntagmation of Aetius 
the Anomoean,” JTASt n.s. 19 (1968) 532-69, with Eng. tr. 
Idem, “Aetius and the Doctrine of Divine Ingeneracy,” StP 
11.2 (1972) 259-63. G. Bardy, “L’héritage littéraire d’Aétius,” 
RHE 24 (1928) 809-27. T.A. Kopeck, A History of Neo- 
Arianism (Philadelphia 1979) 1:61-297; 2:413-29. 

-T.E.G., A.K. 


AETIOS, eunuch and patrikios; died 26 July 811 
(?). Aetios was protospatharios and trusted adviser 
of Empress Irene in 790, when Constantine VI 
exiled him. He regained influence after Irene’s 
return in 792 and in 797 cleverly obtained the 
surrender of Caesar NikEPHOROS and his broth- 
ers. After Irene deposed Constantine in 797 Ae- 
tios vied with STAURAKIOS to place relatives in 
power. In May 799 Aetios allied with Niketas, the 
domestakos ton scholon, against Staurakios; he be- 
came Irene’s chief adviser, and, after the death 
of Staurakios in 800, probably logothetes tou dromou 
(D. Miller, Byzantion 36 [1966] 469). In 801 Aetios 
took command of the Opsikion and Anatolikon 
armies and appointed his brother Leo as mono- 
strategos of the Macedonian and Thracian themes 
in hopes of making him emperor. Aetios is credited 
(Theoph. 475.30—-32) with blocking the proposed 
marriage between Irene and CHARLEMAGNE. He 
likely lost power after Nikephoros I deposed Irene, 
but may have been the patrikios Aetios who per- 
ished with Nikephoros in battle against KRuM. 


LIT. Guilland, Titres, pt. IX (1970), 326. —P.A.H. 


AETIOS OF AMIDA, physician; born Amida, fl. 
ca.530—60 in Alexandria and Constantinople. Ae- 
tios compiled a 16-book encyclopedia of medicine, 
traditionally called the Tetrabiblon from its division 
into four sections. His encyclopedia is rich in 
quotations from many authors of Greek and Ro- 
man antiquity; it begins with a summary of phar- 
maceutical theory, simplifying the often obscure 
thinking of GALEN and Orisasios on the topic (J. 
Scarborough, DOP 38 [1984] 224-26), followed 
by compactions of pharmacy, dietetics, general 


therapeutics, hygiene, bloodletting, cathartic drugs, 
prognostics, general pathology, fever and urine 
lore, diseases of the head, ophthalmology, and 
cosmetics and dental matters (bks. 1—8). The ac- 
count of ophthalmology is the finest before the 
Furopean Enlightenment (cf. E. Savage-Smith, 
DOP 38 [1984] 178-80). The remaining books of 
the Tetrabiblon—which await modern editors— 
contain significant summaries of toxicology and 
poisonous creatures (bk.13) and gynecology and 
obstetrics (bk.16). Compared with ALEXANDER OF 
TRALLES, PAUL oF AEGINA, and Oribasios, Aetios 
is arid in style and more interested in medical 
theory than in practice, but his Tetrabiblon is fun- 
damentally important in its careful selections of 
ancient authorities and in its shrewd amalgama- 
tions of traditional and contemporary medical 
theory. 

ED. Libri medicinales, ed. A. Oliveri, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1935; 


Berlin 1950). J.V. Ricci, tr., Aetios of Amida: The Gynaecology 
and Obstetrics of the VIth Century, A.D. (Philadelphia-Toronto 


1950). 
ur. I. Bloch, HGM 1:529-35. Hunger, Lit. 2:294—96. 
R. Romano, “Per l'edizione dei libri medicinali di Aezio 


Amideno, II,” Koznemia 8 (1984) 93—100. -j.S. 


AETIUS (Aértos), magister militum; born Duro- 
storum (Dorostolon) ca.3go, died Rome 21/2 Sept. 
454. The son of an important military officer 
from Lower Moesia and an Italian noblewoman, 
Aetius in his youth was hostage to the Visigoths 
and Huns. After service under the usurper Ioannes 
he secured a military post from Valentinian II] 
(ca.425) and was responsible for the defense of 
Gaul. In 432 he retired in temporary disgrace, 
but in 433 became magister militum of the West, a 
post he held continuously until his death. For 
years he was the most powerful figure in the 
Western provinces, dealing successfully with Visi- 
goths, Burgundians, Alans, Franks, and others 
while supporting the throne of Valentinian III. 
His policy was to use various barbarian peoples 
(esp. Huns) against his enemies, both domestic 
and foreign. Aetius may have persuaded Valen- 
tinian not to give his sister Honoria in marriage 
to Attila. The Byz. sources allege that Attila’s 
purpose in attacking the West was to remove 
Aetius. In 451 Aetius allied with Theodoric the 
Visigoth and defeated Attila at the battle of the 
CATALAUNIAN FIELDS, but he could not keep the 


AFRICA, CONTINENT OF 31 


Huns out of Italy. With the death of Attila, how- 
ever, Aetius’s fortunes collapsed. In 454 he was 
assassinated by order of Valentinian, the emperor 
he had served so faithfully. Aetius made a great 
impression on contemporaries and was remem- 
bered by Prokopios (Wars 3.3.15) as one of the 
last of the Romans. 

LIT. Bury, LRE 1:241—44, 249-53, 292-99. O'Flynn, 
Generalisstmos 74-87. J.R. Moss, “The Effects of the Policies 
of Aetius on the History of Western Europe,” Historia 22 
(1973) 711-31. S.I. Oost, "Aëtius and Majorian,” CIPhil 59 
(1964) 23-29. -T.E.G, 


AFRICA, CONTINENT OF. Byz. knowledge of 
the configuration of Africa (Agptxn) did not go 
beyond that of Protemy. The northern coast was 
thought to be straight. The west coast was known 
as far as Cape Bojador, the east coast as far as 
Zanzibar. The interior, except for EGYPT, NUBIA, 
and Axum, was inaccessible or unexplored. The 
general name for the continent west of Egypt was 
Libya, although OLyMPropoROS OF THEBES (ed. 
Blockley, fr.40) calls it Africa while Sozomenos 
(Sozom. HE g.8.3) uses both terms interchange- 
ably. Eunapios oF Sarpis (ed. Wright 440) says 
that “Africa” is the Latin equivalent of “Libya.” 
Byz. geographical descriptions are limited to east 
Africa. Prokopios of Caesarea and Kosmas Indi- 
kopleustes describe the Red Sea coast as far as 
Axum. Priskos of Panion (fr.21) traveled to the 
Egyptian-Nubian frontier; Olympiodoros (fr.35) 
penetrated five days’ journey into Nubia and vis- 
ited the El Kharga (or Dakhla) Oasis (fr.32). Lives 
of saints, histories, and nonliterary documents 
provide many details about Egypt. After the Mus- 
lim conquest, esp. under the Fatimids, Ayyuibids, 
and early Mamliks (11th—13th C.), Byz. trade 
with Africa, focused at Alexandria, continued. 
Ivory was the most important trade commodity. 
Byz. itineraries written by EprpHANIOS HAGIOPO- 
tires and John Asramios included Alexandria, 
and those by Andrew LIBADENOS and AGATHAN- 
GELOS included the Thebaid (P. Schreiner, XXII. 
Deutscher Onentalistentag [= ZDMG, supp. 6] [1985] 
141-49). (See also CORIPPUS.) 

LIT. C. Diehl, L’Afrique byzantine (Paris 1896). P. Salama, 
“The Roman and Post-Roman Period in North Africa, Part 
II: From Rome to Islam,” UNESCO General History of Africa, 
vol. 2 (Berkeley 1981) 459-510. P. Heine, “Transsahara- 


handelswege in antiker und friihislamischer Zeit,” Mün- 
stersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 2.1 (1983) 92— 


32 | AFRICA, PREFECTURE OF 


g8. W.H.C. Frend, “The Christian Period in Mediterranean 
Africa,” in CHAfr 2:410—8g. -D.W.J. 


AFRICA, PREFECTURE OF. The diocese of Af- 
rica was first raised to the level of a prefecture 
for a short period, between ca.332 and 337, per- 
haps in response to unrest sparked by the Donatist 
controversy. This action, attaching the prefecture 
to someone outside the imperial family, was un- 
usual, for other prefectures were attached to the 
emperor Constantine I or his sons. A precedent 
was perhaps the earlier expedition (309) of Max- 
entius’s praetorian prefect Caius Ceionius Rufius 
Volusianus to Africa to suppress Domitius Alex- 
ander. Apart from a brief revival in 412, the 
African prefecture was not again reconstituted as 
a separate entity until April 534, following the 
Byz. victory over the VANDALS and recovery of its 
territory. The revived prefecture included the 
provinces of AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, BYZACENA, 
TRIPOLITANIA, Numipia, the two MAUuRITANIAS, 
and SARDINIA. 

The primary function of the prefect of Africa 
was apparently to support the defense and ad- 





ORTH AFRICA 


IN THE LATE ROMAN PERIOD 


¢ Miles 400 


0. 300 600 km 


r (ad i 





g 


ministration of the African provinces through 
revenues raised within the prefecture. This was 
not easily achieved in the early years after the 
reconquest, as the Vandals had destroyed Roman 
tax records. By 549, however, the revenues were 
evidently stable enough for SoLomon, in his ca- 
pacity as prefect, to undertake the construction 
of a number of fortifications. At the end of the 
6th C. the prefecture of Africa was replaced by 
the EXARCHATE of Carthage. The exarch (first 
mentioned in a letter of Pope GREGORY I THE 
GREAT) was a military commander (probably re- 
placing the magister militum) who was placed over 
the praetorian prefect and gradually assumed the 
latter’s civil functions. By this time Tripolitania 
was transferred to the diocese of Egypt. 
Archaeological evidence from Italy, Gaul, and 
Spain in the 6th and early 7th C. reveals contin- 
ued imports of oil, wine, fish sauce, and pottery 
from Africa, suggesting that the prefecture was 
reasonably prosperous. From letters of Pope Gre- 
gory I the Great addressed to African prefects 
and the works of MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR in the 
mid-7th C., one can deduce that prefects were 


$ i 
CORSICA 





SAR DINIA 








erneneees, 
oo sw, 

ee mea, 
WA Seencnaett” 


20° 


expected to maintain civil order, protect against 
corruption, and defend orthodoxy. The Arab in- 
yasions of the late 7th C. drained the exarchate 
financially, forcing Byz. abandonment of Africa 
by ca.687 except for Carthage (which fell to the 
Arabs in 698) and Septem (which surrendered in 
71 1). 

Lir. Diehl, L’Afrique 97-107, 489-92. D. Pringle, The 
Defence of Byzantine Africa (Oxford 1981). J. Durliat, Les 
dédicaces d'ouvrages de défense dans l'Afrique byzantine (Rome- 
Paris 1981). T.D. Barnes, “Regional Prefectures,” Bonner 
Historia-Augusta Colloquium (1985) 13—23. -R.B.H. 


AFRICANUS, SEXTUS JULIUS, Roman author; 
born Jerusalem ca.160, died ca.240. Circa 221 
Africanus wrote his Chronographies in Greek, which 
is preserved now only in fragments; it was either 
a world history or tables of synchronies and ge- 
nealogies designed to integrate the Old Testa- 
ment with Greek and Oriental secular history. He 
espoused the belief that the world would last 
6,000 years from the Creation; the birth of Christ 
was placed in 5500. Although rejecting its millen- 
arianism, EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA made much use 
of the work, both as model and source; an inter- 
mediary source may have been the similar Chroni- 
ka of Hippolytus (ca.235), like Africanus an ac- 
quaintance of ORIGEN at Alexandria. Other late 
Roman and Byz. users and preservers of frag- 
ments include SOzOMENOS, the CHRONICON PAs- 
CHALE, and GEORGE THE SYNKELLOS. Fragmented 
also is Africanus’s Kestot (Amulets), an encyclo- 
pedia full of remarkable information. Byz. mili- 
tary writers used it for such things as cavalry 
techniques (F. Lammert, BZ 44 [1951] 362-69), 
while its sections on chemistry and explosives fig- 
ured in the development of the so-called GREEK 
Fire. Numerous extracts from its agricultural lore 
are preserved in the Geoponika, while literary 
and magical items attracted the attention of PsEL- 
LOS. 

ED. Chronographies—PG 10:63—94. Les Cestes, ed. J.-R. 
Vieillefond (Florence-Paris 1970), with Fr. tr. Die Briefe, 
ed. W. Reichardt (Leipzig 1909). 

LIT. A.A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and 
Greek Chronographic Tradition (Cranbury, N.J., 1979) 139- 
43, 146-57. B. Croke, “Origins of the Christian World 
Chronicle,” in Croke-Emmett, Historians 116-31. H. Gel- 
zer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie 


(Leipzig 1880—98). F.C.R. Thee, Julius Africanus and the 
Early Christian View of Magic (Tübingen 1984). —B.B. 


AGALLIANOS, THEODORE 33 


AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, PROVINCE OF. 
Under Diocletian the proconsular province of Af- 
rica was reduced in size; the boundary with Numi- 
dia was modified and the new provinces of By- 
ZACENA and TRIPOLITANIA were formed out of the 
old proconsular province. The VERONA LIST makes 
reference to Zeugitana, the old name of the re- 
gion around Carthage. This has generally been 
construed as an additional or alternative name for 
the proconsular province. The 4th C. saw an 
increase in urban building activity after a period 
of stagnation in the grd C. The annona continued 
to provide the underpinning for trade in African 
exports, making the proconsular province among 
the richest in the empire. The arrival of the Van- 
DALS in 439 terminated the strong social and eco- 
nomic links between the province and Rome, but 
increased trade with Gaul, Spain, and the East 
may have offset to some degree the loss of the 
annona. Vandal confiscations of the estates of Af- 
rican nobles may have undermined the prosperity 
of the province; the cities were clearly in decline 
during the 5th C. 

The Byz. reconquest of the African provinces 
(533) led to the fortification of a number of towns 
in response to the razzias of the Mauri, which 
began under the Vandals. Although there is evi- 
dence of continued commercial activity between 
Constantinople, the East, and Africa in the 6th 
and 7th C. (largely in kind, it would seem), it is 
still to Gaul and Spain, and once again Italy, that 
the bulk of African goods seemed to be directed. 
The economy of the province appears, however, 
to have been in slow decline, if we are to believe 
some recent archaeological evidence that suggests 
a drop in rural settlement in the 6th C. Africa 
Proconsularis remained under Byz. control until 
Carthage was seized by the Arabs in 698. 

LIT. Lepelley, Cités 1:29—46. C. Wickham, “Marx, Sher- 


lock Holmes, and Late Roman Commerce,” /RS 78 (1988) 
183-93. —-R.B.H. 


AGALLIANOS, THEODORE (also known as 
Theophanes of Medeia), patriarchal official and 
writer; born Constantinople ca.1400, died before 
Oct. 1474. A student of Mark Eugenikos, Agal- 
lianos (‘AyaAAtavos) became a deacon in 1425 
and was hieromnemon from 1437 to 1440 and again 
from 1443 to 1454. A staunch anti-Unionist, he 


34 AGAPETOS 


was temporarily suspended from office from 1440 
to 1443. Taken captive by the Turks at the fall of 
Constantinople, he was released in 1454 and re- 
turned to the patriarchate. A friend of GENNaDIOS 
II ScHo.arios, he was promoted to the office of 
megas chartophylax (1454) and in 1466 to megas 
otkonomos; twice, however, he was forced into re- 
tirement by a faction bitterly opposed to Genna- 
dios’s policy of orkonoMyiA. Circa 1468 he became 
bishop of Medeia and changed his name to Theo- 
phanes (Patrineles, infra 14—25). 

The writings of Agallianos include treatises at- 
tacking Latins and Jews, a work titled On Provi- 
dence, and 17 letters, four of which are addressed 
to George AMIROUTZES. Most significant are his 
two apologetic Logoi of 1463, which defend his 
policies at the patriarchate and provide important 
autobiographical data as well as information on 
the patriarchs in the turbulent decade following 
the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. Agalli- 
anos was also a copyist of MSS who transcribed 
some of his own works and, for Cyriacus OF 
Ancona, the text of Strabo. 

ED. Ch.G. Patrineles, ed., Ho Theodoros Agallianos kai hot 
anekdotoi logoi autou (Athens 1966). For complete list of 
works, see Patrineles, 43—60. 

LIT. C.J.G. Turner, “Notes on the Works of Theodore 


Agallianos Contained in the Codex Bodleianus Canonicus 
Graecus 49,” BZ 61 (1968) 27-35. PLP, no.94. -A.M.T. 


AGAPETOS ('Ayamnrós), a 6th-C. deacon (prob- 
ably of Hagia Sophia), and author of the Ekthesis, 
72 chapters of advice to Justinian I on how to 
rule. The small work was written between 527 
and 548, probably closer to the earlier date. The 
central message is that the emperor is God’s rep- 
resentative on earth, unamenable to human pres- 
sure, but himself a mere man, who shapes his 
kingdom into an imitation of heaven by his own 
philosophy, purity, piety, and exercise of PHILAN- 
THROPY. The Ekthesis combines classical notions of 
the philosopher king (culled, probably indirectly, 
from pseudo-Isocrates and Plato), and traditional 
methods of discreetly advising a ruler through 
panegyric and patristic tags and echoes of Euse- 
bios’s conceptions of kingship. The result is a very 
early example of the MIRROR OF PRINCES, a genre 
emulated at least a dozen times throughout the 
history of Byz. Agapetos influenced some Byz. 
Mirrors of Princes, particularly that by MANUEL 


II, but his greatest impact was upon the political 
ideology of Orthodox Slavs, esp. Muscovy (I. Sev- 
čenko, Harvard Slavic Studies 2 [1954] 141-79). 
He was the first secular author ever to be trans- 
lated into a Slavic language (Bulgarian translation 
of ca.goo). In western and eastern Europe, Aga- 
petos was the most widely read and published 
Byz. author after the church fathers. 

ED. PG 86.1:1163—85. Partial Eng. tr. E. Barker, Social 
and Political Thought in Byzantium (Oxford 1957) 54-63. 
Germ. tr. W. Blum, Byzantinische Fiirstenspiegel (Stuttgart 
1981) 59—80. 

uit. R. Frohne, Agapetus Diaconus (St. Gallen 1985). P. 
Henry, “A Mirror for Justinian: the Ekthesis of Agapetus 
Diaconus,” GRBS 8 (1967) 281—308. Ševčenko, Ideology, 
pt.3 (1978), 3-44. D.G. Letsios, “E ‘Ekthesis Kephalaion 
Parainetikon’ tou diakonou Agapetou,” Dodone 14 (1985) 
175-210. —B.B., 18 


AGAPETUS I, pope (from 8 or 13 May 535); 
died Constantinople 22 Apr. 536; Roman feastday 
formerly 20 Sept. (the day of his interment in 
Rome), now 22 Apr.; Byz. feastday 17 Apr. Born 
to an aristocratic Roman family, Agapetus be- 
longed to the circle of Casstoporus and planned 
with the latter to found a Christian university in 
Rome. He worked to expand the authority of the 
Roman see; for example, he intervened in eccle- 
siastical controversies in Byz. Africa where, after 
Justinian I’s reconquest, the situation of the Arian 
church (which had been supported by the Van- 
dals) became threatened; Agapetus insisted on a 
hardline attitude toward former Arians converted 
to Orthodoxy (e.g., preventing them from hold- 
ing clerical offices). He also took measures against 
the bishop of Larissa in Illyricum. His policy is 
reflected in a story told by John Moscuos and 
another author (probably Grecory I THE GREAT) 
who resented the pope’s intervention in the sphere 
of influence of an Italian bishop or abbot (A. de 
Vogüé, AB 100 [1982] 319-25). After the Byz. 
invasion of Ostrogothic Dalmatia and Sicily, the 
Ostrogothic king THEOpAHAD sent Agapetus as 
his envoy to Justinian in an effort to end the war. 
In this the pope failed (if, indeed, he had ever 
tried to succeed), but he capitalized on the pre- 
carious situation to intervene in the disputes of 
the Byz. church. Using the canonical argument 
that the pro-Monophysite patriarch Anthimos had 
formerly been bishop of Trebizond, he forced his 
resignation and consecrated Menas in his place. 


The death of Agapetus and the Byz. reconquest 
of Italy checked the growth of the Roman see’s 
influence over the church of Constantinople. 

tit. Caspar, Papsttum 2:199-228. W. Ensslin, “Papst 
Agapet I. und Kaiser Justinian I.,” HistJb 77 (1958) 459- 
66. H.-I. Marrou, “Autour de la bibliothèque du pape 
Agapit,’ MEFR 48 (1931) 124-69. —A.K., M.McC. 


AGAPIOS OF HIERAPOLIS, or Mahbib ibn 
Qustantin, Melkite bishop of Hierapouis in Os- 
rhoene; died after 941. Agapios composed a uni- 
versal history in Arabic, from Creation to his own 
time, entitled the Book of the Title. “It is,” he 
explained, “the sort of book that is named ‘Chron- 
icle’ in Greek.” Although the work originally ended 
in 941, in its surviving form it extends only to 
776. The history of Agapios preserves fragments 
of otherwise lost works, such as the Greek Chron- 
icle of THEOPHILOS OF Epessa (died 785). In turn, 
the work of Agapios was a source for the Chronicle 
of MICHAEL I THE SYRIAN. 

ep. “Kitab al-‘Unvan,” ed. A. Vasiliev, PO 5 (1910) 557- 


692; 7 (1911) 457-591; 8 (1912) 397-550. 
LIT. Graf, Literatur 2:39—41. Gero, Leo III 199—205. 
-S.H.G. 


AGATHANGELOS, pseudonym for the author 
of the standard Armenian account of the life of 
St. GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR and of the con- 
version of King TRDAT THE GREAT at the begin- 
ning of the 4th C. Although Agathangelos claims 
to have been an eyewitness, the work cannot have 
been composed before the 5th C. 

The extant Armenian text is not the original. 
From an early, now lost, text Agathangelos was 
translated into Greek, Syriac, and Arabic. From a 
revised Armenian text—the standard “received” 
version—further Greek and Arabic translations 
were made. No other Armenian text ever circu- 
lated so widely outside Armenia. 

The extant Armenian text covers the period 
from 224 to the death of St. Gregory after 325. 
It describes the early careers of Gregory and 
Trdat, the tortures and imprisonment of Gregory 
by the yet unconverted king, the martyrdom at 
VararSapat of nuns (Hrip'simé and her compan- 
ions) who had fled from Dioc.etTian, the release 
of Gregory and ensuing conversion of Trdat and 
the court, and the destruction of pagan temples. 


AGATHIAS 35 


It also gives an account of Gregory’s consecration 
in Cappadocian Caesarea, the founding of an 
organized Armenian church, the visit of Trdat 
and Gregory to Constantine I, and of the succes- 
sion of Gregory’s son to the patriarchate. The text 
in its present form includes a long theological 
document, the “Teaching of St. Gregory,” which 
dates probably to the mid-6th C. (M. van Es- 
broeck, AB 102 [1984] 321-28). 

Of particular interest are the information on 
pagan temple sites, the emphasis on the depen- 
dence of the early Armenian Church on Caesarea, 
and the identification of VatarSapat with the main 
episcopal see. Syrian influence in early Christian 
Armenia is ignored, as is the fact that the original 
4th-C. see was at Aštišat, west of Lake Van. Aga- 
thangelos thus represents a reworking of the Ar- 
menian ecclesiastical history to which pseudo- 
P‘awsTos Buzanp bears earlier witness. 

ED. Agat‘angetay Patmut‘iwn Hayoc’, ed. G. Ter-Mkrtc‘ean, 
St. Kanayeanc’ (Tbilisi 1909; rp. Erevan 1983); rp. with 
introd. R.W. Thomson (Delmar, N.Y., 1980). G. Lafon- 
taine, La version grecque ancienne du livre arménien d’Agathange 
(Louvain 1973). 

TR. R.W. Thomson, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians 
(Albany, N.Y., 1976). Idem, The Teaching of St. Gregory: An 
Early Armenian Catechism (Cambridge, Mass., 1970). 

LIT. G. Garitte, Documents pour l'étude du livre d’Agathange 
(Vatican 1946). G. Winkler, “Our Present Knowledge of 
the History of Agat'angelos and its Oriental Versions,” 
REArm n.s. 14 (1980) 125-41. -R.T. 


AGATHIAS ('Ayaðias), writer; born Myrina, Asia 
Minor, ca.532, died ca.580. Early in his career 
Agathias was apparently curator civitatis (con- 
cerned with public buildings) at Smyrna. He later 
became a successful lawyer (scholastikos) at Con- 
stantinople. His early Daphniaka, short hexameter 
pieces on erotic and other themes, are lost; so are 
other unspecified prose and verse works. In the 
560s Agathias collected contemporary epigrams 
(including 100 or so of his own) by various friends, 
often fellow lawyers, notably PAUL SILENTIARIOS, 
who may have been his father-in-law. This collec- 
tion of hellenizing epigrams on classical and con- 
temporary themes, called the Cycle, is incorpo- 
rated in the GREEK ANTHOLOGY along with its 
preface addressed by Agathias to an emperor, 
either Justinian I or Justin II (Al. & Av. Cameron, 
JHS 86 [1966] 6-25). 


36 AGE 


Agathias’s History, written in formal! continua- 
tion of PROKOPIOS OF CAESAREA, stops after five 
books covering the years 552-59, apparently be- 
cause he died. Eastern and western campaigns are 
described, with the general Narses in Italy a ma- 
jor theme; Justinian gets a sensibly mixed press. 
Social and intellectual history also receives due 
attention, though church matters are played down 
or omitted. This, however, is stylistic affectation 
rather than paganism; despite some contrary 
opinions, Agathias was certainly a Christian. 

ED. Historiarum Libri Quinque, ed. R. Keydell (Berlin 1967). 
Eng. tr. J.D. Frendo, The Histories (Berlin 1975). Epigrammi, 
ed. G. Viansino (Milan 1967), with It. tr.; Eng. tr. in Paton, 
Greek Anth. 

LIT. A.M. Cameron, Agathias (Oxford 1970). R.C. McCail, 
“The Erotic and Ascetic Poetry of Agathias Scholasticus,” 
Byzantion 41 (1971) 205-67. —B.B. 


AGE (Ackia). The ancient Greeks and Romans 
often considered the life of man as consisting of 
seven periods that corresponded to the system of 
seven planets; MACROBIUS developed the idea of 
the hebdomadic (seven-year) rhythm in the life 
cycle, according to which 49 was the perfect age 
and 70 represented the complete life span. In 
contrast, AUGUSTINE rejected the mystical mean- 
ing of the hebdomadic rhythm and of the astral 
connections of the human ages and established 
the concept of six ages of man that correlated 
with the six ages of the world; Augustine’s ages 
were infancy, childhood, adolescence, the periods 
of one’s prime and of decline, and old age; se- 
nectitude, however, was to be followed by the new 
morning, the age of the future life that shall 
have no evening. The six-age theory was widely 
accepted in the West, by Isidore of Seville among 
others. 

The Byz. knew the ancient seven-age theory but 
did not develop either it or Augustine’s view. In 
their practical definitions the Byz. distinguished 
several ages of man: infancy, CHILDHOOD, puberty 
or marriageable age (marked by separation of the 
sexes), and old age. They did not precisely define 
the different stages, and the attitude toward them 
varied: the young Niketas Choniates, for instance, 
ridiculed old age, but later expressed indignation 
with impertinent and silly youth (A. Kazhdan, 
Kniga i pisateľ v Vizantit [Moscow 1973] 87f). 

For the most part, society respected old age, 
partially because the average Byz. had a relatively 


short LIFE EXPECTANCY. The elderly also com- 
manded respect because they had accumulated 
wisdom and experience (polypetra) and under- 
standing (episteme) that could be transmitted orally 
(Sacra parallela, PG 95:1305D—1308D). Village el- 
ders (gerontes, protogerot) with a good recollection 
of local traditions often resolved disputes over 
boundaries and land ownership. Many elderly 
Byz. complained, however, of the infirmities of 
old age; Nikeras Macistros, for example, re- 
gretted the effects of age on his literary creativity 
(ep.22.2—-4). The Greek Anthology (AnthGr, bk.s, 
no.76) includes an earlier poet Rufinus, who de- 
scribed the physical decline of the elderly—gray 
hair, wrinkles, colorless cheeks, and sagging 
breasts—as “a coffin-like galley about to sink,” 
although Agathias noted cases where “time cannot 
subdue nature” (AnthGr, bk.5, no.282). 

Elderly parents expected children to care for 
them; according to Neilos of Ankyra (PG 79:600C— 
601A), two children were sufficient for the needs 
of old age. Parents might disinherit children who 
failed to provide for them, as, for example, in the 
case of a spiritual son who had promised in writ- 
ing to look after his aged mother (A. Guillou, La 
Théotokos de Hagia-Agathe [Vatican 1972] no.30.12— 
18). Wipows frequently lived with their children 
and might even act as heads of households. Some 
monasteries provided hospices for the elderly 
(GEROKOMEIA); as an alternative, many widows and 
widowers took monastic vows and received care 
in a monastery in exchange for a donation of cash 
or property (see ADELPHATON). 

LIT. E. Sears, The Ages of Man: Medieval Interpretations of 
the Life Cycle (Princeton 1986) 39—69. A.-M. Talbot, “Old 
Age in Byzantium,” BZ 77 (1984) 267—78. C. Gnilka, “Ka- 
logeros: Die Idee ‘guten Alters’ bei den Christen,” /bACAr 
23 (1980) 5-21. R. Häusler, “Neues zum spatrémischen 
Lebensaltervergleich,” Actes du Vile Congrès de la Fédération 
internationale des associations d’études classiques, vol. 2 (Buda- 
pest 1984) 183-91. E. Patlagean, “L'entrée dans l'âge adulte 
à Byzance aux XI}e—XIVe siècles,” in Historicité de l'enfance 
et de la jeunesse (1986) 263—70. -J-H., A.K. 


AGENTES IN REBUS (åyyeħeahópoi, “messen- 
gers,” or payiıotpiavoi, “magister’s men”), a corps 
(schola) under the MAGISTER OFFICIORUM created, 
probably by Diocletian, to replace the former fru- 
mentarii. First mentioned in 319, their primary 
function was to carry imperial messages, which 
gave them the right to the cursus publicus (see 
Dromos); they also had the duty to inspect this 


service. Their broader responsibilities included 
supervision of the activity of any state functionary 
and reports to the emperor on subversion and 
administrative malpractice. Some agentes in rebus, 
called curiosi, were sent to the provinces as a kind 
of secret police. In addition to these functions, 
agentes acted as state prosecutors, inspectors of 
customs offices, state construction, and the billet- 
ing of soldiers; they also led diplomatic embassies. 
Their activity was closely interwoven with that of 
the schola of notaries (W. Sinnigen, AJPh 80 [1959] 
238-54). The corps of agentes had a tendency to 
increase in size. While Julian tried to restrict their 
number, by Leo I’s reign it had reached 1,248 
(Cod.Just. XII 20.3). The enrollment of the rela- 
tives of agentes was welcomed, but Jews and Sa- 
maritans were expelled (Jones, LRE 2:948). Agentes 
in rebus were exempt from the jurisdiction of 
provincial governors and could be dismissed, orig- 
inally, by the magister officiorum, but after 415 (in 
the East) only by the emperor. The agentes in rebus 
disappeared by the 7th C. 

LIT. O. Seeck, RE 1 (1894) 776-79. Stein, Op. minora 
71—115. G. Purpura, “I curiosi e la scuola agentium in 
rebus,” Annali del Seminario giuridicio di Palermo 34 (1973) 
165-275. P.J. Sijpesteijn, “Another Curiosus,” APEN 
(1987) 149f. -A.K 


AGHT'AMAR. See AYT'AMAR. 


AGNELLUS, also called Andreas; gth-C. priest 
and abbot of S. Maria ad Blachernas and St. 
Bartholomew’s in Ravenna. He came from a lead- 
ing family; his ancestor loannicius served in the 
central administration of Justinian II. Between 
830/1 and the late 840s Agnellus composed the 
Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (Pontifical Book 
of the Church of Ravenna) in imitation of the 
Roman LIBER PONTIFICALIS. His biographies of 
the archbishops of Ravenna up to his own time 
champion Ravenna’s pretensions vis-a-vis Rome. 
They also shed light on late antique Ravenna, the 
EXARCHATE, Justinian II, the adaptation of East- 
ern hagiographical legends to a Western context 
(F. Lanzoni, FelRav 8 [1912] 318-26; 17 [1915] 
763f; 18 [1915] 795—97}—the issue of ICON ven- 
eration is alive in his account—and life in a Byz. 
Provincial town, as remembered two or three gen- 
erations after the imperial authorities’ departure. 
His sources included the lost chronicle of Archbp. 


AGONY IN THE GARDEN 37 


Maximian (546-66), hagiography, occasional ar- 
chival documents (including Byz. imperial privi- 
leges—K. Brandi, Archiv für Urkundenforschung 9 
[1924—26] 11—13), oral tradition—particularly with 
respect to his own family—and a remarkably in- 
tensive, if uneven, use of the images and inscrip- 
tions of his city, many of which are now lost. The 
surviving text is corrupt and a few biographies 
are missing altogether (J.O. Tjader, ItMedUm 2 


[1959] 431=39). 

ED. (partial) Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. A. 
Testi Rasponi {= RIS 2.3] (Bologna 1924). Ed. O. Holder- 
Egger in MGH SRL 265—391. 

LIT. Wattenbach, Levison, Löwe, Deutsch. Gesch. Vorzeit 
u. Karol. 428-31. C. Nauerth, Agnellus von Ravenna (Mu- 
nich 1974). -M.McC. 


AGNES OF FRANCE, Byz. empress (1180-85); 
born ca.1171/72, died after 1204; daughter of 
Lours VII and Adèle of Champagne. In 1179, as 
the result of an embassy of MANUEL I, she arrived 
in Constantinople; early in 1180, renamed “Anna,” 
she was splendidly wedded to Manuel’s heir, 
ALExJos I]. After Alexios was killed, ANDRONIKOS 
I married her. When in 1185 his downfall seemed 
imminent, Andronikos attempted flight with Agnes 
and a favorite concubine, but they were appre- 
hended. From 1185 to 1203, Agnes apparently 
lived in Constantinople, where she entered a re- 
lationship with Theodore Branas; they could not 
marry, lest she lose her dowry. Sought out in 
1203 by members of the Fourth Crusade, she 
bitterly rejected them and spoke through an in- 
terpreter who claimed that she had forgotten 
French. During the sack of Constantinople she 
took refuge in the Great Palace. Subsequently she 
married Branas, who entered the service of the 
Latin emperors. 


LIT. Brand, Byzantium 22f, 72f, 259. Barzos, Genealogia 
2:457—-60. -C.M.B. 


AGONY IN THE GARDEN. Christ’s prayer in 
the garden of Gethsemane before his arrest is 
first found depicted on the 4th-C. Brescia Casket 
(Volbach, Early Christian Art, pl.89). Christ’s stand- 
ing posture and the scene’s place at the beginning 
of the Passion cycle imply inspiration from John 
17:1-13, which opens the Hoty WEEX liturgy. 
The Rossano GospELs, fol.8v, and Corpus Christi 
Gospels (F. Wormald, The Miniatures in the Gospels 


38 | AGORA 


of St. Augustine [Cambridge 1954] pl.) show Christ 
twice, in PROSKYNESIS and upbraiding the sleeping 
disciples, reflecting Matthew 26:36—46 and Mark 
14:32—42. All three Christ figures, the sleeping 
disciples, and the angel of Luke 22:39~—46 appear 
in the superb 11th-C. miniature opening the Holy 
Week lections in Athos, Dion. 587 (Treasures I, 
fig.226). This conflation of the synoptic Gospels 
and John yielded the components that character- 
ize the scene’s subsequent iconography. An esp. 
exhaustive version appears in S. Marco, VENICE 
(ca.1220). 


LIT. Demus, Mosaics of S. Marco 2.1:6—21. K. Wessel, 
RBK 2:783-91. -A.W.C. 


AGORA (dyopa, “marketplace”; Lat. forum), the 
center of public life in many Byz. cities and large 
towns. The agora was generally laid out on a 
rectangular plan, though forms such as the oval 
(at GERASA and the Forum of Constantine in Con- 
stantinople) and the circle (JUSTINIANA PRIMA) are 
known. Lined with porticoes, or sToas, and dom- 
inated by important religious, civic, and commer- 
cial buildings, an agora was often embellished 
with imperial statues, honorific COLUMNS, monu- 
mental ARCHES, and NYMPHAEA. Besides the seven 
major examples in the capital (see CONSTANTINO- 
PLE, MONUMENTS OF) agoras also remained part 
of the urban scene at PHILIPPI and THESSALONIKE 
beyond the 5th C. Construction of buildings within 
forums was prohibited by a decree of 383 
(Cod.Theod. XV 1.22), but it was not long before 
the agoras in most cities were encroached upon 
by new construction, a process that accelerated 
thereafter. The term, however, remained in usage. 


LIT. D. Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt im 6. Jahrhundert 
(Munich 1969) 63—68. —-M_J. 


AGRARIAN RELATIONS, the fiscal, economic, 
political, and social interrelations between the 
owner of land and its cultivator as reflected fac- 
tually in the form of RENT and COERCION and 
juridically in OWNERSHIP and POSSESSION. Byz. was 
an agricultural society, the basis of the economy 
being the soil. Like Rome, Byz. attached extreme 
importance to the status of land and the persons 
who cultivated or owned land. Consequently, to 
understand Byz. agrarian relations is to under- 


stand both the Byz. economic system and state 
structure. Scholarship has tended to focus on is- 
sues such as the condition of the PEASANT, the 
emergence of the pARoIKos, the origin and sur- 
vival of the VILLAGE COMMUNITY, the conflict be- 
tween the powerful (pyNaTos) and the POOR in 
the countryside, the reemergence of large-scale 
landholdings by laymen and by the church, par- 
ticularly monasteries, and the connection between 
military service and land tenure. Study of these 
issues involves investigation of the types of real 
property (STASIS, PROASTEION), the types of land 
tenure, and state and private obligations burden- 
ing property and their owners. The most contro- 
versial problems of Byz. agrarian relations are the 
existence of STATE PROPERTY, the validity of the 
concept of Byz. FEUDALISM, and the nature of the 
village community. 

LIT. P. Lemerle, The Agrarian History of Byzantium from 


the Origins to the Twelfth Century (Galway 1979). Litavrin, 
VizObséestvo 7— 109. -M.B. 


AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. Besides the 
PLow, Byz. farmers employed two similar TOOLS 
for tilling and weeding, the makele (mattock) and 
dikella (two-pronged drag-hoe). The former is de- 
picted in an illustration from Hesiod’s Works and 
Days (Venice, Marc. gr. 464, fol.g4r) as a long- 
handled implement outfitted with a triangular 
blade set at an angle to the haft. In this instance 
it appears to resemble extant examples of the 
Italian ligo (see K.D. White, Agricultural Implements 
of the Roman World [Cambridge 1967] 39, fig.19). 
An illustration of the dikella is found in a 5th- or 
6th-C. mosaic in Constantinople (Great Palace, 2nd 
Report, pl.47); here a farmer, grasping the handle 
of the implement, pulls the bifurcated blade, at- 
tached at right angles to the haft, slowly toward 
him, its two curving teeth digging lightly into the 
soil. For turning larger clumps of soil the disgarion 
(spade-fork) was employed. This implement (as 
illustrated in Paris, B.N. gr. 2774, fol.36v) was 
shaped like the Greek letter 7; the tool was ma- 
nipulated by a handle attached in the center of 
the horizontal cover-bar. 

At harvest time grain was reaped with a sickle 
(drepanon) rather than a scythe and threshed not 
with flails but with a threshing-sled (doukane); it 
was separated from the chaff with a winnowing- 


fork (likmeterion) and/or winnowing-shovel (ptyon). 
The vinedresser’s essential tool was the klaudeute- 
rion or pruning knife, which (as illustrated in 
Venice, Marc. gr. 464, fol.g4r, and Paris, B.N. gr. 
2786, fol.140r) might have two blades—one in the 
shape of a half-moon and the other like a quarter- 
moon. This instrument could be used for hacking, 
cutting, or pulling back. 

Except for MILLS and wine and OLIVE PRESSES, 
more complex devices were rare. The 4th-C. ag- 
riculturalist Rutilius Palladius (Opus agriculturae, 
ed. R.-H. Rodgers [Leipzig 1975] bk.7.2.2—4) de- 
scribes the reaper on two wheels pulled by an ox 
that was common in 4th-C. Gaul, but this vehicu- 
lum was not used in the East. A device for pre- 
paring dough operated by animal power was in- 
vented in the Great Lavra of Athanasios on Athos. 

uit. Les outils dans les Balkans du Moyen âge à nos jours, 
ed. A. Guillou, vol. 1 (Paris 1986). A. Bryer, “Byzantine 
Agricultural Implements: The Evidence of Medieval Illus- 
trations of Hesiod’s Works and Days,” BSA 81 (1986) 45- 
80. L. Cheetham, “Threshing and Winnowing—An Eth- 
nographic Study,” Antiquity 56 (1982) 127-30. A. Kazhdan, 
“Vizantijskoe sel’skoe poselenie,” VizVrem 2 (1949) 218-22. 
J. Cangova, “Srednovekovni ortidija na truda v Bilgarija,” 


Izvestija na Biilgarskata Akademija na Naukite 25 (1962) 19- 
55- — J.W.N., A.K., A.C. 


AGRICULTURE (yewzrovia). Byz. had a diver- 
sified soil and climate even after the loss of Syria, 
Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th C. Its lands 
ranged from the hot littoral of the Mediterranean, 
where olive trees and even cotton could grow, to 
the fertile valleys of Thrace producing barley and 
grapes, to the arid pastures of Cappadocia sus- 
taining numerous flocks. The most general fea- 
tures were the predominance of rocky soil, scar- 
city of water supply, and warm summers. This 
resulted in the relatively small size of fields, in the 
development of HORTICULTURE and viticulture 
(which to some extent was detrimental to grain 
production), and in stock breeding characterized 
by TRANSHUMANCE. 

Byz. agriculture was polycultural. The primary 
types of cultivated land were the CHORAPHION 
producing grain, the VINEYARD, and the GARDEN 
in which FRUIT and vegetables were planted; in 
addition, flax, cotton, and sesame were grown, 
and in Sicily and the Peloponnesos the silkworm 
was cultivated. OLIVE groves were typical of areas 
near the sea. There was no IRRIGATION on a large 


AGRICULTURE 39 


scale (after the loss of Egypt), but gardens, vine- 
yards, and sometimes olive trees were supplied 
with water by small conduits from natural sources 
or cisterns. 

Agricultural TECHNOLOGY was predominantly a 
continuation of ancient and Mediterranean tra- 
ditions, for instance, the sole-ard PLow, supple- 
mented on particularly stony soils and in gardens 
by hand cultivation with hoes and mattocks. Ac- 
RICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS included the sickle (not 
scythe), which left high stalks in the fields as cattle 
fodder and as fertilizer. For the THRESHING of 
wheat, the grain was trampled by oxen or crushed 
by a threshing-sled, rather than flailed. Complex 
mechanical devices were limited to wine presses, 
OLIVE PRESSES, and MILLS, both animal- and water- 
driven; there is no mention of water-lifting de- 
vices or reapers in Asia Minor or Greece. The 
land was cultivated in both winter and summer, 
and in the warmest regions two crops were pro- 
duced annually. For nurturing the land Byz. 
farmers employed a two-field rotation system. The 
degree to which lands were manured is problem- 
atic. 

Some innovations took place after the end of 
the Roman Empire. The quality of grain im- 
proved: hard wheat spread in Asia Minor and rye 
was introduced in the Balkans. These types of 
GRAIN were more stable and easier to store. The 
system of harness changed around the 1oth C., 
permitting the HORSE to be used for plowing. 
Windmills appeared, probably in the 13th C. The 
role of LIVESTOCK increased, and dairy products 
(esp. CHEESE) assumed greater importance in the 
Byz. pret. By the 14th C. cattle and flocks of 
SHEEP and GOATS seem to have been a more sig- 
nificant indication of wealth than land. 

Figures of agricultural yield are difficult to es- 
tablish. A 12th-C. writer (Eust. Thess., Opuscula 
155-69—71) asserted that on a small field he was 
able to harvest grain 20:1, but such high yield 1s 
atypical. In the estates of the AccrayuoLi in Greece 
in 1380 the yield ranged from 1.6:1 to 5:1 (Schil- 
bach, Metrologie 57, n.6). In any case Western 
observers stressed the plentiful supply of agrarian 
products in Byz., and from the 12th C. onward 
Byz. exported grain, wine, and other agricultural 
products to Italy and Dubrovnik. The political 
situation in the 14th and 15th C. caused a drastic 
change in rural conditions—the abandonment of 


40 AHIKAR 


lands and the impoverishment of households as 
reflected in the praktika of Mt. Athos. Byz. FARMS 
were small units managed by families using prim- 
itive techniques. Only from early 15th-C. Thes- 
salonike is there evidence about large-scale hus- 
bandry aimed at the improvement of soil (in part 
by irrigation), subleasing to smaller tenants, and 
increasing income; this intensive exploitation of 
land met resistance from monastic landowners. 

Apparently in the late Roman Empire there was 
more land than there were people to till it, and 
an important function of legislation was to per- 
suade farmers to stay on their allotments. This 
situation had changed by the 10th C., and legis- 
lation tended to prevent (rich) neighbors from 
acquiring neighboring properties. Although re- 
duced in extent from the 7th C., the empire still 
possessed territories that could provide enough 
grain and other victuals to feed its capital (and 
indeed allow it to grow in the 1oth C.), to supply 
armies in the field that could counter Arab attacks 
and eventually reclaim lost lands, and to support 
a general increase in the population in the gth 
and 1oth C. There is little evidence on the clearing 
of forest land, but the will of Eustathios BorLas 
suggests that some individuals tried to open up 
new lands, and Psellos (like some other landown- 
ers) expressed interest in expanding and improv- 
ing his estates. 

Around the 1oth C. the most fertile regions of 
the empire, besides Thrace and southern Italy, 
were located in Asia Minor, esp. on the seacoast, 
while the main centers of cattle breeding were in 
Bulgaria, Thessaly, and the interior of Asia Mi- 
nor. By the 12th C., while Balkan cities flourished, 
the rural character of Asia Minor grew more and 
more evident; under the Nicaean emperors in the 
1gth C. the west coast of Asia Minor produced 
abundant grain for export and became famous 
for its domestic FowL “industry.” Asia Minor was 
soon lost, however, to the Ottomans, and the 
northern Balkans were either conquered or suf- 
fered from invasions. The Peloponnesos, on the 
other hand, maintained a prosperous agriculture 
to the end of Byz. 

ut. A. Kazhdan, DMA 1:76-79. G. Weiss, “Antike und 
Byzanz,” HistZ 224 (1977) 559. C.E. Stevens, CEH 1:92- 
124. J. Teall, “The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire 
330—1025,” DOP 13 (1959) 87—139. J. Nesbitt, “Mecha- 
nisms of Agricultural Production on Estates of the Byz- 


antine Praktika” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Wis., 1972). M. 
Blagojević, Zemljoradnja u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji (Belgrade 


1973). J. Henning, “Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der 
Landwirtschaft in Südosteuropa im Ubergang von der 
Spätantike zum frühen Mittelalter,” Ethnographisch-arch- 
äologische Zeitschrift 25 (1984) 123-30. —J.W.N., A.K. 


AHIKAR (Aytdxpos), grand vizier of the Baby- 
lonian king Sennacherib (or Asarhaddon, in Ar- 
amaic). He was the hero of an oriental saga known 
in an Aramaic version of the 5th C. B.c. and 
alluded to in the Book of Tobit, an apocryphal 
book of the Old Testament; some ancient Greek 
authors (e.g., AEsop, in his fables) were familiar 
with the saga, as was the Qur’AN. The legend 
made Ahikar a victim of the slander of his adopted 
son Nadan; Ahikar miraculously escaped execu- 
tion, however, and eventually emerged to save his 
king when the Egyptians imposed on the king the 
impossible task of building a castle in the air. 
Numerous GNomal and fables were added to the 
legend. The legend of Ahikar is preserved in Old 
Slavonic, beginning with a Glagolitic MS of 1468. 
A. Veselovskij (Skazki tysjact odnoj noči 2 [St. Pe- 
tersburg 1890] xvi—xvili) and V. Jagić (BZ 1 [1892] 
108-11) hypothesized that the Slavonic text was 
based on a Byz. version, but Grigor’ev (infra) 
suggested that it drew upon an Armenian origi- 
nal. 

ED. F.C. Conybeare, J.R. Harris, A.S. Lewis, The Story of 
Ahikar? (Cambridge 1913) with Eng. tr. 

LIT. A.D. Grigor’ev, Povesť ob Ahikare premudrom kak chu- 
doniestuennoe proizvedenie (Moscow 1913). I.C. Chitimia, 
“L’ ‘Histoire du sage Ahikar’ dans les littératures slaves,” 
Romanoslavica g (1963) 413-26. -j.L, AK. 


AIGINA (Aiyiva), name of both an island in the 
Saronic Gulf southwest of ATHENS and of its prin- 
cipal city; it was located in the province of ACHAIA 
and eventually in the theme of HetLas. Archae- 
ological evidence shows that the ancient city site 
on the west coast was inhabited throughout the 
Byz. period, while the CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 
(ed. Dujéev 12.94—95) says that Aigina served as 
a place of refuge for the inhabitants of CORINTH 
during the Slavic invasions. In the gth C. Aigina 
suffered from Arab raids; probably at this time a 
new settlement was established at Palaiachora on 
a hill in the interior. In the 12th C. the island was 
used by pirates as a base for attacks on the sur- 
rounding coastlines (Mich.Akom. 43.17—18). Al- 
though originally granted to the Venetians after 


1204, Aigina was ruled by the dukes of Athens 
until it fell under Catalan control in 1317. From 
1425 it was Venetian. 

The bishop of Aigina was originally a suffragan 
of Corinth. He was elevated to archbishop by goo, 
and briefly after 1371 was subject to Athens. 

The hill of Colonna north of the modern town 
was fortified, perhaps as early as the grd C. but 
more probably later, and a large cistern was cut 
in the ancient temple. Several Early Christian 
basilicas have been found in the ancient city, one 
of them built up against the fortress wall; and a 
synagogue with inscribed mosaic (giving the cost 
of its decoration) was transformed into a church 
after the 7th C. East of the city is the Omorphe 
Ekklesia, a church dedicated to the Sts. Theodore 
(G.A. Soteriou, EEBS 2 [1925] 242-76), built in 
1282 (M.Ch. Gketakos, Anekdoto: epigraphai kai 
charagmata ek byzantinon kai metabyzantinon mne- 
meion tes Hellados [Athens 1957] 67—69), or 1284 
(M. Chatzedakis, ArchDelt 21.2.1 [1966] 20, n.16). 
Its frescoes are rather primitive in style and con- 
tain some unusual iconography, such as the Vir- 
gin nursing Christ in the Nativity scene. Of the 
35 churches at Palaiachora, 10 date before 1450. 

LIT. N. Moutsopulos, RBK 1:54—61. Idem, He Paleachora 


tes Aigines (Athens 1962). F. Felten, Alt-Agina, Die christliche 
Siedlung (Mainz 1975). -T.E.G. 


AILIOS HERODIANOS. See HERODIAN. 


AIMILIANOS (AijtAtavos), patriarch of Antioch 
(from before 1074 to 1078). Aimilianos was 
patriarch long before 1074 when Nikephoros 
Bryennios (Bryen. 203.2—4) first mentions him as 
the moving spirit of the city’s anti-imperial op- 
position. Because of Aimilianos’s great popularity, 
MıcHaEL VII Doukas had him escorted secretly 
from Antioch to Constantinople in 1074. NIKE- 
PHORITZES, during his tenure as governor, had 
first suggested the removal, since he, too, had 
been opposed by the patriarch. The new governor 
of Antioch, Isaac Komnenos, orchestrated the ex- 
ecution of this difficult assignment. Even in Con- 
stantinople, however, Aimilianos did not resign 
his see or abandon his political activity. According 
to Bryennios, he was a “cunning and energetic” 
individual who eventually incited the people (de- 
mos) to rebellion (245.3—4). In effect, he became 


AINOS 41 


the ringleader of the anti-imperial faction of 
churchmen and senators responsible for pro- 
claiming NikepHoros II] BoOTANEIATES emperor 
(25 March 1078). 


LIT. Grumel, “Patriarcat” 144f. Papadopoulos, Antioch. 
865-67. Polemis, “Chronology” 68-71. -A.P. 


AINEIAS OF GAZA, teacher of rhetoric; fl. 5th 
or 6th C. After studying NEOPLATONISM under 
HIeEROKLES at Alexandria and visiting Constanti- 
nople, Aineias (Aivetas) returned home to prac- 
tice as a Christian sophist. His major work is the 
Theophrastus, a dialogue in which the Aristotelian 
philosopher of that name is defeated in argu- 
ments concerning immortality of the soul and the 
resurrection. Twenty-five letters also survive. 

ED. Teofrasto, ed. M.E. Colonna (Naples 1958), with It. 
tr. Epistole?, ed. L. Massa Positano (Naples 1962). 


tir. M. Wacht, Aeneas von Gaza als Apologet: Seine Kos- 
mologie im Verhältnis zum Platonismus (Bonn 1969). —-B.B. 


AINOS (Aivos, mod. Enez), city in Thrace on the 
east bank of the HeBros River near its mouth. 
Prokopios (Buildings 4.11.1—5) reports that Justi- 
nian I transformed its low city wall into an im- 
pregnable fortification, and the Synekdemos of 
Hierokles (Hierokl. 634.5) lists it as capital of the 
province of RHopope. Nothing is known about 
the city from the 7th to 11th C., but it did function 
as an ecclesiastical center: first as an autonomous 
archbishopric, and by 1032 a metropolis (Laurent, 
Corpus 5.1:614f). It reappears in historical nar- 
ratives in 1090 when Alexios I established his 
headquarters there during his war against the 
Pechenegs (An.Komn. 2:135.27-29). Thereafter 
its role increased: in the 12th C. it was a market 
where monks of the Kosmosoteira monastery 
bought olive oil directly from boats (L. Petit, JRAIK 
13 [1908] 50.1—4). A 15th-C. historian (Kritob. 
193.6—11) characterizes Ainos as a large polis 
thriving on trade with the neighboring islands of 
Imbros and Lemnos (the description is partly bor- 
rowed from Herodotus). Strongly fortified, it 
withstood the attack of the Bulgarians and Tatars 
in 1265 and that of the Catalan Grand Company 
in 1307. According to Chalkokondyles (Chalk. 
520f), ca.1384 the people of Ainos invited a mem- 
ber of the family of Francesco GaTTILUusIo to be 
their ruler, and it remained an important Genoese 
possession until it fell to the Turks in 1456; in 


42 | AITOLIA 


1460 Mehmed II granted Ainos to Demetrios 
Palaiologos, the deposed despotes of the Morea, 
but in 1468 it returned to Ottoman control. 


LIT. Asdracha, Rhodopes 120-24. Miller, Essays 298, 318, 
334 338E. -T.E.G. 


AITOLIA (AirwAia), a mountainous region in the 
western part of central Greece, between the Am- 
bracian Gulf and the Gulf of Corinth; west of 
Aitolia lay Akarnania, a part of which occupied 
the fertile valley of the Acheloos River; the Akar- 
nanian coast faced the islands of the Ionian Sea— 
Leukas, Ithaka, and Kephalenia. The region was 
a part of the theme of Nıkorouis, then of the 
despotate of Epiros. The ancient names of Aitolia 
and Akarnania were still used in the 6th C., and 
Prokopios (Buildings 4.2.1) even speaks of Aitoli- 
ans and Akarnanians; the Synekdemos of Hierokles 
(Hierokl. 648.4) mentions Aigion as the metrop- 
olis of Aitolia. The names then disappeared from 
Byz. nomenclature, but were revived by historians 
of the 14th—15th C. (Kantakouzenos, Gregoras, 
Laonikos Chalkokondyles), who often used them 
side by side with Epiros and sometimes as syn- 
onyms for the latter (TIB 3:39). The name Aitolia 
had been revived even earlier in ecclesiastical lists, 
and NaupakTos was called “of Nikopolis” or “of 
Aitolia” (Notitiae CP 10.531). In the acts of the 
local council of 1367 the metropolitan of Nau- 
paktos is titled “hypertemos and exarch of all Aito- 
lia” and the bishopric of Arta defined as “in Akar- 
nania” (MM 1:494.6, 13). -A.K. 


AKAKIA (dxaxia, lit. “guilelessness,” also &vegi- 
kakia, “forbearance”), a cylindrical pouch of pur- 
ple silk containing a handful of dust that the 
emperor carried in his right hand on ceremonial 
occasions; in his left he held a scepter, an orb, or 
a cross ornamented with precious stones (De cer. 
25.20—22). In the Kletorologion of Philotheos (Oi- 
konomides, Listes 201.13—16) the order of the 
hands is reversed. Two late Byz. writers (pseudo- 
Kod. 201.12—202.3; Symeon of Thessalonike, PG 
155:356AB) both emphasized that the akakia sym- 
bolized the instability of temporal power and the 
humility of its mortal bearer. According to Haran 
ibn Yahya’s description of the emperor’s proces- 
sion to Hagia Sophia on Ash Wednesday, the 
ruler went on foot carrying a golden box with a 


bit of earth in it; at every two paces his “minister” 
exclaimed, “Be mindful of death!” and the em- 
peror paused, opened the box, looked at the dust, 
and wept (A. Vasiliev, SemKond 5 [1932] 159). 

A representation of the akakia can be seen on 
the mosaic of Emp. ALEXANDER in the gallery of 
Hagia Sophia (P.A. Underwood, E.J.W. Hawkins, 
DOP 15 [1961] 191, 195f and n.go, fig.1). 

Lit. Treitinger, Kaiseridee 148. DOC 2.1:86f; 3.1:199f. 
N.P. Kondakov, “Mificeskaja suma s zemnoj tjagoju,” 


Spisante na Bilgarskata Akademija na Naukite, Klon istoriko- 
filologideski 22.12 (1921) 53—66. -A.K, 


AKAKIAN SCHISM, a temporary rift (484-519) 
between the church of Constantinople and the 
papacy, so named after the patriarch AKakios. By 
the end of the 5th C. the bishop of the imperial 
capital faced resistance from East and West: on 
the one hand, the popes emphasized their pri- 
macy among the five archbishops as confirmed by 
canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and 
thus Pope Simplicius (468—83) entrusted Akakios 
with legatio pro nobis (PL 58:41C), treating him as 
the pope’s legate; on the other hand, the Eastern 
archbishops, irritated by the administrative deci- 
sions of Chalcedon (e.g., confirming for Constan- 
tinople the second place in the ecclesiastical hier- 
archy), tried in 477 to return to Ephesus the 
privilege of exarchate, to the detriment of the 
capital. The situation was aggravated by the theo- 
logical split between Rome and the sees of Antioch 
and Alexandria that clung to Monophysitism, 
whereas Akakios wavered between the two creeds 
and kept shifting his allegiances. 

In 482 Emp. Zeno and Akakios signed the HE- 
NOTIKON, a compromise with the Monophysite PE- 
TER Moncos, but it was rejected by Kalandion of 
Antioch (479-84) and by Monophysite monks in 
Egypt. The new pope, FeLIx III, sent envoys to 
Constantinople who regarded the compromise 
favorably. The Axkormetor monks, the anti- 
Monophysite activists in Constantinople, accused 
the papal legates of succumbing to bribery and 
betraying the Roman interests; in July 484 Felix 
convoked a synod of bishops in Rome, abrogated 
the legates’ decision, condemned Mongos, and 
deposed Akakios. The papal letter enumerating 
the “sins” of Akakios was delivered to the patri- 
arch by an Akoimetos monk who paid with his 
life for this courageous action. 

As a result of the schism the name of Felix was 


removed from Constantinopolitan diptychs. Then 
Akakios moved against Kalandion, who was sus- 
pected of supporting the revolt of Leonrios and 
ILLos—he was deposed and replaced by PETER 
THE FULLER; thereafter Martyrios of Jerusalem 
(478-86) signed the Henotikon. 

Rome remained intransigent, however, and the 

pe had solid partisans in Constantinople; nor 
did the Henotikon find uncompromising adherents 
in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The revolt of V1- 
TALIAN was Carried out under the banner of the 
Chalcedonians. Patriarchs Makedonios (496-511) 
and Timothy I (511-18) tried to curb the Mon- 
ophysite movement, but they refused to denounce 
the Henotikon and to remove Akakios from the 
diptychs lest they thereby acknowledge the victory 
of Rome. Reconciliation was difficult since Emp. 
Anastasios I expressed obvious pro-Monophysite 
sympathies; he even found Makedonios insuffi- 
ciently anti-Chalcedonian and deposed him, Only 
the predominance of the Orthodox party under 
Justin I and the search for an alliance with Rome 
brought an end to the Akakian schism: on 28 
Mar. 519 Justin abrogated the Henotikon and ended 
the break with Rome; the names of Akakios and 
Zeno were removed from the diptychs. 

LIT. W.H.C. Frend, Town and Country (London 1980), 
pLXI (1975), 69—81. E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen 
zum acactanischen Schisma [ABAW, philos.-hist. Abt., n.s. 10} 
(Munich 1934). P. Charanis, Church and State in the Later 
Roman Empire? (Thessalonike 1974). W.T. Townsend, “The 


Henoticon Schism and the Roman Church,” The Journal of 
Religion 16 (1936) 78—86. -A.K., T.E.G. 


AKAKIOS (Axcéxwos), bishop of Berroia, Syria 
(from 378); born ca.g22, died ca.433. Akakios 
became a monk at an early age, gaining a repu- 
tation for asceticism, kindness, and piety. He par- 
ticipated in the Council of Constantinople (381) 
and the Synod of the Oak (403). Because of his 
advanced age, he could not attend the Council of 
Ephesus (431) but played a mediating role behind 
the scenes. Contemporaries considered his only 
fault to be an implacable hostility toward JOHN 
CHRYSOSTOM, a former friend with whom he had 
broken over a supposed insult. His follower Ba- 
laeus extolled his virtues in five Syriac hymns. A 
few of his many letters survive, including one to 
Cyril of Alexandria in support of NEsTortos; they 
show him to be a man of personal and theological 
compromise. 


AKAPNIOU MONASTERY 43 


ED. PG 77:99—102. PG 84:647f, 658-60. ACO, tome I, 
vol. i, pt. 1:99f. 

SOURCE. Germ. tr. of Balaeus’s hymns —P.S. Landers- 
dorfer, Ausgewählte Schriften der syrischen Dichter Cyrillonas, 
Baléus, Isaak von Antiochien und Jakob von Sarug (Kempten- 
Munich 1913) 71—89. 

LIT. G. Bardy, “Acace de Bérée et son rôle dans la 
controverse nestorienne,” RSR 18 (1938) 20-44. —B.B. 


AKAKIOS (Axdéxvos), patriarch of Constantino- 
ple (Mar. 472-26 or 28 Nov. 489). Before his 
election Akakios was director of the orphanage in 
Constantinople. The first crisis he faced after as- 
cending the patriarchal throne was the usurpation 
of BasiLiskos; after some hesitation, the patriarch 
joined the Orthodox party that was led by DANIEL 
THE STYLITE and supported by the majority of the 
population of the capital. At first Akakios fol- 
lowed a traditional ecclesiastical policy, seeking an 
alliance with Rome against Alexandria, and ac- 
cordingly deposed the Monophysite Alexandrian 
patriarch Peter Moncos. Then he realized that 
the unity of the eastern provinces was the crucial 
task and attempted to find a compromise with the 
Monophysites: Peter Mongos was reestablished in 
Alexandria, and Akakios composed the HENO- 
TIKON on behalf of Zeno (482). This about-face 
caused anxiety in Rome and eventually led to the 
AKAKIAN SCHISM (484—519); even though Akakios 
managed to attract the support of two legates of 
Pope Fetrx III, a Roman synod condemned the 
patriarch in 484. Felix III’s epistle of 28 July 484 
first charged Akakios with usurping the rights of 
other provinces and criticized the growing role of 
Constantinople within the Eastern church; then 
the pope accused Akakios because of his recon- 
ciliation with the Monophysites, and esp. Peter 
Mongos. The policy of Akakios was no more suc- 
cessful in pacifying the Eastern church: the or- 
thodox opposition was directed by the AKOIMETOI 
in Constantinople and found supporters in Al- 
exandria and Antioch. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 1, nos. 148-72. E. Marin, DTC 1 


(1935) 288-go. E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4 
(Berlin 1960) 144-46. ~A.K. 


AKAPNIOU MONASTERY, located in Thessa- 
lonike, perhaps on the acropolis. The date of its 
foundation is uncertain. V. Grumel (EO 30 [1931] 
91—95) suggested that Akapniou (Axazviov, 
“without smoke”) was established by St. Photios 


44 AKATHISTOS HYMN 


of Thessaly in the early 11th C. on the evidence 
of a hymn by Demetrios Beaskos (end of 13th C.) 
that names a St. Photios as the ktetor. The rela- 
tionship of the monastery to the 11th-C. Akapnes 
family of civil functionaries (Laurent, Corpus 2, 
nos. 107, 159, 202) cannot be determined. Some- 
time in the 11th or 12th C., an early hegoumenos 
of the monastery, Ignatios, wrote a treatise on the 
mosaic of Christ at the Latomos monastery (V. 
Grumel, EO 29 [1930] 165-67). 

During the Latin occupation of the 13th C. 
Pope Innocent III placed Akapniou under the 
protection of the Holy See. In the 14th C. it was 
involved in a number of disputes over properties 
located in Macedonia and in Thessalonike proper. 
IGNaTY OF SMOLENSK visited the monastery in 
1405. After the Turkish conquest of Thessalonike 
in 1430 Akapniou lost most of its property (N. 
Oikonomides, SiidostF 35 [1976] 4). 


LIT. Janin, Églises centres 347-49. -A.M.T. 


AKATHISTOS HYMN (Axa@uaros “Y vos), an 
anonymous KONTAKION sung in honor of the 
Theotokos while the congregation stands ({i.e., a- 
kathistos, “not seated”; a recollection of the all- 
night vigil during which, according to tradition, 
the Akathistos Hymn was first sung in thanksgiv- 
ing for the lifting of the Avar siege of Constanti- 
nople in 626). Despite the liturgical developments 
of the 8th C., when performance of kontakia in 
their entirety was abandoned, the Akathistos Hymn 
continued in use, at first at the Feast of the AN- 
NUNCIATION (25 March) and subsequently during 
Lent. The Akathistos Hymn consists of a prooimi- 
on (three of which, probably, exist) and 24 01KOl, 
or stanzas, linked by an alphabetic acrostic. The 
oikot follow two alternating structures, one shorter 
with the refrain “Allelouia,” the other longer and 
with a set of 12 Chazretismoi (Salutations) to the 
Theotokos, ending in the refrain “Hail, wedded 
maiden and virgin.” The first 12 oikot give the 
biblical narrative on the Incarnation; the remain- 
ing 12 meditate upon its mysteries. The whole 
coalesces to create a subtly interwoven net of 
images that is one of the high points of Byz. 
poetry. The author and date of composition re- 
main uncertain. One prooimion, “To the defender 
and commander,” and hence the entire Akathistos 
Hymn, is attributed in the synaxaria to Patr. SER- 
Gios I in 626 and in the Latin translation (8th or 


gth C.) to Patr. Germanos I in 717/18; metrical 
patterns and theological considerations, however, 
point rather to a date in the early 6th C. Despite 
the temptation to ascribe this masterpiece to an- 
other craftsman working in the same genre at 
approximately the same time, ROMANOS THE 
MELODE probably did not write the Akathistos 
Hymn. The hymn survives in a rich MS tradition, 

Four illustrated copies of the Akathistos Hymn 
are preserved. Two are Greek: in Moscow (Hist. 
Mus., gr. 429), probably a product of the Hope- 
GON monastery from the third quarter of the 14th 
C., and in Madrid (Escorial R.I. 19), whose late 
14th- or early 15th-C. decoration shows Western 
influence. Two are in 14th-C. Slavonic Psalters: 
the Tomič Psalter in Moscow (Hist. Mus. M.2752) 
and the Serbian Psalter in Munich (Bayer. Staats- 
bibl., slav.4). The cycle is found somewhat earlier 
in monumental painting, but may be Palaiologan 
in origin. Illustrations of the first 12 ovkot rely on 
traditional iconography of the life of the Virgin 
and consequently are relatively standardized. The 
next 12 required greater imagination on the part 
of artists, and results varied. 

ED. C.A. Trypanis, Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica (Vi- 
enna 1968) 17—39. E. Wellesz, The Akathistos Hymn (Copen- 
hagen 1957). Lat. version—M. Huglo, “L’ancienne version 
latine de I’ Hymne Acathiste,” Muséon 64 (1951) 27-61. 

LIT. Mitsakis, Hymnographia 483-509. J. Grosdidier de 
Matons, Romanos le Mélode (Paris 1977) 32—36. Szövérffy, 
Hymnography 1:116—35. T. Velmans, “Une illustration iné- 
dite de l’Acathiste et l'iconographie des hymnes liturgiques 
a Byzance,” CahArch 22 (1972) 131-65. J. Lafontaine- 
Dosogne, “Lillustration de la première partie de l’Hymne 
Akathiste et sa relation avec les mosaïques de l'Enfance de 
la Kariye Djami,” Byzantion 54 (1984) 648—702. E. Wellesz, 
“The ‘Akathistos’: A Study in Byzantine Hymnography,” 
DOP g-10 (1956) 141-74. A. Patzold, Der Akathistos- 
Hymnos: die Bilderzyklen in der byzantinischen Wandmalerei des 
14. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart 1989). —-E.M.J., R.S.N. 


AKEDIA (åkņôia), accidie, sloth or torpor, term 
for a state of listlessness found in monks. It was 
recognized as a special problem for HERMITS who 
lacked the encouragement of brethren in a cen- 
obitic community. Neilos of Ankyra defined it as 
the “weakness of a soul unable to withstand temp- 
tation” (PG 79:1157C). Akedia was thought to be 
the result of indulgence in vices such as laziness, 
loquaciousness, and absorption in the emotions 
but was sometimes attributed to preternatural 
causes, a demon that was active at the noon hour. 
The demon made monks restless, excitable, and 


negligent with regard to prayer and reading. Ake- 
dia could be overcome through assiduous atten- 
tion to prayer and study of the Scriptures, pa- 
tience, avoidance of idle talk, and manual labor 
(PG 79:1456D—1460B). Theodore of Stoudios (PG 
99:1724C) prescribed 40 days repentance as pun- 
ishment for this vice, including three weeks with- 
out wine or oil and 250 penitent prostrations 
(metanoiai) daily, for if uncorrected the sin could 
lead to the depths of hell. 

souRCcE. Jean Cassien, Institutions cénobitiques, ed. J.-C. 
Guy (Paris 1965) 382—425. j 

uT. A. & C. Guilaumont in Evagre le Pontique: Traité 

atique ou le moine (Paris 1971) 1:84-90, 2:520—26. H. 
Waddell, The Desert Fathers (London 1946) 157-60. 

—A.M.T. 


AKEPHALOI. See PETER MONGos. 


AKHMIM (Panopolis, Tavay médts), metropolis 
of the Panopolite nome of Upper Egypt, a bish- 
opric from the early 4th C. A church is mentioned 
in a text of 295—300 A.D. (P. Gen. inv. 108), but 
no early examples have survived. They may have 
been destroyed in the 14th C., since al-Nahrawali 
(Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka, ed. F. Wistenfeld, 
vol. 3 [Leipzig 1857; rp. Beirut 1964] 109) indi- 
cates that many marble columns from Akhmim 
were reused in the Ka‘ba at Mecca. Akhmim has 
been famous since the 5th C. for its TEXTILES, 
many of which were found in early Christian 
(5th-7th C.) tombs nearby. Other tombs have 
yielded small articles of daily use. Papyri attest to 
a flourishing classical literary culture in the 4th— 
5th C. 

LIT. Timm, Agypten 1:80-g6. R. Forrer, Die friihchrist- 
lichen Altertiimer aus dem Griberfelde von Achmim-Panopolis 
(Strassburg 1893). S. McNally, “Excavations at Akhmim, 


Egypt 1978,” American Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 
107 (1978-79) 22-28. —P.G. 


AKHNAS, or Akhnasiya (‘Hpax\edzoXts, Hera- 
cleopolis Magna), south of Fayyim, approxi- 
mately 15 miles west of Beni Suef, metropolis of 
the Heracleopolite nome of Egypt, site of a bish- 
opric from 325. From Akhnas have come a num- 
ber of 4th- to 5th-C. architectural sculptures, such 
as niche-heads, capitals, friezes, etc., which once 
adorned mausoleums in the cemetery; many of 
these are decorated with mythological scenes. The 
site is now deserted, a vast field of pottery hills 


AKINDYNOS, GREGORY 45 


surrounded by several modern villages. Traces of 
a colonnaded street are visible. Spots where huge 
columns abound are currently referred to as ka- 
nisa (“church”) but are more probably the remains 
of other public buildings. 

Lit. U. Monneret de Villard, La scultura ad Ahnés (Milan 
1923). H.-G. Severin, “Gli scavi eseguiti ad Ahnas, Bahnasa, 
Bawit e Saqqara,” CorsiRav 28 (1981) 299-303. Timm, 
Agypten 3:1161—72. -P.G. 


AKINDYNOS, GREGORY, anti-Palamite theo- 
logian; born Prilep ca.1300?, died 1348. His bap- 
tismal name and original surname are unknown: 
Gregory was a monastic, Akindynos (Axévévuvos) 
an adopted name. Of humble, most probably 
Bulgarian, ancestry, Akindynos studied in Thes- 
salonike with THomMAs MacistTros and subse- 
quently became a schoolteacher in Berroia. There 
ca.1330 he met Gregory PaLamas and became a 
monk; he was, however, rejected by four Athonite 
monasteries, perhaps because of his reputation 
for secular learning. Akindynos returned to Thes- 
salonike, where he became friendly with BARLAAM 
OF CALABRIA. 

By 1337 Akindynos was in Constantinople and 
involved in the controversy over PALAMISM; in its 
early stages he played a mediating role between 
Barlaam and Palamas. By 1341, however, he be- 
gan to question the orthodoxy of Palamite doc- 
trine on divine grace, and threw his support to 
Barlaam. He was apparently condemned at the 
July session of the local council of Constantinople 
of 1341 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS 
or). Akindynos was a protégé of Irene CHOUM- 
NAINA and the spokesman of Patr. Jonn XIV 
KaLEkas, who ordained him deacon and priest 
(1344). With the erosion of the authority of Ka- 
lekas and the victory of JoHN VI KANTAKOUZENOS, 
Akindynos fell into disgrace; he was excommun- 
icated at the council of 1347 and died in exile 
soon after. 

His correspondence provides important in- 
sights into the hesychast controversy from an anti- 
Palamite viewpoint; many of his theological trea- 
tises, including the Antirrhetics against Palamas, 
are still unpublished. Unlike later anti-Palamites, 
Akindynos was neither a Latin sympathizer nor 
influenced by Greek philosophy, as his opponents 
claimed. In his works he did not inveigh against 
the spirituality of the monks but against the Pa- 
lamite doctrine of the divine energies, thus ex- 








pressing the conservative approach to theology of 
his fellow intellectuals. 

ED. Letters of Gregory Akindynos, ed. A.C. Hero (Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1983), with Eng. tr. Address to Hierotheos—ed. 
K, Pitsakes in Epeteris Kentrou Ereunes Historias Hellenikou 
Dikaiou 19 (1972) 111—216. For complete list, see Tusculum- 
Lexikon 24f. 

tir. J.S. Nadal, “La critique par Akindynos de Pher- 
méneutique patristique de Palamas,” Istina 19 (1974) 297- 
328. B. Phanourgakes, “Agnosta antipalamika syngram- 
mata tou Gregoriou Akindynou,” Klerenomia 4 (1972) 285- 
3o2. M. Candal, “La Confesión de fe antipalamitica de 
Gregorio Acindino,” OrChrP 25 (1959) 215-64. PLP, 


no.495.- -A.M.T., A.C.H. 


AKINDYNOS, PEGASIOS, AND ANEMPO- 
DISTOS (Axivôvrvos, IInydoios, Aveurmóðwros), 
martyrs who lived in the Persian Empire under 
Shāpňr II (r.3 10—79); saints; feastday 2 Nov. The 
Passio, preserved in two different versions (the 
earliest MSS from the oth C.), concentrates on 
their ordeal: they were thrown into boiling lead, 
into the sea, into a ditch full of bloodthirsty beasts. 
They remained unharmed due to the help of 
ngels and by their endurance converted many 
agans to Christianity: Shāpūr’s servant Aphthoni- 
s (who was immediately decapitated), the senator 
pidephoros (murdered together with his com- 
anions), and even the mother of the “basileus.” 
e, the three martyrs, and 28 other soldiers 
stratiotai) were burned in an oven. The legend 
was reworked by SYMEON METAPHRASTES. 
Representation in Art. The three saints, some- 
imes joined by Aphthonios and Elpidephoros, 
are depicted wearing Byz., rather than Persian, 
court costume. The MENOLOGION oF Basi. II 
(p.155) shows the saints being thrown in the sea, 
the Persian converts being beheaded, and the 
martyrs being burned alive in a brick oven, all in 
the same composition. These saints, though col- 
lectively called the “Holy Five,” should not be 
confused with the more famous Five, Eustratios 
and his four companions, the FivE MARTYRS OF 
SEBASTELA, 


oo e 


try 





fo 























sources. AASS Nov. 1:461—504. PG 116:9-36. 
uT. BHG 21-23a. K.G. Kaster, LCI 5:29. 
-A.K., N.P.S. 


AKOIMETOI, MONASTERY OF, an early mo- 
nastic community in Constantinople, allegedly 
founded by the archimandrite ALEXANDER THE 
AKOIMETOS in 405 (Beck, Kirche 213), ca.420 (Janin, 


46 AKINDYNOS, PEGASIOS, AND ANEMPODISTOS 


Églises CP 16), or ca.425 (G. Dagron, AB 86 [1968] 
272), and originally located near the Church of 
St. Menas in the Mangana quarter. The akoimetoi 
(axoipyror, lit. “sleepless ones”) were pledged to 
perpetual praise of God; their offices (popularly 
known as the akolouthia ton akotmeton) were contin- 
uous and uninterrupted, performed by three choirs 
in succession, each doing one eight-hour shift per 
day. This was actually a mitigation of Alexander’s 
original ideal of perpetual prayer, a fundamen- 
talist construction of the New Testament com- 
mand to pray unceasingly; he had imposed an 
unending cycle of 24 offices, one per hour, with 
a minimum of time permitted for unavoidable 
bodily needs (Vita, ed. de Stoop, PO 6 [1911] 
680f). 

As a result of persecution, the akoimetoi were 
forced to move to a succession of monasteries 
almost immediately after their establishment; by 
the mid-sth C. they settled at Eirenaion on the 
eastern shore of the Bosporos. Here the monas- 
tery Hourished under the leadership of the ardent 
anti-Monophysite MARKELLOS THE AKOIMETOS, who 
served as hegoumenos for ca.go years; in this period 
the monks reportedly numbered in the hundreds. 
The monastery of the akeimetoi housed a scripto- 
rium and library; in its early period the monastic 
community was trilingual, including Greek, Ro- 
man, and Syrian monks (Lemerle, Humanism 78, 
n.82). A contingent of the monks moved in 463 
to the recently founded monastery of Stoupros. 
The akoimetoi had no influence after Iconoclasm, 
when Stoudite monasticism prevailed in Constan- 
tinople. By the gth C. the monastery of the akoi- 
metot had returned to Constantinople or had es- 
tablished a metochion in the city; when Antony of 
Novgorod visited Akoimetoi in 1200, it was within 
the walls. The monastery is not mentioned in the 
sources after 1204 and does not seem to have 
survived the Latin occupation. 


LIT. Taft, “Bibl. of Hours,” nos. 3, 9, 19, 23-26, 74, 79 
Janin, Eglises centres 19-15. —A.M.T., R.E-T. 

















AKOLOUTHIA (éxodov@ia, lit. “succession”), a 
liturgical rite, esp. the ritual or sequence of ele- 
ments comprised in a particular rite or office (e.g. 
the akolouthia of the PROTHESIS, the ASMATIKE AKO- 
LOUTHIA). The term also refers to the “proper,” 
or variable parts, of the office of a day or feast 
(e.g., the akolouthia of the Nativity or of St. Nicho- 


las), or to the “common” of an office, the rite 
designed for a specific category of saint, to be 
used when the saint’s day has no proper of its 
own (e.g., the akolouthia of a martyr). (For use of 
this term as a musical anthology, see PAPADIKE.) 
uit. Mateos, Typicon 2:279f. L. Petit, Bibliographie des 
acolouthies grecques (Brussels 1926), with add. S. Eustra- 
tades, EEBS 9 (1932) 80-122. -R.F.T. 


AKOLOUTHOS (åxóħovlos, perhaps from dxo- 
Aovbéw, “to follow”), in the late gth-C. Kletorologion 
of PuHiLtoTHEos a subaltern officer under the 
DROUNGARIOS TES VIGLAS or of the arithmos. From 
the 11th C. onward, as the droungarios tes viglas 
assumed primarily judiciary and police duties, the 
akolouthos became an independent commander of 
foreign, esp. Varangian, contingents (Oikonomi- 
des, TM 6 [1976] 130). Under Constantine IX, 
the patrikios and akolouthos Michael was one of the 
most prominent generals. In the 12th C. akolouthoi 
fulfilled predominantly diplomatic functions, for 
example, Eumathios PuiLoxaLes, who is called 
acolitho in the HISTORIA DE EXPEDITIONE FRIDERICI 
(ed. Chroust, Go, 65). The last individual known 
to have held the position of akolouthos was John 
Nomikopoulos in 1199, but a 14th-C. ceremonial 
book was familiar with the office; it defines the 
akolouthos as the chief of the Varangians and states 
that he accompanied the emperor at the head of 
this group (pseudo-Kod. 184.20—24). (For eccle- 
siastical akolouthos, see ACOLYTE.) 


UT. Guilland, Institutions 1:522-24. Oikonomides, Listes 
33h. ~A.K. 


AKRA TAPEINOSIS. See MAN oF SORROWS. 


AKRITAI (sing. &«pirns, from akron/akra, “sum- 
mit, extremity”), term found in Byz. military trea- 
tises of the 10th and 11th C. denoting people 
stationed at the extremity of a given position, such 
as an army encampment or military formation. 
Its most common usage, however, designates in- 
habitants at the extremities of imperial territory, 
€sp. along the eastern FRONTIER. When used in 
this manner, the term akritai can, depending upon 
context, refer to army units stationed along the 
frontier, to the commanders of such troops, or to 
the civilian population along the border. The term 
does not seem to have had any technical meaning 








AKRITIC IMAGERY 47 








for Byz. provincial administration or military or- 
ganization, nor does it refer to any specific type 
of unit composed of scouts or border guards, 
although such troops did exist and appear to have 
been called APELATAIL In the epic poem DIGENES 
AKRITAS, hai akrai generally denote the region 
near the Euphrates and the term akritai can refer 
to any inhabitant of this area including Muslims 
living outside the empire. In a later reference to 
Digenes’ legendary exploits, Manuel I Komnenos 
was termed “a new Akrites” (H. Grégoire, Byzan- 
lion 25 [1955] 779-81). 


LIT. A. Pertusi, “Tra storia e leggenda,” 14 CEB, vol. 1 
(Bucharest 1971) 237-78. N. Oikonomidès, “L'épopée de 
Digènes et la frontière orientale de Byzance aux Xe et XIe 
siècles,” TM 7 (1979) 375-97. -A.J.C. 


AKRITIC IMAGERY. Episodes found in both 
DIGENES AKRITAS and the AKRITIC SONGS are pos- 
sibly reflected in the scrarriTO decoration of more 
than 100 ceramic plates of uncertain origin, but 
found as far afield as Constantinople, Thessalo- 
nike, Sparta, Corinth, and the Athenian Agora. 
At the last two sites, the pottery comes from a 
12th-C. context. A plate found at Corinth, rep- 
resenting Digenes wooing Maximo, queen of the 
Amazons, seems to follow the epic closely, esp. in 
the depiction of costume and the setting (Grot- 
taferrata MS, ed. Trapp, vv. 3114-17). On the 
other hand, a fragment from the Agora, showing 
the sword-bearing hero beside a dragon whose 
neck is pierced with five darts, reproduces the 
pente kontaria and other details in an Akritic ballad 
(ed. in Notopoulos, infra 127) without counterpart 
in the epic. Many plates show the warrior as foot 
soldier in contrast to both Digenes Akritas and the 
Akritic Songs, each of which describes the hero 
as a horseman. While 35 plates have the warrior 
wearing the podea or pleated kilt (sometimes called 
a fustanella) attributed to Manuel I, the “new 
Akrites,” in a Ptochoprodromic poem, and 26 
have him slaying a dragon, neither iconographic 
element is sufficient to identify the hero specifi- 
cally as Digenes because both the kilt and the 
deed characterize other akritai named in the Ak- 
ritic Songs. More identifiable is the subject of a 
relief from St. Catherine’s in Thessalonike that 
shows a figure in plate-armor tearing the jaws of 
a lion in accord with an event in Digenes Akritas 
(Grottaferrata MS, ed. Trapp, vv. 699-714). Evi- 
dence for illustrations to accompany the epic, 











48 AKRITIC SONGS 








which may have been the source for five plates, 
may be found in the spaces left blank for illustra- 
tion in the 16th-C. Escoria! MS of Digenes Akritas 
and in the now lost MS seen in the 18th C. at the 
Xeropotamou monastery by K. Dapontes. Iden- 
tification of these scenes as Akritic is, however, 
far from secure; they may well represent other 
folk tales now lost, but of which glimpses may be 
caught (e.g., in the romance of KALLIMACHOS AND 
CHRYSORRHOE), 


uit. J.A. Notopoulos, “Akritan Ikonography on es 
antine Pottery,” Hesperia 33 (1964) 108-33. -A.G 


AKRITIC SONGS, narrative vernacular songs or 
ballads usually in POLITICAL VERSE, in which char- 
acters’ names or actions appear to reflect episodes 
from the epic-romance DiceNes Axriras. The 
first examples of Akritic Songs were collected in 
Pontos around 1870, at about the time when the 
Trebizond MS of Digenes Akritas was discovered. 
According to Sathas and Legrand (L. Politis, A 
History of Modern Greek Literature [Oxford 1973] 
23), these songs represented the remnants of an 
ancient epic cycle predating Digenes Akritas. Epi- 
sodes from Digenes Akritas that have been linked 
to these songs include the abduction of Digenes’ 
bride (He apagoge tes kores tou strategou), the build- 
ing of his castle (Akritas kastron ektizen), his en- 
counters with wild beasts (He drakos}, and his 
death (Ho Charos maura ephoresen), though the 
dramatic struggle with Cuaron, which is a striking 
element in the songs, does not occur in the epic. 
The hero’s name in the songs fluctuates: he can 
be Digenes or Constantis or Giannis. R. Beaton 
(Byzantion 51 [1981] 22—43) has stressed that the 
connections between the songs and the epic are 
slight and that similarities are likely to have arisen 
because both draw on a common pool of tradi- 
tional folk material. Those songs that come closest 
to the surviving epic are more likely to have been 
influenced by it than vice versa. Since most of the 
songs were collected from oral sources in the late 
igth C. and have been subject to the transfor- 
mations of up to a thousand years of oral trans- 
mission, the identification of precise references to 
Byz. historical events can be only conjectural. 

Ep. P. Kalonaros, Basileios Digenes Akitas, vol. 2 (Athens 
1941; rp. 1970) 205-53. B.Ch. Makes, Demotika tragoudia: 
Akritika (Athens 1978). 

LIT. Beck, Volksliteratur 87—94. E. Trapp, Digenes Aknites 
(Vienna 1971) 49-45. R. Beaton, Folk Poetry of Modern 
Greece (Cambridge 1980) 78-82. ~E.M.J. 


AKROINGN ( Axpoivor, also Akrounos, now Af- 
yonkarahisar), a city of PurycGia. Located at a 
main highway junction, Akroinon first appears in 
history when the Arabs attacked it in 716 and 
732. In 740, Leo III won a decisive victory there 
over the Arabs led by Sayyid al-Battal. Akroinon 
drew importance from its strategic location and 
steep acropolis, which provides a remarkable nat- 
ural defense. It was a city of the ANATOLIKON 
theme and a bishopric of Phrygia Salutaris, first 
attested in the 10th C. Still Byz. when its governor 
revolted against Alexios I Komnenos in 1112, 
Akroinon was conquered by the Seljuks before 
1146, when Manuel I won a victory there. The 
citadel bears a Seljuk castle that may include Byz. 
walls; it depended on cisterns of Byz. origin. 

LIT. S. Géncer, Afyon lli Tarihi (Izmir 1971). S. Eyice, 


“La fontaine et les citernes byzantines de la citadelle d’Afyon 
Karahisari,” DOP 27 (1973) 303-07. ~CF. 


AKROPOLITES (Axpomroxirns, fem. “AnporroAt 
tiaga), a family of civil functionaries; in the 13th 
C. George Akropolites exaggerated when he called 
his ancestors a noble kin (Akrop. 1:49.18—19). 
The name derives from akropolis, referring most 
probably to the Acropolis in Constantinople; in 
the ioth C. the first known Akropolites acquired 
Gregoras Iberitzes’ house (Preger, Scripiores 
2:150.1-2), which presumably was at the Acrop- 
olis (Skyl. 198.46—-47). If so, the family was of 
Constantinopolitan origin. From the end of the 
11th C. onward, the Akropolitai were mostly fiscal 
officials: Nicholas, chartoularios of the logothetes tou 
stratiotikou in 1088; Michael, megas chartoularios tou 
genikou, whom Laurent (Corpus 2, no.353) tenta- 
tively identified with several other Michaels active 
in the 1140s. The position of the Akropolitai 
became more prominent in the second half of the 
13th C. when George Akropolites was appointed 
megas logothetes; his son, Constantine, held the 
same post in the 14th C. (see AKROPOLITES, GEORGE 
and AKROPOLITES, CONSTANTINE). Leo Akropo- 
lites served as doux of Serres and Strymon ca.1295 
(PLP, no.521), but his relationship to George and 
his son is unclear. Several family members were 
intellectuals: George and Constantine were fa- 
mous writers; Melchisedek Akropolites, another 
of George’s sons (blinded or executed in 1296), 
corresponded with PLANouDES and instigated Al- 
exios PHILANTHROPENOS to revolt. The Akropoli- 
tai intermarried with the Philanthropenoi, Tor- 


nikioi, and Kontostephanoi. Maria Doukaina 
Akropolitissa possessed property in Constantino- 
ple ca.1300 (MM 1:312.16—17). 

ut. PLP, nos. 517-25. D.M. Nicol, “Constantine Ak- 


ropolites: A Prosopographical Note,” DOP ig (1965) 249- 
56. -A.K. 


AKROPOLITES, CONSTANTINE, hagiogra- 
pher and statesman; born mid-13th C., died Con- 
stantinople? in or before May 1324. The eldest 
son of George AKROPOLITES, Akropolites opposed 
the Union of Lyons, in contrast to his father. Circa 
1282 he became logothetes tou genikou, still bearing 
this title when he signed a treaty with Venice in 
1285. From 1305/6 to at least 1321 he was megas 
logothetes. He was related by marriage to Alexios 
PHILANTHROPENOS, the Tornikes (see TORNIKIOS) 
family, and the imperial family of Trebizond. A 
patron of the arts, Akropolites was ktetor of the 
Constantinople monastery of the Anastasis, for 
which he wrote a supplementary typikon (K.A. 
Manaphes, EEBS 37 [1969-70] 459-65); he also 
commissioned an icon of the Virgin and Child, 
now in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow (V.I. 
Antonova, N.E. Mneva, Katalog dreunerusskoj živo- 
pisi. XI—naéalo XVIII veka, vol. 1 [Moscow 1963] 
no.221, pl.172). 

Akropolites was a prolific hagiographer, who 
wrote enkomia of about go saints, thus earning the 
name of “the new Metaphrastes.” He wrote about 
saints of earlier centuries, rather than his contem- 
poraries, the one exception being an enkomion of 
St. John the Merciful the Younger (D.I. Polemis, 
AB 91 [1973] 31-54). His Logos on the iconodule 
martyr Theodosia (PG 140:893—936) was evi- 
dently inspired by the miraculous cure of himself 
and his son-in-law at her shrine. Of his letters 194 
survive, mostly unpublished; his correspondents 
included Gregory I of Cyprus and Nikephoros 
Choumnos. He also wrote a chronicle from the 
foundation of Rome to 1261. Akropolites severely 
criticized the Timarion for both style and content 
(M. Treu, BZ 1 [1892] 361-65). 

_ED. 20 letters and typikon—“Constantini Acropolitae, ha- 
glographi byzantini, epistularum manipulus,” ed. H. De- 
lehaye, AB 51 (1933) 263-84. F. Winkelmann, “Die Metro- 
phanesvita des Konstantinos Akropolites,” Studia Byzantina. 
Beiträge aus der byzantinistischen Forschung der DDR (Halle 
1968) 79-102. For list of ed. and unpublished works, see 
Nicol, infra 254-56. 

Lit, D.M. Nicol, “Constantine Akropolites: A Prosopo- 


graphical Note,” DOP 19 (1965) 249-56. PLP, no.520. R. 
Romano, “Per l'edizione dell’ epistolario di Costantino Ac- 





AKROPOLITES, GEORGE 49 





ropolita,” Rendiconti: Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle 
arti di Napoli 56 (1981) 83—103. ~AM.T. 


AKROPOLITES, GEORGE, civil official, teacher, 
and historian of the empire of Nicaea; born Con- 
stantinople 1217, died Constantinople 1282. Re- 
lated by marriage to MICHAEL VIII PALAIOLOGOS, 
Akropolites was the father of Constantine 
AKROPOLITES and the monk Melchisedek. His par- 
ents sent him at age 16 from Constantinople to 
the court of Jonn III Varatzes, where he contin- 
ued his studies under Theodore HEXAPTERYGOS 
and Nikephoros BLemMybES. In the 1240s he was 
a tutor to the emperor’s son, THEODORE II LAs- 
KARIS, and performed chancery and ambassador- 
ial functions as a grammatikes. Under Theodore 
If, Akropolites became logothetes tou genikou (1255) 
and then praitor (1256), with the duty of oversee- 
ing the troops in Macedonia. He held the title 
megas logothetes from ca.1259 to 1282. In the re- 
conquered Constantinople he helped restore higher 
education as a teacher of philosophy, geometry, 
and rhetoric, producing at least two known stu- 
dents, the future patriarch GREGORY II or Cyprus 
and John Pepiasimos. In 1274, as part of a three- 
man delegation to the Second Council of Lyons, 
he swore to accept the primacy of the Roman 
church on his own behalf and that of the emperor. 

Contemporaries acknowledged his learning and 
characterized Akropolites as a man who “gave 
much to the emperor” (Constantine Akropolites, 
Diatheke, ed. M. Treu, DIEE 4 [1892] 48) and was 
“neglectful in matters of conscience” (Pachym., 
ed. Failler 2:409.23—25). He restored the Church 
of the Anastasis in Constantinople, which he be- 
queathed to his son Constantine, and wrote var- 
ious works, notably his Chronike Syngraphe, the 
main Greek source for 1203—61. Written with the 
hindsight of the victorious party of 1261, it is 
infused with admiration for Michaei VIII. The 
work was a source for the so-called Chronicle of 
Theodore SkouTARIOTES (who also made valuable 
additions to it) and for EpHram. Other works are 
an epitaphios for John III, prefatory verses to his 
own edition of Theodore II’s letters, and two 
tracts on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 

ED. Georgii Acropolitae opera, ed. A. Heisenberg, 2 vols. 
(Leipzig 1903), corr. P. Wirth (Stuttgart 1978). 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:442-47. Constantinides, Education 
31-35. P. Zavoronkov, “Nekotorye aspekty mirovozzrenija 
Georgija Akropolita,” VizVrem 47 (1986) 125-33. Oiko- 
nomides, Dated Seals 128, no.136. —R.J.M. 


50 | AKTEMON 


AKTEMON (ax77 pwr, lit. “without property”), a 
fiscal designation for a peasant who possessed no 
plow animals and little or no real property (at 
most, perhaps, only small vineyard or garden 
plots) but who possessed other livestock (e.g., asses, 
sheep, goats, bees). The term appears in docu- 
ments from 1073 to 1303 that categorize peasants 
and peasant-holdings for fiscal and administrative 
purposes: in decreasing order, ZEUGARATOS, boi- 
datos, aktemon, and aporos. As economic units 
producing a fiscal revenue, four aktemones were 
equivalent to one zeugaratos. Accordingly, in the 
cadaster of Lampsakos, the ANGAREIA of an akte- 
mon was valued at half the angareia of a boidatos. 
Aktemones are probably identical to the pezoi (“on 
foot,” i.e., peasants who worked without draft 
animals) found in some contemporaneous sources. 
Aktemones probably leased land or earned their 
living as craftsmen, laborers (douleutaz), or hired 
men (MISTHIOI). 

LIT. Litavrin, VizObséestvo 51-61, 224f. Angold, Byz. 


Government 138, 221. Ostrogorsky, Féodalité 303-09. Laiou, 
Peasant Society 153, n.27, 161—63. —M.B. 


AKTOUARIOS (éxrovapios, Lat. actuarius or ac- 
tarius), the name of an official whose functions 
changed over the centuries. In the late Roman 
Empire the aktouarios was a fiscal official whose 
duty was the distribution of military wages and 
provisions (O. Seeck, RE 1 [1894] 301f). The term 
was in use at least to the 6th C.—in papyri (Prei- 
sigke, Wörterbuch 3 [1931] 92), inscriptions (Gré- 
goire, Inscriptions, no.211), and legislative texts. 
The Basilika retained some old laws concerning 
aktouarioi, stressing among other points the dis- 
tinction between aktouario: and the TABOULLARIOI 
(Basil. 6.35.6). The aktouarios reappears in the gth- 
C. TAKTIKON of Uspenskij and the Kletorologion of 
PHILOTHEOS but in vague contexts. In a 10th-C. 
ceremonial book he is described as distributing 
awards to victorious charioteers on behalf of the 
emperor (De cer. 345.14—15). R. Guilland (BS 26 
[1965] 3) calls the aktouarios the chief of the cou- 
riers. The term changed its meaning again in the 
12th, or perhaps as early as the 11th C.—from 
this time onward, @ktouarios was the title of the 
[court?} physician. 

LIT. S. Kourouses, “Ho aktouarios loannes Zacharias,” 
Athena 78 (1980—82) 252-55. Karayannopoulos, Finanz- 
wesen 102f. Bury, Adm. System 106. ~A.K. 


AKTOUARIOS, JOHN. See JoHN AKTOUARIOS. 


AL-______. See under latter part of name. 


ALAHAN MANASTIRI (formerly called Koca 
Kalesi), a ruined complex of ecclesiastical struc- 
tures situated between Karaman (Laranda) and 
Mut (Claudiopolis) on the boundary between 
Isauria and Lykaonia. The ruins occupy an arti- 
ficial ledge on a mountainside, approximately 
250 m long and 30 m wide. They consist of a cave 
chapel (the earliest feature on the site), a three- 
aisled basilica that retains an impressive carved 
doorway and, some 110 m farther east, another 
church lacking only its roof. The east church was 
covered by a central tower on squinches, probably 
terminating in a pyramidal timber roof. The two 
main churches were joined by a colonnaded walk, 
along which were built a baptistery and other 
structures. Notable architectural sculpture sur- 
vives. Funerary inscriptions of Tarasis (died 462), 
builder of apanteterra (meeting rooms), and of the 
junior Tarasis, who served as paramonarios (see 
PROSMONARIOS) from 461 onward, provide chro- 
nological confirmation for the attribution of the 
bulk of the complex to the reign of Zeno. During 
a secondary phase a smaller church was built in 
the nave of the west basilica. The cave church, 
baptistery, and living quarters were also repaired, 
but the east church remained derelict. The gen- 
erally accepted assumption that Alahan was a 
monastery appears incorrect, so that its proposed 
identification with “the monastery at Apadnas in 
Isauria” that was rebuilt by Justinian I (Prokopios, 
Buildings 5:9.33) should be abandoned. It was 
more probably a pilgrimage shrine. 

LIT. Alahan, an Early Christian Monastery in Southern Tur- 
key, ed. M. Gough (Toronto 1985). F. Hild et al., “Kom- 


magene-Kilikien-Isaurien,” RBK 4 (1984) 254-63, 286f. 
-C.M. 


ALAMANIKON (’Adaqyuavixér), or “German tax,” 
imposed in 1197 by ALExios III after Henry VI 
demanded 5,000 pounds of gold as tribute and 
agreed to accept 1,600. Before this levy on the 
provinces and Constantinople, the emperor sum- 
moned an assembly of senators, clergy, and mem- 
bers of the trades and professions. When he pro- 
posed that the property of each be assessed, the 


assembly rejected the imposition as contrary to 
custom. In near revolt, members of the crowd 
blamed Alexios’s maladministration, citing the 
waste of public funds and the imposition of in- 
competent relatives of the emperor as provincial 
governors. Alexios hastily disavowed the plan. He 
next tried to collect costly ecclesiastical objects not 
of primary use in the liturgy; when this attempt 
also met with resistance, he turned to plundering 
the tombs of past emperors, abstaining only from 
that of Constantine I. Thereby he acquired some 
gold and 7,000 pounds of silver. Henry VI’s death 
forestalled the dispatch of the money. 


ut. Brand, Byzantium 193. -C.M.B. 


ALAMUNDARUS (al-Mundhir), king of Hira 
who raided the Byz. frontier for almost 50 years 
(ca.505—54), both as a client of Persia and as 
LAKHMID king; died near Chalkis 554. Around 
523 he captured two Roman generals, Timostra- 
tos and John, and released them in the following 
year for a large sum of money. He participated 
in the Persian campaign that ended with the battle 
of KaLuinikos. His role in the Strata dispute 
(ca.539) and his subsequent negotiations with the 
Romans provided the Persian king Chosroes I 
with a pretext for beginning the so-called Second 
Persian War, in which Alamundarus took part. 
For some ten years after this war he fought with 
his GHASSANID adversary ARETHAS, but finally was 
defeated and killed. Toward the end of his life 
he apparently received subsidies from Justinian 
I. Although Alamundarus married a Christian 
woman, Hind, the daughter of Arethas, king of 
Kinpa, he was a pagan in word and deed. If he 
was converted to Christianity ca.513, as claimed 
by some ecclesiastical historians such as Theodore 
Lector, his conversion was of short duration. 


ur. G. Rothstein, Die Dynastie der Lahmiden in al-Hira 
(Berlin 1899; rp. Hildesheim 1968) 71-87. ~L.A.Sh, 


ALAMUNDARUS (al-Mundhir), son of the Ghas- 
sanid king ARETHAS and his successor as supreme 
phylarch and king of the Arab FOEDERATI (569— 
582). Like his father before him, he, too, distin- 
guished himself in the wars of the period and also 
as an arbiter in the Monophysite controversies. 
He participated in the campaign of 580 against 
the Persians, during which disagreements devel- 


ALANS 51 


oped between him and the Byz. commanders. On 
two occasions, in 570 and in 580, he captured 
Hira, the capital of his LakHM1p adversaries, in 
two lightning campaigns. In 580 he was received 
by Tiberios I in Constantinople and was allowed 
to wear a crown instead of a coronet or a band. 
Throughout his career, he tried to settle religious 
differences between the Monophysites and the 
Chalcedonians and also within the ranks of the 
Monophysites. In the quarrel between two Mon- 
ophysite leaders, Paul the Black, the Monophysite 
patriarch of Antioch, and Jacos BarapAEus, he 
took the side of Paul. His Monophysite persuasion 
was not well received in Constantinople. Justin I] 
tried unsuccessfully to arrest him, but the two 
were later reconciled. Emp. Maurice, however, 
treacherously had him arrested and exiled to Sic- 
ily. Like his father, he was both patrikios and 
gloriosisstmus. 

LIT. Néldeke, Die Ghassdnischen Fürsten 23—30. Goubert, 
Byz. avant ['Islam 1:249-57. W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the 


Monophysite Movement (Cambridge 1979) 327-31. 
-1.A.Sh. 


ALANS (Adavot) were known in the West from 
the ist C. A.D. AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS regarded 
them not as an ethnic entity, but rather as ubiq- 
uitous groups of professional warriors (cavalry- 
men) who practiced ritual adoption and used an 
East Iranian idiom as their lingua franca. Some 
of them took part in the exploits of the Goths, 
Huns, and Vandals, fought at the battle of Apri- 
ANOPLE, and eventually settled in North Africa, 
Italy, and Gaul. Others became foederati; ASPAR 
was reportedly of Alan origin. 

Later sources distinguish two groups, the 
mountain Alans and the steppe Alans. The for- 
mer, the Alans proper, lived in the northern Cau- 
casus, between the Terek, Bol’Soj Zelencuk, and 
Argun rivers. Both groups were either subjects or 
associates of the Khazar state or Byz.; Justinian 
II sent an embassy to Alania (as the country is 
called by Theophanes the Confessor) seeking an 
alliance against the Arabs. Patr. NicHo.as I Mys- 
TIKOS dispatched several church missions to the 
Alans, and between 914 and 916 Peter, arch- 
bishop of Alania, was active there. The remains 
of churches in Byz. style, dated to the 10th C., 
have been discovered in the region. In the 13th 
C. THEODORE OF ALANIA sent a report on his flock. 
Kulakovskij’s attempt to locate the metropolis of 


52 | ALARIC 


Vicina in Alania is erroneous (V. Laurent, EO 38 
[1939] 91—103). The only known Christian Alan 
inscription (of the 1oth—1 2th C., in a Greek script) 
was discovered on the Bol’Soj Zelenéuk. 

In the 11th C. Alans served as Byz. mercenaries. 
In the early 14th C. Andronikos II settled a 10,000- 
strong contingent of Alan men with their wives 
and children in Asia Minor to use against the 
Turks, but they were unsuccessful; their opera- 
tion against the CATALAN GRAND COMPANY in 1305 
was no more fortunate. The Byz. made no clear 
distinction between Alans, Abchasians, and Geor- 
gians, even though John Tzetzes boasted that he 
knew how to address the Alans in their language. 
In the 11th C. the Georgian princess Maria was 
consistently called MARIA OF “ALANIA.” 

tir. B. Bachrach, A History of the Alans in the West (Min- 
neapolis 1973). Ju. Kulakovskij, Alany po suedenijam klasst- 
českich i vizantijskich pisateley (Kiev 1899). V.A. Kuznecov, 
Alanija v X-XIII vv. (Ordžonikidze 1971). K.G. Doguzov, 


Vizantijsko-alanskie otnošenija (VI-XI vv.) (Tbilisi 1987). 
-O.P. 


ALARIC (’Addpuxos), Visigothic ruler (395-410); 
born Danube region between 365 and 370, died 
Consentia in Bruttium in 410. Leader of a Gothic 
contingent in 394 at the battle of the Frigidus 
against the usurper Eugenius, Alaric chafed un- 
der the leadership of Gatnas and, offended that 
he had not been made magister militum, broke with 
Roman rule. Under Alaric the VISIGOTHS rose in 
revolt and devastated Moesia, Macedonia, and 
Thrace, advancing close to the walls of Constan- 
tinople. Alaric descended into Thessaly and then 
into southern Greece (396-97). Twice STILICHO 
had the Visigoths at his mercy, but both times he 
withdrew, probably for political reasons. Alaric 
was granted the title of magister militum of Illyri- 
cum and retreated to the north. In 401 he invaded 
Italy but was driven out by Stilicho the next year. 
He may have formed a plan with Stilicho to detach 
Illyricum from the empire but this came to naught. 
In 408 Alaric again began to threaten Rome, 
causing the Roman senate to agree to pay him 
compensation. The murder of Stilicho rendered 
Italy defenseless, and Alaric marched on Rome, 
driven as he said by divine impulse (Sokr. HE 
7.10). Alaric demanded that Venetia, Noricum, 
and Dalmatia be ceded to him; when this was 
refused he set up the pretender Attalus against 
Honorius. After this too failed to secure conces- 


sions, Alaric occupied Rome and sacked it on 14 
(G. Wirth, LMA 1:271) or 24 Aug. 410, sending 
a shock of horror through the civilized world, 
reflected, among others, by Augustine in The City 
of God (1.7). Alaric sought to cross to Sicily but 
his ships were wrecked in a storm. He died soon 
after. The story told by JoRDANES (Getica par.158) 
of his burial in the bottom of the Busento River, 
when all the grave diggers were executed lest they 
divulge the whereabouts of immense treasure, is 
legendary. 

LIT. Bury, LRE 1:109-11, 160-63, 174-85. Thompson, 
Romans and Barbarians 43—45. N.I. Golubcova, “Italija v 


načale V veka i vtorženie Alaricha v Rim,” VDI (1949) no.4, 
62-74. -T.EG. 


ALBANIA, CAUCASIAN (‘AASavia, Arm. Al- 
uank’), region northeast of ARMENIA and east of 
Iberia between the Kur River, the Caspian Sea, 
and the Caucasus range. From the 1st to the 6th 
C. it formed an independent kingdom with its 
own language and literature, now lost. It was 
evangelized from Armenia in the 4th C. (pseudo- 
P‘awsTos BuZanD 3.5—6), whence it also received 
its alphabet in the next century (Koriwn, Life of 
Mashtots, ed. K. Maksoudian [Delmar, N.Y., 1985] 
70f; pt.2, p.4o). It remained within the orbit of 
the ARMENIAN CHURCH, although it disputed the 
marchlands south of the Kur with the ARSACIDS. 
Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm.Marc. 18:6.22; 
19:2.3) mentions Albania as an ally of Persia against 
the Romans in 359, a position confirmed by the 
Armenian sources for 36g—70 (pseudo-P‘awstos 
Buzand 5.4.13). Around 510 the Sasanians sup- 
pressed the Albanian monarchy and the country 
was ruled by a marzpan residing at Partaw. In 628 
Herakleios installed the Mihranid dynasty of 
Gardman in Albania; it remained in power under 
Arab suzerainty until 821, when Albania ceased 
to exist as an autonomous Christian principality. 

tir. R. Hewsen, “Ethno-History and the Armenian In- 
fluence upon the Caucasian Albanians,” Classical Armenian 
Culture (Chico, Calif., 1982) 27—40. K.V. Trever, Očerki po 


istorii i kulture Kavkazskoj Albanii (Moscow-Leningrad 1959). 
-N.G.G. 


ALBANIANS (’AAfavoi), also Arbanitai, an eth- 
nic group the origin of which is enigmatic. At- 
tempts to connect medieval Albanians with those 
described by Ptolemy (e.g., E. Lange-Kowal, Zeit- 
schrift für Balkanologie 18 [1982] 136) do not pro- 


vide sufficient evidence; Byz. texts begin to men- 
tion them only from the 11th C., and even these 
texts are Open to question (E. Vranouse, Symmetkta 
2 [1970] 207-54). 

Hypothetically, we can assume that the Alban- 
ians were descendants of the ancient Illyrians (see 
ILLYRICUM) who survived the period of barbarian 
invasions and, by the 11th C., occupied Arbanon, 
a mountainous valley of the Shkumbi River (A. 
Ducellier, TM 3 [1968] 353-68) that formed a 
part of the theme of Dyrracuion. The region 
was populated by a predominantly pastoral peo- 
ple. By the 13th C. the Albanians had spread far 
from this area; George Akropolites mentions the 
phrourion Kroia (Albanian Krujë) as a part of Al- 
banon. 

In the 14th C. many Albanian nobles settled in 
different parts of Erros: notable among them 
were Charles Topia (“princeps Albaniae,” 1359- 
92) in Dyrrachion, John Spata in Arta, Balša Bal- 
šić in Avlon, and the Kastrioti in Kroia. In Kroia 
the local lord, SKANDERBEG, was able to defeat the 
Ottomans, but soon after his death the Ottomans 
completed their occupation of Albania. Dyrra- 
chion, taken by the Venetians from Charles Topia 
in 1392, was evacuated by them in 1501. By the 
early 14th C. bands of Albanians had also spread 
into Thessaly. Around 1350 the despotes MANUEL 
KANTAKOUZENOS transplanted a large number of 
Albanians to the Morea to serve as soldiers and 
farmers in the depopulated peninsula; yet an- 
other wave of Albanians arrived in the Morea 
during the despotate of THEODORE I PALAIOLOGOS 
(Zakythinos, Despotat 101 —05). 

ur. G. Stadtmüller, “Forschungen zur albanischen 
Frühgeschichte,” Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis 7 (1941) 
1~196. S. Islami, K. Frashëri, Historia e Shqipërisë, vol. 1 
(Tirana 1959). S. Pollo, A. Puto, The History of Albania (Lon- 
don-Boston 1974). A. Ducellier, La façade maritime de l'Albanie 


au Moyen Age (Thessalonike 1981). Idem, L’Albanie entre 
Byzance et Venise, Xe~XVe siécles (London 1987). -O.P. 


ALBERTINI TABLETS, 33 documents written 
in Latin on cedarwood tablets and dating to the 
Vandal period (493-96); found on an estate in 
the Jabal Mrata south of THEVESTE, they are named 
after their first editor. All but three of the docu- 
ments constitute deeds of sale involving parcels 
of land under the category of culturae Mancianae, 
which formed part of the fundus Tuletianos and 


ALBERTINI TABLETS | 53 


potentially neighboring fundi. The estate was owned 
by a landlord, Flavius Geminius Catullinus, flamen 
perpetuus, probably in absentia, but was evidently 
maintained by three brothers, Geminius Felix, 
Geminius Cresconius, and Geminius Januarius, 
possibly relatives of Catullinus, acting in capacities 
akin to the conductores of the Roman period. The 
reason for this rash of sales is not evident in the 
documents, but involved the purchase by the 
Geminii brothers of scattered plots, for rather low 
prices, from tenants of the estate (most of whom 
carry the family name of Julius, suggesting that 
they formed a single clan). It is evident from the 
deeds that it was the use of the plots and the 
ownership of the trees (mostly olive, but also fig, 
almond, and pistachio) and other crops cultivated 
on the plots, and not the plots of land themselves 
that were being sold. 

Cultura Manciana was a land tenure arrange- 
ment, originally established under the terms of a 
Roman-period lex Manciana (evidently only in ef- 
fect in Africa), in which lease or usage rights (usus 
proprius) to uncultivated land (subsectva) on an 
estate was granted in perpetuity to an individual 
(colonus/possessor) by the owner in exchange for 
shares of the crop. This arrangement is thought 
to have been designed to extend cultivation on 
estates through a system of tenancy. From the 
Albertini Tablets, however, it would appear that 
the predominant form of landholding on the es- 
tate of Catullinus was a Mancian tenure, suggest- 
ing that even primary parts of estates in Africa 
may have been brought into cultivation under the 
Mancian system. The tablets likewise suggest that 
this system was left essentially untouched by the 
Vandals. 

In terms of agriculture, the tablets reveal con- 
tinued arboriculture, particularly olive cultivation, 
as well as continued practice of floodwater farm- 
ing technology along the Saharan frontier. The 
Albertini Tablets also provide vaiuabie informa- 
tion on Vandal and early Byz. coinage and mon- 
etary values (P. Grierson, JRS 49 [1959] 73-80) 
as well as late Latin grammar, phonetics, and legal 
and agricultural terminology. 

ED. C. Courtois, L. Leschi, C. Perrat, and C. Saumagne, 
Tablettes Albertini (Paris 1952). 

LIT. J. Lambert, “Les Tablettes Albertini,” Revue Afri- 
caine 97 (1953) 196—225. J. Percival, “Culturae Mancianae: 
Field Patterns in the Albertini Tablets,” in The Ancient 


Historian and his Materials (Westmead 1975) 219-17. C.R. 
Whittaker, “Land and Labour in North Africa,” Klio 60 


54 ALBERT OF AACHEN 


(1978) 358—60. D.J. Mattingly, “Olive Cultivation and the 
Albertini Tablets,” Africa-Romana 6 (Sassari 1988) 403-15. 
—R.B.H. 


ALBERT OF AACHEN, canon; 1e2th-C. Cru- 
sader historian (the name is indicated only in two 
later MSS). Although he never traveled to the 
Levant, Albert authored in Latin the Jerusalem 
History (Historia Hierosolymitana), the most detailed 
contemporary account of the First Crusade (books 
1—6) and the Crusader kingdom’s early years 
(books 7—12). He likely began writing before 1119 
(possibly as early as 1100—01; events of 1109—11 
are dated one year too early). He probably wrote 
book 12 (events of 1111—19) in the 1120s and 
certainly before ca.1140 or 1150 (date of the 
earliest MSS: Knoch, infra 14—18); it contains 
apparently unfinished material. Albert enthusi- 
astically but uncritically exploited the Grsta 
FRANCORUM, Oral reports of fellow Lotharingians, 
whom he lionizes, and possibly also lost sources, 
including an early form of Richard the Pilgrim’s 
CHANSON D’ANTIOCHE. Although Albert’s reliabil- 
ity has been challenged, his data on the Hungar- 
ians, PECHENEGS, and Byz. (bk.1, chs. 6—14) ap- 
pear accurate (J. Kalić, Beogradski Universitet, Zbornik 
filozofskog fakulteta 10.1 [1968] 183-91). He treats 
the relations of Alexios I Komnenos with PETER 
THE Hermit (bk.1, chs. 13-15, 22), GODFREY OF 
Bourton (bk.2), and BoHEMuND I (bk.g, ch.37, 
47; bk.10, chs. 40—45) as well as a Turkish attack 
on Byz. territory (bk.12, ch.15). 

ED. RHC Oceid. 4 (1879) 265—713. Germ. tr. H. Hefele, 
Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2 vols. (Jena 1923). 


LIT. P. Knoch, Studien zu Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart 
1966). Zaborov, Krest. poch. 111-19. -M.McC. 


ALBOIN (‘AABoios), Lombard king; born Pan- 
nonia?, died Verona 28 June 572. Circa 565, 
Alboin succeeded his father Audoin as king of 
the Lombards in Noricum and Pannonia. In 567, 
in alliance with the Avars, Alboin destroyed the 
Gepips, slew their king Cunimund, and married 
his daughter Rosamund. On 2 Apr. 568, allegedly 
at the invitation of Narses, Alboin left with his 
people for Italy, arriving in May 56g. It is unlikely 
that Alboin entered Italy with the complicity of 
some Byz. authorities (Schmidt, infra 588f). By 
Sept. 569, aided by some Herulians, Rugians, 
Gepids, Alans, and Saxons, Alboin conquered 


Aquileia, Cividale, Venetia, and Lombardy. He 
entered Milan on 3 Sept. 569, easily overran Tus. 
cany, Piedmont, and regions of Spoleto and 
Benevento (including Treviso, Vicenza, Verona, 
Brescia, and Bergamo), crossed the Po in 570, 
and took Pavia and Verona in 572. Alboin estab. 
lished himself in the former palace of Theodoric; 
in autumn 569 or early 570 he was proclaimed 
dominus Italiae at Milan. Alboin personified the 
valor and ethic of a warring society and had 
greater military than administrative ability. He 
capitalized on Justin II’s preoccupation with other 
frontiers and the inadequacy of Byz. garrisons in 
Italy and started the process whereby Byz. control 
of Italy dissolved. His chamberlain Peredeo slew 
him, possibly in league with Alboin’s vengeful wife 
Rosamund. 

LIT. P. Delogu in Storia d'Italia, ed. G. Galasso (Turin 
1980) 1:10-17. T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders 553~- 


600 (Oxford 1895; rp. New York 1967) 5:137—-71. L. 
Schmidt, Die Osigermanen® (Munich 1941; rp. Munich 1969) 


539-42, 582-95. -W.E.K. 


ALCHEMY (xvueia or xnpeta). The “sacred art” 
of the transmutation of metals into gold or silver 
was, in Byz., a continuation of older Mesopota- 
mian and Egyptian traditions of coloring or mak- 
ing alloys of cheaper materials so that they would 
be accepted as more expensive ones. Sometimes 
the writings of the alchemists are composed of 
simple rECIPES for achieving tinctures, confusions 
of metals, and other chemical effects, but often 
they are expressed in an allegorical mode infused 
with philosophical, religious, or astrological im- 
agery that reflects their mystical nature, which is 
almost completely irrelevant to the perceptible 
world. 

These two tendencies are clearly visible in the 
earliest Byz. alchemical texts, of the early 4th C.; 
the papyri of Leiden and of Stockholm contain 
recipes for imitating gold, silver, precious stones, 
and purple dye, while some of the surviving Greek 
treatises of Zosimos of Panopolis (3rd/qth C.) are 
primarily allegorical visions in which the trans- 
mutation of base metals into gold or silver is 
represented as a religious act whereby the adept 
ascends a series of ladders leading to the accom- 
plishment of his goat. Other treatises ascribed to 
Zosimos in Greek, while still mystical, are more 
closely connected to actual chemical operations 


and describe the apparatus necessary for their 
execution; preserved under his name in Syriac 
are many practical recipes and a description of 
alchemical ingredients with indications of where 
they can be found (M. Berthelot, La chimie au 
moyen âge, vol. 2 [Paris 1893; rp. Osnabrück- 
Amsterdam 1967] 210-66, 297—308). Many other 
tracts of Zosimos are preserved in Arabic trans- 
lations (Sezgin, GAS 4:73-77; M. Ullmann, Die 
Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam [Leiden 
1972] 160-63). 

Indeed, early Byz. and Syrian alchemy, in com- 
bination with some material from Iran and India, 
is the foundation for the rich alchemical tradition 
in Arabic, which in turn inspired western Europe 
from the 11th C. onward. Much remains to be 
discovered in this vast literature in Syriac, Arabic, 
Persian, and Latin that is relevant to the history 
of Byz. science. The summary accounts given by 
Sezgin (supra, 77—111) and Ullmann (supra, 163— 
g1) reveal the existence of works falsely attributed 
to APOLLONIOS OF TYANA; a Kitab al-Habib (Book 
of the Beloved), which had a Byz. original; many 
versions of Greek and Syriac treatises associated 
with the names of Plato, Aristotle, and Hermes; 
and Arabic translations of the alchemical works 
of STEPHEN OF ALEXANDRIA, Emp. Herakleios, and 
Marianos the Monk (Lat. Morienus). 

Works surviving in Greek of early Byz. alchemy 
(4th—7th C.) include the commentary on pseudo- 
Demokritos by Synesios of Cyrene, apparently 
composed before 38g; the commentary on Zosi- 
mos composed by Otympioporos (either the early 
5th-C. historian or—more probably—the 6th-C. 
philosopher); On the Sacred Art by Pelagios the 
Philosopher and On the Divine Art by John the 
Archpriest, who both use Zosimos; the mystical 
treatise On the Making of Gold by Stephen of Al- 
exandria; two compilations, that of “the Chris- 
tian” and an anonymous one, both of which cite 
Stephen; and the four alchemical poems ascribed 
to Heliodoros, Theophrastos, Hierotheos, and 
Archelaos. All of these texts and some anonymous 
compendia of recipes were included in a collection 
made in, perhaps, the late gth or early 1oth C. 
and dedicated to a certain Theodore. A primary 
descendant of this is the unfortunately mutilated 
Venice, Bib. Marc. 299, probably of the ioth C. 
It includes formulas and explanatory texts for the 
transmutation of metals, astrological diagrams 


ALCHEMY 55 


purporting to show the heavenly Taxis that allows 
the making of gold, and alembics and other ap- 
paratus for heating and distilling liquids. The MS 
was evidently still in use in the 14th C. when other 
drawings were added (Furlan, Marciana 4:11-15). 
Expanded versions of the collection are found in 
Paris, B.N. gr. 2325 (13th C.) and B.N. gr. 2327 
(1478). 

This last MS opens with a most significant con- 
tribution to alchemical literature, the letter On 
How to Make Gold addressed by Michael PsELLos 
to Patr. Michael I Keroularios in ca.1045/6 (J. 
Grosdidier de Matons, TM 6 [1976] 329f). In it 
he argues that the transmutation of one element 
into another is perfectly natural and then gives a 
series of recipes for manufacturing “gold,” debas- 
ing it, and extracting it from sand. Later in his 
career Psellos attacked the unfortunate patriarch 
for having been such a good student (CMAG 6:73- 
89). 

The final two authors under whose names al- 
chemical treatises have been transmitted are Kos- 
mas the Monk (who postdates Psellos) and Nike- 
phoros BLEMMYDES, both of whom wrote collections 
of recipes. But in southern Italy a Latin alchemical 
treatise was translated into Greek already by the 
early 14th C.; the anonymous text, edited by C.O. 
Zuretti (CMAG 7), refers to Arnold of Villanova. 
Some other fragments of the alchemical works of 
Arnold of Villanova appear in a 15th-C. MS, 
Paris, B.N. gr. 2327. The Semita recta (Straight 
Path) falsely ascribed to Albertus Magnus is found 
in Paris, B.N. gr. 2419, perhaps translated into 
Greek by the scribe George Midiates in the 1460s. 

The creative period of Byz. alchemy was the 
4th—7th C., though the art continued to be stud- 
ied and presumably practiced until the fall of 
Constantinople. Unlike ASTRONOMY, ASTROLOGY, 
MATHEMATICS, and MEDICINE, however, Byz. al- 
chemy seems barely to have been enriched by 
translation from the Arabic, though there are 
some traces of eastern influence in the treatise 
from the 14th-C. codex Holkham gr. 290, now in 
the Bodleian (ed. O. Lagercrantz, CMAG 3), and 
in the work of Kosmas. The few treatises trans- 
lated from the Latin texts influenced by the Ar- 
abic science were available only in Italy. 

ED. Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs, ed. M. Berthelot, 


C.E. Ruelle, 3 vols. (Paris 1887—88). Stephen of Alexan- 
dria—ed. I.L. Ideler in PhysMedGr 2:199—253; see also R. 


56 ALEMANNI 


Romano in SBNG 87-95. Heliodori carmina quattuor, ed. G. 
Goldschmidt (Giessen 1923). Catalogue des manuscrits alchi- 
miques grecs, 8 vols. (Brussels 1924-32). Les alchimistes grecs, 
ed. R. Halleux, vol. 1 (Paris 1981). 

Lit. Hunger, Lit. 2:279—84. R. Halleux, Les textes alchi- 
miques (Turnhout 1979). —-D.P., A.C. 


ALEMANNI (‘AdAapavot), the Latin term for an 
amalgamation of a number of smaller Germanic 
tribes, including a segment of the Suevi. After 
some conflicts with the Roman Empire in the grd 
C., Alemanni concentrated in the area between 
the Upper Danube and middle Rhine. Relations 
with the native Roman population were fre- 
quently hostile. In 457 the Alemanni invaded Italy 
and later threatened Noricum. Following their 
defeat by Clovis (4972), some Alemanni escaped 
to Raetia to settle, after ca.500, south of Lake 
Constance under the protection of THEODORIC 
THE GREAT. Paganism remained widespread among 
the Alemanni until the late 6th C. They were 
eventually absorbed into the Frankish kingdom. 
Coptic bronze vessels, Italian glass and ceram- 
ics, and a Byz. pectoral cross found in Alemanni 
graves indicate some economic and cultural links 
with the Mediterranean in the 5th to 7th C. The 
Byz. historians Prokopios and Agathias con- 
sidered the Alemanni akin to the GERMANOI; ac- 
cording to H. Ditten (SéBale 10 [1975] 73—86), 
their name was distorted by later copyists and 
rendered Albanoi. After a period of absence from 
the sources, the name reappears in the Souda 
(corrupted as Albanoi) and in many authors of the 
11th to 15th C. in reference to the Germans, 
whereas the term Germanoi sometimes meant 
French. When Alexios HI concluded a truce with 
Henry VI of Germany, a new tax called ALAMANI- 
KON was introduced to pay tribute to the Germans. 
LIT. Thompson, Romans © Barbarians 29-37. L. Musset, 
The Germanic Invasions (London 1985) 80-83. R. Christlein, 
Die Alamannen? (Stuttgart-Aalen 1979). H. Ditten, “ ‘Ger- 


mannen’ und ‘Alamannen’ in antiken und byzantinischen 
Quellen,” BBA 52 (1985) 20-31. —-R.B.H. 


ALEPPO. See Berroa: Berroia in Syria. 


ALEXANDER, bishop of Alexandria (from 313); 
born Alexandria ca.250, died there 18 April 328. 
His first task as bishop was to deal with the MELE- 
TIAN SCHISM. Most of his reign, however, was 
concerned with his major adversary, Arius. Al- 


though condemned and excommunicated by a 
synod convened by Alexander ca.321, Arius re- 
fused to abandon his teaching. This led to the 
convocation of the First Council of NICAEA (325) 
in which Alexander, accompanied by his deacon 
ATHANASIOS (future bishop of Alexandria), played 
an important role. Of his voluminous correspon- 
dence, only three letters survive. In these he re- 
veals himself as an active and persistent supporter 
of the Orthodox position concerning the Son’s 
perfect consubstantiality and eternal generation 
from the Father. Fragments of sermons ascribed 
to him are also preserved in Coptic and Syriac. 

ED. Letters—ed. H.G. Opitz, Athanasius’ Werke (Berlin 
1934) 3-1: 6-11, 19-31. W. Schneemelcher, “Der Sermo 
‘de anima et corpore, ” in Festschrift für G. Dehn (Neu- 
kirchen 1957) 119-43. O. Perler, “Recherches sur le Peri 
Pascha de Méliton,” RSR 51 (1963) 407-21. 

LIT. G. Loeschcke, “Zur Chronologie der beiden grossen 
antiarianischen Schreiben des Alexander von Alexan- 
drien,” ZKirch 31 (1910) 584-86. V.C. de Clercq, Ossius of 
Cordova (Washington, D.C., 1954) 189—206. B. Pheidas, 
“Alexandros Alexandreias kai hai dyo enkyklioi epistolai 
autou,” Antidoron pneumatikon. Timetikos tomos Gerasimou Io. 
Konidare (Athens 1981) 518-42. —A.P. 


ALEXANDER, emperor (11 May 912-6 June 
913); born Constantinople ca.870, died Constan- 
tinople. The youngest son of Basix I and Eupoxia 
INGERINA, according to the vita of St. BASIL THE 
YouncER, Alexander was co-emperor with his 
brother Leo VI from 879. During Leo’s reign 
Alexander was at odds with his brother and was 
even suspected of plotting against him. After as- 
cending the throne, Alexander demoted Leo’s 
assistants (HIMERIOS was imprisoned), possibly de- 
posed Patr. EurHyMIos, and reinstated NICHOLAS 
I Mystikos. ZOE KARBONOPSINA was expelled from 
the palace. Alexander’s administration had to face 
assaults from two directions: the Arabs attacked 
the area under the control of MELIAs, and SYMEON 
oF BuLGARIA apparently invaded Byz. before 
Alexander’s death. R. Jenkins (SBN 7 [1953] 389- 
93) hypothesizes that an Arab embassy was sent 
to Constantinople during Alexander’s reign. Both 
the author of the vita of Euthymios and chroni- 
clers are hostile toward Alexander and represent 
him as lecherous and lazy. A mosaic portrait of 
Alexander is preserved in the north gallery of 
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (P.A. Under- 
wood, E.J.W. Hawkins, DOP 15, [1961] 187-217): 
Coinage reflects Alexander’s bad relations with 


ALEXANDER. Portrait of the emperor; mosaic, 912—913. 
North gallery of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. 


Leo VI: Leo’s son, CONSTANTINE VII, although 
titular emperor from go8, does not share the 
reverse of Alexander’s solidi. Rather, his place is 
taken by John the Baptist shown crowning Alex- 
ander, the first depiction of coronation by a sacred 
figure (C. Jolivet-Lévy, Byzantion 57 [1987] 447f). 

Lit. P. Karlin-Hayter, “The Emperor Alexander’s Bad 
Name,” Speculum 44 (1969) 585-96. H. Grégoire, “Un 


captif arabe a la cour de l'Empereur Alexandre,” Byzantion 
7 (1932) 666-73. —A.K., A.C. 


ALEXANDER III, pope (from Sept. 1159); born 
Siena between 1100 and 1105, died Rome go Aug. 
1181. While a cardinal Alexander had favored a 
pro-Norman policy; therefore, his election to the 
Papacy was opposed by FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA, 
who supported several antipopes and forced 





ALEXANDER IV 57 


Alexander to seek refuge in France. There the 
pontiff tried to organize an anti-German coalition, 
but the French king Louis VII was indifferent to 
this plan. Alexander eagerly negotiated with Emp. 
Manuel I. In 1161 Cardinal William of Pavia sent 
a letter to Manuel asking him to recognize Alex- 
ander and complaining that “the barbarians” had 
usurped the imperial throne. These negotiations 
became known in Frederick’s camp, where Alex- 
ander was accused of making an alliance with the 
emperor. In 1167 Manuel sent the sebastos lor- 
danos to Rome, promising church union on con- 
dition that Alexander recognize him as the em- 
peror of the East and West. The plan, however, 
was never executed because, although Alexander 
wanted to use Byz. resources against Frederick, 
he was not inclined to sever all links with Ger- 
many. In the 1170s Alexander based his anti- 
German policy primarily on the support of the 
Lombard League, a coalition of northern Italian 
cities. 

LIT. M.W. Baldwin, Alexander III and the Twelfth Century 
(Glen Rock, N.J., 1966). M. Pacault, Alexandre IH. (Paris 
1956) and rev. F. Kempf, RHE 52 (1957) 932-37. W. 
Ohnsorge, Die Legaten Alexanders II (Berlin 1928; rp. Va- 
duz 1965). J. Parker, “The Attempted Byzantine Alliance 
with the Sicilian Norman Kingdom (1166—1167),” BSR 24 
(1956) 86—93. R. Weigand, “Magister Rolandus und Papst 


Alexander IH,” Archiv fiir katholisches Kirchenrecht 149 (1980) 
3-44. —A.K. 


ALEXANDER IV (Rainaldo, count of Segni), pope 
(from 12 Dec. 1254); born end of the 12th C., 
died Viterbo 25 May 1261. He was the nephew 
of Grecory IX. From his predecessor INNOCENT 
IV Alexander inherited the war with MANFRED of 
Sicily and a dangerous situation in Palestine; he 
tried to find support in Germany through an 
alliance with Richard of Cornwall, son of King 
John of England. He also viewed THEopore II 
LASKARIS as a possible ally, since the Latin Empire 


of Constantinople was in Obvious dcclinc. Nego- 
tiations reopened at Theodore’s initiative and led 
to an exchange of envoys in 1256; Theodore, 
however, rejected the idea of papal primacy and 
insisted on the equality of pope and emperor. 
Alexander’s legate, Constantius of Orvieto, was 
instructed to agree to the convocation of an ecu- 
menical council and to the absolution of the 
“schismatics” who were ready to convert to Ca- 
tholicism, but not to abrogate the principle of 
primacy. On the other hand, despite the eirenic 


58 | ALEXANDER OF TRALLES 


tone of the epistle of Patr. ARSENIOS AUTOREIANOS 
(RegPatr, fasc. 4, no.1332), Theodore’s adminis- 
tration arrogantly believed they could recapture 
Constantinople without papal aid. The negotia- 
tions in Thessalonike failed, as did Alexander’s 
struggle for influence in Sicily. 

uit. V. Laurent, “Le Pape Alexandre IV (1254-1261) 
et l'empire de Nicée,” EO 34 (1935) 26-55. P. Zavoronkov, 
“Nikejskaja imperija i Zapad,” VizVrem 36 (1974) 117f. F. 
Schillmann, “Zur byzantinischen Politik Alexanders IV.,” 
RQ 22 (1908) 108-31. P. Toubert in Etudes sur l'Italie 
médiévale (London 1976), pt.XI (1963), 391—99. -A.K. 


ALEXANDER OF TRALLES, physician; born 
Tralles 525, died Rome 605. According to Aga- 
thias (Agath. 5:6.3—6), Alexander was one of five 
prominent sons of a physician named Stephen; 
most famous of the brothers was ANTHEMIOS, the 
architect-engineer of Hagia Sophia. Alexander’s 
family probably knew the navigator-explorer 
KOSMAS INDIKOPLEUSTES, a fact perhaps reflected 
in the Far Eastern drugs included in Alexander’s 
12-book medical encyclopedia. In his writing, 
Alexander exhibits a humane, enthusiastic ap- 
proach to medicine and a continually adaptive 
sensitivity to active practice and therapy. These 
qualities have caused medical historians to call 
Alexander the “most modern” of the Byz. physi- 
cians, even though he readily prescribes AMULETS 
and other magical means for cures. Compared 
with AETIOS OF AMIDA, Alexander is certainly less 
concerned with theory than with the practical 
application of pharmaceuticals (J. Scarborough, 
DOP 38 [1984] 226-28). Alexander is also rightly 
famous for his “Letter on Intestinal Worms,” in- 
dicating an acute skill in observation of symptoms 
and precise case histories. His medicine is emi- 
nently sensible and one reads good accounts of 
ophthalmology (bk.2), what moderns would call 
angina (bk.4), diseases of the lungs and pleurisy 
(bks. 5-6), kidney and bladder ailments (bk.g), 
and gout (bk.12). Alexander knew his GALEN and 
other classical authorities, but subsumed them 
within his medical practice, continually adapting 
data from the written texts, nicely illustrated by 
Alexander’s rearrangement of pharmaceutical in- 
gredients in many of his suggested remedies for 
specific diseases. 

ED. Alexander von Tralles, ed. T. Puschmann, 2 vols. 
(Vienna 1878—79; rp. with addenda, Amsterdam 1963). 
Fr. tr. F. Brunet, Oeuvres médicales d'Alexandre de Tralles, 4 
vols. (Paris 1933—37). 


LIT. J. Duffy, “Byzantine Medicine in the Sixth and 
Seventh Centuries,” DOP 38 (1984) 25-27. I. Bloch, HGM 
1:535-44. Hunger, Lit. 2:297-99. M. Stoffregen, Eine 
frihmittelalterliche lateinische Ubersetzung des byzantinischen Puls- 
und Urintraktats des Alexandros (Berlin 1977). 

-J.S., AMT, 


ALEXANDER ROMANCE. Ascribed to Kallis- 
thenes of Olynthos, the historian who accompa- 
nied ALEXANDER THE GREAT on his expeditions 
(hence, pseudo-Kallisthenes), the Alexander Ro- 
mance is based on an anonymous novel written 
originally in the 3rd C. and widely copied, with 
frequent accretions of fantastic episodes. Five re- 
censions of the text, which can be dated from the 
4th to 7th C., are identifiable. For their recon- 
struction the translations in Armenian (5th C.), 
Latin (by Julius Valerius Probus, 4th C., and the 
archpriest Leo, gth C.), Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic 
are important. These recensions survive only in 
late MSS. There are also late Byz. redactions, one 
(the Byz. Alexander-Poem) in political verse and 
dated to 1388 and another in prose of uncertain 
date that survives in several discrepant MSS of 
the 13th to 16th C. The Alexandria became pop- 
ular in Rus’, where at least two recensions were 
known: one inserted in the chronographs (prob- 
ably of the 12th C.) was close to the Alexander 
Romance, another, the so-called Serbian Alexan- 
dria, appeared about the 15th C. It was a free 
adaptation of pseudo-Kallisthenes, with an em- 
phasis on the love affair of Alexander and Rox- 
ane, the daughter of Darius. 

Although Alexander is treated as a traditional 
hero of ROMANCE (with a mysterious birth, etc.), 
he is nonetheless regarded as the first basileus of 
the Hellenes. As Alexander came to hold an emo- 
tive place in the Byz. view of the past, so the more 
sober accounts of the chroniclers were supple- 
mented in the popular imagination (in, e.g., the 
vita of MaKarios oF Rome and the Apocalypse of 
pseudo-METHODI0s OF PATARA) by references taken 
from the Alexander Romance to the exotic pal- 
aces, giants imprisoned in mountains, strange 
monsters and barbaric peoples on the borders of 
the empire, and so forth that Alexander encoun- 
tered on his campaigns. Figures from the Alex- 
ander Romance such as the KYNOKEPHALOS and 
scenes of Boukephalas and Alexander's pursuit 
of Darius entered the illustration of the Kynegetika 
of Orrian, while Weitzmann (infra) interpreted 
panels on bone caskets as depictions of the ma- 


gician Nektanebos, Olympias, and Philip of Ma- 
cedon, drawn from the same source. Richly illus- 
trated versions of the Alexander Romance in both 
Greek (L. Gallagher, Thesaurismata 16 [1979] 170— 
205) and Armenian survive from the 13th to 15th 
G: 


ep. Historia Alexandri Magni, ed. W. Kroll (Berlin 1926). 
Das byzantinische Alexandergedicht, ed. S. Reichmann (Mei- 
senheim am Glan 1963). Der byzantinische Alexanderroman 
nach dem Codex Vindob. theol. Gr. 244, ed. K. Mitsakis (Mu- 
nich 1967). Aleksandrija, ed. M. Botvinnik, Ja. Lur’e, O. 
Tvorogov (Moscow-Leningrad 1966). 

ut. R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alex- 
anderromans? (Munich 1977). H. Gleixner, Das Alexanderbild 
der Byzantiner (Munich 1961). G. Veloudis, Der neugriechische 
Alexander (Munich 1968). E. Bertel’s, Roman ob Aleksandre i 
ego glavnye versit na Vostoke (Moscow-Leningrad 1948). 
Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 102-06, 186-88. A. Xyngopoulos, 
Les miniatures du Roman d’Alexandre le Grand dans le codex de 
[Institut Hellénique de Venise (Athens-Venice 1966). 

-E.MJ., A.C., A.K. 


ALEXANDER THE AKOIMETOS, archiman- 
drite and saint; died Gomon, Bithynia, ca.430; 
feastday 20 Feb., although not included in the 
Synaxarion of Constantinople. An islander by birth, 
Alexander was educated in Constantinople, 
where he began an administrative career. He then 
left for Syria, where he lived as a hermit, fre- 
quently intervening in the affairs of cities such as 
Edessa, Palmyra, and Antioch. From Syria he 
returned to Constantinople with a group of dis- 
ciples and settled near the Church of St. Menas. 
The inflexibility of the service of perpetual prayer 
that Alexander instituted (see AKOIMETOI, MoN- 
ASTERY OF) and his constant interference in polit- 
ical activity aroused the hatred of the authorities 
and local population. Accused of MESSALIANISM, 
Alexander was condemned by an ecclesiastical 
tribunal and narrowly escaped being torn to pieces 
by the demoi (de Stoop, infra 698.4). He found 
temporary refuge in the monastery of HYPATIOS 
OF ROUPHINIANAI, then went to Gomon, where he 
died. The vita of Alexander is known from a 
single 11th-C. MS, the anonymous author describ- 
ing himself as Alexander’s pupil. 

The chronology of Alexander’s life is far from 
clear: R. Janin (EO 33 [1934] 340) asserts that 
Alexander arrived in Constantinople ca.405 and 
founded the monastery of the Akoimetoi ca.420 
(Janin, Eglises CP 16), but the vita places Alex- 
ander’s quarrel with Theodotos, patriarch of An- 
toch (424-28) before his arrival. J. Pargoire (BZ 


ALEXANDER THE GREAT 59 


8 [1899] 447) speculates that Alexander’s expul- 
sion from Constantinople must have taken place 
before 430, since NEILOS OF ANkyRA alluded to 
Alexander’s troublemaking. It is also uncertain 
whether Alexander was the founder of the Akoi- 
metoi monastery; his vita (p.700.16—17) says that 
the monastery was founded after his death. 

ED. E. de Stoop, “Vie d'Alexandre l’Acéméte,” PO 6.5 
(1911) 645-705, with Lat. tr. 

LIT. BHG 47. E. Wölfle, “Der Abt Hypatios von Ruphi- 


nianai und der Akoimete Alexander,” BZ 79 (1986) 302— 
og. —A.K. 


ALEXANDER THE GREAT (Alexander III of 
Macedon), son of Philip II of Macedon and Olym- 
pias; born 356 B.C., died 323. Alexander was the 
instigator of the first attempt at world domination 
by a Greek-speaking ruler. His life and exploits 
are recorded briefly by Byz. chroniclers with em- 
phasis given to his meeting with the widowed 
Kandake, the priests of Jerusalem, and the Brah- 
mans of India. Little detail is given on his military 
campaigns, which are noted for starting from 
Constantinople and for destroying the empire of 
the Persians, which was then followed by that of 
the Macedonians in the succession of empires. As 
the ruler of a world empire that could be viewed 
as a predecessor of the Byz. and could also be 
fitted into the Old Testament framework, Alex- 
ander from the time of Constantine I was re- 
garded as a model of the ideal emperor and 
appears as such in chronicles, orations, eschato- 
logical texts, etc. The legendary figure of Alex- 
ander was fostered by the ALEXANDER ROMANCE 
and other shorter texts, dealing with his encoun- 
ters with apocryphal sages, as well as by the chron- 
icles. Textiles of the 6th—7th C. showed him on 
horseback (D. Shepherd, Bulletin of the Cleveland 
Museum of Art 58 [1971] 244-50), while later 
enamels and reliefs concentrated on the legend 
of his Ascension. Scenes from the life of Alexan- 
der—treated as the equivalent of the biblical he- 
roes depicted there—decorated the palace of Dı- 
GENES AkRITAS. The emotive and symbolic role 
that Alexander played in the Byz. popular con- 
sciousness is demonstrated by his continued im- 
portance in Greek folklore even after the fall of 
Constantinople. 

uit. H.J. Gleixner, Das Alexanderbild der Byzantiner (Mu- 
nich 1961). A.K. Orlandos, “Neon anaglyphon tes analep- 


seos tou Alexandrou,” EEPASPA 5 (1954-55) 281-89. 
—-E.M.J., A.C. 


60 ALEXANDER THE MONK 


ALEXANDER THE MONK, author of a treatise 
entitled On the Cross. He lived sometime between 
the mid-6th and gth C.; the traditional date of 
the mid-6th C. or before 614 lacks any validity. 
Nothing is known of his biography. His identifi- 
cation with Alexander the Monk (from Cyprus?) 
who wrote an enkomion of the apostle BARNABAS 
after the discovery of the apostle’s relic (488) is 
arbitrary. 

On the Cross consists of two parts: a history of 
Christianity from the Roman emperor Tiberius 
to the discovery of the True Cross by Helena 
and the appearance of the Cross in Jerusalem in 
351, and a panegyric on the Cross as the major 
symbol of Christianity: “God,” says Alexander (PG 
87.3:4021B), “made every visible and invisible 
creature in the shape of a cross,” since everything 
in the world has “height, depth, breadth, and 
length” (cf. Eph 3:18); thus, the Seraphim are 
interpreted as “fourfold (tetramorpha) beings that 
prefigure the typos of the Cross” (4021C). The cult 
of the Cross exists in all cities, islands, and tribes 
(4072C). Because of this cosmic character of the 
Cross the Lord suffered death on the Cross 
(4036A). The treatise is known also in a Georgian 
translation whose earliest MSS belong to the oth 
and ioth C. 

ED. PG 87.3:4016-88. 

LIT. S. Salaville, “Le moine Alexandre de Chypre,” EO 
15 (1912) 134-37. M. van Esbroeck, “L’opuscule ‘Sur la 
Croix’ d’Alexandre de Chypre et sa version géorgienne,” 
BK 37 (1979) 102-32. -A.K. 


ALEXANDRIA (Adeéavipera), third largest city 
of the late Roman world (after Rome and Con- 
stantinople); founded by Alexander the Great in 
331 B.c. Formerly capital of the Ptolemaic king- 
dom and the Roman province of Egypt, it was the 
administrative, military, and ecclesiastical center 
of the country as well as chief industrial entrepôt 
of the eastern Mediterranean and outlet for the 
annual shipments of Egyptian grain (the embole) 
to Rome and Constantinople. Its two harbors han- 
dled shipping for goods that had come down the 
Nile (papyrus, textiles, glass) and for the maritime 
trade of Oriens as well as transshipments upriver 
of olive oil, metal goods, pottery, and wine. Laid 
out on the Hellenistic grid pattern, the city pre- 
served splendid ancient monuments including the 
Pharos lighthouse (one of the so-called Seven 


Wonders); the Serapeum (temple of the syncretic 
god Serapis), which was partly demolished in Byz. 
times; and the Caesareum, converted into the 
patriarchal cathedral. Few remains are extant, 
except for the recently excavated theater, baths, 
and lecture hall at Kim al-Dik (infra); the Mou- 
SEION and the Tomb (Sema) of Alexander are not 
attested after the grd C. 

With its wealth, large population (about half a 
million) bilingual in Greek and Coptic, and flour- 
ishing infrastructure, Alexandria was the major 
intellectual and cultural center of the East, rival- 
ing Constantinople in political influence as well, 
In literature, scholarship, science, and theology 
its schools attracted the best minds, and both 
secular and church patronage supported abun- 
dant production in written works and the visual 
arts. Christianity took root early, leading to the 
establishment of a powerful centralized patriar- 
chate (see ALEXANDRIA, PATRIARCHATE OF), later 
split into Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian lines 
of succession; and a theological school, the AL- 
EXANDRIAN SCHOOL, renowned for its Neoplatonic 
approach and allegorical method of exegesis. Large 
urban monasteries, such as the Ennaton and the 
Metanoia, which are attested in numerous 6th- to 
7th-C. papyri, supported guilds of philoponoi 
(charity workers) and varied trades and profes- 
sions. The mint of Alexandria was revived by 
Emp. Justin II. 

Alexandria was briefly occupied by the Sasani- 
ans between 618 and 628/g (L. MacCoull, Studi 
classici e orientali 36 [1986] 307~19); it fell to the 
Arabs under ‘Amr in 642 (Butler, infra, Ixxii- 
Ixxvi), was briefly retaken by the Byz. in 645 but 
immediately recaptured by the Arabs; a second 
Byz. attempt at recovery in 652 proved unsuc- 
cessful. 

Monuments of Alexandria. Almost no Byz. 
monuments have survived. Only the names and a 
few details regarding the history and location of 
its once numerous churches are known. The Greek 
Orthodox patriarchal Church of St. Sabas may 
preserve some sections of its original 7th-C. foun- 
dations. In the area called Kim al-Dik (“pottery 
hill”) a late Roman bath, a 4th-C. odeon, and 
some 6th-C. Byz. houses have been excavated. 
There are also Early Christian tombs (e.g., the so- 
called Wescher Catacomb, now destroyed, which 
included a painted frieze representing the FEED- 


ING OF THE MuLTITUDE). With marble imported 
from Constantinople, a number of workshops in 
Alexandria produced architectural sculpture for 
use in the provincial towns of Lower Egypt; scores 
of examples have been found at ABU MiNA as well 
as in Cairo. 

ut. A. Calderini, Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici 
dell'Egitto greco-romano, vol. 1 (Cairo 1935) 55—206. A. Bow- 
man, Egypt after the Pharoahs (Berkeley 1986) 203-33. J. 
Irmscher, “Alexandria, die christusliebende Stadt,” BSAC 
19 (1967-68) 115~22. A. Martin, “Les premiers siècles du 
christianisme à Alexandrie,” REAug 30 (1984) 211-25. M. 
Krause, “Das christliche Alexandrien und seine Bezichun- 
gen zum koptischen Agypten,” in Alexandrien, ed. N. Hinske 
(Mainz 1981) 53-62. M. Rodziewicz, Alexandrie HI. Les 
habitations romaines tardives d’Alexandrie (Warsaw 1984). A.J. 


Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt” (Oxford 1978) 368-400. 
—P.G., L.S.B.MacC. 


ALEXANDRIA, PATRIARCHATE OF. In ad- 
dition to using the title of pope (papas), Alexan- 
dria’s bishop was, perhaps, the first to claim the 
tile ARCHBISHOP. At Nicaea I (325) this see was 
mentioned, together with Rome and Antioch, 
among the major ecclesiastical divisions of the 
empire (canon 6). Its reputation was based on 
Alexandria’s political importance, the support re- 
ceived from monasticism, vast landed wealth, and 
Egypt’s long-standing tradition of centralization. 
In fact, by the qth C. all of Ecypt, the Pentapolis, 
and Libya had been brought under its central 
authority. 

Asa result, Alexandria played a prominent part 
in the theological controversies and ecclesiastical 
power politics of the 4th—5th C. Nevertheless, its 
powerful bishops’ claim to first place among the 
sees in the East gradually altered with the rise of 
Constantinople, promoted to second rank in 381. 
The bitter conflict that followed in the reigns of 
THEOPHILOS and Cyrit was finally resolved—at 
Alexandria’s expense and humiliation—at the 
Council of CHALCEDON (451). Indeed, Chalce- 
don’s rejection of Dioskoros and his MonopHys- 
ITISM were fatal to Alexandria’s ecclesiastical and 
theological prestige and supremacy. Moreover, its 
unity also suffered. The patriarchate split into 
two unequal parties, with representatives of the 
non-Chalcedonian Monophysite majority contest- 
ing and sometimes occupying the patriarchal 
throne. This dissident group eventually formed 
the national Coptic church of Egypt. The decisive 
blow to the patriarchate came with the Arab con- 


ALEXANDRIAN ERA 61 


quest (641). Henceforth Constantinople, with the 
approval and confirmation of the caliphs, ap- 
pointed Alexandria’s Orthodox patriarchs as a 
rule; the patriarchs controlled only a small mi- 
nority of Christians in Egypt and followed Con- 
stantinople in all liturgical and canonical matters. 

LIT. J. Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d’Alexandrie (Paris 
1923). Ch. Papadopoulos, Historia ekklestas Alexandrias (Al- 


exandria 1935). The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. B.A. 
Pearson, J.E. Goehring (Philadelphia 1986). —-A.P. 


ALEXANDRIAN ERA, a system of computation 
of world CHRONOLOGY produced by two Egyptian 
monks and chronographers of the early 5th C., 
Annianos and Panodoros; the system is known 
from and was used by GEORGE THE SYNKELLOS 
(early gth C.). Panodoros, a critic of EUSEBIOS OF 
CAESAREA, tried to harmonize the data of the Bible 
with those of pagan sources (esp. the Canon of 
Kings by Ptolemy). He came to the conclusion that 
the Creation took place on 19 Mar. and the birth 
of Christ occurred 5,494 years after the Creation. 
The computation of Panodoros is the major Al- 
exandrian Era (aera Alexandrina maior); the minor 
Alexandrian Era was suggested by Annianos who 
dated the Creation to the vernal equinox (25 
Mar.) and placed the birth of Christ in 5501. 
The Alexandrian Era remained in use outside 
Egypt: George the Synkellos (6.13—16) defended 
the idea that the first of the Jewish month Nisan 
(25 Mar.) and not the first of Thoth (29/30 Aug.), 
according to Egyptian custom, or the first of Jan. 
(the Roman usage), was the day of Creation; he 
also dated the Incarnation 5,500 years after the 
Creation (p.2.26—27). Traces of the Alexandrian 
Era can be found in Theophanes the Confessor 
as well. Maximos the Confessor (PG 19:1249B) 
also calculated that Christ was born 5,501 years 
after Adam. After the gth C. the Alexandrian Era 
was abandoned even though a unified system of 
computation did not immediately replace it. The 
difference between the Alexandrian Era and the 
BYZANTINE ERA is approximately 16 years, but 
one also has to take into consideration the differ- 
ence in the beginning of the year: 25 Mar. ac- 
cording to Annianos and 1 Sept. according to the 
official calculation of the 1npIcrion and of the 
Byzantine Era. To convert an Alexandrian date 
to an A.D. date, 5,492 is subtracted for dates be- 
tween 25 Mar. and 31 Dec., but 5,491 for dates 


62 | ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL 


between 1 Jan. and 24 Mar. When 1 Sept. is used 
as the beginning of the era, however, 5,493 is 
subtracted for dates between 1 Sept. and 31 Dec., 
but 5,492 for dates between 1 Jan. and 1 Sept. 


LIT. Grumel, Chronologie 85—97. O. Seel, “Panodoros,” 
RE 18 (1949) 632-35. V. Loi, DPAC 1:211. -B.C. 


ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL, a conventional des- 
ignation of two intellectual institutions. First of 
all, it was the theological tradition generally seen 
in Opposition to the ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL. As a 
developed institution it is attested from the early 
grd C. It consisted of an elementary (catechetical) 
school and a didaskaleton oriented toward the in- 
tellectual elite. The school operated under the 
control of the see of Alexandria, and a number 
of its teachers (Heraklas, Dionysios, Theognostos, 
Peter) became bishops of Alexandria in the grd 
C. The last known teacher of the school was 
DipyMos THE Buinn. The theology of the Alex- 
andrian School was developed by CLEMENT OF 
ALEXANDRIA and ORIGEN, who envisioned pri- 
marily a cultivated and well-to-do urban audience 
and based their tenets on the Platonic tradition as 
revised by PuiLo. The main points were typolog- 
ical or allegorical interpretation of the Bible— 
viewing the Old Testament as a prefiguration of 
events of the New Testament; the doctrine of 
three hypostases with an anti-Monarchian empha- 
sis; focusing on Christ’s divinity rather than his 
humanity; a dualistic anthropology in the manner 
of Plato; and a spiritual rather than “physical” 
perception of eschatology. The Arian distinction 
between the Father and Son was in a sense based 
on the Alexandrian concept of hypostases. Athana- 
sios of Alexandria and esp. Cyril of Alexandria 
signified a disruption rather than a continuation 
of the school, since they stressed the unity in 
substance and the divine nature of Christ, but not 
the diversity in hypostases. 

The term also refers to the Alexandrian School 
of philosophy that flourished in the 5th to early 
yth C.; it included scholars such as HIFROKLES, 
Hypatia, and John PuiLoponos; studied Aristotle 
no less than Plato; developed an interest in sci- 
ence; and remained neutral toward Christianity. 

uit. G. Bardy, “Aux origines de l'école d’Alexandrie,” 
RechScRel 27 (1937) 65-90. L.B. Radford, Three Teachers of 
Alexandria (Cambridge 1908). H. de Lubac, “ ‘Typologie’ et 


‘allegorisme,’ ” RechScRel 34 (1947) 180-226; 47 (1959) 5— 
43. E. Molland, The Conception of the Gospel in the Alexandrian 


Theology (Oslo 1938). A. Le Boullvec, “L’école d’Alexandrie,” 
in Alexandrina: Mélanges offerts au P. Cl. Mondésert (Paris 
1987) 403-17. J-A. McGuckin, “Christian Asceticism and 
the Early School of Alexandria,” in Monks, Hermits and the 
Ascetic Tradition [= SChH 22] (Oxford 1985) 25-39. 
-T.E.G. 


ALEXANDRIAN WORLD CHRONICLE, the 
conventional title given to a chronicle, illuminated 
fragments of which survive in the so-called pa- 
pyrus Goleniščev (now in the Pushkin Museum, 
Moscow). The text is similar to that of BARBARUS 
SCALIGERI; the chronicle ends in 392. The papy- 
rus has been dated by O. Kurz to ca.675—700 (in 
Kunsthistorische Forschungen, ed. A. Rosenauer, G. 
Weber [Salzburg 1972] 17—22). This MS is chiefly 
of interest to art historians, containing on eight 
fragments a profusion of unframed marginal il- 
lustrations, comparable to the Merseburg frag- 
ment of the ANNALS OF Ravenna. The subjects 
represented include the Old Testament prophets, 
Roman emperors, a map of the Ocean and its 
islands, walled cities, and personifications of the 
MonrTus in bust form (Iskusstvo Vizantii I, no.8). 
ED. Eine alexandrinische Weltchronik, ed. A. Bauer, J. 


Strzygowski, DenkWien 51 (1905) 119-204. 


LIT. Weitzmann, Studies 106, 108, 121. —B.B., A.C. 


ALEXIOS (Adégétos), personal name (etym. 
“helping, supportive”). Classical antiquity knew 
the similar forms Alexis and Alexion (RE 1 [1894] 
1466—71), but neither form is listed in PLRE, 
vols. 1-2, or mentioned by historians of the 6th- 
7th C. Theophanes the Confessor (Theoph. 466.4- 
5) refers to only a single Alexios, droungarios tes 
viglas under Irene. Alexioi also appeared as shad- 
owy figures among two groups of martyrs alleg- 
edly murdered under Leo III (BHG 1:14), and in 
the Synaxarion of Constantinople we find “Alexios, 
bishop of Bithynia,” also a very vague reference. 
As far as ALEXIOS HOMO DEI is concerned, the 
origin of the legend remains obscure. After the 
gth C. the name became more common: Skylitzes 
refers to three Alexioi, as does Anna Komnene. 
In Niketas Choniates’ time the name Alexios was 
popular; he lists 24 Alexioi, second only to JOHN 
(35). The five emperors who bore the name ruled 
between 1081 and 1204. The fashion probably 
did not extend beyond the elite: in the acts of 
Lavra, vol. 1 (,oth—12th C.), the name appears 
only as that of emperors; in Lavra, vols. 2-3 


(1gth—15th C.), we meet an insignificant number 
of Alexioi and the name has fallen to twentieth 
place. -A.K. 


ALEXIOS I KOMNENOS, emperor (from 4 Apr. 
1081); born ca.1057, died Constantinople 15 Aug. 
1118. Son of John Komnenos and Anna Datas- 
sENE, Alexios began his career as general under 
Michael VII and Nikephoros III. Together with 
his brother Isaac, Alexios revolted against Nike- 
phoros (14 Feb. 1081). Constantinople fell on 1 
Apr. and was sacked. Alexios came to the throne 
with the support of the military aristocracy, esp. 
the Douka1, to whom he was linked by marriage 
to IRENE Doukarna. He found a difficult situation: 
the government had to cope with the revolts of 
aristocrats, the Seljuks occupied most of Asia Mi- 
nor, the Pechenegs threatened the Danubian 
provinces, and ROBERT GUISCARD was preparing 
to attack Constantinople. Alexios acted effec- 
tively: in 1081—93 he overcame the Normans, 
defeated the Pechenegs at Mt. LEBouNIon, and 
repelled Tzacuas from Constantinople. 
Alexios’s successes owed something to diplo- 
macy—alliances with VENIcE and Germany against 
the Normans (T. Lounghis, Diptycha 1 [1979] 158— 
67) and with the Cumans against the Pechenegs. 
His domestic policy was equally important: he 
restricted the influence of senators and eunuchs 
and relied upon a few military families. Those 
aristocrats who did not join the “clan” of the 
Komnenoi, esp. the Anatolian magnates whose 
estates had been taken by the Seljuks, lost power. 
His reform of titles was intended to reshape the 
ruling class. Conspirators (esp. aristocrats) re- 
peatedly but unsuccessfully challenged Alexios (B. 
Scoulatos, Byzantion 49 [1979] 385-94). He sup- 
ported provincial towns, regulated their trade, 
and by ca.1092 had restored a sound coinage. 
Alexios aimed at centralizing the state, even though 
this state was constructed on a familial or patri- 
monial principle. Thus his mother and his older 
brother Isaac acted as emperors. He consolidated 
the administration under the logothetes ton sekreton 
(see LOGOTHETES) and entrusted various depart- 
ments to his courtiers. In the case of LEO oF 
CHaLcEDON Alexios broke the church’s resistance 
to official fiscal levies, but he consistently sup- 
ported the church as the bearer of the true ide- 
ology (I. Cigurov, VizVrem 31 [1971] 238—42). He 


ALEXIOS I KOMMENOS 63 


allowed the condemnation of heretical intellec- 
tuals such as JOHN ITaLos and—against his will— 
EustTraTI0s OF Nicaea; Alexios tried and burned 
BASIL THE BOGOMIL. 

The First CRUSADE created a serious problem 
for Alexios. Although he rid himself of the bands 
of PETER THE HERMIT, constrained most Crusader 
leaders to acknowledge their dependence on the 
empire, and used their forces to regain the coast 
of Asia Minor, he was unable (partly due to Ta- 
tikios’s mistakes, partly to the intrigues of BoHE- 
MUND) to prevent the creation of independent 
Crusader states in Palestine. Alexios was critically 
judged by Zonaras, treated equivocally by Nike- 
phoros BRYENNIOS, and eulogized by Anna Kom- 
NENE. 

Zonaras described Alexios as having debased 
the coinage, which was already in a poor state at 
his accession, but this is true of only the first ten 
years of his reign. Circa 1092 he carried out a 
major monetary reform, restoring a gold coin of 
good fineness in the form of the HYPERPYRON and 
creating two new fractional denominations (see 
Tracny) of electrum (see TRIKEPHALON) and bil- 
lon, which with the copper (initially lead) TETAR- 
TERON were to form the standard coinage of the 
Komnenian period. 

Alexios’s reputation for piety is suggested by 
his gift of an icon, establishing the type known as 
the Virgin Kykkotissa, to the Kykko monastery 
on Cyprus at the time of its foundation. He also 
erected a mural (in one of the imperial palaces, 
according to Nicholas KaLLikLes) of the Last 
Judgment with Alexios on the side of the damned 
(Magdalino-Nelson, “Emp. in 12th C.” 124~26). 
The illuminated MSS apparently sponsored by 
Alexios include two copies of the Panoplia dog- 
matike of Euthymios ZiGABENOs and the Barberini 
Psalter (Vat. Barb. gr. 372—J. Anderson, CahArch 
31 [1983] 35-67). 


LIT. Chalandon, Comnéne vol. 1. Angold, Empire 102- 
49. Morrisson, “Logarike” 419-64. P. Gautier, “L’édit 
d'Alexis I" Comnéne sur la réforme du clergé,” REB 31 
(1973) 165-201. -C.M.B., Ph.G., A.C. 


ALEXIOS I KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebi- 
zond (1204—22); born ca.1182, died 1 Feb. 1222. 
Elder son of Manuel, son of Andronikos I Kom- 
nenos, Alexios was connected to Tamara of Geor- 
gia; Manuel’s wife may have been T‘amara’s sister 
(K. Barzos, Makedonika 20 [1980] 30—47). When 


64 | ALEXIOS II KOMMENOS 


Andronikos I fell and Manuel perished, Alexios 
and his brother Davıp KOMNENOS may have been 
taken to Georgia, but the fact that one of Alexios’s 
sons was John Komnenos Axouch (1235—38) sug- 
gests that Alexios may have remained in Constan- 
tinople, possibly married a daughter or niece of 
John Komnenos “the Fat” (M. KurSanskis, ArchPont 
30 [1970] 107-16; K. Barzos, Byzantina 7 [1975] 
173), and fled only after John’s conspiracy (1200). 
The fall of ALExros II] seemingly inspired T‘amara 
to mount a Georgian expedition against TREBI- 
ZOND, with Alexios and David as nominal leaders 
(Mar.—Apr. 1204). Once the region from Phasis 
to Sinope had been occupied, Alexios remained 
at Trebizond, probably using an imperial title, 
while David advanced into Paphlagonia. Niketas 
CHONIATES criticizes Alexios for his inactivity. In 
1214, when Kay-Kavus I seized Sinope, Alexios 
may have become his vassal: Ibn Bibi records an 
immense annual tribute owed. Alexios founded 
the dynasty of the GRAND KOMNENOI. 

LIT. A. Vasiliev, “The Foundation of the Empire of 
Trebizond (1204-1222),” Speculum 11 (1936) 3-37. A. Sav- 


vides, “Hoi Megaloi Komnenoi tou Pontou kai hoi Seltzou- 
koi tou Ram (Ikoniou) ten periodo 1205/6—1222,” ArchPont 


39 (1984) 169-93. —C.M.B. 


ALEXIOS II KOMNENOS, emperor (1180-83); 
born Constantinople 14 Sept. 1169 (P. Wirth, BZ 
49 [1956] 65-67), died Constantinople ca. Sept. 
1183. A PORPHYROGENNETOS, son of MANuEL I 
and Maria oF ANTIOCH, Alexios was crowned co- 
emperor in 1171, an elevation celebrated in pic- 
tures of Alexios, his father, and grandfather 
(Magdalino-Nelson, “Emp. in 12th C.” 146f). In 
1175, Alexios accompanied Manuel on an expe- 
dition to rebuild DoryLaron (P. Wirth, Eustathiana 
{Amsterdam 1980] 78). He married AGNES OF 
FRANCE on 2 Mar. 1180, a match that Spatharakis 
(Portrait 210-30) proposed was the occasion of an 
illustrated EPITHALAMION in the Vatican Library. 
Barely adolescent when he succeeded his father, 
largely uneducated, Alexios indulged in amuse- 
ments, while his mother and Alexios KOMNENOS 
the protosebastos ruled. Their regime favored the 
Italian merchants and the aristocracy, who pil- 
laged the treasury and exploited government of- 
fices. To counter incursions by BéLa III of Hun- 
gary and Kitic Arslan II, the regency sought 
assistance from the pope and Satanin. Opposition 
from Maria KoMNENE was easily suppressed, but 


ANDRONIKOS I Komnenos overthrew the regency 
(Apr. 1182). He recrowned Alexios (16 May 1182), 
bearing the youth on his shoulders. Closely 
guarded, Alexios continued to pursue pleasure; 
his supporters Andronikos Angelos, Andronikos 
Kontostephanos, and John Komnenos Vatatzes 
were suppressed. In 1183, Alexios condemned 
his own mother to death. Once Andronikos had 
been proclaimed emperor, he decreed Alexios’s 
death. The youth was strangled and the body 
buried at sea. 


LIT. Barzos, Genealogia 2:454-71. Brand, Byzantium 31- 
49. Hecht, Aussenpolitek 12—29. —C.M.B., A.C. 


ALEXIOS If KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebi- 
zond (1297-1330); born 1283, died 3 May 1330. 
Son of Jonn II Komnenos of Trebizond and 
Eudokia Palaiologina, he used the surname Pa- 
laiologos as wel] as Komnenos (O. Lampsides, 
REB 42 [1984] 225-28). He was only 14 when his 
father died; he then came under the tutelage of 
his uncle, the Byz. emperor ANDRONIKos II. Al- 
exios refused, however, to marry Irene, daughter 
of Nikephoros CHouMNos, and thwarted the em- 
peror’s wishes by marrying the daughter of Bekha 
Jageli, the ruler of Samckhe, in 1300 (M. Kurgan- 
skis, REB 35 [1977] 252f). In 1301 Alexios 
mounted a victorious campaign to drive the Tur- 
komans out of KERasous; he had less success in 
his efforts to rid TREBIZOND of the Genoese dom- 
ination of its commerce. Treaties with Genoa (1316) 
and Venice (1319) granted both Italian cities trad- 
ing privileges and exemptions from customs du- 
ties. Alexios built the walls of Trebizond that run 
down to the sea. His patronage of the arts is 
revealed by his benefactions to the monasteries of 
St. Eugenios (in Trebizond) and of SouMELA, as 
well as by his correspondence with the astronomer 
Gregory CHIONIADES, who wrote a hymn to St. 
Eugenios at his request (L.G. Westerink, REB 38 
[1980] 236, 239). Upon the death of Alexios, 
Constantine Loukites, protonotarios and protovestia- 
rios, composed his funeral eulogy (ed. Papado- 
poulos-Kerameus, Analekta 1:421—30). 


LIT. Miller, Trebizond 31—44, 120. PLP, no.12084. 
~A.M.T. 


ALEXIOS III ANGELOS, emperor (1195—1203); 
born ca.1153, died Nicaea 1211 or 1212, Elder 
brother of Isaac II, Alexios spent most of the 


reign of ANDRONIKOS Í in Syria and was impris- 
oned in TRIPOLI ca.1185~87. Honored by Isaac, 
Alexios conspired and overthrew his brother. He 
was weak-willed, extravagant, and indolent, allow- 
ing birth, rank, and payments to guide his choice 
of officials, as in the case of Michael StRYPHNOS. 
Provincial officials (Leo Scouros, John Spyripo- 
NAKES) sought independence, while the court’s 
tyranny appears in the case of KaLomopios. The 
populace of Constantinople caused occasional 
outbursts but failed to support the uprising of 
John Komnenos “the Fat.” The strongest pillar of 
Alexios’s regime was his wife EUPHROSYNE. Alex- 
ios experienced military successes in dealing with 
Ivanko and Dosromir CHrysos; with KALOJAN, 
he made a treaty. He favored Pisa and GENOA at 
the expense of Venice. The Fourth Crusade found 
the empire in disarray; after a brief resistance, 
Alexios fled (17/18 July 1203). He wandered until 
he fell into the hands of BONIFACE OF MONTFER- 
RAT (late 1204). Sent to Montferrat, Alexios re- 
mained there until ransomed (1209 or 1210) by 
MICHAEL I Komnenos Doukas of Epiros, who 
dispatched him to Kay-Kuusraw I (R.J. Loenertz, 
Byzantion 43 [1973] 370-76). When THEODORE I 
Laskaris defeated the sultan (spring 1211), Al- 
exios was captured. Theodore placed him in a 
monastery, where he died. 

LIT. Barzos, Genealogia 2:726~—801. Brand, Byzantium 117— 
57, 234-41. —C.M.B. 


ALEXIOS III KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebi- 
zond (1349—1390); baptismal name John; born 5 
Oct. 1338, died 20 Mar. 1390. Son of Basil I 
Komnenos (1332—40), the infant Alexios was ex- 
iled to Constantinople after his father’s death. At 
age 11, however, he returned to TREBIZOND to 
claim the throne and, subsequently, enjoyed the 
longest reign of any Trapezuntine emperor. The 
early years of his rule were troubled by internal 
dissensions and the Turkoman threat. In 1355, 
he led an ill-fated expedition against the Turko- 
mans that resulted in a rout of the Greeks; the 
chronicler PANARETOS narrowly escaped with his 
life. Alexios, however, also pursued a conscious 
policy of cementing good relations with the Tur- 
komans by marrying two of his sisters and four 
of his daughters to various of their rulers (A. 
Bryer, DOP 29 [1975] 129-31, 136f, 148f; E. 
Zachariadou, ArchPont 35 [1978] 339-51). 


ALEXIOS IV ANGELOS | 65 


One of the main problems of Alexios’s admin- 
istration was relations with the Italian republics. 
At his accession, Alexios found the Venetian trad- 
ing station ruined, and by 1350/1 regular trans- 
actions with Genoa ceased. In the 1360s the Vene- 
tians attempted to revive their activity in Trebizond 
and to attract Alexios to an anti-Turkish coalition, 
but chrysobulls issued by Alexios in 1364 and 
1367 did not confer upon Venice any more priv- 
ileges than it had had in the early 14th C. Since 
Alexios wanted to exploit Venetian trade for the 
benefit of his treasury, tensions arose. In 1376 
Venice organized a military invasion, sponsoring 
the usurpers Michael Palaiologos the despotes (son 
of Emp. John V) and Andronikos the Grand 
Komnenos. Although the expedition failed to bring 
about Alexios’s deposition, a new chrysobull in 
1376 lowered Venetian kommerkia by 50 percent. 
Despite this chrysobull Venetian trade in Trebi- 
zond continued to decrease through the 1380s. 

Alexios was a generous patron of monasticism, 
founding monasteries such as VAZELON in the em- 
pire of Trebizond and Dionysiou on Mt. Athos. 
The original chrysobull of foundation (dated 1374) 
of Dionysiou, portraying Alexios and his wife 
Theodora Kantakouzene, is preserved at that 
monastery (Dionys., no.4; Spatharakis, Portrait 185— 
87, figs. 136-38). Alexios also restored the Sovu- 
MELA monastery. 

LIT. Miller, Trebizond 55—70. PLP, no.12083. D.A. Zaky- 
thinos, Le chrysobulle d'Alexis IHI Comnéne, empereur de Trébi- 
zonde, en faveur des Vénitiens (Paris 1932). Karpov, Trape- 
zundskaja imperija 57—72. -A.M.T., A.K. 


ALEXIOS IV ANGELOS, emperor (1203—04); 
born ca.1182 or 1183, died Constantinople ca. 
8 Feb. 1204. Son of Isaac II and his first wife, 
Alexios was left free after Isaac’s blinding and in 
late summer/early autumn 1201 escaped to Italy. 
Welcomed in Germany by his sister Irene and 
PHILIP OF SwaBiA, Alexios was present when Philip 
conferred with BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT. About 
Dec. 1202~—Jan. 1203 envoys from Philip and 
Alexios offered generous concessions to the Fourth 
Crusade at Zara, if the Crusaders would put 
Alexios on the Byz. throne. Once the Crusaders 
accepted his offer, he joined them (May 1209) at 
Kerkyra. After Alexios III fled and Isaac II had 
been restored, the Crusaders required that Alex- 
ios IV be named co-emperor. He was crowned in 
early Aug., then joined them in an expedition to 


66 | ALEXIOS IV KOMMENOS 


Thrace (Aug.—Nov.). Upon his return, Alexios IV 
became the dominant emperor. Isaac and Alexios 
IV had vainly endeavored to fulfill the Treaty of 
Zara by formally submitting to the pope and col- 
lecting money for the Crusaders. When they could 
not be satisfied, Alexios fell under the influence 
of those hostile to the Crusaders, esp. the future 
ALExIos V Doukas. Isolated from his former 
supporters, Alexios fell victim to Doukas, who 
induced him to flee the palace (28/9 Jan. 1204), 
then had him strangled in prison. 

LIT. Queller, Fourth Crusade 30-136. C.M. Brand, “The 
Fourth Crusade: Some Recent Interpretations,” MedHum 
n.s. 12 (1984) 33—45. ~C.M.B. 


ALEXIOS IV KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebi- 
zond (1416—29); born 1382, died Achantos (near 
Trebizond) before 28 Oct. 1429. Son of MANUEL 
II Komnenos, Alexios served as co-emperor from 
1395 to 1416. Sometime before 1404 he briefly 
rebelled against his father. Upon ascending to the 
throne, Alexios was first faced with war against 
the Genoese. In 1418 he agreed to pay them an 
indemnity of wine and nuts for four years. He 
tried to ensure the security of his kingdom through 
diplomacy, marrying his daughters to a White 
Sheep Turkoman chieftain and Emp. John VIH 
Palaiologos. It is unlikely that one of Alexios’s 
daughters married GEORGE Brankovic, ruler of 
Serbia, as is sometimes stated (A. Bryer, ArchPont 
27 [1965] 28f). Alexios was assassinated during 
the coup d’état of his son, Jonn IV KOMNENOS 
(V. Laurent, ArchPont 20 [1955] 138-43). 


LIT. Miller, Trebizond 79—83. Kuršanskis, “Descendance 
d'Alexis IV,” 239—47. PLP, no.12082. -A.M.T. 


ALEXIOS V DOUKAS, emperor (1204); died 
Constantinople ca. Dec. 1204. His sobriquet 
“Mourtzouphlos” (Movprlovddos) was a reference 
to his overhanging brows, according to Niketas 
Choniates (Nik.Chon. 561.23—25), but C. Sy- 
meonides (Byzantina 13.2 [1985] 1619—28) sug- 
gests it means “melancholy, sullen.” A Doukas of 
unknown lineage, Alexios was allegedly behind 
the attempted usurpation of John Komnenos “the 
Fat” (1200); possibly for that reason he was in 
prison when the Fourth Crusade installed ALEx- 
10s IV. Released, he was named protovestiarios, but 
sought to undermine Alexios IV. To gain popular 
support for his intended usurpation, Alexios Dou- 


kas led raids on the Crusaders outside Constan- 
tinople. Between 27 and 29 Jan. 1204, when the 
populace made Nicholas KannaBgos emperor, Al- 
exios Doukas encouraged Alexios IV to seek Cru- 
sader assistance, then exploited this move to win 
Varangian support to depose Alexios. On 2 Feb., 
as emperor, Alexios V failed in an attempt to 
ambush some Crusaders. He strengthened the 
walls and revitalized his troops. Funds were se- 
cured by confiscating aristocratic property. His 
followers defeated the first Crusader attack (9 
Apr. 1204), but on 12 Apr., when the Latins burst 
in, Alexios V fled to Thrace. Taking with him 
Empress EUPHROSYNE DOUKAINA KAMATERA and 
her daughter Eudokia, his paramour, Alexios V 
encountered Alexios II] at MosyNopoLis (sum- 
mer 1204). Alexios III first allowed Alexios V to 
marry Eudokia, then trapped and blinded him. 
Around late Nov., Alexios V was captured by 
Thierry de Loos, tried for treason to Alexios IV, 
and thrown from the Column of Theodosios. 
LIT. Queller, Fourth Crusade 123--47. B. Hendrickx, C. 


Matzukis, “Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos: His Life, 
Reign and Death (?—1204),” Hellenika 31 (1979) 108-32. 
—C.M.B. 


ALEXIOS HOMO DEI, saint; feastday 17 March. 
Born in Rome under emperors Honorius and 
Arkadios, Alexios was the son of a wealthy sena- 
tor. To avoid an arranged marriage, Alexios sailed 
off to Syria, where he lived as a beggar in Edessa. 
After 17 years he returned to Rome and lived 17 
more years on charity in his father’s house, un- 
recognized. One day, when Archbp. Markianos 
(no pope of this name is known) was celebrating 
the liturgy, a divine voice indicated that Alexios 
was “the man of God” (homo dei). Alexios was 
found dead with a document in his hands reveal- 
ing his origin and story. According to his vita, 
“the very pious emperors” attended his funeral. 
It is commonly accepted that the Greek legend 
summarized above was based on a Syriac vita of 
an anonymous “man of God”: this saint, born in 
Rome, fled from his wealthy parents and his fi- 
ancée, lived as a beggar, and died in Edessa. Sixth- 
century MSS preserve the Syriac version. In Byz. 
the legend was known by the gth C., when JosEPH 
THE HYMNOGRAPHER eulogized Alexios. The text 
of the anonymous Greek vita was copied in many 
MSS, including one of 1023 (F. Halkin, AB 98 
[1980] 5—16). The legend did not spread to Rome 


before 977; thereafter it grew very popular in the 
West and in Slavic countries. The Ethiopic trans- 
lation makes Alexios the son of Theodosios II 
and transfers the locale of his deeds to Armenia. 
The focus of the legend—rejection of family and 
marriage for the sake of God—was one of the 
most important hagiographical themes (B. de 
Gaiffher, AB 65 [1947] 157-95). 

Representation in Art. Portraits of the saint, 
which are rare, give him the features of JOHN THE 
Baptist. The 11th-C. imperial MENOLOGION in 
Moscow (Hist. Mus. gr. 183, fol.210) shows the 
saint laid out on his bed, mourned by his father, 
as the emperor removes the document from the 
dead man’s hands. 

souRCcES. F.M. Esteves Pereira, “Légende grecque de 
l'homme de Dieu Saint Alexis,” AB 19 (1900) 243~53. Zilie 
Alekseja celoveka božija, ed. V.P. Adrianova (Petrograd 1917; 
rp. The Hague—Paris 1969) 458-75. M. Roéssler, “Alexius- 
probleme,” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 53 (1933) 508- 
28. E. Cerulli, Les vies éthiopiennes de saint Alexis l'homme de 
Dieu, 2 vols. (Louvain 1969). 

LIT. BHG 51-56h. A. Amiaud, La légende syriaque de Saint 
Alexis, l’homme de Dieu (Paris 1889). C.E. Stebbins, “Les 
origines de la légende de Saint Alexis,” RBPH 51 (1973) 
497-507. E. Krausen, LCI 5:9of. -A.K., NPS. 


ALEXIOS STOUDITES, patriarch of Constanti- 
nople (between 12 and 15 Dec. 1025—20 Feb. 
1043 [V. Laurent, EO 35 (1936) 75f]); died Con- 
stantinople. A former hegoumenos of the Stoudios 
monastery, Alexios was appointed patriarch with- 
out the necessary canonical formalities by Emp. 
Basil II, who was on his deathbed. Alexios acted 
in concert with Constantine VIII, and in July 1026 
the new emperor, the patriarch, and the senate 
promulgated a novel anathematizing any revolt 
against the basileus (PG 137:1245AB). Alexios tried 
to protect the independence of the clergy, stress- 
ing in Jan. 1028 that no clergyman or monk could 
be judged by a civil authority, and in 1027 he 
condemned the practice of CHARISTIKION. With 
great energy Alexios attacked the Monophysites, 
esp. those in the Melitene region. He dealt also 
with matrimonial regulations. In 1038 Alexios 
and the synod defined the prohibitions on mar- 
riage between close relatives; they did not make 
a clear decision, however, concerning individuals 
of the seventh degree of relationship. The patri- 
arch’s relations with the government deteriorated 
under Michael IV: it is reported (Skyl. 401.67— 
80) that JoHN THE ORPHANOTROPHOS, who desired 


ALLAGION 67 


to become patriarch of Constantinople, incited 
some metropolitans to demand the deposition of 
Alexios under the pretext that he had not been 
elected canonically, but the plan failed because of 
Alexios’s courageous resistance. No more success- 
ful was the attempt of Michael V to depose Al- 
exios. 

In 1034 Alexios founded a monastery of the 
Dormition near Constantinople. Its typikon is lost 
in the original but has survived in Slavic MSS, the 
oldest of which is of the 12th C. It reveals certain 
modifications of the original made by the trans- 
lator (I. Mansvetov, Cerkounyj ustav [Moscow 1885] 
113-28). 

LIT. G. Ficker, Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel 
Alexios Studites (Kiel 1911). RegPatr, fasc. 2, nos. 829-55. S. 


Petrides, DHGE 2 (1914) 398. Laurent, Corpus 5.1, nos. 
13-14. —-A.K. 


ALIMPIJ, late 11th-C. Kievan painter. The Pa- 
TERIK describes Alimpi as helping painters from 
Constantinople who came to decorate a church 
(of the Dormition) in the monastery of the Caves 
when Vsevolod was prince of Kiev and Nikon was 
third abbot of the monastery (1078—g1?). After 
the church’s dedication, Alimpij became a priest. 
Later portions of the Paterik are devoted to mir- 
acles associated with icons that he painted. Like 
many ARTISTS, therefore, Alimpij worked in a 
variety of media. VLADIMIR MONOMACH is men- 
tioned as learning of the “venerable” Alimpij. The 
painter’s career thus spanned at least a quarter of 
a century. The date of his death is unknown; he 
was buried in his monastery. 


LIT. V. Pucko, “Kievskij chudoZnik XI veka Alimpij Pe- 
éerskij,” WSlJb 25 (1979) 63-88. -A.C, 


ALLAGION (dAAcytov), a military detachment 
that in the 10th C. consisted of 50-150 warriors: 
imperial allagia had 320—400 (A. Dain, Sylloge 
tacticorum [Paris 1938] 56). In the late 13th—14th 
C. the term mega allagion designated a garrison, 
esp. in Thessalonike, and the old allagion of the 
emperor’s guards was probably replaced by two 
paramonai, one on horseback, the other on foot. 
The Chronicle of the Morea describes allagia as 
mounted companies; Constantine, the brother of 
Michael VIII, had at his disposal 18 allagia, for a 
total of 6,000 warriors (D. Zakythinos, Despotat 
2:133). In the 14th C. the commander of the 


68 ALLAXIMOI 


allagion was called the archon tou allagiou; side by 
side with him, a ceremonial book (pseudo-Kod. 
138.34-35) mentions the protallagator, both sub- 
alterns of the megas primikerios. Since each of the 
allagatores stood at the head of a single paramone, 
the protallagator was the commander of the whole 
company; the difference between him and the 
archon tou allagiou is not clear. According to Per- 
tusi (infra), the name fa allagia was reflected in 
the Arabic toponym Talaja or Tafala for a theme 
located near Constantinople. 


tir. Guilland, Institutions 1:524—-26, 529f. A. Pertusi, “II 


preteso thema bizantino di ‘Talaja’” BZ 49 (1956) 90-95. 
—A.K. 


ALLAXIMOI (dAAdEépor, from ddAAdoow, “to 
change”), or allaximoi of the kouboukleion (De cer. 
7.1—6), aulic servants in charge of the emperor's 
wardrobe. The word allaxima or allaximata desig- 
nated ceremonial apparel (Ph. Koukoules, EEBS 
19 [1949] 78) that was stored in great quantities 
in the palace. The Kletorologion of Philotheos calls 
these servants hoz epi ton allaximon and places them 
under the command of the DEUTEROS (Ojiko- 
nomides, Listes 131.16—18). 


LIT. Bury, Adm. System 127. —A.K. 


ALLEGORY (aA nyopia) in Byz. was used in the 
sphere of both literature and theology. 


LITERARY ALLEGORY. In antiquity, literary al- 
legory was understood as a TROPE whose goal was 
the expression of a concept that differed from 
the literal sense of the words but was connected 
with them by similarity or contrast. Allegory re- 
mained an important vehicle of Byz. literature: 
thus, the image of the castle in Palaiologan texts 
served the function of both romantic adventure 
and didactic allegory (C. Cupane, JOB 27 [1978] 
264). In literary interpretation, biblical exegesis, 
and philosophy, the search for allegory meant the 
revealing of hidden content. 

The same principle was applied to classical texts: 
the allegorical exegesis of Homer (and other poets) 
was practiced by Neoplatonists, who also inter- 
preted Plato allegorically. TzETzEs, too, in his 
commentary on Homer, distinguished three kinds 
of allegory: physical, psychological, and pragmatic 
(historical). Late antique or Byz. novels and ro- 
mances were interpreted allegorically to neutral- 


ize their erotic content (cf. the commentary on 
the Aithiopika of Heliodoros, perhaps by PuiLa- 
GATHOS, and Manuel PHILES on Kallimachos and 
Chrysorrhoe). Allegory was applied far beyond lit- 
erary and philosophical exegesis: the ceremonial 
of the imperial court, the color of attire, the 
behavior of animals, an earthquake, all could re- 
ceive an allegorical interpretation, since the cos- 
mos was perceived as a RIDDLE that needed an 
explanation. This interpretative allegory could be 
many tiered, having various meanings that were 
construed as noncontradictory. 

LIT. P. Rollinson, Classical Theories of Allegory and Chris- 
tian Culture (London 1981). Hunger, Grundlagenforschung, 
pt-XIV (1954), 35-54. Wolfson, Philosophy 1:24-96. M.N. 
Esper, Allegorie und Analogie bet Gregor von Nyssa (Bonn 


1979). W. Bienert, Allegoria und Anagoge bei Didymos dem 
Blinden von Alexandria (Berlin 1972). -A.K., 1. Š. 


THEOLOGICAL ALLEGORY. For theologians, al- 
legory was the key method of hermeneutics (or 
techne) in textual interpretation from the Hellen- 
istic period onward. The apologists, particularly 
theologians of the ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL, applied 
it to biblical exegesis in a manner similar to the 
interpreters of Homer and Hesiod, either to un- 
cover the deeper, spiritual meaning behind the 
literal or historical sense, or to reevaluate offen- 
sive passages. At the same time, they opposed the 
allegorical interpretation of myths, seen as the 
main support of contemporary polytheism, and 
Gnostic allegorization, thus distancing themselves 
from both views. Likewise, they opposed Marcion 
and fellow adherents of Gnosticism who denied 
any salvific value to the Old Testament, and who 
regarded the Old Testament as a foreshadowing 
(typos) of the New Testament. In Galatians 4:21- 
go the Alexandrian apologists found a model and 
justification for their “theological method” based 
on the unity of the Old and New Testaments, 
conducted on the premise that the Old Testament 
prefigures Christ, and that both constitute sacred 
Scripture. 

Relating the two Testaments to the contempo- 
rary situation to uncover the desired inner mean- 
ing is clearly evident in the exegetical commen- 
taries and sermons of OriGEN. Therefore, so far 
as Origen is concerned, the old controversy orig- 
inated by the reaction of the ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL 
as to whether or not Alexandrian allegory is more 
than an arbitrary interpretation of the texts, and 
thereby different from the Hellenistic or Gnostic 


mythical interpretations, is relativized but not re- 
solved. 

Despite assertions to the contrary by all repre- 
sentatives of the Antiochene tradition, it is doubt- 
ful that Antiochene theoria or anagoge differed 
from the allegory of Origen as a theological or 
hermeneutical method. It is true that Antiochene 
thought is oriented more toward the text, and in 
the catenae of patristic exegesis after the Council 
in Trullo (691) and in the Byz. erotapokriseis ty- 
pological exegesis stemmed largely from this ori- 
entation, which today is distinguished from alle- 
gorical exegesis. Nonetheless, radical allegorization 
continued to flourish, as shown, for example, in 
the commentary on the Hexaemeron by pseudo- 
Anastasios of Sinai (PG 89:851-—1077), in which 
the first chapter of Genesis is given an allegorical 
interpretation to reveal Christ and the Church. 

ut. H. de Lubac, ““Typologie’ et ‘Allégorisme,’” 
RechScRel 34 (1947) 180—226. Idem, Histoire et esprit. L’in- 
telligence de l'Ecriture d'après Origéne (Paris 1950). R.P.C. 
Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Sig- 
nificance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London 1959). 
KJ. Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method 
in Origen’s Exegesis (Berlin—New York 1986). J. Tigcheler, 
Didyme VAveugle et Pexégése allégorique (Nijmegen 1977). P. 
Ternant, “La theoria d’Antioche dans le cadre de l’Ecriture,” 
Biblica 34 (1953) 135~58, 354-83, 456-86. J. Guillet, “Les 
exégéses d’Alexandrie et d’Antioche, Conflit ou malen- 
tendu?” RechScRel 34 (1947) 257—302. M. Simonetti, Lettera 


elo Allegoria: Un contributo alla storia dell esegest patristica (Rome 
1985). ~K.-H.U. 


ALLELENGYON (a\AnAEyyvor, “mutual secu- 
rity”). The term allelengyue first appears in papyri 
designating joint guarantors of a debt or other 
obligation (P. Oxy. 1408) and by the 4th—7th C. 
had in practice become synonymous with mutual 
fideiussio. Justinian I (in novel gg.1 pr.) distin- 
guishes two types of fideiussio: one where the co- 
sureties answered fully and equally any legal ac- 
tion against them, and the other where a special 
contract limited each individual’s obligation to a 
portion of the total liability; in this case wealthy 
co-sureties were responsible only for their own 
portion and not for the liabilities of their impov- 
erished or fugitive partners. Texts of the gth and 
loth C. employ the word in the context of obli- 
gations to the fisc, and it seems in some sense to 
have replaced the older term EPIBOLE to describe 
the longstanding principle of communal tax lia- 
bility: Emp. Nikephoros I required peasants to 
pay allelengyos (collectively) for poorer neighbors 


ALMSGIVING | 69 


engaged in military service (Theoph. 486.26); the 
Treatise on Taxation compelled peasants to pay the 
taxes of neighbors who had fled the land (Délger, 
Beiträge 119.2). In 1002 Basil II introduced the 
allelengyon, requiring DYNATOI to pay the arrears 
of poorer taxpayers; the precise procedures em- 
ployed under this measure remain obscure. Un- 
der pressure from ecclesiastical officials, Romanos 
III abolished the allelengyon in 1028. Nevertheless, 
a deed of purchase of 1097 (Lavra 1, no.53.34) 
mentions property based on mutual solidarity— 
allelengyos and alleloanadochos—and ca.1100 Ni- 
cholas Mouzalon accused tax collectors of eliciting 
payments from members of the village commu- 
nity on the principle of allelengyon (F. Dolger, BZ 


35 [1935] 14)- 


LIT. A. Segré, “L'allelengye,” Aegyptus 5 (1924) 185-201. 
Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 78—80. -AJ.C. 


ALMSGIVING (éAenpoovvn) was a social func- 
tion consistently praised by theologians and mor- 
alists, even though some writers, such as SYMEON 
THE THEOLOGIAN, denied the importance of alms- 
giving for personal salvation (Kazhdan, “Simeon” 
12). Almsgiving is a major topos of hagiography, 
which presents saints either distributing their 
property among the poor or in conflict with their 
families over charitable giving (cf. PHILARETOS 
THE MERCIFUL, MARY THE YOUNGER). Even monks 
in certain monasteries were permitted to have 
private funds for almsgiving, or at least the prac- 
tice was tolerated (AASS Nov. 3:566D). 

The scope of charitable giving is hard to cal- 
culate. Jonn ELEEMON reportedly compiled a list 
of the poor in Alexandria (more than 7,000) who 
were supported by his program of PHILANTHROPY. 
John Chrysostom stated that a tenth of the pop- 
ulation of Antioch required material assistance; 
in Constantinople he counted 30.000 men and 
20,000 women in need of welfare (Constantelos, 
Philanthropy 257-59). 

With so many in need, the problem of how to 
influence (and control) them was of great import. 
The poor argued that they had a right to bread 
and entertainment; the state of the 4th—7th C. 
complied, distributing special tokens (tesserae) for 
theaters, bathhouses, etc. (glass tesserae of the 
5th—7th C. are known; K. Regling, RE 2.R. 5 
[1934] 854); esp. important was the distribution 
of GRAIN. Eventually the church transformed this 


70 ALOUSIANOS 


right of the poor into the charity of the church, 
the state, and the wealthy; the recipients had to 
stop demanding “bread and circuses” and to beg 
for alms. -A.K. 


ALOUSIANOS ('Aħovsi&vos), second son of the 
Bulgarian tsar JOHN VLADISLAv, who gave his 
name to a Byz. family; fl. first half of the 11th C. 
The origin of the name is unclear: it has been 
interpreted as Armenian (J. Ivanov), Jewish (S. 
Gičev: from alluf, “prince”), or Latin (I. Dujčev, 
who connected it with “Aloisius”). He served as 
strategos of Theodosioupolis and possessed lands 
(his wife’s dowry) in Charsianon. Alousianos sided 
with rebels in Bulgaria in 1040. He joined Peter 
Dejan at Ostrovo (near Thessalonike) and forced 
Deljan to accept him as co-ruler. During the siege 
of Thessalonike, discord in the rebel army broke 
out between Alousianos and Deljan. According to 
Litavrin (Bolgaria i Vizantija 3776—96), the Bulgar- 
ian nobles supported Alousianos until he was de- 
feated at Thessalonike. When Michael IV led an 
expedition against the rebels, Alousianos blinded 
Deljan and fled to the emperor. For his treason 
Alousianos was rewarded with the title of magis- 
tros. His son Basil was governor of Edessa. An- 
other son, Samuel, was commander of troops in 
Armeniakon; perhaps the seal of a Samuel Alou- 
sianos entitled proedros and doux was his. Basil and 
Samuel’s sister married Romanos IV. Several 
Alousianoi (Constantine, David) are known from 
seals with effigies of the military saints George 
and Demetrios. Later the family lost its military 
functions, although some Alousianoi became 
higher civil officials, e.g., Thomas Alousianos, krites 
katholikos in Constantinople ca. 1380—97. They were 
related to the AARONIOI. 

LIT. J. Ivanov, “Proizchod na car Samuilovija rod,” Sbor- 
nik v čest na Vasil N. Zlatarski (Sofia 1925) 59f. V. Zlatarski, 
“Molivdovulat na Alusiana,” [zv/stDr 10 (1930 [1931]) 49- 
63. I. Dujéev, “Vurchu njakoi biilgarski imena i dumi u 
vizantijskite avtori,” Ezikovedski izsledovaniya v čest na Aka- 
demtk Stefan Mladenov (Sofia 1957) 159f. S. Gitev, “Essay 
on Interpreting the Name Alloussian,” EtBalk 6 (1967) 
165-78. PLP, nos. 692-97. —A.K. 


ALP ARSLAN, Seljuk sultan (1063-73); born 
ca.1030, died Turkestan Jan. 1073. Nephew of 
Tucurut Bec, Alp Arslan ruled Iran, Iraq, and 
northern Syria. To keep his Turkomans occupied, 
he allowed them to raid Byz. In 1064 he captured 


ANI with great slaughter. About 1070 he made a 
treaty with Romanos IV, which Alp Arslan con- 
sidered violated by Romanos’s subsequent recov- 
ery of Mantzikert (1071). Moving speedily from 
northern Syria, Alp Arslan inflicted a crushing 
defeat upon Romanos (see MANTZIKERT, BATTLE 
oF). Alp Arslan soon released Romanos, perhaps 
to encourage civil strife in Byz. MALIKSHAH suc- 
ceeded Alp Arslan. 

LIT. C. Cahen, “Alp Arslan,” EJ? 1:420-21. M. Canard 
in L'expansion arabo-islamique et ses répercussions (London 
1974), pt. VI (1965), 239-59. —-C.M.B. 


ALT‘AMAR (Aght'amar), island in Lake Van in 
eastern Anatolia. Gagik ARcRuNI, Armenian king 
of VASPURAKAN (go8—36), had a fortified city built 
on this island; according to the 12th-C. addition 
to the History of the House of the Artsrunik® (tr. R. 
Thomson [Detroit 1985] 354-61), it included a 
church and a palace with domes or pavilions dec- 
orated with scenes of combat, courtly pleasures, 
and animals. 

Only the church, dedicated to the Holy Cross, 
survives. Built probably g15—29, it became the 
center of an important monastery. A domed qua- 
trefoil of the type of St. Hrip‘simé in VALARSAPAT, 
its blocky exterior carries the decoration described 
in the History: rinceaux enclosing scenes of courtly 
entertainments, Evangelists, and King Gagik of- 
fering the church to Christ. Individual animals, 
full figures and medallion busts of prophets and 
saints, and Old and New Testament scenes com- 
plete this most extensive of all surviving Arme- 
nian sculptural programs. Sources should be sought 
in the art of the Arab ‘Abb4sid court, in 6th-C. 
Palestine, and in earlier Armenian sculpture. No 
principle governing the arrangement of scenes 
has been adduced. 

The interior has an equally ambitious fresco 
program, including, in the drum of the dome, a 
GENEsIS cycle and, along the walls of three sec- 
ondary apses, a Gospel cycle that, although one- 
quarter obliterated, still contains 23 scenes. The 
History does not describe these paintings; A. Grishin 
(Parergon, n.s. 3 [1985] 39—51) has questioned a 
10th-C. date, noting that in places two layers of 
painting are visible. A lost stone loggia balustrade 
featured heads of exotic animals, including an 
elephant (Grishin, fig.4). 

LIT. S. Der Nersessian, Aght'amar, Church of the Holy Cross 
(Cambridge, Mass., 1965). N. Thierry, “Le cycle de la 


création et de la faute d’Adam à Altamar,” REArm n.s. 17 
(1983) 291—329. S. Der Nersessian, H. Vahramian, Aghtamar 
(Milan 1974). -A.T. 


ALTAR (7) &yia Tpamrela), the holy table on which 
the EucHarist is offered; it was located in the 
sanctuary behind the TEMPLON, at first in front of 
the apse, later within the main (central) apse of 
the Byz. triple-apsed sanctuary. Interpreted in 
Byz. COMMENTARIES as at once Jesus’ tomb, the 
table of the Last Supper, Golgotha, the heavenly 
altar, and the throne of God, the altar as dread 
symbol of God’s dwelling is reflected in the rites 
of access to the altar in Eucharist and ordination 
rites, and in the later practice of concealing it 
behind curtains (Taft, Great Entrance 279-83, 413- 
16). The altar also served as a place of ASYLUM. 

The earliest altars—sometimes called mensae— 
appear to have been of timber and were portable. 
From the 4th C., as their place in the church 
became fixed, they began to be made of stone. 
Altars dressed in silver and gold and studded with 
precious stones are also recorded (Sozom., HE 
g.1.4). Altars of this period were box-shaped or 
free-standing, the latter consisting of a circular, 
semicircular, or rectangular slab, variously at- 
tached to a plinth (Orlandos, Palaiochr. basiltke 
2:444—-52). Sometimes (as at Hagia Sophia, Con- 
stantinople), the altar was set on a small platform 
above the level of the sanctuary (R. Taft, OrChrP 
45 [1979] 288.16, 298.8). Below or near the altar 
stood the thalassa (a small basin, usually connected 
with a drainage system, that served for the cere- 
monial washing of priests during the liturgy). In 
representations, an altar is often shown covered 
with an ENDYTE. 

As early as the 4th C. altars were furnished with 
a case, called the katathesis, containing RELICS (K. 
Wessel, RBK 1:119). By the 8th C. relics became 
indispensable for the inauguration (ENKAINIA) of 
a church. The relics were placed either in a socket 
in the altar’s plinth, as at DaPHNr (ABME 8 [1955- 
56] 76), or in a crypT under the altar. In Western 
churches transformed into MARTYRIA, the altar 
sometimes took the form of a SARCOPHAGUS en- 
closing the saint’s relics, with an opening (the 
fenestella) facing west. 

ur. J.P. Kirsch, T. Klauser, RAC 1:334-54. J. Braun, 


Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 2 vols. 
(Munich 1924). —R.F.T., L.Ph.B. 


ALUM | 71 


ALTAR OF VICTORY, symbol of pagan resis- 
tance in 4th-C. Rome. A statue of Victory (NIKE) 
was apparently brought from Tarentum in the 
reign of Augustus and stood near the entrance to 
the senate, where senators regularly offered in- 
cense on a small altar as they entered. The altar 
was first removed by Constantius II, perhaps in 
357, and there was no great resistance. It was put 
back in place by Julian and removed again by 
GraTIaN, but this time the opposition was consid- 
erable. A delegation of senators sought its return, 
but Pope Damasus and St. AMBROSE persuaded 
the emperor not to yield. In 384 SYMMACHUS, 
then prefect of the city, addressed his poignant 
appeal for restoration to the court of the young 
Valentinian II; it nearly succeeded until Ambrose 
threatened the emperor with excommunication. 
In 390 a delegation from the senate approached 
Theodosios I in Milan with the same request and 
after some hesitation he refused. After the return 
of Theodosios to Constantinople the senate again 
sought assistance from Valentinian IT; even though 
the magister militum ARBOGAST favored restoration, 
the emperor did not yield. The usurper EUGENIUS 
feared an open break with Theodosios and did 
not replace the pagan symbol. Honorius restored 
the statue in the senate, but not the altar, claiming 
that it was merely decorative and not an object of 
worship. 

LIT. A. Dihle, “Zum Streit um den Altar der Viktoria,” 
in Romanitas et Christianitas: Studia Iano Henrico Waszink 
oblata (Amsterdam-London 1973) 81—97. F. Paschoud, “Le 


rôle du providentialisme dans le conflit de 384 sur l'autel 
de la Victoire,” MusHelv 40 (1983) 197—206. -T.E.G. 


ALUM (orurmmpia), double sulphate of alumi- 
num and potassium, or aluminum and ammo- 
nium. In the Middle Ages, alumen designated a 
number of white astringent mineral substances. 
Primarily used as a mordant to fix dyes in woolen 
cloth and impart brilliance to the colors, it was 
indispensable to the textile industry and also use- 
ful to painters and tanners. For most of the me- 
dieval period, until the mines of Tolfa in Italy 
began to be exploited (1462), alum production 
was concentrated in Egypt and Asia Minor, and 
from there it was exported to the West. According 
to PEGOLOTTI, the best quality was alume di rocca 
from Koloneia. Alum of excellent quality was pro- 
duced in PHoxaia and KoryaIon (Kütahya), while 


72 ALYATES 


there were also alum mines elsewhere in Asia 
Minor, in Thrace, and the islands of the Aegean. 
Descriptions of the production of alum may be 
found in Jordanus the Catalan (ca.1330) and Pe- 
golotti. 

The rich alum mines of Phokaia were ceded by 
Michael VIII to the Genoese Manuele and Be- 
nedetto ZACCARIA in 1275. They built a manufac- 
turing town and tried to monopolize the export 
of alum to the West by obtaining from Michael 
VIII a prohibition of the export of Koloneia alum 
by other Genoese. Although the prohibition was 
not effective, the Zaccaria were able to build a 
fortune on alum. Eventually alum became a major 
commodity in the commerce of Genoa, which 
retained a predominant position in the alum trade 
throughout the Middle Ages, although the price 
of its alum declined after 1382, as a result of 
political conditions, extensive mining, and the 
competition of Egyptian alum. Phokaia fell to the 
Ottomans in 1455, by which time Western sources 
of alum were being exploited. 

LIT. C. Singer, The Earliest Chemical Industry (London 
1948) 79-94. Heyd, Commerce 2:565—71. M.-L. Heers, “Les 
Génois et le commerce de I’alun à la fin du Moyen Age,” 
Revue d'histoire économique et soctale 32 (1954) 31~53. D. 


Jacoby, “L’alun en Crète vénitienne,” ByzF 12 (1987) 127— 
42. ~ALL. 


ALYATES (’Advarns), a family of unclear ethnic 
origin. Its first known member, Anthes Alyates, a 
staunch supporter of Bardas SKLEROS, fell in the 
battle of g76 at Koukou lithos (between Melitene 
and Lykandos). I. GoSev (Starobiilgarshi glagoliceski 
i kirilski nadpist (Sofia 1961] 31-35) identified him 
with the stratelates Alyates, using the insufficient 
data of a 1oth-C. inscription from the Round 
Church in Preslav. The 11th-C. Alyatai were pri- 
marily military commanders: Leo, strategos of 
Cherson and Sougdaia in 1059; Theodore, gov- 
ernor of Cappadocia; another Alyates fell in battle 
against the Normans in 1108. In the 12th C. the 
Alyatai switched to civil service and occupied rel- 
atively low positions. Andronikos Alyates, contem- 
porary of Alexios III, was kanikletos; the family 
retained the post, which Nikephoros Alyates held 
in 1258—61. Several Alyatai were active in admin- 
istration throughout the 13th C.: the vestiarios 
Alexios Alyates was sent in 1275 with a fleet against 
Genoese pirates in the Black Sea; another Alyates 
was a fiscal functionary; a seal of the sebastos John 


Alyates is dated by Laurent (Méd. Vat., no.6g) to 
the early 13th C. In the 14th C. the Alyatai played 
an important role in provincial life: George, se- 
bastos in Thessalonike in 1327; an Alyates who 
was sebastos in Chalkidike before 1319; another 
Alyates, ktetor of a church in Philippopolis. Later 
they are known only as clerics; Gregory Alyates, 
hneromonachos, was a scribe and songwriter in 1433— 
47: 

LIT. PLP, nos. 706-21. V. Latyšev, Sbornik grečeskich 
nadpisej christianskich vremen iz Južnoj Rossi (St. Petersburg 


1896) 15—19. I. Ševčenko, Soc. & Intell., pt.XIII (1968), 
65—72. Seibt, Bleisiegel 281 f. -A.K. 


AMADEO VI, count of Savoy (1343—83); born 
Chambéry, Savoy, Jan. 1334, died near Castropi- 
gnano, Italy, 27 Feb. 1383. Amadeo, the “Green 
Count,” inherited the title to Savoy at age nine 
and expanded his territory into the Piedmont. A 
cousin of Jonn V PaLaroLocos (through John’s 
mother ANNA OF Savoy), Amadeo became in- 
volved in Byz. affairs when he led a crusading 
expedition against the Turks. In 1366 he com- 
manded a fleet and an army of 1,500—1,800 men 
that recovered Gallipoli (KALLIPOLIS), which had 
fallen to the Ottomans in 1354. He was, however, 
distracted from further campaigns against the 
Turks by news of John V’s detention by the Bul- 
garians at Vidin. He sailed into the Black Sea and 
seized several Bulgarian coastal towns. Amadeo’s 
siege of Varna forced the Bulgarians to give the 
Byz. emperor a safe-conduct through their terri- 
tory (Dec. 1366). He delivered Sozopolis and Me- 
sembria to the Byz. in exchange for 15,000 florins 
(to pay his mercenaries). Amadeo encouraged John 
to seek UNION OF THE CHURCHES and persuaded 
him to go to Rome in 136g to make his personal 
submission to the pope and seek military aid. 
Amadeo’s expedition was a rare example of co- 
operation between Crusaders and the Byz. Em- 
pire. 

LIT. E.L. Cox, The Green Count of Savoy: Amadeus VI and 
Transalpine Savoy in the Fourteenth Century (Princeton 1967). 


O. Halecki, Un Empereur de Byzance à Rome (Warsaw 1930; 
rp. London 1972) 1838—62. HC 3:18f, 74-78. —A.M.T. 


AMALARIUS OF METZ, archbishop of Trier 
(after 804—14) and of Lyons (835—838/g); liturgist 
active at the Carolingian court; died ca.850. In 
813 he traveled to Constantinople as ambassador 


of CHARLEMAGNE to Emp. MICHAEL I RANGABE to 
confirm a treaty between the two powers; received 
at Constantinople by Leo V, Amalarius returned 
with the treaty and the Byz. ambassadors Chris- 
topher the spatharios and Gregory the deacon to 
find Louis I the Pious on the throne and lose his 
own see. Rehabilitated a few years later, Amala- 
rius participated in the synod of Paris on ICONO- 
CLASM (825) and may have been considered for a 
second embassy at that time. His Versus marini 
describes the trip to Constantinople via Zara (Ep. 
ad Hildunum, 5, ed. Hanssens [infra] 1:342.1—14), 
an AUDIENCE with Leo V, and the dangers of 
shipwreck and Slav or Arab attack, while his li- 
turgical works allude to contemporary customs at 
Constantinople (e.g., Codex expositionis Il, ibid. 
1:280.14—20, on the Exaltation of the Cross; Liber 
officialis, ibid. 2:197.2—6, on Latin LECTIONS at 
Constantinople). 

ED. E. Diimmler, MGH Poet. 1:426-28. Amalari episcopi 
Opera liturgica omnia, ed. J.M. Hanssens, 3 vols. [= ST 138- 
40] (Rome 1948-50). 

tir. F. Brunhdlzl, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des 
Mittelalters, vol. 1 (Munich 1975) 437-40. O.G. Oexle, “Die 


Karolinger und die Stadt des heiligen Arnulf,” Frithmittel- 
alterliche Studien 1 (1967) 331-39. —M.McC. 


AMALASUNTHA (Apadacoivéa), or Amala- 
suintha, Ostrogothic regent (526-34) and queen 
(534); died Lake Bolzano probably 30 Apr. 535. 
The younger daughter of THEoporRIC, in 515 or 
516 she married Eutharic, also a member of the 
AMALI, and bore him MATASUNTHA and Athalaric, 
who, after the deaths of his father (522) and 
grandfather, was raised to the Ostrogothic throne 
under Amalasuntha’s regency. Together with 
Athalaric, Amalasuntha is depicted on a diptych 
of Orestes, Western consul in 530 (Delbriick, Con- 
sulardiptychen, no.32). Her policy was pro-Roman; 
Prokopios and esp. Cassiodorus praised her highly 
as a well-educated and beautiful woman. Her pro- 
Roman tendency was opposed by the Gothic mil- 
itary aristocracy, led by Amalasuntha’s cousin 
THEODAHAD, so that she considered fleeing to 
Constantinople. She changed her plan—accord- 
ing to Prokopios, because Theodora was jealous, 
but probably because Amalasuntha arranged a 
compromise with Theodahad. After Athalaric died 
she ruled as queen briefly but was compelled to 
marry Theodahad. Once proclaimed king, he ex- 
iled her to an island on Lake Bolzano where she 


AMALFI | 73 


was strangled. The remonstrances of Peter, Jus- 
tinian’s envoy, were of no avail and Theodahad 
asserted that the murder had been committed 
against his will. Amalasuntha’s death became Jus- 
tinian’s excuse for war: he ordered Mundus to 
invade from Illyricum and called BELISARIOS to 
Sicily. Amalasuntha was unequal to the challenge 
of preserving the heritage of Theodoric and mis- 
calculated the consequences of her Roman ties. 


LIT. Stein, Histoire 2:262—64, 328-39. Burns, Ostro-Goths 
203f. Wolfram, Goths 311—39. -W.E.K., A.K., A.C. 


AMALFI (‘ApdAdy), Tyrrhenian port in south- 
ern Italy, first mentioned in 596. Until 839 Amalfi 
belonged to the Byz. duchy of Napces. After that 
date the city and its territory became an indepen- 
dent state, within the orbit of the Byz. Empire. 
Imperial titles were conferred on most of the local 
rulers, praefecturt and, after 958, duces. From the 
gth C. many Amalfitans were active in Mediter- 
ranean trade. Their ships were known in Egypt, 
the Maghreb, and Spain. They had colonies in 
DyrRACHION and Antioch and are frequently de- 
scribed as furnishing Oriental luxury goods to the 
West. Their quarter in Constantinople, with its 
Church of S. Maria de Latina, is documented 
from the mid-11th C.; on Mount Athos an Amal- 
fitan monastery dedicated to the Virgin flourished 
between the end of the 10th and the 13th C. (A. 
Pertusi in Mill. Mont-Athos 1:217—51). Clerics and 
monks at both institutions translated Greek ha- 
giographical texts into Latin. Between 1053 and 
1062 Amalfi tried in vain to organize an alliance 
of the Western and the Eastern empires against 
the Norman invaders of southern Italy. Following 
the Norman occupation of 1073, political relations 
between Amalfi and Constantinople cooled; com- 
mercial relations also declined, with Amalfi losing 
ground to VENICE, Byz.’s main naval ally in the 
Mediterranean. 

Bronze Doors commissioned in Constantinople 
for the cathedral of Amalfi survive in situ, al- 
though the cathedral itself was completely rebuilt 
after 1204 and the façade was again rebuilt after 
1871. Nearly identical doors are in nearby Atrani, 
on the Church of S. Salvatore. 

LIT. U. Schwarz, Amalfi im frühen Mittelalter (9.—1 1. Jahr- 
hundert) (Tübingen 1978). Amalfi nel medioevo (Salerno 1977). 
M. Balard, “Amalfi et Byzance (X°—XII* siècles), TM 6 


(1976) 85-95. Istituzioni civili e organizzazione ecclesiastica 
nello stato medievale amalfitano 5 [= Altti del congresso inter- 


74 AMALI 


nazionale di studi amalfitant, vol. 3 (luglio 1981)] (Amalfi 
1986). M.E. Frazer, “Church Doors and the Gates of Par- 
adise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in Italy,” DOP 27 (1973) 
145-62. Aggiornamento Bertaux 5:576—78, 627-28. 

-V.v.F., D.K. 


AMALI, or Amelungen, royal house of the Os- 
trogoths, whose genealogy—in its earlier part fic- 
titious—was established by Cassioporus and taken 
from him by JorDANES (Getica, ed. T. Mommsen 
{Berlin 1882] 76—78). The earliest securely his- 
torical member of the house was Hermenerig/ 
Hermanaricus (died 375/6), the king who en- 
larged Ostrogothic possessions on the northern 
shore of the Black Sea but was routed by the 
Huns. THEODORIC, AMALASUNTHA, and her chil- 
dren, Athalaric and MATASUNTHA, were members 
of the Amali. Jordanes considers the captivity of 
VITIGES (540) as the end of the Amali. 

tyr. Burns, Ostro-Goths g2—96. E. Chrysos, “Die Amaler- 
Herrschaft in Italien und das Imperium Romanum,” By- 


zantion 51 (1981) 430-74. Wolfram, Goths 268-78. 
—W.E.K., A.K. 


AMALRIC I (Apepptyos), king of JERUSALEM 
(1163—74); born 1136, died Jerusalem 11 July 
1174. Upon succeeding his brother BaLpwin III, 
Amalric sought a Byz. bride to renew the alliance 
with Manuel I. Manuel rejected his accompanying 
request to be recognized as overlord of ANTIOCH. 
In 1167 Amalric married Maria Komnene, 
daughter of John Komnenos the protosebastos. 
Amalric sought Byz. aid in 1168 to prevent ZAN- 
GID occupation of Egypt, but by 1169, when a 
joint expedition occurred, SALADIN already con- 
trolled Egypt. A combined siege of Damietta (Oct.— 
Dec. 1169) collapsed over disagreements between 
Amalric and the Byz. commander, Andronikos 
KONTOSTEPHANOS. In the same year, EPHRAIM and 
other mosaicists commissioned by Manuel worked 
in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. From Apr. to June 
1171 Amalric visited Constantinople. He was re- 
ceived privately by Manuel, did homage, and was 
magnificently entertained (Runciman, infra). A 
treaty proposing joint action against Egypt was 
never implemented. With Amalric’s death, the 
alliance of Byz. and Jerusalem effectively ended. 

LIT. S. Runciman, “The Visit of King Amalric I to Con- 
stantinople in 1171,” in Outremer 153-58. R.-J. Lilie, “Noch 


einmal zu dem Thema ‘Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaa- 
ten, ” in Vana 1 (Bonn 1984) 132-42. ~C.M.B. 


1» 


AMASEIA (Aydoeva, mod. Amasya), a site of 
great natural strength on the Lykos in Ponros. A 
strategic road junction, Amaseia was made me- 
tropolis of Diospontus (later Helenopontus) by 
Diocletian. Christianized early, Amaseia became 
the seat of a metropolitan bishop. Justinian I 
restored its churches after the earthquake of 529. 
When the Pontic provinces were merged in 535, 
Amaseia remained a metropolis; it provided ref- 
uge in 575 for the populations of neighboring 
cities fleeing the Persians. Although briefly taken 
by the Arabs in 712, it was a bulwark of the 
ARMENIAKON theme and an APLEKTON where the 
thematic troops joined imperial expeditions. Bar-. 
das PHoxas led a revolt there in 971. In the 
confusion following the battle of MANTZIKERT, 
Amaseia fell to RouSSEL DE BAILLEUL, but in 1074 
Alexios I Komnenos persuaded a gathering of its 
inhabitants (evidently acting with considerable in- 
dependence) to surrender to him and reestab- 
lished imperial control. Soon after, the Turks of 
Danişmend conquered Amaseia. The sole remain- 
ing Byz. structure is a powerful and complex 
fortress as yet unstudied. 

LIT. F. and E. Cumont, Studia Pontica (Brussels 1906) 
2:146-84. S. Vailhé, DHGE 2 (1914) 964-70. A. Gabriel, 
Monuments turcs d’Anatolie (Paris 1934) 2:6—16. Foss-Winfield, 
Fortifications 17—19. -C.F, 


AMASTRIS (“Auaortpıis or “ApacTpa, now 
Amasra), city on the Black Sea coast of Anatolia. 
It first appears in Byz. history when Kyros, a local 
monk, predicted to Justinian II in 695 that he 
would regain the throne. Amastris gained impor- 
tance in the oth C. as a port for communication 
across the Black Sea and as a military base. The 
vita of GEORGE OF AMASTRIS mentions an attack 
of the Rus’ on Amastris, but the date of the attack 
and even its historicity are under discussion. The 
city prospered in the 1oth C.: NrkeTas Davip 
PAPHLAGON, in an enkomion of a local saint Hy- 
akinthos (PG 105:421C), calls it “the eye of Paph- 
lagonia and even of the oikoumene” and the EM- 
PORION for trade with the northern Scythians. 
Amastris was a city of the theme of PAPHLAGONIA 
and seat of a katepano in the 10th C. (Ahrweiler, 
Mer 111). In the 12th C. it was administered by a 
doux (Laurent, Coll. Orghidan, no.227). Amastris 
was ruled by the Laskarids after a brief occupation 
(1204—14) by David Komnenos of Trebizond. Its 
later history is obscure: in the late 13th or early 


14th C. it apparently was turned over to the 
Genoese, whose merchants were already estab- 
lished there. Amastris was a suffragan bishopric 
of GANGRA; it became a metropolis by 940. 

The site occupies the neck and steep slopes of 
a peninsula, with two harbors. The ancient city, 
which stretched to the mainland, was abandoned, 
apparently after the Rus’ attack, as Amastris con- 
tracted within new walls. Its Byz. monuments in- 
clude two small single-aisled churches, perhaps of 
the late gth C., and remains of a monastery that 
have been dated to the early 8th C. 

LIT. S. Eyice, Küçük Amasra Tarihi (Ankara 1965). Idem, 


“Deux anciennes églises byzantines de la citadelle d’Amasra 
(Paphlagonie),” CahArch 7 (1954) 97-105. —C.F. 


AMATUS, bishop, possibly of Paestum-Capaccio 
or Nusco (E. Cuozzo, Benedictina 26 [1979] 323- 
48), and monk of MonTecassIno; born Salerno 
ca.1010, died ca.1083? Amatus wrote several Latin 
poetical works and a History of the Normans, which 
survives only in a 14th-C. French version. Ama- 
tus’s account of events from 1016 to 1078 reflects 
Montecassino’s pro-Norman stance and includes 
the revolt of the Lombard Meles (pp. 26.6—32.12), 
the expedition of MANIAKES against Sicily, and the 
struggle for southern Italy (pp. 66.5—g3.8). 

ED. Storia de’ Normanni, ed. V. de Bartholomaeis [= FSI 


76] (Rome 1935). 
LIT. Wattenbach, Holtzmann, Schmale, Deutsch. Gesch. 
Sachsen u. Salier 3:898—900. W. Smidt, “Die ‘Historia Nor- 


mannorum’ von Amatus,” StGreg 3 (1948) 173-231. 
—M.McC. 


AMBASSADORS (7péo Bets, amoKptotgptot) in 
Byz. were normally recruited from the higher 
echelons of the administration, the emperor’s im- 
mediate entourage, or those clerics (sent mainly 
to Christian countries, and, for specific reasons, 
to Sasanian Persia) or laymen, regardless of class 
or experience, who were considered able to suc- 
ceed in their missions abroad. Their rank de- 
pended upon the importance of the ruler to whom 
they were sent. None of them were permanently 
accredited to a foreign country; they were sent or 
exchanged only when required for specific rea- 
sons of DIPLOMACY. Beyond having the emperor’s 
confidence, an ambassador was expected to be 
honest, pious, able to resist corruption, and ready 
to sacrifice himself if necessary for the empire. 
He was expected to know something of the coun- 


AMBO | 75 


try to which he was sent and, if possible, its lan- 
guage (INTERPRETERS were also available). Able 
negotiators were entrusted with a series of em- 
bassies (e.g., Leo CHOIROSPHAKTES) or had their 
sons appointed as ambassadors in their place (some 
cases in early Byz., e.g., NONNOSOS). 

Byz. ambassadors going abroad carried their 
own safe-conducts and letters of accreditation 
(prokouratorikon chrysoboullon). Unlike low-ranking 
letter-carriers, ambassadors were fully or partly 
empowered to negotiate. The state covered their 
expenses and those of their suite. Embassies could 
be quite large, with many interpreters and ser- 
vants. One aspect of their mission was to collect 
INTELLIGENCE about the country they visited. (See 
also APOKRISIARIOS. For ambassadors to Byz., see 
EMBASSIES, FOREIGN.) 

LIT. N. Garsoian, “Le rôle de l’hiérarchie chrétienne 
dans les rapports diplomatiques entre Byzance et les Sas- 
sanides,” REArm n.s. 10 (1973) 119-38. V. BeSevliev, “Die 
Botschaften der byzantinischen Kaiser aus dem Schlacht- 
feld,” Byzantina 6 (1974) 71-83. D. Obolensky, “A Late 


Fourteenth-Century Byzantine Diplomat: Michael, Arch- 
bishop of Bethlehem,” in Mél. Dujéev 299-315. -N.O. 


AMBO (ğußwv, also called zupyos), a platform, 
often standing on four, six, or eight columns, in 
a church. Ambos were first recorded in the second 
half of the 4th C. (e.g., at the Council of Laodikeia 
of 371), but most surviving examples date from 
the 5th or 6th C. (C. Delvoye, RBK 1:127). The 
example in the Dormition Church in Kalambaka 
(Sracoi) shows that at least in some places Early 
Christian ambos continued to be used in the 12th 
C. (G.A. Soteriou, EEBS 6 [1929] 292f, 302-04). 
The ambo stood in the nave, between the chancel 
barrier and the west wall, and took one of four 
main forms: the first and earliest has a single 
staircase; the second is “fan-shaped” with two 
curving staircases; the third and most widespread 
type has two staircases on its east-west axis; dis- 
tinct from these is the fourth, Syrian type, com- 
bining the functions of ambo and SYNTHRONON 
(R. Taft, OrChrP 34 [1968] 326.59). The ambo of 
Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, described by PAuL 
SILENTIARIOS, was made of colored marbles of 
many hues and dressed with silver slabs (S.G. 
Xydis, ArtB 29 [1947] 1-24), but most surviving 
examples are carved in white marble. Some 13th- 
C. examples were of wood and portable (Kazh- 
dan, infra 425f). 


76 | AMBROISE 


Liturgically, the ambo (together with the BEMA) 
was one of the two focal points of the church, 
and processions back and forth along the SOLEA 
or pathway connecting the two were a standard 
part of the ritual. It was at the ambo that the 
liturgy used to open with the intonation of the 
TRISAGION and close with the final blessing or 
Opisthambonos Prayer (A. Jacob, Byzantion 51 
[1981] 306-15). In Hagia Sophia the choir sang 
from beneath the ambo, the readers mounted it 
to read the LECTIONS, and the singers intoned 
from it the psalmody and troparia (Mateos, Typicon 
2:281; Germanos, Liturgy 74). On the ambo or its 
steps the deacons proclaimed the litanies and other 
diakonika and exchanged the kiss of peace. Solemn 
ORTHROS (Mateos, Typicon 2:309) and special cer- 
emonies such as imperial coronation rites and the 
Exaltation of the Cross on 14 Sept. (illustrated in 
the MENOLOGION oF Basil II, p.35) were cele- 
brated at the ambo, which also served as a pulpit 
for the proclamation of councils and their ana- 
themas (THEODORE LECTOR, ed. Hansen 113.17— 
20, 142.26, 144.12—13, 149.25—28), and even for 
secular announcements (Chron.Pasch. 715.16— 
716.8). Chrysostom even preached from the ambo 
by way of exception, the better to be heard (So- 
zom., HE 357.14—15). 

Because the Gospel was proclaimed from the 
ambo, liturgical COMMENTARIES interpreted it as 
symbolizing the stone rolled back from Jesus’ tomb 
from which the angel announced the Resurrec- 
tion to the Myrrophoroi in Matthew 28:2—7 (Ger- 
manos, Liturgy 62). 

source. Paul Silentiarios, Ekphrasis tou ambonos in Prokop: 
Werke 5, ed. O. Veh (Munich 1977) 358—75, with Germ. 
tr. 

LIT. Sodini-Kolokotsas, Aliki IJ g4—-120. J.-P. Sodini, 
“L’ambon de la Rotonde Saint-Georges,” BCH 100 (1976) 
493-510. E. Kourkoutidou-Nikolaidou, “Hoi dyo ambones 
tes basilikes tou mouseiou stous Philippous,” in Aphieroma 
ste mneme Stylianou Pelekanide (Thessalonike 1983) 193—212. 
A. Kazhdan, “A Note on the ‘Middle-Byzantine’ Ambo,” 
Byzantion 5,7 (1987) 422~26. —L.Ph.B., R.F.T. 


AMBROISE, late 12th-C. Norman jongleur, pos- 
sibly from Evreux. Ambroise participated in the 
Third Crusade and composed a lengthy verse 
Estoire de la guerre sainte (History of the Holy War) 
in Old French after his return from the Levant. 
Its vivid portrayal of the heroic deeds of RICHARD 
I LIONHEART espouses the perspective of the av- 
erage Crusader and describes, for example, the 


relations of the Greek population of Messina with 
the Crusaders (vv. 601—06) and the ruins of Rhodes 
(1287—1302). His account of Richard’s conflict 
with Isaac Komnenos of Cyprus and the king’s 
conquest of the island (1355—2106) includes a 
description of Isaac’s Greek and Armenian troops 
(1439-1700), his magnificent tent and gold and 
silver dishes (1669—72), the superb Byz. war horses 
(e.g., 1842—50, 1938), and Richard’s shaving of 
Byz. burghers who surrendered to him (1948). 
The Estotre was translated into Latin and incor- 
porated into the revised version of ITINERARIUM 
PEREGRINORUM by 1222. 

ED. L’Estoive de la guerre sainte, ed. G. Paris (Paris 1897), 
with Fr. tr. M.J. Hubert, tr., The Crusade of Richard Lion- 
Heart by Ambroise (New York 1941). 


LIT. Das Itinerarium peregrinorum, ed. H.E. Mayer [= 
MGH Schriften 18] (Stuttgart 1962) 107-51. —M.McC. 


AMBROSE (AuBpootos), bishop of Milan (from 
373 Or 374) and saint; born Trier ca.339, died 
Milan 4 Apr. 397; feastday 7 Dec. Son of a prae- 
torian prefect of Gaul, Ambrose was trained as a 
lawyer and ca.374 became governor of Aemilia 
and Liguria, with his residence at Milan. In the 
same year the Arian bishop of Milan died and the 
people of the city demanded that Ambrose suc- 
ceed him even though he was then a layman. 
Ambrose vigorously opposed Arianism and pa- 
ganism and campaigned for the removal of the 
ALTAR OF VICTORY from the Senate House in 
Rome; his moral authority forced Theodosios I 
to accept church-imposed penance after his mas- 
sacre of thousands in Thessalonike in 390. Am- 
brose wrote in Latin but knew Greek and trans- 
lated JosepHUS FLavius into Latin. He made 
extensive use of eastern ideas, esp. those of Basil 
the Great and Gregory of Nazianzos. Many of his 
works are commentaries on the Old and New 
Testaments. His funeral orations on Valentinian 
II and Theodosios I as well as his letters are 
important sources for the history of the late 4th 
C. 

The Greek church held Ambrose in high re- 
gard. His vita by Paulinus was translated into 
Greek (Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Analekta 1:27- 
88), while an anonymous vita that relied upon 
Theodoret of Cyrrhus was compiled in Greek (C. 
Pasini, AB 101 [1983] 101—50); the latter served 
in its turn as the source for Symeon Metaphrastes 
(BHG 69). Numerous Greek hymns (kontakia and 


kanones) were devoted to the celebration of Am- 
brose’s feastday (C. Pasini, BollBadGr 37 [1983] 
147-209; 38 [1984] 67—140; 39 [1985] 113-79). 

ED. Opera, ed. C. Schenkl et al., 7 vols. in 8 pts. (Vienna- 
Prague-Leipzig 1897—1982). 

LIT. A. Paredi, Sant’Ambrogio (Milan 1985). J.R. Pa- 
lanque, Saint Ambroise et l’Empire romain (Paris 1933). F.H. 
Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, 2 vols. (Oxford 
1935). J. Irmscher, “Ambrosius in Byzanz,” Ambrosius Epi- 
scopus (Milan 1976) 297-311. -T.E.G. 


AMBULATORY, a passage around a major space. 
Prokopios of Caesarea (Buildings 1.1.58) uses the 
term aule (aisle?, lit. “courtyard”) for the colon- 
naded spaces around the naos (nave) of Hagia 
Sophia, Constantinople. Ambulatories facilitate 
movement in a church without disturbing central 
and sacred areas; they can give independent ac- 
cess to the PASTOPHORIA or lead to a contiguous 
church (Lips MONASTERY, Constantinople; Hosios 
Loukas). The ambulatories also served as spaces 
for ecclesiastical gatherings and for burials. The 
“ambulatory church” type consists of a naos sep- 
arated by piers or columns from ambulatories to 
the south, west, and north, which often provided 
access to lateral chapels; the term has been ap- 
plied to such late 13th-C. structures as the main 
church of the PAMMakaRIsTOs (S. Eyice, Anadolu 
Araştırmaları 1.2 [1959] 223-34). 


LIT. Mango, Byz.Arch. 198—203. —W.L., K.M.K. 


AMBULATORY CHURCH. See Cuurcu PLAN 
TYPES. 


AMERALIOS (&unpadvos), commander of a fleet. 
A 14th-C. ceremonial book (pseudo-Kod. 183.21- 
23) defines an ameralios as subaltern of the MEGAS 
DOUX and commander of the whole navy. It is 
generally accepted that the term was borrowed 
from the Catalans at the beginning of the 14th C. 
since Pachymeres (Pachym., ed. Bekker, 2:420.7— 
8) relates that ROGER DE FLOR appointed an ex- 
arch of his 12 ships, “whom their dialect calls 
amerales.” Amerales as a family name is known, 
however, at least from 1280 (PLP, no.774). In the 
court hierarchy the ameralios was placed between 
the SKOUTERIOS and EPI TON DEESEON. 


uT. L.R. Menager, Amiratus-Ameras (Paris 1960) 108f. 
Stein, “Untersuchungen” 57. -A.K. 


AMIROUTZES, GEORGE | 77 


AMIDA ("Aytéa, Diyarbakir in Turkey), capital 
and metropolitan bishopric of Mesopotamia. For- 
tified by Constantius II in 349, Amida was fre- 
quently contested between Byz. and the Sasanians. 
It was conquered by Shapir II in 359, retaken by 
Julian in 363, taken by Kavad in 502, and re- 
turned to the Byz. in 504; its buildings were 
restored by Anastasios 1. It fell again to the Per- 
sians in 602, but was recovered in 628 by Hera- 
kleios, who built a Church of St. Thomas there. 
Amida came under Arab control in 640. The city 
walls, which still stand, are attributed to Constan- 
tius or Justinian I and were restored in the me- 
dieval period by various Muslim rulers. The 
Church of St. Kosmas disappeared in this century, 
but the sanctuary of the large tetraconch Church 
of the Virgin survives. According to JOHN OF 
EPHESUS, a native of the region, there were five 
monasteries at Amida in his time. Amida was 
reportedly attacked five times by JOHN (1) TZM- 
SKES: in 958, 959, 972, 973, and 974. 


LIT. M. van Berchem, J. Strzygowski, Amida (Heidelberg 
1910). J. Sourdel-Thomine, E/*? 2:344f. Bell-Mango, Tur 
“Abdin 105-09. -M.M.M. 


SAMIR. See Emir. 


AMIROUTZES, GEORGE, philosopher, theolo- 
gian, and writer; born Trebizond ca.1400, died 
Constantinople after 1469. The name is a dimin- 
utive of the Turkish “emir.” Amiroutzes 
(Apstpovrlys) is first mentioned as a lay adviser 
to the Byz. delegation to the Council of FERRARA- 
FLORENCE, where he supported UNION OF THE 
Cuurcues (M. Jugie, EO 36 [1937] 175-80). Later, 
he allegedly repudiated his earlier views in a letter 
to Demetrios, duke of Nauplion (ed. M. Jugie, 
Byzantion 14 [1939] 77—93); Gill (Personalities 204— 
12) has, however, challenged the attribution to 
Amiroutzes of this anti-U nionist tractate. In i447 
Amiroutzes was an envoy from Trebizond to 
Genoa; from ca.1458 to 1461 he served as proto- 
vestiarios and megas logothetes of the last Trapezun- 
tine emperor, Davip I KoMNENOS (1458-61). After 
the surrender of TREBIzOND to the Turks (Aug. 
1461), he went to the court of MEHMED II at 
Adrianople and then to Constantinople, where he 
continued his scholarly activity, discussing philos- 
ophy with the sultan and preparing a map of the 
world based on Ptolemy (F. Babinger, Mehmed the 


78 AMISOS 


Conqueror and His Time [Princeton 1978] 246-48). 
Because of his Turcophile stance, Amiroutzes has 
frequently been charged with treachery and hy- 
pocrisy; he has been defended, however, by N.B. 
Tomadakes (EEBS 18 [1948] 99—143) and O. 
Lampsides (ArchPont 17 [1952] 15—54), who also 
dispute his alleged conversion to Islam. 

The few surviving works of Amiroutzes include 
a dialogue with Mehmed on Christianity, poems 
of fulsome praise for the sultan, and a few letters 
to contemporaries such as BEssaRION and Theo- 
dore AGALLIANOS. 

ED. Dialogue—Lat. tr. by J. Werner (Nuremberg 1514). 


Poems—ed. S. Lampros, DIEE 2 (1885) 275~—82. Letter to 
Bessarion—PG 161:723-—28. List of ed. in Tomadakes, EEBS 


18 (1948) 102f. 


LIT. PLP, no.784. Beck, Kirche 772. -A.M.T. 


AMISOS (‘Api(v)oos, now Samsun), coastal city 
of Pontos. Amisos is rarely mentioned before its 
capture by the Arabs in 863. It was a city of the 
ANATOLIXON theme and played an essential com- 
mercial role in supplying Cherson with grain (De 
adm. imp. 53.533—35)- Seals mention several fiscal 
functionaries of Amisos: kommerkiarios, dioiketes, 
and abydikos. The city was occupied by the Turks 
in 1194, by the Komnenoi of Trebizond in 1204, 
and definitively by the Seljuks in 1214. During 
the first Turkish occupation it appears that Greek 
and Turkish settlements coexisted side by side. 
The remains of Amisos include late Roman walls, 
floor mosaics, churches, and inscriptions. Amisos 
was a suffragan of AMASEIA. 

Because of similarity of names, Amisos was for- 
merly identified with the Sampson ruled by Sab- 
bas AsIDENOs; his base was actually PRIENE. 

LIT. Bryer-Winfield, Pontos g2-95. S. Vailhé, DHGE 2 
(1914) 1280f. -C.F, 


AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, Latin historian; 
born Antioch ca.330, died after 392. Born to a 
noble family, Ammianus saw wide military service 
in east and west as a staff officer (protector domes- 
ticus) in the years 354—63, including the siege of 
Amida (359) and Julian’s Persian expedition (363). 
After returning home, he embarked on more 
scholarly travels to Egypt, Greece, and Rome, 
where, to judge from his resentful remarks, he 
fell victim to the expulsion of foreigners in the 
famine of 383. He was back in Rome in 392, 
enjoying the fame of his published history. 


In his own concluding words (31.16.9), his Res 
Gestae covered the period 96-378 from the stand- 
point of a “former soldier and Greek.” The first 
13 books, covering 257 years with a starting point 
designed to provoke comparison with Tacitus, are 
lost. The surviving books 14—31 cover in ob- 
viously much greater detail the years 353—78, 
ending in catastrophe (battle of ADRIANOPLE) and 
forebodings of doom. Ammianus combines tra- 
ditional prejudices (patriotism, contempt for bar- 
barians and mobs, outbursts against corruption 
and luxury) with a refreshing religious tolerance 
and balanced appreciation of his protagonists— 
even his hero Julian’s feet of clay are acknowl- 
edged. His style is just as mixed, with Tacitean 
epigram and Vergilian color blended with a jag- 
ged Latin that wavers between clumsiness and 
power. Although a pagan, Ammianus includes a 
surprising amount of information and detached 
commentary on Christian affairs (E.D. Hunt, CQ 
n.s. 35 [1985] 186—200). 

ED. Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, ed. W. Seyfarth, 2 
vols. (Leipzig 1978). Römische Geschichte, ed. W. Seyfarth, 4 
vols. (Berlin 1968—71), with Germ. tr. Ammianus Marcelli- 
nus, ed. J.C. Rolfe, 3 vols. (London—Cambridge, Mass., 


1935—39), with Eng. tr. 
LIT. R.C. Blockley, Ammianus Marcellinus, A Study of His 


Historiography and Political Thought (Brussels 1975). K. Ro- 
sen, Ammianus Marcellinus (Darmstadt 1982), rev. T.D. 
Barnes, CiRev n.s. 35 (1985) 48—50. R. Rike, Apex Omnium: 
Religion in the Res Gestae of Ammianus (Berkeley 1987). R. 
Seager, Ammianus Marcellinus, Seven Studies in His Language 
and Thought (Columbia, Mo., 1986). A. Demandt, Zeitkritsk 
und Geschichtsbild im Werk Ammzans (Bonn 1965). —-B.B. 


AMMONIOS (Appwrros), teacher and commen- 
tator on Aristotle; born Alexandria late 5th C., 
died after 517. Ammonios imbibed paganism from 
his philosophically minded parents; after the death 
of his father Hermeias, his mother took him and 
his brother to Athens to study under PROKLos. 
His studies complete, Ammonios returned home 
where, except for some time in Constantinople, 
he remained as a lecturer on PLATO and ARIS- 
TOTLE. PHoTios (Bibl, cod.187) vouchsafes his 
reputation in astronomy and geometry. He is var- 
iously praised and damned for his paganism, in- 
dustry, and greed. Of his many writings, only the 
commentary on Aristotle’s On Interpretation re- 
mains, though the gist of his lectures survives in 
students’ notes. His most famous pupils included 
John Puitoronos, who edited his lectures on 
Aristotle’s Physics, DAMASKIOS, OLYMPIODOROS OF 
ALEXANDRIA, and SIMPLIKIOS. 


ED. Commentaries on Aristotle—CAG 4:3—6. Les Attri- 
butions (Catégories): le texte aristotélicien et les Prolégoménes 
d’Ammontos d’Hermeias, tr. Y. Pelletier (Paris 1983). 

Lit. Westerink, Prolegomena x—xiii. K. Kremer, Der Me- 
taphysikbegriff in den Aristoteles-Kommentaren der Ammonius- 
Schule (Miinster 1961). -B.B. 


AMNOS (àuvós “lamb”), term that refers esp. to 
the sacrificial lamb. In the Old Testament the 
lamb was a common sacrificial victim, esp. the 
paschal lamb; in the New Testament and church 
fathers it became a symbol of Jesus as victim (see 
LAMB oF Gop). In Byz. liturgical usage, the amnos 
is the central portion of the principal PROSPHORA 
bread, signifying Christ’s body; marked with a 
stamp, it is cut out at the PROTHESIS rite and 
consecrated at the EUCHARIST. GERMANOS I (Ger- 
manos, Liturgy, pars. 6, 21, 36) applied the sym- 
bolism of Isaiah 53 to this rite, and within a 
century the prophetic verses (Is 53:7—8) became 
the liturgical formula for the excision of the am- 
nos. The use of a lance for this excision is symbolic 
of the soldier’s lance (see RELIcs) that pierced 
Christ’s side at the Crucifixion (Jn 19:34). In wall 
painting at KurBinovo and elsewhere in and after 
the 12th C., the image of the amnos, in the form 
of a prone Christ Child on the altar, replaces the 
officiating Christ earlier represented in the apses 
of churches. -R.F.T., A.C. 


AMORIAN OR PHRYGIAN DYNASTY, family 
that ruled from 820 to 867 and included MICHAEL 
II, THEOPHILOS, THEODORA, and MICHAEL II]; it 
was so called because its founder, Michael I], was 
born in AmMorton (see genealogical table). The 
dynasty is best known for its role in several sig- 
nificant religious events. It was responsible for the 
final defeat of ICoNocLASM, which Michael II had 
tolerated and Theophilos had revived, but which 


AMORION | 79 


Theodora ended (see TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY). 
Michael III created a schism with Rome by per- 
mitting the election of Patr. PHotios, but his 
sponsorship of the mission of CONSTANTINE THE 
PHILOSOPHER and MeETHopIOs to Moravia and the 
baptism of Boris of Bulgaria helped draw the 
Slavs into the Byz. cultural orbit. The Amorian 
dynasty also witnessed the revival of secular learn- 
ing through patrons such as THEOKTISTOS and 
Caesar Barpas and scholars such as LEO THE 
MATHEMATICIAN. Under the dynasty the Arabs 
occupied Crete, Sicily, and parts of southern Italy, 
but, despite victories by Ma’MŪN and Mu‘tasiIm 
over Theophilos, they made no permanent gains 
in Asia Minor and were on the defensive by the 
end of Michael III’s reign (Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 
1:22—264). 

uit. B. Melioranskij, “Iz semejnoj istorii Amorijskoj di- 


nastii,” VizVrem 8 (1901) 1-37. Bury, ERE 77—179. Vasiliev, 
History 271-go0. CMH 4.1:100—16. -P.A.H. 


AMORION (‘Ayopiov), now Hisar near Emirdağ 
on the borderlands of Galatia and Phrygia, was 
fortified by Zeno but gained importance only in 
the 7th C. when it became capital of the ANATO- 
Likon theme because of its strategic location on 
the main southern invasion route. First attacked 
by the Arabs in 644 and taken in 646, it was a 
frequent goal of their raids. In 742-43 it was the 
base of Constantine V during the revolt of Ar- 
TABASDOS. Amorion gained its greatest fame when 
a native son, Michael II, became emperor and 
founded the “Amorian” dynasty. In 838, Amo- 
rion was taken and destroyed by the ‘Abbasid 
caliph al-Mu‘tTasiM in a great campaign mounted 
against it. The officers and civic officials captured 
at that time and later executed for their refusal 
to renounce Christianity are renowned as the 
FORTY-TWO Martyrs OF AMoRION. The city never 


GENEALOGY OF THE AMORIAN DYNASTY 


MICHAELII m. Thekla 


THEOPHILOS m. THEODORA 


Constantine Thekla Anna Anastasia Pulcheria 


MICHAEL III 


Marinos m. Theoktiste 


BARDAS PETRONAS Sophia Maria Irene 


Maria 


m. Eudokia 
Dekapolitissa 


Based on Grumel, Chronologie 362. 





80 | AMORKESOS 


recovered from this attack, though it survived as 
a bishopric (under PEssinous; autocephalous by 
787, metropolis before 860). Although Alexios I 
defeated the Turks there in 1116, Amorion had 
fallen definitively to the Seljuks after the battle of 
Mantzikert in 1071. The site preserves traces of 
its fortifications and foundations of several build- 
ings, including a large church. 


LIT. TIB 4:122-25,. -C.F. 


AMORKESOS (‘Apopxégos, possibly Ar. Imru’ 
al-Qays), 5th-C. Arab chief (probably GHassANID) 
in the service of Persia who for some reason left 
the Great King and crossed over to Byz. Having 
consolidated his position among the Arabs in 
northern Arabia he began to attack Byz. territory 
in Palestina III and finally crowned his successes 
with the occupation of the island of Iotabe in the 
Gulf of Eilat. Desirous of becoming a Byz. PHY- 
LARCH, he sent Bp. Petros to Constantinople ca.473 
to negotiate with Leo I. This mission was success- 
ful and the emperor brought Amorkesos to Con- 
stantinople, where he treated him royally and 
made him phylarch. 

LIT. I. Kawar, “On the Patriciate of Imru’ al-Qays,” in 
The World of Islam: Studies in Honor of Philip K. Hitti, ed. J. 
Kritzeck, R.B. Winder (London—New York 1960) 74-82. 
Shahid, Byz. & Arabs (5th C.) 59—106. N.V. Pigulevskaja, 


Araby u granic Vizant i Irana v IV—VI vv. (Moscow 1964) 
51-54. —I.A.Sh. 


AMPHILOCHIOS OF IKONION, churchman, 
theologian, and saint; born Diokaisareia? between 
ca.340 and 345, died after 394; feastday 23 Nov. 
Amphilochios (ApdtddxL0s) was overshadowed 
by the big three CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS to whom 
he was connected by friendship and family, GRE- 
GORY OF Nazianzos being his cousin. The hy- 
pothesis of K. Bonis (SBN 8 [1953] 3—10) that 
Amphilochios was the uncle of the deaconess 
OLYMPIAS was rejected by Oberg (infra 48, 78). 
After studying under Lrsanios at Antioch, and a 
decade or so as rhetor in Constantinople, he was 
consecrated bishop of Ikonion ca.373 at the be- 
hest of Basi: THE GREAT. An efficient fighter of 
heretics, he spoke at the Council of Constantin- 
ople in 381 and earned the praise of Theodosios 
I; subsequently he procured the condemnation of 
the supporters of MESSALIANISM at the Council of 
Side ca.3go. His last recorded appearance was at 


the synod of Constantinople in 394. The bulk of 
his writings is lost or fragmentary. Nine homilies 
survive, mostly on biblical texts, as does a treatise 
on false asceticism and his letter on the Holy 
Spirit. Most interesting are his 333 iambics For 
Seleucus, not so much for their routine exhorta- 
tions to virtue as for their list of biblical books, 

ED. Opera: Orationes, etc., ed. C. Datema (Turnhout 1978). 
Pert pseudous askeseos, ed. K.G. Bones (Athens 1979). Jambi 
ad Seleucum, ed. E. Oberg (Berlin 1969); rp. with Germ. tr. 
in JbAChr 16 (1973) 67-97. 

LIT. K. Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhältnis 
zu den grossen Kappadoziern (Tiibingen 1904). —B.B. 


AMPHIPOLIS (‘Audizodts), city of Macedonia 
on the Via Egnatia not far from the mouth of the 
Strymon. In Roman times Amphipolis was capital 
of Macedonia I but by late antiquity it was subject 
to Thessalonike (Hierokl. 640.2). The bridges 
across the Strymon both north and south (at Mar- 
marion) of Amphipolis were used throughout the 
Byz. period. Slavs were established in the region 
in the 7th—8th C. The bishop of Amphipolis, first 
mentioned in 553, was suffragan of Thessalonike. 
The bishopric appears for the last time in a notitia 
dated after 787 (Notitiae CP 3.272). Even though 
authors of the 12th—14th C. continued to use the 
name as a geographic designation, F. Papazoglou 
(ZRVI 2 [1953] 7—24) demonstrated that this was 
the result of conscious archaizing and that the 
late antique city had ceased to exist; its place was 
taken by CHrysopo.is, which is mentioned in 
various documents from the end of the 10th C. 
onward (including portulans of the 15th C.). 

Near ancient Eion south of Amphipolis is a 
large rectangular fortress, undated but probably 
still used in the 14th C. Extensive excavation at 
Amphipolis has revealed the remains of four large 
basilicas of the 5th—6th C. with rich mosaic pave- 
ments (D. Lazarides, PraktArchEt [1959] 42-46; 
[1964] 35—40; E. Stikas, PraktArchEt [1962] 42- 
46; [1964] 41-43; [1978] 59-63). A centralized 
building with a circular outer wall and a hexago- 
nal nave and projecting apse bears comparison 
with San Vitale in Ravenna (E. Stikas, PraktArchEt 
1966] 46; [1971] 46—48; [1981] 26-32; [1982] 
43—51). In 1367 two brothers, the megas primtkertos 
John and the stratopedarches Alexios, constructed 
a tower north of Amphipolis to protect lands 
chere that they had given to the Pantokrator mon- 
astery on Mt. Athos. 


ur. Lemerle, Philippes 172f, 208f. E.G. Stikas, “Les fouilles 
d’Amphipolis paléochrétienne en Macédoine orientale,” BS/ 
EB 8, 11, 12 (1981—85) 351-84. -T.E.G., N.P.S. 


AMPHORA (ay¢opeds), large ceramic transport 
and storage vessel used in all parts of the empire, 
at least through the 13th C. The amphora shapes 
of the 4th—7th C. were developed from ancient 
prototypes and manufactured in many centers 
throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Am- 

horas were normally either round or cylindrical 
in shape, with two handles extending from the 
shoulder to the mouth; the shoulder and often 
the whole body were marked with grooves, wheel- 
ridges, or combing, presumably to facilitate the 
use of ropes to secure the vessels in the holds of 
ships. 

Archaeological evidence, from shipwrecks and 
land sites, reveals the extent of the use of am- 
phoras in contexts ranging from household and 
commercial storage to long-distance transporta- 
tion. Excavations in Constantinople (esp. at Saraç- 
hane and Kalenderhane), in Cherson and the 
eastern Crimea, and in Pliska, Tomis, and Dino- 
getia show the development of amphora types in 
the 8th-1oth C. when evidence from elsewhere is 
slight. By the 11th C. Byz. amphoras are again 
found commonly throughout the eastern Medi- 
terranean and the Black Sea, a characteristic type 
being a relatively small conical-shaped amphora 
with heavy wheel-ridges, a mouth with a very 
short neck, and short handles. While amphoras 
of the 4th to 7th C. are frequently marked with 
graffiti, those of the 11th to 12th C. are occasion- 
ally stamped, usually on the shoulder. Since these 
stamps are often monograms or abbreviated names 
(Nicholas, John, George, etc.), Jakobson (infra) 
believes them to be potters’ marks (see STAMPS, 
COMMERCIAL). 

Amphoras were still quite common in the 12th— 
13th C., but their usage seems to have declined 
in the 14th C., perhaps because materials were 
transported in other containers, possibly barrels. 
Amphoras were inserted into the walls of churches, 
esp. in the masonry of pendentives; according to 
some authorities, this was for acoustical purposes, 
but the amphoras were probably used simply as 
lightweight filling material. Amphora-like vessels 
could also be made of metal (see PLATE, DOMESTIC 
GOLD AND SILVER). 


AMPULLAE, PILGRIMAGE 81 


LIT. J. Cangova, “Srednovekovni amfori v Biulgarija,” 
IzvBilgArchInst 22 (1959) 243-62. I. Barnea, “Amforele 
feodale de la Dinogetia,” SCIV 5 (1954) 512-27. A.L. 
Jakobson, Rannesrednevekovyj Chersones (Moscow-Leningrad 
1959) 302-17. W. Hautumm, Studien zu Amphoren der spät- 
römischen und frithbyzantinischen Zeit (Fulda 1981). J. Schae- 
fer, “Amphorae as Material Indices of Trade and Special- 
ization,” AJA 84 (1980) 230f. -T.E.G. 


AMPHORA STAMPS. See Stamps, COMMER- 
CIAL. 


AMPULLAE, PILGRIMAGE, vessels of lead, clay, 
and other materials that were used by pilgrims to 
transport oil, water, earth, etc., from the Loca 
SANCTA. Particular types include UNGUENTARIA and 
Menas FLASKS. The main collections are at MONZA 
AND Bossio in Italy, where are preserved more 
than three dozen small (diam. approximately 7— 
9 cm), embossed tin-lead pilgrim flasks, closely 


AMPULLAE, PILGRIMAGE. Ampulla; silver. Monza Cathe- 
dral Treasury. To the left of the seated Virgin and Child 
are the Three Magi; to the right, the Annunciation to 
the shepherds. 





82 | ‘AMR 


related to the SANCTA SANCTORUM RELIQUARY in 
date (ca.600), provenance (Palestine), iconogra- 
phy, and function. Their iconography is drawn 
from the PALESTINIAN CHRISTOLOGICAL CYCLE, 
with special stress (by frequency of choice and 
size) on the Veneration of the Cross and the 
Myrrophoroi—scenes evocative of the Holy Land’s 
two most famous shrines, the Holy SEPULCHRE 
and Golgotha in JERUSALEM. The pilgrim EULOGIA 
they contained is revealed by a recurrent inscrip- 
tion: “Oil of the Wood of Life of the Holy Places 
of Christ.” Indeed, the Piacenza PiLGRim de- 
scribes a ceremony in the Church of the Anastasis 
in Jerusalem for the blessing of such oil flasks 
through contact with the True Cross. Their amu- 
letic function for pilgrims is revealed by their 
emphasis on the scene of Peter Saved from 
Drowning, and the inscription on one specimen: 
“Oil of the Wood of Life, that guides us by land 
and sea.” 


LIT. Grabar, Ampoules. Vikan, Pilgrimage Art 20—25. 
-G.V. 


‘AMR ("Aupos, "AugBpos), more fully ‘Amr ibn al- 
‘As; Muslim conqueror of Byz. Egypt; born Mecca 
between ca.575 and 595, died al-Fustat (Cairo) 6 
Jan. 664. He converted to Islam between 627 and 
630. A member of the tribe of Quraysh, he was a 
trader between Hijāz, al-‘Arish, and towns in 
southern Palestine. Short but hardy and broad- 
shouldered, he was brave, cool-headed, and clever, 
and an excellent horseman. Muhammad gave him 
various military commands; Asu BAKR appointed 
him to lead one of four armies against Byz. Syria. 
Victorious in southern Palestine, ‘Amr conquered 
Jerusalem, Askalon, Gaza, and Eleutheropolis 
(Elousa) and participated in the siege of Caesarea. 
Strategically well placed for an attack on Byz. 
Egypt and aware of its vulnerabilities, in Dec. 639 
‘Amr launched the invasion. At his own or ‘Umar’s 
initiative, he set out with a small force (3,500 or 
4,000) for Egypt, via the coastal route to al-‘Arish. 
Soon 10,000 or 12,000 reinforcements followed. 
After taking Pelousion, ‘Amr defeated the Byz. at 
Heliopolis (640); by 642 he had overrun Egypt, 
including Babylon (Cairo) and Alexandria, and 
captured Barca in Cyrenaica. ‘Umar restricted 
‘Amr’s command to the army in the lower Delta. 
‘UTHMAN removed ‘Amr, but a Byz.-inspired re- 
bellion of the Greek population in 645 and a Byz. 
maritime expeditionary army forced his reinstate- 


ment. He checked the Byz. army at Alexandria 
and retook the city. 

LIT. Donner, Conquesis 113-16, 129-31, 134-37, 151~ 
53. Butler, Arab Conquest 194—334, 546-48. A.J. Wensinck, 
EP 1:451. U. Luft, “Der Beginn der islamischen Erobe- 
rungen Agyptens im Jahre 639,” Forschungen und Berichte, 
Archäologische Beiträge 16 (1974) 123-28. -W.E.K. 


AMULET (¢vAaxryjptov). Although it could take 
many forms, from medicinal animal fur to apo- 
tropaic door frames, an amulet was usually a small 
artifact worn on the body, such as a pendant, 
armband (see ARMBANDS, AMULETIC), ring, or to- 
ken. Severos of Antioch (PO 29.1:79 [583]f) ad- 
vises against “the suspension and attachment to 
necks or arms or other members [of those objects] 
called phylakteria, or protective amulets . . .” 

Especially common in the 4th to 8th C., and 
among the lower strata of society, amulets were 
roundly condemned by the church fathers and 
the church councils (e.g., Laodikeia I, canon 36). 
Magical power was invoked through medium, in- 
scriptions, and/or imagery. For example, the earth 
of which PILGRIM TOKENS were made was believed 
to convey the power of the deity or saint from 
whose LOCUS SANCTUS it was taken. As for inscrip- 
tions, apotropaic ACCLAMATIONS, such as Heis Theos, 
commonly appear on 4th- through 8th-C. amu- 
lets, as do Hebrew sacred names, such as lað. 
These were thought to convey the protection of 
divine power as, commonly, was the goth Psalm: 
“He that dwells in the help of the Highest. . . .” 

Like these inscriptions, amuletic iconography 
reflects varied, often ancient, sources. The Hoty 
RIDER—the generic emblem of good conquering 
evil—was an esp. popular image with pre-Christian 
roots, as were the Greco-Egyptian RING SIGNS that 
commonly accompanied it. Alexander of Tralles 
(Alex.Trall. 2:377) prescribes a treatment for colic 
involving a jasper ring bezel engraved with HERA- 
KLES choking the Nemean Lion. Yet, much as 
biblical quotations eventually found a role on 
amulets, so also did biblical imagery. Most often 
themes of deliverance or protection—such as the 
Sacrifice of Isaac—were chosen with the aim of 
establishing a typological bond. The Adoration of 
the Magi was a preferred theme for pilgrim amu- 
lets. More generic in its applicability was the EVIL 
EYE. 

Medical Amulets. Amulets in this subcategory 
were designed for specific diseases—thus exclud- 
ing relics, icons, and pilgrim tokens, whose mi- 


raculous powers might incidentally encompass 
HEALING. Clearly some of the more common Greco- 
Egyptian medico-magical gem amulet types (gov- 
erning sciatica and hemorrhaging) continued into 
Byz. times. Some 5th- through 7th-C. pendants 
include amulets bearing texts invoking “good 
digestion” and related benefits. As with more gen- 
erally efficacious amulets, power could derive from 
substance (e.g., haematite, which was thought to 
absorb blood), symbols (e.g., ring signs), phrases, 
or images: the image of a man bending over to 
cut grain provided “sympathetic magic” to treat 
sciatica, much as a representation of the Woman 
with the Issue of Blood would be used to treat 
hemorrhaging. 

Medusa Amulet. This is the modern term for 
a very popular form of uterine amulet known 
from the 5th to 8th C. and esp. favored from the 
gth C. onward. Its power derives from an image 
characteristically formed of a human head with 
seven (earlier) or 12 (later) serpentlike rays, all 
enclosed in a solar disc, which may also include 
magical ring signs. This image appears frequently 
on pendant medallions and less often on ring 
bezels and armbands (here, in the company of 
the Holy Rider and locus sanctus iconography). 
That their magical domain was the uterus is clear 
from many of their inscriptions. The uterus (hys- 
tera) is addressed directly, usually with the double 
epithet “dark and black one.” It is often accused 
of “coiling like a serpent, hissing like a dragon, 
and roaring like a lion”—and then is admonished 
to “lie down like a lamb”; a ring excavated at 
Corinth is inscribed: hysterckon phylakterion (“uterus 
amulet”). The Medusa-like image on these amu- 
lets developed out of the Greco-Egyptian 
CHNOUBIS, one of antiquity’s most popular gem- 
amulets—and one long recognized as specifically 
effective in treating disorders of the abdomen and 
uterus. 

uit. G. Schlumberger, “Amulettes byzantins anciens 
destinés à combattre les maléfices & maladies,” REGr 5 
(1892) 73-93. Vikan, “Art, Medicine, & Magic.” Bonner, 
Studies 51—94. -G.V. 


‘AMWAS. See EMMAUS. 


ANACHARSIS OR ANANIAS (Avayxapots ñ 
“Avavias), title of an anonymous 12th-C. pam- 
phlet (probably written soon after 1158). Chres- 
tides (infra) unconvincingly attributed it to Niketas 


ANACREONTICS | 83 


EuGENEIANOS. The pamphlet is in the form of a 
dialogue between Aristagoras and the personifi- 
cation of Grammar, but is in fact a soliloquy by 
Aristagoras. Anacharsis, whose name is John 
(identified by Chrestides as John Kamareros, lo- 
gothetes tou dromou), received his derisive nickname 
(“delighted with Anna”) from the name of his 
second spouse, Anna. The author presented him 
as the scion of a rich family who was the antithesis 
to the ideal of elite behavior: Anacharsis was a 
failure as a warrior, rider, and hunter and an 
unsuccessful musician, scribe, and astrologer. (The 
author dwells much more on these “social” accom- 
plishments of an aristocrat than on traditional 
moral values or failings.) To make matters worse, 
after the death of his model first wife, Irene, 
Anacharsis became involved with the Jewish com- 
munity. At the instigation of the Jew Mordecai, 
he married Anna, described as a “frog” who was 
baptized but was not improved even by this sac- 
rament. The originality of the main image is in 
contrast to the imitativeness of the vocabulary, 
which relies greatly on the Bible, ancient authors, 
church fathers, and contemporary writers, pri- 
marily Eugeneianos, MICHAEL ITALIKOS, and 
PRODROMOS. 

ED. D.A. Chrestides, Markiana Anekdota (Thessalonike 
1984) 205-90, rev. A. Kazhdan, Hellenika 36 (1985) 184- 
8g. —-A.K. 


ANACREONTICS, a short-lined lyrical verse 
named after the 6th-C. B.c. Ionian poet Ana- 
creon. Since Anacreontics always had a basic eight- 
syllable pattern, they were adapted more easily 
than other forms of METER (whose syllable num- 
bers were more varied) from ancient patterns of 
long and short syllables to the Byz. rules of stress 
accents. Anacreontics were used for religious 
compositions (e.g., by GREGORY OF NAZIANZOS and 
Synesios of Cyrene and by SopHrRonios of Jeru- 
salem); they were used for a secular composition 
by Dioskoros OF APHRODITO. Subsequently they 
became assimilated into Byz. metrics as an eight- 
syllable verse, parallel to 12- and 15-syllable meters 
(DODECASYLLABLE and POLITICAL VERSE respec- 
tively). Later Byz. Anacreontics (which might bet- 
ter be called trochaic octosyllables) had a rather 
monotonous tendency to include a stress on odd- 
numbered syllables and a central caesura after the 
fourth syllable. 

uit. T. Nissen, Die byzantinischen Anakreonteen (Munich 
1940). Hunger, Lit. 2:93-95. -M,J.J. 


84 ANAGNOSTES 


ANAGNOSTES (avayvwarns), reader or lector, 
at first a layman, then a cleric in minor orders 
whose primary function was to read, from the 
AMBO, the texts from the Epistles (and, until the 
7th C., from the Old Testament) prescribed for 
the liturgy. Anagnostat are classified by Byz. can- 
onical commentators among the minor CLERGY 
(klerikoi), who received ordination through the 
sign of the cross (sphragis). In 535 Justinian I tried 
to limit the number of readers in the Great Church 
of Constantinople to 110 (nov.3); in 612 Hera- 
kleios set the limit at 160 (ed. J. Konidaris, FM 5 
[1982] 68). The emperor Julian was an anagnostes 
before renouncing his Christian faith, as were the 
gth-C. patriarchs Jonn VII GRammatTikos and 
Puorios in the first stage of their clerical careers. 


LIT. Beck, Kirche 79. Darrouzes, Offikta 87-91. —P.M. 


ANAGNOSTES, JOHN. See JOHN ANAGNOSTES. 


ANAGRAPHEUS (dvaypadets), fiscal official 
whose functions were hardly distinguishable from 
those of the EpopTes. The earliest mention is on 
a seal of Leo, imperial balnitor and anagrapheus of 
Opsikion (Zacos, Seals 1, no.2095) of 750-850. 
The term is not used, however, in the TAKTIKA. 
Anagrapheis are mentioned in documents from 
941 (Lavra 1, nos. 2 and 3) to at least 1189 (MM 
4:320.7); Délger thinks that they existed up to 
1204. Their major function was the revision of 
the cadaster; thus an act of 1044 (?) states that 
anagrapheis can be sent by the emperor to confis- 
cate the lands of those owners who did not pay 
demosion to the DIOIKETES (Pantel., no.3.1—4). Their 
function presupposed the measurement of land 
(see LAND Survey), and both THEOPHYLAKTOs of 
Ohrid and Michael CHONIATES accuse anagrapheis 
of using false measures. Anagrapheis were usually 
attached to specific themes—Peloponnesos (Zacos, 
Seals 1, no.3220), Thrakesion (V. Laurent, EO 32 
[1933] 36), Thessalonike, etc. (Dédlger, infra 88). 
There were also anagrapheis of special depart- 
ments, such as George, anagrapheus of the Eastern 
DROMOS (Laurent, Corpus 2, no.466), or the ana- 
grapheus of the soldiers (kontaratoi) and of sailors 
(Kek. 268.4—5). The anagrapheus often combined 
his duties with those of the krires. After 1204 he 
was replaced by the APOGRAPHEUS. 


LIT. Délger, Beiträge 82f. Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija 
301-03. -A.K. 


ANALOGY (davadoyia, lit. “proportion” or “re- 
semblance”) was considered in antiquity, primar- 
ily by Aristotle, as a mode of predication using a 
term that is neither univocal nor equivocal but 
indicates a resemblance between parallel cases. In 
antiquity analogy served philosophical goals (pri- 
marily in mathematics and biology); the church 
fathers applied it to theology, esp. to discussing 
an essentially ineffable God. Origen (Comm. on 
Gospel of John 1:26.167—ed. E. Preuschen [Leipzig 
1903] 31), while defining Christ as “light of the 
world,” notes that spiritual concepts could have 
analogies to sensible objects. Gregory of Nyssa 
(PG 44:768A) states that the development of the 
soul presents a certain analogy to the stages of 
development of the human body through which 
is revealed order and sequence of the steps that 
lead man to the virtuous life. Greek theologians, 
however, did not elaborate a theory of analogy in 
the style of Thomas Aquinas. JOHN oF Damascus, 
who rarely mentions the word analogy (e.g., Con- 
tra Jacobitas 77.3—-ed. Kotter, Schriften 4:134), 
broadly uses reasoning by analogy; he also attacks 
the weak analogies of his opponents, such as the 
Nestorians’ assertion that Christ was a human 
being because of his “dwelling” within a human 
being (i.e., the Virgin), just as he is called a Na- 
zarene because of his “dwelling” in Nazareth, al- 
though he had been born in Bethlehem (Contra 


Nestor. 22.6—11—ed. Kotter, Schriften 4:271). 
~A.K., M.W.T. 


ANAMUR. See ANEMOURION. 


ANANIAS OF ŠIRAK (Anania Sirakac’i), the most 
notable early Armenian scholar of scientific sub- 
jects; he lived in the 7th C. (exact dates unknown). 
Ananias traveled to Theodosioupolis, Constanti- 
nople, and Trebizond, where he studied mathe- 
matics with Tychikos, a Greek from Pontus who 
had learned Armenian. Ananias wrote numerous 
works on cosmography, a Chronicle, and some 
theological works. The Geography (wrongly at- 
tributed to Moses XORENAC‘!) has also been as- 
cribed to him. Noteworthy is an introductory text- 
book of mathematics, with tables and a section of 
“Problems and Solutions,” the first of its kind in 
Armenian. The katholikos Anastasios (661—67) asked 
Ananias to establish a fixed calendar, but this was 
not put into effect (Grumel, Chronologie 143). 


ED. Anania Sirakac'u Matenagrut'yune, ed. A. Abraham- 
yan (Erevan 1944). Voprosy i recenya vardapeta Ananija Si- 
yakca, ed. 1.A. Orbeli, Izbrannie Trudy (Erevan 1963) 512— 


e» 


1. 
i uT. H. Berbérian, “Autobiographie d’Anania Sirakac‘i, 
REArm n.s. 1 (1964) 189-94. R. Hewsen, “Science in Seventh- 
Century Armenia: Anania of Širak,” Isis 59 (1968) 32-45. 
J.-P. Mahé, “Quadrivium et cursus d’études au VIH" siècle, 
en Arménie et dans le monde byzantin d'après le ‘K’nnikon’ 
d’Anania Sirakac'i,” TM 10 (1987) 159—206. -R.T. 


ANAPHORA (åvaġpopá, lit. “offering”), initially 
the eucharistic offering itself, but by the 6th C. 
the prayer accompanying that offering, the Eu- 
charistic Prayer. Usually addressed to God the 
Father, the anaphora is the central element of the 
entire EUCHARIST, the text that reveals its mean- 
ing: it recounts what Jesus did at the Last Supper 
(see Lorp’s SUPPER) when he instituted the rite. 
Originally extemporaneous, fixed texts of the an- 
aphora first appear in the 4th C. (A. Bouley, From 
Freedom to Formula [Washington, D.C., 1981] 217— 
3). 
i Eastern anaphoras show three structural types, 
Antiochene, Alexandrian, and East Syrian, distin- 
guished from each other by the position of the 
intercessions (a later interpolation) relative to the 
anaphora’s other, older elements. The Byz. an- 
aphora of Sts. John Chrysostom, Basil, and James 
are all Antiochene in structure. They open with 
an introductory dialogue (R. Taft, OrChrP 49 
[1983] 340-65; 52 [1986] 299-324; 54 [1988] 47— 
77; 55 [1989] 63—74) followed by a prayer of 
praise and thanksgiving to the Father for creation 
and salvation. This introduces the biblical TRISA- 
GION, which is followed by a prayer recounting in 
greater or lesser detail the story of salvation in 
Jesus, esp. the account of the Last Supper, con- 
cluding with the chanting of Jesus Words of In- 
stitution over the bread and cup (“This is my 
body, this is my blood”). The anamnesis prayer 
follows, recalling Jesus’ command to repeat the 
rite (“Do this in memory of me,” Lk 22:19), his 
death, resurrection, ascension, and second com- 
ing. Then in the epic.esis the Father is asked to 
send down the Holy Spirit upon the bread and 
wine to change them into Jesus’ body and blood 
for the salvation of those who receive them wor- 
thily in communion. This petition leads to others: 
the piprycus and the intercessions for the living 
and dead. The anaphora concludes with a Dox- 
OLOGy, chanted aloud, to which the people re- 


ANASARTHA 85 


spond with “The Great Amen.” The term ana- 
phora may also refer to the PROSPHORA, whether 
consecrated or unconsecrated, or to the veil (AER). 

ED. A. Hanggi, I. Pahl, Prex Eucharistica (Fribourg 1968) 
101-415, esp. 223-63. 

LIT. L. Bouyer, Eucharist (Notre Dame, Ind., 1968) 244- 
314. E.J. Kilmartin, “Sacrificium Laudis: Content and 
Function of Early Eucharistic Prayers,” TheolSt 35 (1974) 
268-87. -R.F.T. 


ANAPLOUS. See Bosporos. 


ANARGYROI (avapyvpot, lit. “without money”), 
epithet of healing saints who, unlike secular phy- 
sicians, performed cures without taking payment. 
The wondrous HEALING of the anargyroi was fa- 
vorably contrasted with the activity of pagan dei- 
ties such as Asklepios and Isis and with ordinary 
PHYSICIANS (J. Duffy, DOP 38 [1984] 24f). The 
principal anargyrot were KOSMAS AND DAMIANOS, 
but the epithet was applied also to KYROS AND 
Jonn, SAMPSON, and PANTELEEMON. From the 10th 
C. a similar term was used to designate a healing 
saint or his tomb (“the free hospital,” amisthon 
tatreion), for example, LouKAS THE YOUNGER and 
ATHANASIOS OF ATHOS. 

Representation in Art. The anargyroi, generally 
depicted as young or middle-aged, are clad so- 
berly in tunics and phelonia. They carry attributes 
of their profession: little medicine chests (some- 
times oblong, sometimes cylindrical like a pyxis), 
narrow boxes of medical instruments, phials, little 
spoons, spatulas, or pincers (see PHYSICIAN’S BOX). 

LIT. A. Chatzinikolaou, RBK 2:1077—82. A. Miusseler, 
LCI 5:255-59. C.H. Wendt, “Die heilige Arzte in der Ost- 


kirchenkunst,” Centaurus 1 (1950-51) 1832—38. 
~A.K., N.P.S. 


ANASARTHA (‘Avacap6a, now Khanazir in 
Syria) was made a polis of Syria I in 528 by 
Justinian I, who renamed it Theodorias after his 
empress (Malal. 444.20-22). Anasartha was situ- 
ated on the desert Limes. Two martyria were built 
there in the 5th—6th C., apparently by Arab wives 
of Byz. generals (Victor and Silvanus). City walls 
were constructed in 594/5, in the name of Emp. 
Maurice, state officials, and the local bishop, per- 
haps by ISIDORE THE YOUNGER, a mechanikos who 
had earlier built the walls at CHALKIs and build- 
ings at ZENOBIA. The walls of Anasartha may have 
been extended in 604 by a local (Arab?) Gregory 


86 ANASTASIA, APOCALYPSE OF 


Abimenos in the name of Emp. Phokas and his 
empress Leontia. 
LIT. R. Mouterde, A. Poidebard, Le “Limes” de Chalcis: 


Organisation de la steppe en haute Syrie romaine (Paris 1945) 
68, 193-97. —M.M.M. 


ANASTASIA, APOCALYPSE OF, a compilation 
that describes the fate of sinners whom the pious 
nun Anastasia chanced to see during her visionary 
journey to Hell. The text, dated by Speranskij 
(infra) in the 10th or 11th C. and by Beck (Kirche 
653) in the 11th or 12th C., survives in late Greek 
MSS (of the 15th-16th C.) and in two Slavic 
versions. Its content is banal, with an emphasis on 
the moral decline of mankind, and its cosmogony 
is traditional, resembling that of the Book of 
Enocu. The author, however, mentions some his- 
torical personages and such events as the recon- 
ciliation of Emp. Nikephoros I1 Phokas with his 
murderer John I Tzimiskes. Anastasia also re- 
ports meeting the protospatharios Peter of the kas- 
tron of Corinth, who is replaced in the Slavic 
version by Paul Samonas. 

ED. Apocalypsis Anastasiae, ed. R. Homburg (Leipzig 1903). 

LIT. M. Speranskij, “Malo izvestnoe vizantijskoe ‘Vi- 
denie’ i ego slavjanskie teksty,” BS 3 (1931) 110-33. R. 
Ganszyniec, “Zur Apocalypsis Anastasiae,” BNJbb 4 (1923) 
270-76. —J.1, A.K. 


ANASTASIOPOLIS. See Dara. 


ANASTASIOS (‘Avacraotos), patriarch of Con- 
stantinople (22 Jan. 730—Jan. 754), probably of 
Syrian origin (Gero, Leo HI 29, n.17). Anastasios 
was originally a disciple and synkellos of Patr. GER- 
MANOS I. He changed sides, however, and sup- 
ported the Iconoclastic policy of Leo III. After 
Germanos’s deposition, Leo appointed Anastasios 
patriarch. He compiled and signed a document 
(libelloi) against the veneration of icons and sent 
synodika to Pope Gregory II defending the Icon- 
oclastic position; the papal reaction was to excom- 
municate the patriarch. Nothing is known of any 
further activity of Anastasios during the reign of 
Leo III; after the emperor's death he supported 
ARTABASDOS and denounced Constantine V, al- 
leging in a public statement that the emperor had 
confessed to the patriarch that Christ had been 
an ordinary man and not the Son of God (Theoph. 


415.24-29). After his victory, Constantine or- 
dered that Anastasios be flogged and ignomini- 
ously paraded naked on a donkey in the Hippo- 
drome; nevertheless he retained him on the 
patriarchal throne. When Anastasios died, Con- 
stantine kept the see vacant for several months 
before appointing his successor, the Iconoclast 
Constantine II (754-66); both actions contributed 
to the declining reputation of the patriarchate. 


LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 2, nos. 343-44. R. Janin, DHGE 2 
(1914) 1465. -A.K. 


ANASTASIOS I, emperor (from 11 Apr. 491); 
born Dyrrachion ca.430, died Constantinople 8 
or 10 July 518. He was nicknamed Dikoros (“with 
two pupils”) because his eyes were of different 
colors. His flatterers called Anastasios a descen- 
dant of Pompey, a later legend (in George Ha- 
martolos) made him a son of a priest; his mother 
is described as a Manichaean. Theophanes the 
Confessor (Theoph. 149.27—150.1) calls him a 
supporter of the Manichees and rebukes him for 
patronizing a painter of this persuasion. He was 
famous for his Christian devotion (of Monophys- 
ite type). Circa 488 he was proposed as successor 
to PETER THE FULLER as bishop of Antioch. Even 
though he held the relatively unimportant post of 
decurion of the silentiarioi, in 491 Zeno’s widow 
ARIADNE selected him as emperor against the wishes 
of Patr. Euphemios (490-96) and of Zeno, who 
had wanted his brother Longinos to succeed him. 
Anastasios married Ariadne on 20 May 491 and 
banished Longinos to the Thebaid to die of star- 
vation. 

By 497 Anastasios quelled the independence of 
the Isaurian faction both in Constantinople and 
in IsauriaA. He reformed the fiscal administration 
by shifting the main tax burden from the urban 
centers (abolition of the CHRYSARGYRON) to rural 
areas and transferred tax collection from the curi- 
ales to state-appointed vindices (E. Chrysos, Byzan- 
tina 3 [1971] 93-102). Anastasios created the comi- 
tiva sacri patrimoni, transmitting a section of state 
property to the emperor’s private estate. In 494 
he reformed the bronze coinage, issuing the large 
FOLLIS and several subdivisions. His frugal admin- 
istration resulted in substantial economies so that 
at the time of his death the treasury contained 
320,000 pounds of gold, despite energetic build- 


ing activity in various frontier zones (I. Barnea, 
Dacia n.s. 4 [1960] 363-74). 

Anastasios met with political resistance, esp. 
dangerous during the revolt of VITALIAN, as well 
as religious opposition from the Orthodox, who 
accused him of Monophysite tendencies. He had 
to deal with severe tensions on the frontiers. After 
a period of relative calm on the Danube, the 
Bulgars began to penetrate into the empire. To 
check them, Anastasios ordered construction of 
the Lonc Watt in Thrace in ca.503/4 according 
to B. Croke (GRBS 23 [1982] 73f). His relations 
with THEODORIC THE GREAT were hostile, and the 
popes condemned the AKAKIAN SCHISM and tried 
to establish their jurisdiction over the northern 
Balkans. The Persians attacked Mesopotamia and 
temporarily seized Amrpa. Anastasios had no chil- 
dren, but his nephews and their descendants re- 
tained an influential position for at least five gen- 
erations (Al. Cameron, GRBS 19 [1978] 259—76). 
Anastasios is sometimes held to be the emperor 
portrayed on the BARBERINI IVORY. 

LIT. C. Capizzi, L'imperatore Anastasio I (491—518) (Rome 


1969). PLRE 2:78-80. P. Charanis, Church and State in the 
Later Roman Empire? (Thessalonike 1974). -T.E.G. 


ANASTASIOS I, patriarch of Antioch (559-70; 
25 March 593—end of 598); born Palestine, died 
Antioch end of 598. Scholars (Sakkos, Weiss) now 
have rejected his identification with ANASTASIOS 
oF Sinal. Before his election as patriarch he had 
been apokrisiarios of Alexandria to the see of An- 
tioch. For his stiff opposition to the APHTHARTO- 
DOCETISM of Justinian I, he was banished, proba- 
bly to Constantinople, under Justin IJ (570). During 
this period he was befriended by the future Pope 
Grecory I, with whom he was later to corre- 
spond. His literary output is primarily dogmatic 
and polemic. Although the authenticity of some 
of his homilies is debatable, the address he deliv- 
ered on his return to Antioch is genuine (25 
March 593). Five of his treatises on the Trinity 
and the Incarnation exist in Latin translation. As 
a Neochalcedonian, Anastasios used a strict Or- 
thodox vocabulary but in some points (e.g., in the 
emphasis on the unity of divine and human na- 
tures in the Savior) he came close to moderate 
Monophysites. John of Damascus used him, and 
during the Iconoclast disputes both parties re- 
ferred to Anastasios as an authority. 


ANASTASIOS OF SINAI 87 


ED. PG 89:1289—1408. J. Pitra, Juris ecclesiastici graecorum 
historia et monumenta (Rome 1868) 2:251—-57. 

LIT. S.N. Sakkos, Peri Anastasion Sinaiton (Thessalonike 
1964) 44-86. G. Weiss, Studia Anastasiana I (Munich 1965). 
K.-H. Uthemann, “Des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von An- 
tiochien Jerusalemer Streitsgesprach mit einem Tritheiten 
(CPG 6958),” Traditio 37 (1981) 73-108. -A.P. 


ANASTASIOS II, emperor (713-15); baptismal 
name Artemios; died Constantinople 1 June 719. 
Following the deposition of PHiLipprKos by offi- 
cers of the Opsixion theme, the protasekretis Ar- 
temios was crowned as Anastasios on 4 June 713. 
He reversed his predecessor’s support of Mon- 
OTHELETISM by eventually replacing Patr. John VI 
(712-15) with Germanos I and by revalidating 
the Third Council of Constantinople. The raid of 
MasLaMa into Galatia in 714 prompted Anastasios 
to send entreaties for peace to Caliph Walid, but 
reports of large-scale campaign preparations in 
Syria spurred him to prepare Constantinople for 
an assault. He appointed competent thematic of- 
ficers, including the future Leo III; ordered in- 
dividuals in Constantinople to be able to support 
themselves for three years or else to leave the city; 
rebuilt the fleet; restored the land and sea walls; 
erected siege weapons; and stored grain. He also 
dispatched a fleet in 715 to destroy the Arabs’ 
timber supply in Phoenicia, but the expedition 
broke up in Rhodes and the Opsikion troops 
revolted in favor of THEovosios III. After a six- 
month struggle, Anastasios abdicated, became a 
monk, and was exiled to Thessalonike. In 719, at 
the instigation of the magistros Niketas Xylinites, 
he marched on Constantinople with help from 
TERVEL, but eventually the Bulgars surrendered 
him to Leo and he was beheaded. His wife Irene 
buried him in the Church of the Holy Apostles, 
Constantinople. 


LIT. Kulakovskij, Istorija 3:312-18. Sumner, “Philippi- 
cus. Anastasius IT & Theodosius III” 2809—91. -P.A.H. 


ANASTASIOS OF SINAI, theologian and saint; 
died after 700; feastday 21 Apr. S. Sakkos iden- 
tified him with Anastasios II, patriarch of Anti- 
och, murdered by the local Jews ca.609. However, 
the brief note in the SYNAXARION OF CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE (Synax.CP 607f) contradicts the hypothesis 
of Sakkos and reports that Anastasios of Sinai 
died peacefully after having written “saints’ lives 


88 ANASTASIS 


and works which profit the soul.” Anastasios par- 
ticipated in anti-Monophysite discussions in Al- 
exandria between 635 and 640 but was still active 
ca.700, although he was a monk at the monastery 
of St. Catherine on Sinai. 

His major work is the Guidebook (Hodegos), com- 
pleted and supplied with the author’s scholia 
sometime between 686 and 68g. It is a polemic 
against heresies, esp. MONOPHYSITISM and Mono- 
THELETISM. Anastasios also wrote sermons, includ- 
ing two that dealt with the creation of man: man 
was created from two natures, mortal and im- 
mortal, and thus was a paradigm of God’s incar- 
nation or Christ’s synthesis. The distinction be- 
tween his genuine works and spuria is not always 
clear. An EROTAPOKRISIS and a FLORILEGIUM that 
had an anti-Monothelite tendency are ascribed in 
MSS to a certain Anastasios, who may be identical 
with the monk of Sinai. The HEXAEMERON is evi- 
dently not by Anastasios, although the conclusion 
of J. Baggarly (The Conjugates Christ-Church in the 
Hexaemeron of pseudo-Anastasius of Sinai [Rome 
1974]) that the author cribbed from Psellos and 
lived in the 11th-12th C. does not prove valid. In 
the Hexaemeron pseudo-Anastasios interpreted the 
six-day creation legend allegorically as a prefigur- 
ation of the relations between Christ and the 
Church. Some works of Anastasios are preserved 
in Oriental translations. 

ED. PG 8g. Viae dux, ed. K.H. Uthemann (Turnhout- 


Louvain 1981). Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secun- 
dum imaginem dei, ed. K.H. Uthemann (Turnhout-Louvain 


1985). 

LIT. Beck, Kirche 442-46. M. Richard, Opera minora 3 
(Turnhout-Louvain 1977) nos. 63—64. S. Sakkos, Pert An- 
astasion Sinaiton (Thessalonike 1964) 87-171. T. Spáčil, “La 
teologia di s. Anastasio Sinaita,” Bessarione 26 (1922) 157— 
78, 27 (1923) 15-44. -A.K. 


ANASTASIS ('Aváoraæcış) or RESURRECTION is 
the Easter image of the Orthodox church. Usually 
believed to be based on apocryphal texts such as 
the Gospel of Nıcopemus (but see Kartsonis, in- 
fra), it shows Christ bursting the gates of Hell and 
releasing those said to have believed in him before 
his Incarnation. First encountered in the 8th C., 
the Anastasis had assumed its classic form by the 
11th: Christ strides over the shattered bolts of 
Hell’s gates, sometimes treading upon the shack- 
led personification of Hapes; flanking Christ are 
sarcophagi from which emerge figures including 
Adam, Eve, and sometimes Seth on one side and 


David, Solomon, and John the Baptist on the 
other, Christ strides toward Adam, reaching to 
release him (DAPHNI), or upward, dragging Adam 
behind him (Hosios Loukas). A rare variant shows 
Christ standing centrally, exposing his wounds. 
In a Palaiologan version he pulls Adam with his 
right hand and Eve with his left (CHoRA). The 
image of the Anastasis is integral to GREAT FEAST 
cycles in all media; accompanying the Easter lec- 
tion (Jn 1:1-18), it opens many LECTIONARIES and 
precedes John’s Gospel in many Gospel books; it 
illuminates the Easter homily of GREGORY oF Na- 
ZIANZOS and hymns of resurrection; and it occu- 
pies the apse of certain late funerary chapels 
(Chora) and Crusader churches (see “Holy Sep- 
ulchre” under JERUSALEM). 


LIT. A. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image 
(Princeton 1986). -A.W.C. 


ANASTASIUS BIBLIOTHECARIUS, papal of- 
ficial, Latin writer, and translator; born Rome? 
ca.800 or before 817 (H. Wolter, LMA 1:573), 
died ca.87g9. Anastasius was gth-C. Europe’s lead- 
ing expert on Byz. His rocky career saw him as 
cardinal priest of St. Marcellus in 847/8, a fugitive 
around Aquileia in 848—53, excommunicated and 
reduced to lay status by Pope Leo IV, and unsuc- 
cessful antipope in 855. Subsequently rehabili- 
tated, Anastasius became abbot of S. Maria in 
Trastevere and, from 861 or 862, served as pri- 
vate secretary to Pope NicHo ras I, regained the 
priesthood and became bibliothecarius Romanae Ec- 
clesiae (head of the archive) to HADRIAN II. From 
late 861, he shaped policy and authored diplo- 
matic correspondence with Constantinople, par- 
ticularly concerning PHorios (N. Ertl, Archiv für 
Urkundenforschungen 15 [1938] 82—121). Anasta- 
sius knew CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER and 
MeTHODIOS and backed their endeavors to evan- 
gelize the Slavs (F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method: 
Lehrer der Slaven [Wiesbaden 1960] 78-82). In 
868, Anastasius was accused of complicity in his 
relatives’ attack on Hadrian’s wife and daughter 
but was acquitted. 

The following year, he traveled to Constanti- 
nople as Louis II’s envoy to Basix I and probably 
negotiated the projected marriage alliance be- 
tween the two empires. In the same capacity, he 
participated in the Constantinople council of 869- 
70 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF), 


earning Basil’s irritation and papal satisfaction 
through a murky affair of documents stolen from 
the pope’s ambassadors. Between 2 Feb. and 13 
Aug. 871, Anastasius probably wrote the letter of 
Louis II to Basil I preserved in the CHRONICON 
SALERNITANUM. After the accession of Pope JOHN 
VIII in Dec. 872, his influence waned (P. Devos, 
Byzantion 32 [1962] 97—115) and he devoted him- 
self to writing. 

In addition to the many letters composed in his 
lords’ names, Anastasius probably wrote sections 
of the biography of Nicholas I in the LIBER PON- 
TIFICALIS—its views on Byz. are his—and influ- 
enced the author of the Life of Hadrian II. His 
unparalleled, if imperfect, knowledge of Greek 
allowed him to translate into Latin numerous works 
of Byz. literature desired in the West. A dozen 
such hagiographical texts, dedicated to popes, 
churchmen, and the Frankish ruler include a ser- 
mon by THEODORE oF SToupIos, Constantine the 
Philosopher’s lost writings on St. Kliment (the 
surviving preface from 877 or 878 sheds light on 
Constantine’s earlier career—P. Devos, P. Mey- 
vaert, in Cyrillo-Methodiana [Cologne 1964] 65), as 
well as a Passion of Peter of Alexandria. These works 
seem to betray a fascination with the East com- 
bined with fear of Byz. heresy and political 
oppression (C. Leonardi in Hagiographie—cultures 
et sociétés [Paris 1981] 471-89). 

Anastasius’s translations of theological works 
included MAxIMOs THE CONFESSOR, a revision of 
John Scot Eriugena’s translations of pseudo- 
DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE, and Collectanea of 
documents from the crisis over MONOTHELETISM. 
The recent relations of the PAPACY with Constan- 
tinople explain Anastasius’s improved translation 
of the acts of the Second Council of Nicaga, the 
version of and commentary on the 86g—70 coun- 
cil of Constantinople (C. Leonardi, StMed* 8 [1967] 
59-192), and a Chronographia tripartita based in 
large part on THEOPHANES THE CONFESSOR, the 
nearly slavish translation of which (D. Tabacho- 
vitz, BZ 38 [1938] 16—22) reflects older and more 
reliable MSS than the revised Greek originals that 
have survived. 

ED. E. Perels, G. Laehr, in MGH Epist. 7:395—442. Theo- 
phanes Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, vol. 2 (Leipzig 1885) 
31—346. Sermo Theodori Studitae de sancto Bartholomeo apos- 
tolo, ed. U. Westerbergh (Stockholm 1963). P. Devos, “Une 
passion grecque inédite de s. Pierre d'Alexandrie et sa 
traduction par Anastase le Bibliothécaire,” AB 83 (1965) 
157-87. 


ANATOLIKON 89 


LIT. G. Arnaldi, “Anastasio Bibliotecario,” Dizionario bio- 
grafico degli Italiani 3 (Rome 1961) 25-37. A. Lapôtre, 
Etudes sur la papauté au IXe siècle, vol. 1 (Turin 1978) 121— 
476. —M.McC. 


ANASTYLOSIS. See DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS. 


ANATHEMA (a@vaéepua, “that which is set aside, 
accursed”), the highest form of ecclesiastical cen- 
sure directed at obstinate or unrepentant heretics, 
normally found at the conclusion of conciliar de- 
crees and canons. The earliest recorded usage of 
the term is at the Council of Elvira, ca.305 (canon 
52). The New Testament formula et 71s . . . , 
avabena Eatw (Gal 1:9), met frequently in con- 
ciliar documents, was first employed by the local 
council of GANGRa. The term supposed exclusion 
from the church’s fellowship and, as such, does 
not appear to have been clearly distinguishable 
from EXCOMMUNICATION. Nevertheless, anath- 
ema, in contrast with the disciplinary procedure 
of excommunication, was essentially a more sol- 
emn pronouncement of condemnation. It was thus 
not a precise ecclesiastical punishment as much as 
a curse directed almost exclusively against false 
teaching. From the 7th C. onward the term is 
clearly distinguishable from excommunication in 
conciliar decrees (cf. Nicaea II, canon 1). Accord- 
ing to BaLsaMmon the church cannot exercise the 
right of total or eternal anathema by which the 
transgressor is deprived of all hope of salvation 
(PG 137:1237A). The word, which was used 
broadly as a malediction by individuals (e.g., in 
purchase deeds, MM 6:159.26-27, 161.30-31), 
was often coupled with the curse (apd) of the 318 
Fathers of Nicaea I. The SYNODIKON OF ORTHO- 
poxy, first drafted in the early 10th C., with 
additions made up to the 15th C., contains nu- 
merous anathemas of heretics. 

LIT. A.S. Alivizates, “Anathema,” TREE (Athens 1969 


2:469-73. -A.P. 


To 


ANATOLIA. See Asia MINOR. 


ANATOLIKON (’Avavoduxor), one of the origi- 
nal THEMES of Asia Minor, attested by 669. 
Stretching from the Aegean to Lykaonia and 
Isauria, it ranked first among all the themes. Its 
troops rebelled against Constantine IV in 681, 


90 | ANATOLIOS 


and in 714 its strategos successfully revolted to 
become emperor Leo III. Conscious of the power 
of the general, Leo apparently detached the west- 
ern districts to form the THRAKESION theme. Ana- 
tolikon supported Constantine V in 742 against 
ARTABASDOS; in 803 its strategos BARDANES TOUR- 
Kos led a revolt. Early in the oth C. its eastern 
districts were removed to form CAPPADOCIA; un- 
der Theophilos, SELEUKEIA became a separate 
theme; and Leo VI added the region west of the 
Salt Lake to Cappadocia. The capital of Anatoli- 
kon was AMoRION until at least 838. In the mid- 
gth C. Anatolikon contained 34 forts; its strategos, 
who bore the title patrikios, commanded 15,000 
troops and drew a salary of 40 pounds of gold. 
Anatolikon last appears when its strategos Nike- 
phoros Botaneiates was proclaimed emperor in 
1077. 


uit. A. Pertusi in De them. 114-17. TIB 4:63—66. 
-C.F. 


ANATOLIOS (’Ava7oAtos), member of a famous 
family of jurists, ANTECESSOR, professor at the law 
school of Berytus, and one of the eight addressees 
of the Constitutio Omnem of Justinian I from the 
year 533. Anatolios was appointed by Justinian to 
the commission for the compilation of the Dicesrt. 
He is probably identical with the jurist Anatolios, 
named specifically in some scholia to the Basilika, 
who wrote Greek paraphrases of constitutions of 
the Codex Justinianus. According to the generally 
accepted view of K.E. Zacharid von Lingenthal 
(Kritische Jahrbücher für Deutsche Rechtswissenschaft 
8 [1844] 803f), the Greek versions of the Cod. 
Just. VIII 4—56 that were admitted into the text 
of the Basilika originate in a paraphrase of the 
Codex by Anatolios. Since Ferrini’s edition of ap- 
proximately 200 anonymous paraphrases of con- 
stitutions of the Codex (two of which are inscribed 
with “Anatolios” in the scholia to the Basilika), 
these have been regarded as extracts from this 
paraphrase. 

ED. Heimbach, Basil. 6:69—72. C. Ferrini, Opere, vol. 1 


(Milan 1929) 254—go. 


LIT. Zacharia, Kleine Schriften 2:326—33. -A.S. 


ANAZARBOS (Aváčapßos, now Anavarza), a city 
in the eastern plain of Cilicia on a tributary of the 
Pyramos. The civil and ecclesiastical metropolis of 


Ciricia II, Anazarbos was destroyed by earth- 
quakes and rebuilt by Justin I, then Justinian Į, 
and assumed their names in turn. Occupied by 
the Arabs in the mid-7th C., its exposed frontier 
location led to depopulation until it was restored 
in 796. After many Byz. attempts, Nikephoros ĮI 
Phokas took Anazarbos in g62. It became the seat 
of a strategos, but fell to the Armenians in 1085 
and to the Crusaders in 1097. Retaken by John 
II Komnenos in 1137 and by Manuel I in 1158, 
it was finally lost again to the Armenians ca.1174, 
The site contains two basilicas of the 6th C., a 
cruciform church of uncertain date, and extensive 
remains of fortifications, some of them Byz. 

ur. M. Gough, “Anazarbus,” AnatSt 2 (1952) 85-150. 


H. Hellenkemper, Burgen der Kreuzritterzeit (Bonn 1976) 
191—201. -CGF, 


ANCHIALOS (Ayxiados), Thracian city on the 
Black Sea coast; in the late Roman period it was 
in the province of Haemimontus. According to 
Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm.Marc. 27.4.12), it 
was a civitas magna. Prokopios (Buildings 3.7.18) 
identified its inhabitants as Thracians. Occupied 
by Avars at the end of the 6th C., Anchialos was 
later contested between Bulgarians and Byz.: in 
763 Constantine V defeated the Bulgarians in a 
battle on the “field of Anchialos” (Theoph. 433.5). 
Empress Irene ordered the fortification of An- 
chialos, but under Michael l the Christian popu- 
lation left the town. In 917 a Byz. army was 
defeated near Anchialos in the battle at ACHE- 
Lous, and the town was annexed to Bulgaria. 
Anchialos was in Bulgarian hands in the 13th and 
14th C., although Michael VIII tried to regain it 
by marrying his relative Maria to the Bulgarian 
tsar Constantine Tich. It was under Byz. control 
ca.1423, but soon thereafter was conquered by 
the Turks. 

According to legend, Anchialos was a Christian 
city as early as the 1st C.; Eusebios mentions its 
bishop Sotas (ca.170). From the 7th C. onward, 
Anchialos was an autocephalous archbishopric 
under the direct jurisdiction of Constantinople. 

LIT. A.N. Diamantopoulos, He Anchialos (Athens 1954). 
V. Velkov, Gradiit v Trakija i Dakija prez kiisnata antičnost 
(Sofia 1959) 96. 1. Dujčev, LMA 1:577. S. Vailhé, DHGE 2 
(1914) 1511~13. -A.K. 


ANCHORITE. See HERMIT. 


ANCIENT OF DAYS. See Curist: Types of 
Christ. 


ANCONA (‘Ayxoyv), Adriatic port in central Italy 
and an important Byz. stronghold during the 
Gothic war of the 6th C. In the mid-1eth C. 
Manuel I used the commune of Ancona, which 
recognized him as overlord, as a Byz. base to fight 
the Norman kingdom, the Venetian predomi- 
nance in the Adriatic, and the growing influence 
of the Western Empire in Italy. With the help of 
Byz. money and military advisers Ancona resisted 
the German assaults in 1158, 1167, and 1173. 
From the second half of the 12th C. Anconitan 
merchants are known to have traded in Dalmatia 
and in the eastern Mediterranean. Their colony 
in Constantinople, with its Church of St. Stephen 
(attested from 1199), was headed by a consul. 
According to a chrysobull of Andronikos II (1308), 
Anconitan ships paid 2 percent tax on goods 
entering or leaving the port of Constantinople 
(Reg 4, no.2315), the same percentage as that paid 
by Venetian and Genoese ships. The travels of 
Cyriacus OF ANCONA in the eastern Mediterra- 
nean resulted in the first important archaeological 
information about this region. In 1453 the An- 
conitan consul helped to defend Constantinople’s 
walls. 

LIT. J.-F. Leonhard, Die Seestadt Ancona im Spätmittelalter 
(Tübingen 1983). D. Abulafia, “Ancona, Byzantium and 
the Adriatic, 1155-1173,” BSR 52 (1984) 195-216. A. 
Pertusi, “The Anconitan Colony in Constantinople and the 


Report of Its Consul, Benvenuto, on the Fall of the City,” 
in Charanis Studies 199—218. -Vw.F. 


ANDRAVIDA (AvdpaBida, Fr. Andreville, ori- 
gin of the name disputed), city in Elis in the 
northwestern Peloponnesos; primary residence of 
the prince of Achara. According to the CHRONI- 
CLE OF THE MORFA (vv. 1426—29, ed. Schmitt g8f), 
Andravida was already a town before the Frankish 
conquest, but was not fortified. Georrrrey I VIL- 
LEHARDOUIN established himself in Andravida al- 
most immediately after his arrival. Its location in 
the rich Elean plain allowed it to be well supplied 
for the great gatherings the Frankish chivalry so 
enjoyed, while its proximity to the sea, through 
the port at Clarenza, permitted easy contact with 
the West; never fortified, it was protected by the 


ANDREJ OF BOGOLJUBOVO 91 


castle of CHLEMOUTSI 5 km to the east. The city 
witnessed great assemblies of troops and cour- 
tiers, including the marriage of Hugues de Brienne 
and Isabelle de la Roche in 1277. Geoffrey I 
transferred the bishopric of Olena (Notitiae CP 
21.134) to Andravida and it kept that title, al- 
though the bishop was a Frank. 

No monuments from before 1204 are known, 
but three churches of the Frankish period can be 
identified in the sources: St. Sophia, St. Stephen, 
and St. James; this last possessed a hospital and 
was the burial place of the Villehardouins. The 
sanctuary and side chapels of the Dominican 
Church of St. Sophia survive: it was an enormous 
cathedral, more than 41 m long and nearly 19 m 
wide. It can be paralleled by many late 13th- and 
early 14th-C. Gothic churches in France and Italy. 
Its plan resembles that of St. Paraskeve in CHALKIS. 
Inside the church was the tombstone of the prin- 
cess Agnes (died 1286), with what is probably the 
coat of arms of the Villehardouin family (A. Bon, 


MonPiot 49 [1957] 129-39). 


tir. C.D. Shepherd, “Excavations at the Cathedral of 
Hagia Sophia, Andravida, Greece,” Gesta 25 (1986) 139- 
44. Bon, Morée franque 1:318—20, 547-53. Panagopoulos, 
Monasteries 65—77. -T.E.G. 


ANDREJ OF BOGOLJUBOVO, prince of Suz- 
dal’; born ca.1111, died 29 June 1174. Intending, 
like his father Jurly DoLGoruxy, to rule over all 
of Rus’, Andrej did not aim to be prince of Kiev, 
which his army sacked in 1169. He developed his 
capital Vladimir on the Kljazma River after Kie- 
van, Byz., and Romanesque models and main- 
tained a country residence at Bogoljubovo, after 
which he was nicknamed. Andrej tried to erect a 
second metropolitan see at Vladimir, but the Byz. 
patriarch Loukas CHRYSOBERGES rejected this 
project in a letter (ca.1165—1168; wrongly dated 
to ca.1161 by Grumel in RegPaztr, fasc. 3, no. 1052). 
Andre} promoted the cult of the THEOTOKOS as 
his and his principality’s patroness (see VIRGIN OF 
VLADIMIR) and the venerdtivin as a sani of Leon- 
tios, a Greek and the first bishop of Rostov, who 
was martyred by local pagans in the 1070s. Andrej 
participated in church discussions concerning 
fasting on holy days, a topic simultaneously de- 
bated in Constantinople. His relations with Byz. 
were not as close as those of his father because in 
Constantinople relations with the Kievan ruler 


92 ANDREW 


took priority. Andrej was ruthless toward both his 
family and his close associates, a policy that pre- 
cipitated a plot which ended his days. 

ur. N.N. Voronin, Zodéestvo Severo-Vostočnoj Rusi XII— 
XV veka (Moscow 1961) 1:113-342. W. Vodoff, “Un ‘parti 
théocratique’ dans la Russie du XIe siècle?” CahCM 17 
(1974) 193—215. E. Hurwitz, Prince Andrej Bogoljubsktj: the 
Man and the Myth (Florence 1980). —An.P. 


ANDREW (’Avipéas), apostle and saint; feastday 
30 Nov. He was the brother of PETER and, like 
him, a fisherman. The early legend, preserved in 
EuSEBIOS OF CAESAREA, describes only his mission 
to Scythia; eventually he was said to have visited 
Thrace, and GREGORY OF Tours states in passing 
that Andrew was in Constantinople as well. Not 
until the end of the 7th C., however, did the idea 
appear that Andrew ordained Stachys, the first 
(legendary) bishop of Constantinople. Photios (Bz1., 
cod.179) mentions “the so-called Acts of the twelve 
apostles, primarily Andrew” that were used by the 
Manichaean Agapios, but we do not know the 
contents of the Manichaean legend. 

The story of Andrew was developed by Epi- 
phanios of the monastery of Kallistratos in Con- 
stantinople in the early gth C. (PG 120:215—60); 
the author’s identity with EPIPHANIOS HaGiopo- 
tires has been suggested but remains question- 
able. Epiphanios was followed by various writers, 
including Nixetas Davin PAPHLAGON. Legend 
called Andrew the protokletos (first of the apostles) 
and made wordplays on his name (which means 
“courageous”); he is presented as a tireless mis- 
sionary who traveled to Paphlagonia, the Cauca- 
sus, and the northern shores of the Black Sea. 
However, the notion of Andrew as the founder 
of the see of Constantinople did not become pop- 
ular in Byz. and was invoked infrequently (e.g., 
by Neilos DoxopaTres in 1143). The cult of An- 
drew seems to have been more intense at Patras, 
with which legend associated his martyrdom and 
death. Constantine VII (De adm. imp., 49.26) as- 
cribes to Andrew’s intervention the victory over 
the Slavs, who besieged Patras between 802 and 
806. 

Representation in Art. From the 6th C. on- 
ward, Andrew’s disheveled white hair and beard 
distinguish his portraits. He is often represented 
in the FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE and with Peter 
in the scene of their calling. This usually follows 
Matthew 4:1-18 (Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ra- 


vENNA; Tokalı Kilise, GOREME) and only rarely 
John 1:37-42, in which Andrew is the central 
figure, shown introducing Peter to Christ as in an 
11th-C. Gospel book in Vienna (ONB, theol. gr. 
154, fol. 223r). Of the apocryphal events from 
Andrew’s life, only his crucifixion on a cross or 
tree is illustrated: Belli Kilise, SoGANLI; bronze 
doors of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome, 1070, 
He is shown preaching in the marginal PsaLTErs 
(Ps 1g) and baptizing in the Paris GREGORY (fol. 
426v). He appears among other saints on 1oth- 
and 1ith-C. ivories. Though both the LIBER pon- 
TIFICALIS (S.v. Gregory III) and the LETTER or 
THE THREE PATRIARCHS (p.351) mention panels 
portraying him, the earliest surviving single-figure 
icons of Andrew are from the 14th C. (Nicosia, 
Icon Museum; Venice, Museo Correr). 

LIT. BHG g3—110c. J. Flamion, Les Actes apocryphes de 
lapôtre André (Louvain 1911). F. Dvornik, The Idea of 
Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew 
(Cambridge, Mass., 1958). E.C. Suttner, “Der hl. Andreas 
und das 6kumenische Patriarchat,” Der christliche Osten 38 
(1983) 121-29. Vasil’evskij, Trudy 2.1 (1909) 213-95. O. 
Demus, “Zum Werk eines venezianischen Malers auf dem 


Sinai,” in Byz. und der Westen 131-42. K. Wessel, RBK 
1:154—56. —J.1., A.K., A.W.C. 


ANDREW, archbishop of Caesarea (563—614). 
Andrew composed the second oldest commentary 
on the APOCALYPSE after that of OIKOUMENIOS, 
with whom he was often in principled disagree- 
ment. His exegesis is esp. valuable as a source for 
the textual tradition of the Apocalypse. ARETHAS 
of Caesarea freely exploited it in the gth C., and 
its influence spread further afield through trans- 
lations into Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic. 
Fragments also remain of a work of moral com- 
fort entitled Therapeutike; his commentary on Dan- 
iel is lost. 

ED. Commentary on Apocalypse—PG 106:207—458, 
1387—1412. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse- 
Textes, ed. J. Schmid, vol. 1 (Munich 1955). Therapeutthe 
frag. in Diekamp, AnalPatr 161-72. . 

uit. A.M. Castagno, “Il problema della datazione dei 
Commenti all’Apocalisse di Ecumenio e di Andrea di Cesa- 
rea,” Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Tortno. 
Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filosofiche 114 (1980) 223- 
46. F. Diekamp, “Das Zeitalter des Erzbischofs Andreas 
von Casarea,” Hist{b 18 (1897) 1—36. —B.B. 


ANDREW OF CRETE, poet, ecclesiastical orator, 
and saint; born Damascus ca.660, died Lesbos 4 
July 740. Tonsured at an early age at the mon- 


astery of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, An- 
drew became a notary of the Great Basilica there. 
Contrary to legend, he did not participate in the 
Council of Constantinople of 680. He was, how- 
ever, sent On a mission to Constantinople in 685 
and administered an orphanage and a poorhouse 
there. Between 692 and 713 he was elected met- 
ropolitan of Crete; the seal of Andrew, proedros 
of Crete (Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.619), is probably 
his. Andrew’s homilies allude to the invasions of 
the Scythians (Bulgarians) and of “the tribe of the 
maidservant Hagar” (Arabs) as well as to Leo III’s 
persecution of the Jews. 

Andrew is often considered the creator of the 
new genre of the KANON that replaced the Kon- 
TAKION. His Great Kanon is enormously long, with 
250 strophes. As a theologian Andrew was indif- 
ferent to MONOTHELETISM and developed the idea 
that the Virgin, although born of a human mar- 
riage, was in a sense the daughter of God (M. 
Jugie, EO 13 [1910] 129-33). Some works as- 
cribed to Andrew in MSS are not genuine, for 
example the panegyric of James, the brother of 
the Lord (ed. J. Noret, H. Gaspart [Toronto 1978)). 
Andrew enjoyed considerable renown. His vita, 
written (gth C.?) by Patr. Niketas (to be distin- 
guished from NIKETAS MAGISTROS), was later re- 
worked several times. After 1204 a certain Aka- 
kios Sabaites produced a commentary on the Great 
Kanon that mentioned Basil II’s victory over the 
Bulgarians, the foundation of Mosynopolis, and 
the news of the Latin conquest of Constantinople 
(M. Richard, EEBS 34 [1965] 304-11). 

ED. PG 97:790-1444. See list in Tusculum-Lexikon 54. 
Eng. tr. The Great Canon (Jordanville, N.Y., 1982). 

uit. BHG 113~114c. S. Vailhé, “Saint André de Crète,” 
EO 5 (1901-02) 378-87. S. Eustratiades, “Andreas ho 


Kretes ho Hierosolymites,” Nea Sion 29 (1934) ee 
Beck, Kirche 500-02. -A.K 


ANDREW THE FOOL (ó caados), a “created” 
saint; feastday 28 May. He was supposedly a con- 
temporary of the 5th-C. emperor Lero I, although 
his biographer presented him as an imitator of 
SYMEON oF Emesa, the holy Foot who lived in the 
6th C. A certain Nikephoros, priest of Hagia 
Sophia, wrote Andrew’s Life; its date remains 
disputed. According to C. Mango (RSBS 2 [1982] 
309), the most probable date is between 674 and 
695; J. Wortley (Byzantion 43 [1973] 248) ascribes 
to the vita a terminus post quem of g20, though he 


ANDREW THE SCYTHIAN 93 


dates some parts of it to the early 880s; L. Rydén 
(DOP 32 [1978] 129-55) prefers a date of ca.g50— 
59. The earltest MS is a quire in Munich (Bayer. 
Staatsbib. gr. 443) in a 10th-C. uncial script. The 
vita was translated into Georgian and Slavonic. 

The Life of Andrew presents him as Scythian 
and the slave of the protospatharios Theognostos; 
Andrew acquired fluent Greek surprisingly quickly 
and became his master’s notary, but after a dream 
he turned to a spiritual life. He rejected all social 
conventions, lived in the streets, drank from pud- 
dles, slept on a dung heap, and not only endured 
hardships supernaturally but knew hidden things 
and foresaw the future. His behavior, however, is 
less extreme than that described in the Life of 
Symeon. Andrew’s endurance is emphasized: he 
was beaten up by visitors to a tavern, a heavy cart 
ran over him, he survived bad storms. The Life 
introduces a certain Epiphanios, who was hand- 
some, rich, socially conventional, and part of the 
establishment; he was nevertheless Andrew’s be- 
loved pupil, whose election as “the bishop of the 
imperial city” Andrew predicted. The Life is con- 
sistently Constantinopolitan, its action unfolding 
on the streets of the capital. Its several visions and 
apocalypses include the prophecy that Egypt will 
pay her tribute, PAKTA (L. Rydén, DOP 28 [1974] 
202.32—40). The Life describes Epiphanios’s vi- 
sion of HapEs: a murky area full of prisons and 
populated neither by devilish executioners nor 
tortured sinners but rather by animals that sym- 
bolize the souls of sinners. 

Representation in Art. One of the very rare 
images of this saint is a late 12th-C. fresco in the 
cell in the Enkleistra of St. NEOPHYTOS on Cyprus. 
The rather emaciated saint wears a fleecy, short- 
sleeved, belted tunic and carries a little sprig of 
flowers (C. Mango, E. Hawkins, DOP 20 [1966] 
fig.g2). 

SOURCE. PG 111:627—888. 

ut. BHG 1152-117k. S. Murray, A Study of the Life of 
Andreas, the Fool for the Sake of Christ (Borna-Leipzig 1910). 
J. Grosdidier de Matons, “Les thémes d’édification dans la 
vie d’André Salos,” TM 4 (1970) 277-328. L. Rydén, “Style 
and Historical Fiction in the Life of St. Andreas Salos,” 
JOB 32.3 (1982) 175-83. ~A.K., N.P.S. 


ANDREW THE SCYTHIAN, late gth-C. general 
of Basix I who distinguished himself in wars against 
Tarsos. He received the title of patrikios and was 
appointed domestikos ton scholon. Andrew was re- 


94 | ANDRONIKOS I KOMNENOS 


portedly (TheophCont 234-36) angered by a blas- 
phemous letter sent him by the emir of Tarsos 
and led an expedition against this city; at the 
Podandos River he defeated an Arab army and 
took prisoner its commander, ‘Abd Allah ibn 
Rashid (878). His enemies charged him with pu- 
sillanimity because, after his victory at Podandos, 
Andrew retreated without proceeding to Tarsos; 
according to another version (TheophCont 847.10~ 
12), SANTABARENOS accused Andrew of support- 
ing Leo against his father, Basil I. Kesta Styp- 
PEIOTES replaced Andrew as domestikos (ca.883?), 
but Leo VI restored him to his previous position 
and possibly granted him the title of magistros. 
LIT. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.1:84,101~—02. Guilland, Insti- 
tutions 1:438f. -A.K. 


ANDRONIKOS I KOMNENOS, emperor (1183— 
85); born ca.1118—20, died Constantinople Sept. 
1185. Son of Isaac the brother of Jonn II, An- 
dronikos was nurtured with the future MANUEL 
I, who remained personally partial to him. An- 
dronikos, however, renewed his father’s hostility 
to the ruling Komnenoi. Reconciled with Manuel 
in 1180, after many adventures, he became gov- 
ernor of Pontos. During the reign of ALEexios Il, 
he stirred opposition to Maria OF ANTIOCH. In 
Apr. 1182, Andronikos overthrew her, allowed a 
massacre of citizens of Pisa and Genoa in Con- 
stantinople, and became regent for Alexios I]. He 
murdered Maria KoMNENE, her husband, and Ma- 
ria of Antioch. His coronation as co-emperor (Sept. 
1183) led to Alexios II’s death. 

Internally, Andronikos attempted reforms: 
provincial governors received adequate salaries, 
sale of offices ceased, corruption was prosecuted, 
pillaging of wrecked ships prohibited, and taxa- 
tion moderated. He used the bureaucracy against 
the aristocracy; he harshly persecuted nobles, esp. 
rival Komnenoi (Kazhdan, Gosp.klass. 263-65); 
however, some nobles (including Constantine 
Doukas and Andronikos Doukas) were among 
his supporters. Many aristocrats (notably Alexios 
KomneEnos the pinkernes) fled to neighboring rul- 
ers, stirring opposition to Andronikos. 

Externally, he had few successes. BéLAa III oc- 
cupied Niš (see Narssus) and Sofia (see Serpica) 
in 1182—83, then withdrew (1184). To gain naval 
support, Andronikos turned to Venice. The re- 
appearance of Venetians in Constantinople alien- 


ated the populace. Cyprus fell to Isaac KoMNE- 
nos. After the forces of Wiliam II took 
Thessalonike, the multitude in Constantinople were 
terrified; the populace seized an occasion to de- 
throne Andronikos (12 Sept. 1185). Captured after 
attempted flight, he was cruelly put to death. 

Andronikos’s talents and personality earned the 
people’s admiration, but his violence and lascivi- 
ousness marred his achievements. His first wife 
was a Byz. aristocrat, his second AGNES OF FRANCE; 
his favorite mistress was Theodora Komnene, 
widow of BALDWIN III of Jerusalem. Represen- 
tations of Andronikos are rare, though he is dis- 
tinguished on his coins (Grierson, Byz. Coins, figs. 
1109—12) by his long forked beard, remarked 
upon by Choniates. 

uit. Brand, Byzantium 28—75. Hecht, Aussenpolittk 30- 


86. O. Jurewicz, Andronikos I. Komnenos (Amsterdam 1970). 
—C.M.B., A.C. 


ANDRONIKOS II PALAIOLOGOS, emperor 
(1282—1328); born 1259 or 1260, died Constan- 
tinople 13 Feb. 1332. His 46-year reign, the third 
longest in the history of the empire, was plagued 
by religious dissension, Ottoman advances, civil 
war, and financial problems; at the same time, 
arts and letters flourished, and Andronikos pre- 
sided over a court that included such distin- 
guished intellectuals as Theodore METOCHITES and 
Nikephoros CHoumnos. During his reign there 
was considerable construction activity in the cap- 
ital, esp. the restoration of churches and monas- 
teries. 

Co-emperor from 1272, Andronikos repu- 
diated the unpopular Unionist policies of his fa- 
ther, MıcnaeL VIII, immediately upon the latter’s 
death in 1282; he was unable, however, to resolve 
the ARSENITE schism until 1310. He was staunchly 
Orthodox and pious, even superstitious, and very 
much under the influence of Patr. ATHANaSios I. 

The financial difficulties of the empire during 
his reign are reflected in the continuing deprecia- 
tion of the HYPERPYRON. The resulting rise in 
prices and the emperor’s use of a “scorched-earth 
policy” in Thrace in an attempt to stop the Cata- 
lans (A. Laiou, Byzantion 37 [1967] 91—113) led 
to widespread famine. Andronikos tried to in- 
crease revenues by raising taxes, adding a new 
tax on agricultural produce, and reducing tax 
exemptions. One of his most serious mistakes was 


the dismantling of the fleet in 1285, which proved 
to be a false economy (Laiou, infra 74—76, 114f). 

At the beginning of his reign Andronikos had 
to confront the growing threat of the Serbs on 
his northern frontier, under the leadership of 
STEFAN Uro’ II MILUTIN. After the Serbs took 
considerable Byz. territory in Macedonia, An- 
dronikos decided to negotiate a peace treaty with 
the Serbs. As a pledge of alliance he married his 
five-year-old daughter Simonis to Milutin in 1298. 
The efforts of Andronikos to save Asia Minor 
from the Turks, such as hiring the mercenary 
CATALAN GRAND ComPAny, proved fruitless; dur- 
ing his reign, the Ottomans seized much of Bithy- 
nia, including PRrousa, which fell in 1326. The 
final years of the reign of Andronikos, 1321-28, 
were troubled by civil war with his grandson, the 
future ANDRONIKOS III. He was deposed on 24 
May 1328 and died as the monk Antonios four 
years later. 

Andronikos was married twice. His first wife, 
Anna, daughter of Stephen V of Hungary, whom 
he married in 1273, bore him MIcHAEL IX; his 
second wife was IRENE-YOLANDA OF MONTFERRAT. 

LIT. A.E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign 
Policy of Andronicus I, 1282-1328 (Cambridge, Mass., 1972). 
Papadopulos, Genealogie, no.58. -A.M.T. 


ANDRONIKOS III PALAIOLOGOS, emperor 
(24 May 1328—1341); born 25 Mar. 1297 (cf. R.- 
J. Loenertz, OrChrP 29 [1963] 333, 348), died 
Constantinople 15 June 1341. Son of MICHAEL IX 
PALAIOLOGOS and Rita-Maria of Armenia, he be- 
came co-emperor sometime between 1308 and 
1313 (Lj. Maksimović, ZRVI 16 [1975] 119-22). 
Andronikos was second in line to the throne until 
he antagonized his grandfather, ANDRONIKos II, 
by his dissolute behavior and by inadvertently 
causing the death of his brother Manuel. With 
the support of Jonn (VI) KANTAKOUZENOS and 
Syrciannes, Andronikos rebelled in 1321 against 
the old emperor. The civil war lasted, on and off, 
for seven years; in 1328, Andronikos entered 
Constantinople and forced his grandfather to ab- 
dicate. 

During the reign of Andronikos his megas do- 
mestikos, Kantakouzenos, held real power, while 
the emperor devoted himself to military cam- 
paigns and hunting. He restored northern Thes- 
saly and Epiros briefly to the empire and strength- 


ANDROINIKOS IV PALAIOLOGOS 95 


ened the imperial navy. These gains were offset, 
however, by Serbian expansion in Macedonia un- 
der STEFAN Uroš IV Dušan and the Ottoman 
advance in Bithynia. In 1333 Andronikos joined 
an anti-Turkish alliance with Venice and Latin 
lords in the Aegean (S. Theotokos, EEBS 7 [1930] 
283-305). Andronikos reformed the judiciary 
system by instituting a new “supreme court,” com- 
posed of four judges with the title KRITAI KATHO- 
LIKOI. He died at age 44, leaving as his heir his 
nine-year-old son, JOHN V PALAIOLOGOS, fruit of 
his second marriage to ANNA OF Savoy. 

uit. U.V. Bosch, Kaiser Andronikos II]. Palaiologos (Am- 
sterdam 1965). Nicol, Last Centuries 159-92. C. Kyrris, 
“Continuity and Differentiation in the Régime Established 
by Andronicus II after his Victory of 23/24 v.1328,” EEBS 
43 (1977-78) 278-328. -A.M.T. 


ANDRONIKOS IV PALAIOLOGOS, emperor 
(1376-79); born Constantinople 11 Apr. 1348, 
died Selymbria 25 or 28 June 1385. Although the 
eldest son and heir of JOHN V PALAIOLOGOs and 
his regent in 1366 and 1369—71, Andronikos was 
on uneasy terms with his father and twice engaged 
in open rebellion against him. The tension be- 
tween the two men first surfaced in 1370, when 
Andronikos refused to help his father who was 
stranded penniless in Venice. In 1373, Androni- 
kos joined forces with Savcı BEG, son of MuRAD 
I, in conspiracy against their respective fathers. 
After the failure of the attempted rebellion, An- 
dronikos was imprisoned and replaced as heir by 
his brother MANUEL (II). He was also subjected to 
blinding, but apparently suffered the loss of only 
one eye. 

In 1376, Andronikos escaped from prison. With 
Genoese and Ottoman support, he seized Con- 
stantinople and the imperial power. He was for- 
mally crowned on 18 Oct. 1977. His brief reign 
was marked by dependence on the Genoese and 
upon the Turks, to whom he ceded the crucial 
fortress of Gallipoli (KALLIPOLIS). In 1379 John 
V overthrew his son and regained the throne. In 
a pact of 1381 he once more recognized Androni- 
kos as his heir and granted him the appanage of 
SELYMBRIA. In 1385, however, Andronikos again 
rebelled, unsuccessfully, against his father; he died 
shortly thereafter. 

LIT. Barker, Manuel II 18—36, 41f, 50-52, 458-61. R.- 


J. Loenertz, “La premiére insurrection d’Andronic IV Pa- 
léologue (1373),” EO 38 (1939) 334-45. F. Délger, “Zum 


96 ANDRONIKOS V PALAIOLOGOS 


Aufstand des Andronikos IV. gegen seinem Vater Jo- 
hannes V. im Mai 1373,” REB 19 (1961) 328-32. 
~A.M.T. 


ANDRONIKOS V PALAIOLOGOS, a shadowy 
child emperor whose existence has only recently 
been acknowledged by Byzantinists; born ca.1400, 
died 1407? The title of a monody on the untimely 
death of a seven-year-old emperor (basileus) spe- 
cifically names the child Andronikos and describes 
him as the son of Jonn VII. He was thus appar- 
ently the son of John and his wife Irene GATTI- 
Lusio (subsequently the nun Eugenia), born while 
his father was regent in Constantinople. Androni- 
kos must have predeceased his father, probably 
in 1407, since John VII is said to have died child- 
less in 1408. Other evidence for Andronikos’s 
short life includes an ivory at Dumbarton Oaks, 
probably depicting John VII and Andronikos at 
Thessalonike in 1403/4 (Oikonomides, “Ivory 
Pyxis” 329-37). 

ur. G.T. Dennis, “An Unknown Byzantine Emperor, 


Andronicus V Palaeologus (1400—1407?),” JOB 16 (1967) 
175-87. ~A.M.T. 


ANEMAS (Aveyds), a family of the military ar- 
istocracy. The sobriquet Anemas is attested at the 
beginning of the gth C. (Theoph. 482.30). The 
etymology of the name is debatable; the logical 
derivation from anemos, “wind,” was rejected by 
Ph. Koukoules, who connected it with aneme, 
“spool” (EEBS 5 [1928] 3). On the other hand, 
Chalandon (Comnéne 1:240) considered them de- 
scendants of the Cretan emir ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whose 
son is called Anemas by Byz. chroniclers: he de- 
serted to the Byz., became an army commander, 
and fell in the battle against SvjATOSLAV in 971. 
Whether the four Anemas brothers who were 
Alexios I’s generals belonged to his progeny is 
unknown; names of two of them—Leo and Mi- 
chael—are attested. Despite their involvement in 
the plot of 1105, the family maintained its posi- 
tion; Manuel Anemas (died 1149), military com- 
mander, married Theodora, John IIs daughter, 
and had the high title of protosebastohypertatos. The 
family also intermarried with the Angeloi and 
Doukai. Alexios Anemas (who as a monk was 
called Athanasios) was eulogized in an anonymous 
epigram as a skilled archer and rider (Lampros, 
“Mark. kod.,” no.276.7—15). In 1162 Pankratios 
Anemas owned a proasteion and parotkoi near 


Thessalonike and a pronota (Lavra 1, no.64). The 
family’s position declined after Manuel I’s reign, 
although sources mention them through the 15th 
C. (PLP, nos. 974-75). -A.K. 


ANEMODOULION (‘AveyodovAuov, also Ane- 
modourion; etymology, according to Cedr. 
1:565.20, from deris anemon, “the contest of winds”), 
a monument in Constantinople, probably located 
between the Artopoleion (the bakers’ quarter) and 
the Forum Tauri. It was built by order of Theo- 
dosios II (in the PATRIA OF CONSTANTINOPLE, its 
builder is called Heliodoros, a contemporary of 
Leo III), was made of bronze, and had the shape 
of a pyramid on a square foundation. The mon- 
ument was ornamented with figures of animals, 
birds, plants, agricultural laborers, and other sym- 
bols of spring. Atop the Anemodoulion was a 
statue of a woman that moved at the slightest 
breath of wind and thus served as a weather vane. 
A part of the bronze ornamentation was report- 
edly brought from Dyrrachion, where it belonged 
to the adornment of a pagan shrine. According 
to a 12th-C. historian (Nik.Chon. 332.37), An- 
dronikos I intended to erect his own statue at the 
summit of the pyramid, evidently to replace the 
female figure. The Anemodoulion was destroyed 
by the Crusaders in 1204. 

LIT. janin, CP byz. 100. E. Legrand, “Description des 


oeuvres d'art et de l'Église des saints Apotres de Constan- 
tinople,” REGr g (1896) 86f. -A.K. 


ANEMOURION (‘Aveyovpiov, mod. Anamur), 
city and bishopric of IsauriA, at the southernmost 
point of Asia Minor opposite Cyprus. Excavations 
have revealed the nature and development of 
Anemourion through the 7th C. After a major 
setback in the late grd C., recovery is attested in 
the 4th by the construction of large baths and in 
the 5th by basilical churches with mosaic decora- 
tion. In 382, a new city wall was erected against 
the Isaurians, but their attacks led to a decline by 
the late 5th C.; prosperity returned with the es- 
tablishment of peace in the 6th C. Major changes 
affected Anemourion in the late 6th and early 
7th C., when large churches were abandoned and 
the baths and other civic buildings were filled with 
small houses and industrial workplaces, evidently 
a reflection of crowding and impoverishment. 
Anemourion was abandoned peacefully ca.660 


when the Arabs gained control of Cyprus; its 
population probably retreated to the adjacent hill, 
whose extensive unstudied fortifications appear 
to include Byz. sections. 

LIT. J. Russell, “Anemurium: The Changing Face of a 


Roman City,” Archaeology 33.5 (1980) 31—40. Idem, The 
Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium (Vienna 1987). —C.F. 


ANGAREIA (dayyapeia), a term designating both 
state and private corvEE. The term is of Persian 
origin, as noted by EusTaTHIOS OF THESSALONIKE 
in his commentary on the Odyssey. The term was 
used in the Roman Empire for state corvée, esp. 
the service for the DRomos, and for coercive sale 
of goods to the state. In Byz. it was expanded to 
include private services owed by peasants to their 
lord. 


LIT. A. Stauridou-Zaphraka, “He angareia sto Byzantio,” 
Byzantina 11 (1982) 21-54. —A.K. 


ANGEL (éyyedos, lit. “messenger”). Byz. an- 
gelology was developed primarily by pseudo- 
DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE (R. Roques, L’univers 
dionysien [Paris 1954] 135—67) and later by Patr. 
NIKEPHOROS I (B. Giannopoulos, Theologia 44 
[1973] 312-38). Angels were construed as spiri- 
tual, that is, incorporeal beings (ASOMATOI), even 
if in early patristic writing their incorporeality was 
treated as relative: they were described there as 
having spiritual bodies of finer substance than 
those of men. Angels were held to be much more 
numerous than men, or even innumerable. Cre- 
ated beings, angels were brought forth by divine 
will, either before the material world or simulta- 
neously with it. They had free will and were liable 
to sin: thus the Devit was a fallen angel. They 
had no foreknowledge of the future. Their func- 
tion first and foremost was to praise God. They 
also served Christ and the church, assisting the 
faithful in the struggle against DEMONS. Some 
theologians (but not Dionysios) developed the idea 
of guardian angels protecting individuals, nations, 
and esp. the souls of the dead. John of Damascus 
insisted that angels were not demiurges, thus re- 
Jecting the interpretation of DUALISM. 

Dionysios advanced the concept of a hierarchy, 
dividing the angels according to their proximity 
to God into nine orders and three triads: sERA- 
PHIM, CHERUBIM, thrones; virtues, dominations, 
powers; principalities, ARCHANGELS, angels. The 


ANGELOS | 97 


idea of angelic hierarchy was understood as par- 
allel to the human ascent to the divine via three 
rungs of purification, illumination, and unifica- 
tion with God; in this connection monastic status 
was defined as the “angelic life.” The cult of 
angels developed esp. in southwest Asia Minor, 
arousing concern among some church fathers of 
the 4th—sth C.: the Council of Laodikeia in Phry- 
gia warned against the worship of angels, and 
Theodoret of Cyrrhus stigmatized it as a specifi- 
cally Jewish superstition (C. Mango, DChAE* 12 
[1984-86] 53). Nevertheless, their veneration was 
strong in Byz. Hagiographic texts often repre- 
sented them as fulfilling divine commands and 
particularly as eunuchlike guardians, clad in white, 
who accompanied the Virgin. 

After the 5th C., the wingless divine messengers 
of the Old Testament (in such scenes as the PHI- 
LOXENIA OF ABRAHAM and JAcos’s LADDER) were 
invariably represented like the Nike and the winged 
creatures of the ANNUNCIATION and the Myrro- 
PHOROI. Endowed with curly heads, Hellenic pro- 
files, and white garments, even in groups angels 
displayed an unvarying perfect uniformity. Across 
a millennium, their only significant iconographi- 
cal development was a marked tendency to mul- 
tiply in number. 

Commenting on their traditional iconography, 
Psellos (ed. K. Snipes in Gonimos goof) declares 
that angels have human form because they are 
rational beings but are winged because of their 
motion toward heaven. They carry orbs to indi- 
cate their speed, for a sphere scarcely touches the 
ground; the fillet around their heads suggests 
purity and chastity. 

LIT. J. Daniélou, The Angels and their Mission (Westmins- 
ter, Md., 1957). L. Heiser, Die Engel im Glauben der Ortho- 
doxie (Trier 1976). U. Mann, “Ikone und Engel als Gestal- 
ten geistleiblicher Mittlerschaft,” Eranos-Jahrbuch 52 (1983) 
1-53. M. Alpatov, “Gli angeli nell’iconografia,” L'altra Eu- 
ropa 10 (1985) 44—62. A. Recheis. Engel. Tod und Seelenreise 


(Rome 1958). E. Turdeanu, “Le mythe des anges déchus,” 
RSBS 2 (1982) 73-117. -G.P., A.C. 


ANGELOS ("Ayyedos, fem. ’AyyeAtiva), a noble 
Byz. lineage founded by Constantine from Phila- 
delphia, who married Theodora (born 1096), the 
daughter of Alexios I. According to a 12th-C. 
historian (Zon. 3:740.1-2), Constantine Angelos 
was handsome but of lowly origin. The derivation 
of the name from “angel” seems plausible; rhe- 
toricians called members of the family angelony- 


98 ANI 


SELECTED GENEALOGY OF THE ANGELOS DYNASTY (1185-1204) 


Constantine Angelos, m. Theodora, daughter of 


panhypersebastos 


ALEXIOS I KOMNENOS 


Andronikos m. Euphrosyne Kastamonitissa 


ALEXIOS III ANGELOS m. EUPHROSYNE DOUKAINA KAMATERA 


Irene Anna 

m. (1) Andronikos m. (1) Isaac Komnenos, 
Kontostephanos sebastokrator 

m. (2) Alexios m. (2) THEODORE I 
Palaiologos LASKARIS 


Theodora m. (1) IVANKO 
m. (2) DOBROMIR CHRYSOS 


Eudokia 

m. (1) STEFAN THE 
FIRST-CROWNED 

m. (2) ALEXIOS V DOUKAS 

m. (3) LEO SGOUROS 


Isaac H ANGELOS m. (1) unknown 


m. (2) Margaret-Maria 
of Hungary 


ALEXIOS IV 
ANGELOS 


daughter Irene 
m. (1) Roger of Sicily 
m. (2) PHILIP OF SWABIA 


Based on C, Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968) 278. 


moi, “named after the angels” or “bearing the 
name of angels.” This type of name formation is 
exceptional, however, in Byz., and it is possible 
that the Angeloi took their name from the to- 
ponym of Angel or Agel (a district near Amida); 
this would explain why John Kamateros called 
Isaac I] ANGELOs “a man of the Orient” (Regel, 
Fontes 2:247.12). In the 12th C. several Angeloi 
served as military commanders; their identifica- 
tion is not always possible. In 1185 Isaac II An- 
gelos was proclaimed emperor, succeeded by AL- 
EXIOS II] ANGELOS and ALEXIOS IV. After the fall 
of Constantinople in 1204, the Angeloi asserted 
their power in Eprros and THESSALONIKE, first as 
independent rulers, later as imperial dignitaries; 
there they assumed the name of Angeloi Kom- 
nenoi Doukai to distinguish themselves from the 
“humble” Angeloi who are known as functionar- 
ies, physicians, clergymen, etc. (PLP, nos. 159—- 
224). (See MicHAEL I Komnenos Doukas, 
MicHaEL II KomMNeNOos Doukas, THEODORE 
Komnenos Doukas, DEMETRIOS ANGELOS DOUKAS, 
NIKEPHOROS II of Epiros. See also genealogical 
table.) 

LIT. Ostrogorsky, Byz. Geschichte 166-82. L. Stiernon, 
“Notes de prosopographie et de titulature byzantines. Con- 
stantine Ange (pan)sébastohypertate,” REB 19 (1961) 273- 
83. J.-L. van Dieten, “Manuel Prinkips ł 17.06.6719 (1211). 


Welcher Manuel in welcher Kirche zu Nikaia?” BZ 78 
(1985) 63-91. P. Rokai, “O jednom naslovu Kalojana An- 





djela,” ZRVI 19 (1980) 167—721. R. de Francesco, Michele 
H° Angelo Comneno d'Epiro e la sua discendenza (Rome 1951). 
-A.K. 


ANI ("Avov), fortress and city in the district of 
Širak on the west bank of the Axurean/Arpa-Cay1 
River in northeast Anatolia. It became the capital 
of ARMENIA under the later BAGRATIDS. 

Ani, which had an important strategic position, 
was already known in the 5th C. as a fortress 
belonging to the Kamsarakan family. In the gth 
C. Ani was sold to the Bagratids and became the 
royal capital with the coronation of AšoT III in 
961. The city grew so rapidly as an administrative 
and trade center that its dimensions tripled within 
40 years and it became known as “the city of 
1,001 churches.” 

In 1045, the Armenian katholikes Peter Getadar} 
surrendered the city to Byz. and it became for a 
time the capital of the theme of IBERIA. Captured 
by the Seljuks in 1064 and sold by them to the 
Kurdish Shaddadid emirs in 1072, Ani continued 
to flourish under them and under the ZaK‘aRIDs. 
Its slow decline began with the Mongol capture 
in the 13th C. 

Monuments of Ani. Although the city has only 
been partially excavated, hundreds of its struc- 
tures are known. It is closed at the south by Smbat 
II’s walls (989) and dominated by a citadel at its 


narrow north end. Buildings lie outside the walls 
and along the cliffs; under the city, extensive 
chambers were cut from living rock. Palaces, com- 
fortable homes, dovecotes, caravanserais, ware- 
houses, cisterns, meeting halls, monasteries, 
churches, and at least one mosque survive. Very 
few of these structures are dated, and none to the 
period of Byz. rule. 

Three buildings are attributed by inscription to 
the architect Trdat: for Smbat II and Katranide, 
the wife of Gacix I, he built the cathedral (g89- 
1001); for Gagik I, he built in 1001—20 St. Grigor 
(i.e., GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR). Like other Ba- 
gratid donations, these are variations on 7th-C. 
church plans: the cathedral on that of St. Gayané 
at VALARSAPAT; St. Grigor, on ZuaRT'Noc’. The 
Church of the Redeemer, which Trdat built for 
the merchant Apllarip in 10936, is an octafoil car- 
rying a very large dome. 

A lifesize relief, almost in the round, of Gagik 
I (now lost) was unearthed at St. Grigor, along 
with bronze censers with New Testament scenes 
and a chandelier with birds. Commissioned by the 
merchant Tigran Honens’, Georgians frescoed 
(1215) the Church of St. Grigor, but the program 
includes Armenian features, such as a life of the 
saint. N. Thierry (in Cuneo [1984] infra) believes 
that the poorly preserved frescoes of its fore- 
church, which have Greek and Georgian inscrip- 
tions, are late 13th-C. Byz. work. 

Ani adopted Turko-Iranian elements, particu- 
larly under the Zak‘arids. Armenian and Geor- 
gian palaces and forechurches in the city feature 
muqarnas (stalactite squinches) and double-storied 
portals in geometric polychrome stonework and 
carpet like filigree relief. 

Lit. N.G. Garsoian, DMA 1:290f. N. Marr, Ani (Moscow 
1934). Manandyan, Trade and Cities 139-51, 154f, 173, 
178-87, 197—99. V.F. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History 
(London 1953) 79—106. P. Cuneo et al., Ani [Documenti di 
architettura armena 12] (Milan 1984). Ibid., L'architettura 


della scuola regionale di Ani nell’Armenia medievale (Rome 
1977)- -N.G.G., A.T. 


ANICIA JULIANA ('Ioviiéva), patrikia and pa- 
tron of the arts; born Constantinople probably 
461 or 463, died Constantinople 527 or 529. The 
daughter of the future Emp. Anicius Olybrius 
and Placidia the Younger, Anicia Juliana re- 
mained at Constantinople with her mother when 
Olybrius went to Italy to become emperor in 472. 


ANICIA JULIANA 99 





Peopwne 


ANICIA JULIANA. Portrait of Anicia Juliana as donor in 
a manuscript of the works of Dioskorides (Vienna, med. 
gr. I, fol.6v); ca.512. Osterreichische Nationalbiblio- 
thek, Vienna. Anicia Juliana is shown seated between 
Magnanimity and Prudence. 


Probably by 478 Anicia Juliana was the sole heir 
of her two famous parents. She married AREO- 
BINDUS soon after 478 and had a son, Olybrius 
(junior), who married Irene, niece of Anastasios 
I. Anicia Juliana often visited St. Sabas at Con- 
stantinople in 511/12; she reportedly was served 
by many eunuchs, who became monks of the 
monastery of St. Sabas in Palestine after her death. 
At her house in Constantinople a mob proclaimed 
Areobindus emperor in 512. She was a devout 
Chalcedonian who resisted the theological pres- 
sures of Emp. Anastasios and the Constantino- 
politan patriarch Timotheos (511—18); she also 
corresponded with Pope Hormisdas to help to 
end the AkakKIAN ScuisM. She built and embel- 
lished many churches in Constantinople, includ- 
ing St. Euphemia, St. PoLYEUKTOs, and a church 
of the Theotokos in the Honoratae quarter. The 
Vienna DIOSKORIDES was written for her. 

LIT. PLRE 2:635f. C. Capizzi, “L’attivita edilizia di Ani- 


cia Giuliana,” OrChrAn 204 (1977) 119-46. Idem, “Anicia 
Giuliana (462 ca.—530 ca.): Ricerche sulla sua famiglia e la 





(1968) 191—226. R.M. „Harrison 
ana’s Palace-Church,” 


984) 141f. 





ANICIUS, a noble family, originating from Prae- 
neste, which in the 4th C. became one of the most 
influential and wealthy lineages in Rome. Unlike 
most Roman senatori ‘istocrats, the Anicii con- 
verted to Christiani supported the emperor 
of Constantinople. In the 5th C. the Anicii were 
believed to favor the barbarians and rumor spread 
that Anicia Falconia Proba ordered her servants 
to open the gates of Rome to Ataric. Between 
455 and 457 Anicius Olybrius married Placidia, 
youngest daughter o entinian IHI, and in 472 
became Roman emperor; after a few months’ 
reign he died on 2 Nov. 472 of natural causes, a 

g ath-C. Western emperors. H 
ULIANA moved to Constantine 
portant patron of art and ar 
audius Petronius PROBUS 
reage. The family retain 
ast the mid-6th C., when A 
s Basilius was the last CONSU 
of the Anicii stayed in It 
uch to the alliance of the 
ian aristocracy with the house of the AMALI; 
BoETHIUS, for example, served Theodoric. Theo- 
dahad, while promoting Maximus, a member of 
he cea praised the Anicii as a lineage almost 
equal to the princeps. J|ORDANES completed his Ge- 
tica with the statement that a union between the 
Amali and Anicii was embodied in the persons of 
Germanos, the son of Justinian I's nephew, and 
of Mathesuentha (M: SUNTHA), granddaughter 
of THEODORIC THE GREAT. 
























































































































Lit. F.M. Clover, “The Family and Early Career of Ani- 
cius Olybrius,” Historia 27 (1978) 169-96. A. Momigliano, 
“Gh Anicii e la storiografia latina del VI secolo d.C.,” in 
Histoire et historiens dans l'antiquité (Geneva 1958) 247-83. 
M.T.W. Arnheim, The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Ro- 
man Empire (Oxford 1972) 109-13. —A.K. 


ANIMAL COMBAT (rot Gedrpov Kuriyyea). The 
encase of animals at the circus games, the so- 
alled venationes, was popular in ancient Rome, 
ba it seems that by the ve C. large-scale shows 
were hard to arrange. A though the Historia Au- 
gusta describes the games in the Circus Maximus 
in 281, when thousands of ostriches, stags, and 

















y and the next day hundreds 
znd bears, the correspondence 
more dependable source. He 
es he encountered while or- 

Z 3 ws, Saying that he had to be 
satished with Irish hounds, Italian and Aaral 
bears, Egyptian crocodiles, and 
antelopes, lions, and leopards fre 
tiones were still being held in the 
the rule of Theodoric the £ 
in novel 105.1, order 
venationes and to show m 
legend relates that ritual require 
kill a bear and a lion in the “tt 
lerius was allegedly afr: ee to ur 
the young Constantine (1) slaug 

























jon 




































































(A. Rarneany, Byzantion 57 oe 216f). 


ial combat were common on con- 
e, later, scenes of hunting 
became predominant. Al- 
battles were prohibited by 
, animal combat survived de- 
church fathers (thus, John 
19-33-34] condemned both 
show of theriomachountes, as 
rullo). In the 12th C., Ben- 
erved the combat of lions, 
bears, leopards, and wild asses in the Hippo- 
DROME. 
Combat between animals and humans occupies 

i phy and art, pro- 

it Ir os thrown 
ck them, 
or about martyrs who were killed by wild animals. 






















LIT. G. Jennison, Animals for Show and Pleas 
Rome (Manchester 1937) 93—98, 1 
Anfiteatri, circhi e stadi di Roma (Rome : 
Théodoridés, “Les animaux des jeux de THippetrome” 
BS 19 (1958) 73-84. T. Talbot Rice, “Animal Combat 
Scenes in Byzantine Art,” in Studies in Memory of D. Talbot 
Rice (Edinburgh 1978) 17—23. -A.K 








ANIMAL EPICS, narratives akin to the FABLE, 
though normally on a larger scale and lacking an 
explicit moral. Such material, which also had a 
worldwide sarees! (see STEPHANITES AND IcH- 
NELATES), circulated throughout Europe from an- 
tiquity onward in the stories attributed to AESOP, 
which were well known in Byz. Th ee t lacks 
the narrative element and includes ate ob- 
jects in its christianizing obser PHY: 









SIOLOGOS can perhaps be viewed as an extension 
of the Aesopic tradition. In late 12th-C. France, 
the Roman de Renart, drawing on traditional ma- 
terial, but adding an element of social satire to 
the tales of the cunning Fox, sparked a new in- 
terest in animal epics, which spread rapidly 
throughout Europe. 

Byz.’s representative in this genre is the SYN- 
AXARION OF THE HONORABLE Donkey. With a sim- 
ilar tone of mild cynicism, though a different 
range of characters, are the DIEGESIS TON TETRA- 
PODON Zoon, the PouLoLocos, and the Cat and 
the Mice (Ho kates kai hot pontikoz), all anonymous 
and written in POLITICAL VERSE at a popular level 
of the language; they reflect 14th-C. social con- 
flicts. Shorter, and in prose, are the PoRIKOLOGOS 
and the Opsaro.ocos of approximately the same 
date, also anonymous; these satirize Byz. legal 
customs. Lively and written in the vernacular, the 
late Byz. animal epics offer many insights into 
both the small matters of everyday life and the 
larger issues of contemporary social tensions. 

LIT. Beck, Volksliteratur 179-79. J. Irmscher, “Das mit- 
telgriechische Tierepos, Bestand und Forschungssituation” 
in Aspects of the Medieval Animal Epic, ed. E. Rombauts, A. 
Welkenhuysen (Leuven—The Hague 1975) 207-28. VS. 
Sandrovskaja, “Svedenija o remesle v vizantijskom basen- 
nom epose XII-XIV vv.” in Issledovaniya po istoru kultury 


narodov Vostoka (Moscow-Leningrad 1960) 504—10. 
-E.MJ. 


ANIMALS. The Byz. kept a wide variety of do- 
mesticated animals and LIVESTOCK to provide meat, 
milk, eggs, leather, wool, and feathers (see SWINE; 
SHEEP; Goats; Fow., Domestic) and to serve as 
draft animals, BEASTS OF BURDEN, or riding mounts 
(HORSES, CAMELS, donkeys, oxen, etc.). Horses were 
also used for CAVALRY, HUNTING, and equestrian 
sports. The Byz. kept pocs, cats, and some BIRDS 
as pets; predator birds, like hawks and falcons, 
were also used for HAWKING. 

The Byz. clearly distinguished between wild 
beasts and domesticated animals; the wild were 
not always identified with evil and the domesti- 
cated with good, however. The DIEGESIS TON TE- 
TRAPODON ZOON (11.15—16) discriminates between 
carnivorous and herbivorous beasts, and domes- 
ticated animals such as dogs and swine were some- 
times perceived as the embodiment of demonic 
power. 

Exotic Animals. In an empire that, at its great- 
est extent, stretched from the Atlantic to the Ti- 


ANIMALS 101 


gris and from the Danube to the Nile, the Byz. 
encountered a wide range of exotic animals. They 
were exhibited in the hippodrome (see also Anı- 
MAL COMBAT) and zoos, paraded through city 
streets, and presented as diplomatic gifts. The 
existence of exotic animals excited chroniclers and 
geographers alike. TIMOTHEOS OF Gaza reported 
on two giraffes and an ELEPHANT that passed 
through his city and eventually arrived in Con- 
stantinople, as noted by MARCELLINUS COMES. 
Kosmas INpDIKOPLEUSTES describes the rhinoceros 
of Ethiopia and the hippopotamus of Egypt. In 
the capital in the 11th C. wild and exotic animals 
were displayed in a menagerie organized by Con- 
stantine IX Monomachos (Attal. 48-50). Attal- 
eiates described a giraffe as a kameleopardos, a 
combination of a leopard and camel. Lions were 
also exhibited in Constantinople. 

Mythical Animals. Fantastic creatures haunted 
the imagination of poets, sculptors, potters, and 
illuminators who favored motifs such as the Ira- 
nian simurgh, winged felines, and GRIFFINS. PHI- 
LOSTORGIOS reported that he had seen a picture 
of a unicorn. Dragons, which were the embodi- 
ment of evil, were overcome by saints such as 
GEORGE, ELISABETH, and MERKOURIOS; they might 
also be used to represent enemies of the church, 
such as Emp. Julian, or symbolize temptation. 
John of Damascus insisted that dragons existed, 
but affirmed that they could not be killed by 
thunder, contrary to popular opinion. 

Animal Imagery. Animal imagery was impor- 
tant in the Byz. world view, animals being treated, 
esp. in the PHystoLocus and the HEXAEMERON, as 
symbols of passions and virtues; even sober writ- 
ers such as Symeon SETH preserve traces of leg- 
endary perception (e.g., about deer feeding on 
snakes and echidnae—Syntagma kata stoicheion peri 
trophon dynameon, ed. B. Langkavel [Leipzig 1868] 
36.1—2). Literature actively used animal images 
in ANIMAL EPICS, in particular for political satire, 
as found in the Katomyomachia of Theodore Pro- 
DROMOS or later FABLES. Political and religious 
ideology also developed standard animal attri- 
butes: the lion was a constant symbol of imperial 
power and the serpent (see Snake) that of the 
DEVIL (both images evidently derived from the 
Bible). 

Lit. N. Vaénadze, “A propos de histoire de symbolique 


chrétienne,” BS 48 (1987) 39-44. Mango, Byzantium 1706. 
J. Théodoridés, “Les animaux des jeux de Hippodrome 


BATTLE OF 





102 ANKARA, 


et des menageries impériales a Constantinople,” BS 19 
(1958) 73—84. - A.K., A.C., A.M.T. 


ANKARA, BATTLE OF. In 1402, on the Çubuk 
plain north of Ankara (AnxyrRA), the Ottomans, 
whose power had been rapidly expanding, suf- 
fered a temporary setback when they were deci- 
sively defeated by the Mongols. The battle took 
place on 28 July (Kleinchroniken 2:370). The course 
of the fighting is described by Greek historians 
(Chalk. 1:145-47; Sphr. 208.6—10). The Ottoman 
army of Bayezip I that occupied a hill was at- 
tacked by Trmur and was defeated, chiefly owing 
to the defection of the Anatolian Muslim contin- 
gents, in contrast to the sultan’s Christian vassals 
(notably Sreran Lazarevi¢) who fought loyally. 
Bayezid and his younger son Musa were taken 
captive by the victor. Rumors spread that JOHN 
VII PaLaro_ocos had conspired with Timur (Bar- 
ker, Manuel [J 504-09). After the battle Ti- 
mur reestablished the traditional beyltks (see BEG) 
and reduced Ottoman territory in Anatolia to its 
original heartland; he did not, however, invade 
Rumeui. The ensuing struggle for succession 
among Bayezid’s sons ‘Isa, Süleyman Celebi, Musa, 
Menmen (I), and later Mustafa allowed Byzantium 
to recover its autonomy for a short period, down 
to 1424, when it again became tributary to the 
Ottomans. 

ur. K.-P. Matschke, Die Schlacht bei Ankara und das Schicksal 
von Byzanz (Weimar 1981). M.M. Alexandrescu-Dersca, La 
campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402) (Bucharest 1942). G. 
Dennis, “Three Reports from Crete on the Situation in 
Romania, 1401—1402,” StVen 12 (1970) 243-65. Idem, 
“The Byzantine-Turkish Treaty of 1403,” OrChrP 33 (1967) 
72—88. G. Roloff, “Die Schlacht bei Angora,” HistZ 161 
(1940) 244-62. ~S.W.R., A.K. 





ANKYRA ("Ayxvpa, mod. Ankara), civil and ec- 
clesiastical metropolis of GaLatia. Ankyra’s stra- 
tegic location on the main highway across Anatolia 
made it a center of trade and a major military 
base. Frequently visited by emperors, it was an 
imperial summer residence in the late 4th and 
early 5th C. In the 4th C., Ankyra was the seat of 
a cultivated pagan landowning aristocracy (known 
from the letters of Lipanios); they were closely 
connected with the governors, who frequently 
adorned the city with public works. The local 
ruling class became Christian only in the 5th C., 
when the rich were famed for their piety and 


philanthropy. In the 6th C., the governor, bishop, 
and local magnates dominated Ankyra; its popu- 
lation was devoted to St. THEODORE OF SYKEON, 
who reportedly wrought many miracles in the city, 
Ankyra remained peaceful and prosperous 
through the early 7th C. In 610—11 it was the 
base of the revolt of KoMENTIOLOS. Sources attest 
a large range of public buildings, both pagan and 
Christian; few survive. 

In 622, the Persians captured and destroyed 
Ankyra; afterward the large area of the ancient 
city was abandoned and Ankyra retreated to its 
heavily fortified acropolis. It became capital of the 
OpsIkION theme in the 7th C. and of the Bouxkg.- 
LARION in the 8th. The frequent goal of Arab 
attacks, Ankyra fell to al-Mu‘rasm™ in 838, was 
rebuilt by Michael III in 859, and taken by the 
Paulicians in 871. After the Turks captured it 
ca.1080, Ankyra only briefly returned to Byz. rule 
following the Crusade of 1101. 

An important center of Christianity, Ankyra 
was the home of Sts. Plato and Clement and the 
site of councils in 914, 358, and 375. The council 
of 325, planned for Ankyra, was transferred to 
Nicaea. 

The site contains scattered remains of civic 
buildings, including a large bath that functioned 
until the 7th C., traces of luxurious houses, and 
the Church of St. Clement, a cross-domed brick 
structure (8th/gth C.?). Its fortress, one of the 
greatest of Anatolia, consists of a citadel, an upper 
rampart with closely spaced pentagonal towers, 
and an extensive lower wall. The inner fortress 
apparently dates to the mid-7th C., the outer to 
the early gth; all were rebuilt by Michael III. 

tir. C. Foss, “Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara,” 


DOP 31 (1977) 27—87. Foss-Winfield, Fortifications 133~ 35, 
143f. TIB 4:126-30. -C.F. 


ANNA ("Avva) or Hanna, feminine personal name 
of Hebrew origin (etym. “veneration”). A similar 
name appeared in Greek and Roman mythology 
(G. Wissowa, RE 1 [1894] 2223-25; M. Nilsson, 
Geschichte der griechischen Religion® [Munich 1967] 
251). In the New Testament (Lk 2:36) Anna is a 
prophetess of the tribe of Asher, but in a later 
Christian legend another Anna appeared, mother 
of the Vircin Mary. There is confusion between 
the female name Anna and the male Annas (also 
present in the New Testament); thus, ca.,07 Or 


g11 a man, Anna (probably of Germanic origin), 
was known as comes in Italy (PLRE 2:91f). Rela- 
tively rare in late Roman texts, the name became 

pular by the 11th C.: Skylitzes cites six Annas, 
more than Theodora and Irene. In the late Byz. 
acts Anna remained one of the most popular 
female names: vols. 2—3 of Lavra list 48 Annas, 
second only to MARIA. 


ut. M. Schönfeld, Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Perso- 
nen- und Völkernamen (Heidelberg 1911; rp. 1965) 22. 


ANNA, princess of Kiev; porphyrogennete 
daughter of Romanos II and sister of Basil Il, 
born Constantinople 13 Mar. 963, died Kiev 1011 
(acc. to Skylitzes, after her husband). In 968 Otto 
I unsuccessfully sought Anna’s hand for his son 
Otto H. Hugh Capet (king of France 987—96), 
who desired alliance and kinship with Byz., was 
surprised in early 988 by news of Anna’s impend- 
ing marriage to VLADIMIR I of Kiev and withdrew 
from his plan to ask for the princess’s hand for 
his son Robert. Although legend places Anna’s 
marriage in Cherson in 989, it actually took place 
in Kiev in 988. In summer of that year Anna was 
welcomed in Rus’, accompanied by a large retinue 
headed by Theophylaktos, the first metropolitan 
of Kiev (and formerly of Sebasteia). In the ggos 
Byz. architects engaged by Anna raised Kiev’s first 
stone buildings—the palace and the palace church 
of the Virgin, called the “Church of the Tithe.” 
YAHYA OF ANTIOCH attributed to Anna the con- 
struction of many churches. Boris anD GLEB were 
probably her sons. —An.P. 


ANNA KOMNENE. See KOMNENE, ANNA. 


ANNALES BERTINIANI (so-called from the 
provenance of one MS from St. Bertin) continue 
the ANNALES REGNI Francorum. The first, anon- 
ymous section (a.830-—34) was begun in the chapel 
of the Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious (814— 
40); it was continued by Prudentius, who took his 
work with him when he became bishop of Troyes 
(843-61), after which the tone grows increasingly 
independent of Charles the Bald. The continua- 
tion by Hincmar, archbishop of Reims (845-82), 
offers a wide-ranging but very personal view of 














ANNALES FULDENSES | 103 


the history of his times. In the royal annals’ tra- 
dition, the Annales Bertiniant record Byz. diplo- 
macy and military relations with the Franks (a.842, 
p.42; 2.853, p.68; a.869, pp. 153, 164f; a.873, 
p-192) and the “Rhos” (a.839, pp. 3of) as well as 
Frankish activities among the Bulgars and Slavs 
(e.g., 2.853, p.68; a.864, p.113; a.866, p.ig93f). 
They also attest to the impact of Byz. ceremonial 
on Frankish kingship (a.876, p.205) and Byz. pi- 
rates’ activity in the western Mediterranean (a.848, 
p.55). Hincmar’s relations with the papacy explain 
his knowledge of its affairs, particularly the Pho- 
tian schism (a.867, pp. 138f; a.869, pp. 155f; 
a.872, p.187). 

ED. F. Grat et al., Annales de Saint-Bertin (Paris 1964). 
Germ. tr. R. Rau, Quellen zur karolingischen Reichsgeschichte, 
vol.2 (Berlin 1956) 11-287. 

LIT. Watienbach, Levison, Lowe, Deutsch. Gesch. Vorzeit 
u. Karol. 348f, 502f, 520. J-L. Nelson, “The Annals of St. 
Bertin,” in Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom (Oxford 
1981) 15-36. A.V. Riasanovsky, “The Embassy of 898 
Revisited,” JGOst 10 (1962) 1—12. —M.McC. 


ANNALES FULDENSES, Latin narrative of events 
from 714 to 887. The first section was compiled 
in the Mainz area (838—69) and subsequently (864— 
82) reflects views characteristic of the court of 
Louis the German (843-76) and his son, appar- 
ently in connection with the career of Liutbert 
archbishop of Mainz, as royal archchaplain (870— 
82). Although it is not clear where compilation 
ends and year-by-year redaction begins, the An- 
nales Fuldenses record eastern Frankish events, 
particularly in relation to Moravia, the Bohe- 
mians, and Bulgars (e.g., a.828—29, pp. 25f; 2.845, 
p.35; a.866-—67, pp. 65f), and document Byz. di- 
plomacy, mentioning a crystal reliquary sent by 
Basil I to Louis the German (a.872, p.75; a.873, 
p.81), Western repercussions of the Photian schism 
(a.867, pp. 66f), and of Byz. ceremonial (a.876, 
p.86). The Bavarian continuation (a.882—901, pp. 
107-35) preserves the court connection and de- 
scribes Byz. embassies and Byz.-Magyar relations 
(a.896, pp. 129f). 

ED. F. Kurze, Annales Fuldenses [= MGH SRG 4] (Han- 
nover 1891). 

LIT. H. Löwe, “Geschichtsschreibung der ausgehenden 
Karolingerzeit,” DA 23 (1967) 1-30. M. Hellmann, “Be- 
merkungen zum Aussagewert der Fuldaer Annalen und 
anderer Quellen über slavische Verfassungszustinde,” in 


Festschrift für Walter Schlesinger, ed. H. Beumann, vol. 1 
(Cologne 1973—74) 50-62. =M.McC. 














104 | ANNALES IANUENSES 





ANNALES IANUENSES, official historical re- 
cord of the commune of Genoa and a prime 
source on relations with Byz. between 1099 and 
1294. Caffaro (ca.1080—1166) began the Annales 
Tanuenses (by 1100?) and established the model for 
his successors. He had joined the First Crusade’s 
Genoese contingent (Aug. 1100~Jan. 1101) and 
visited the Orient again between ca.1190 and 1140. 
His career included stints as a diplomat (e.g., 
negotiations with Pisa, the papacy, and Frederick 
I), a successful admiral, and eight terms as consul 
(1122—49). In 1152, at Caffaro’s urging, the com- 
mune ordered a copy of the Annales Ianuenses for 
the public archive (preserved in Paris, B.N. lat. 
10136; sketches illustrate various personalities and 
places), which he continued to 1163, narrating 
Genoa’s enterprises in the Levant and her com- 
petition with Italian rivals (e.g., the Pisan attack 
on 300 Genoese merchants at Constantinople: 
a.1162, 11.67.22~-68.15). Caffaro also wrote a work 
On the Liberation of the Cities of the East (De liberatione 
civitatum orientis; Ca.1155—56 in connection with a 
dispute with the kings of Jerusalem?) describing 
Genoese relations with Emp. Alexios I Komnenos 
and his lieutenants (11.114.15-115.7; 117-5- 
118.19) as well as travel distances in the Levant. 
From 116g to 1294, the Annales lanuenses were 
continued by various chancery officials, including 
the scribe and diplomat Ogerius, whose detailed 
account (1197—1216) records conflicts with the 
Latin rulers of Constantinople (e.g., a.1205, cap- 
ture of a Venetian textile cargo, 12.98.22—99.16). 
Subsequent sections added by an anonymous con- 
tinuator and by a committee treat the Palaiologans 
(a.1261, 1262, 1264—14.42.14—-43.6, 44.9-45.15, 
65.11—66.19). 

ED. L.T. Belgrano, C. Imperiale di Sant'Angelo, Annali 
genovesi di Caffaro e de’swoi continuatort [= FSI 11-14 bis] 
(Genoa 18g0~-1929). 

LIT. G. Petti Balbi, Caffaro e la cronachistica genovese (Genoa 
1982). R.D. Face, “Secular History in Twelfth-Century It- 


aly: Caffaro of Genoa,” JMedHist 6 (1980) 169-84. 
—M.McC. 





























ANNALES REGNI FRANCORUM, written in 
the chapel of CHARLEMAGNE and Louis the Pious 
(814-40), present a detailed but slanted—partic- 
ularly by omission—record of royal activities (741— 
829). Writing probably began sometime between 
787 and 793 with a retrospective account of events 


from 741 and continued to 795. The Annales 
Regni Francorum were then composed on a year- 
by-year basis to 829, with probable shifts in au- 
thorship in 808 and 820, and were continued in 
the ANNALES BERTINIANI. They are an essential 
source on Byz. relations with the FRANKS, esp. 
diplomacy; a Byz. invasion of southern Italy (a.788, 
p.82); the capture of Sisinnios, Patr. ‘Tarasios’s 
brother (a.798, p.104); Emp. Nikephoros I’s rec- 
ognition of Charlemagne as basileus (a.812, p.136); 
competition over Venice and Dalmatia (a.806—10, 
pp. 122-30; 2.817, pp. 145f; a.821, pp. 155f); 
relations of Byz. and the Franks with the Bulgars 
(e.g., a.812—13, pp. 136-39; a.824, pp. 164-67); 
an earthquake at Constantinople (Aug. 815, p.143); 
etc. Between 814 and 817, an unidentified mem- 
ber of the court began rewriting the text down to 
817, improving the Latin, changing the political 
perspective slightly, and adding some details on 
Byz. (e.g., exarchs of Sicily in 788, p.83; a.798, 
p.105, the family name “Ganglianos” of an am- 
bassador). This revised version is called Annales 
Einhardi, reflecting an abandoned theory on its 
authorship. 

ED. F. Kurze, Annales regni Francorum [= MGH SRG 6] 
(Hannover 1895). Tr. B.W. Scholz, B. Rogers, Carolingian 
Chronicles (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1972) 37-125. 

LIT. Wattenbach, Levison, Löwe, Deutsch. Gesch, Vorzeit 
u. Karol. 247-57, 260-65, 947f. M. McCormick, Les annales 


du haut moyen âge {Turnhout 1975) 16-19, 38—49- 
-M.McC. 


ANNALS OF BARI (Lat. Annales Barenses). The 
region of Barı produced three closely connected 
historical works on Apulia that are valuable sources 
for Byz.’s conflict with the Arabs and the Nor- 
mans: (1) the Annales Barenses (605—1043), whose 
short notes grow more detailed for the 11th C. 
and are essentially local in focus; (2) the Annals 
(860—1102), ascribed in the 17th C. to “Lupus 
Protospatharius,” which are somewhat less paro- 
chial in their awareness of events elsewhere in the 
Empire; and (3) the Anonymous Chronicle of Bari 
(860-1 115). All three relied on earlier, lost sources, 
some of which they shared (cf. Skabalanovi¢, Go- 
sudarstvo XXiX—XXxXiil). 

ED. Annales Barenses—MGH SS 5:52-56. “Lupus”—ibid. 
52—63. Anon. Chronicle—RIS 5:147-56. 

LIT. RepFontHist 2:251f. W.J. Churchill, “Per una edi- 


zione critica degli Annales Barenses e degli Annales Lupi 
Protospatharii,” BollCom n.s. 27 (1979) 119-397. 9 —M.McC. 


ANNALS OF RAVENNA, conventional title of a 
Latin chronicle (probably of the 6th C.) of which 
only half of an 1 1th-C. folio (MS 202) has survived 
in the library of the cathedral in Merseburg (Sax- 
ony, in central Germany). The preserved folio 
encompasses events of 411-54, with numerous 
lacunas because of the absence of the upper half 
of the folio. The Annals, in the form of consular 
fasti with brief historical notes, belong to the type 
of the CALENDAR OF 354 and like the latter are 
illustrated. The special characteristic of the 
Merseburg folio is its attention to RAVENNA, usu- 
ally ignored in other late Roman chronicles, and 
its indication of precise dates; the Annals mention 
the death of the Western emperor Honorius (who 
died in Ravenna) and give its precise date—27 
Aug. 423—thus permitting a rejection of the date 
in Sokrates and Theophanes, 15 Aug. The Merse- 
burg folio confirms the existence of the lost local 
annals of Ravenna, which may have been a source 
for such later chronicles as AGNELLUS as weil as 
Cassroporus and MARCELLINUS Comes. Drawings 
in the columns of the text illustrate martyrdoms 
and other scenes of violence as well as an emperor 
(Valentinian III) enthroned on an orb in the 
manner of Christ in the apse of S. Vitale, Ra- 
venna. 








ED. B. Bischoff, W. Koehler, “Eine illustrierte Ausgabe 
der spätantiken Ravennater Annalen,” in Medieval Studies 
in Memory of A. Kingsley Porter, ed. W. Koehler, vol. ı 
(Cambridge, Mass., 1939) 1225—38; reissued (in Ital.), Studi 
Romagnoli 3 (1952) 1—17. 

LIT. G. Kaufmann, “Die Fasten der späteren Kaiserzeit 
als ein Mittel zur Kritik der weströmischen Chroniken,” 
Philologus 34 (1876) 235-95. O. Holder-Egger, “Untersu- 
chungen über einige annalistische Quellen zur Geschichte 
des V. und VI. Jahrhunderts,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft 
für altere deutsche Geschichtskunde 1 (1876) 13—120, 213-368; 
2 (1877) 47—109. B. Croke, “The City Chronicles in Late 
Antiquity,” in Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. G. Clarke 
et al. (Canberra 1989) 165-204. —A.K., B.B., A.C. 


ANNA OF SAVOY, empress; baptismal name 
Ioanna; born 1306?, died Thessalonike ca.1365 
(R.J. Loenertz, OrChrP 21 [1955] 218). Daughter 
of Count Amadeo V of Savoy, Anna married 
Emp. Andronikos III Palaiologos in Oct. 1326. 
She was accompanied by a large Italian entourage 
and promoted such Western customs as tourna- 
ments (see Sports) at the Byz. court. After her 
husband’s death in 1341, she became regent for 
her nine-year-old son John V. She joined with 


ANNONA 105 


Patr. Jonn XIV KALEKAS and Alexios APOKAUKOS 
in opposition to JOHN (VI) KANTAKOUZENOS, even- 
tually forcing him into the Cıvıl WAR OF 1341— 
47. The war necessitated drastic measures. Anna 
pawned the Byz. crown jewels to Venice (1343) 
and hired Turkish mercenaries to fight Kanta- 
kouzenos (1346). Although she converted to Or- 
thodoxy at the time of her marriage, in 1343 
Anna declared her submission and that of her 
son to the pope. In the hesychast controversy, she 
supported Kalekas, the opponent of PALAMAS, 
until 1347 when she turned against the patriarch 
and presided over the synod that deposed him, 
just as Kantakouzenos was entering Constantino- 
ple in triumph. Kantakouzenos pardoned Anna, 
but relations remained tense. In 1351 the empress 
went to Thessalonike to dissuade John V from 
rebelling against John VI. She remained there 
until her death, ruling the city as her appanage. 
Historians such as Gregoras and Kantakouzenos 
are very hostile to Anna, depicting her as a for- 
eigner and cruel tyrant, but Nicholas KABASILAS 
composed a eulogy of her (M. Jugie, IRAIK 15 
[1911] 112-21). Mosaic portraits of Anna and 
Andronikos survived in the PAMMAKARISTOS church 
in Constantinople until at least 1579. 

Lit. D. Muratore, “Una principessa sabauda sul trono 
di Bisanzio. Giovanna di Savoia imperatrice Anna Paleo- 
logina,” Mémoires de l'Académie de Savoie* 11 (1909) 221- 
475- A. Christophilopoulou, “He antibasileia eis to Byzan- 
tion,” Symmeikta 2 (1970) gi—127. T. Bertelè, Monete e sigilli 
di Anna di Savoia (Rome 1937), corr. Dölger, Paraspora 
208-21. D. Nicol, S. Bendall, “Anna of Savoy in Thessa- 


lonica: The Numismatic Evidence,” RN 19 (1977) 87—102. 
—A.M.T., A.C. 


ANNONA (res annonaria, évv@ve), financial term 
referring to (1) in-kind taxation, including both 
annona civica (which governed the requisition and 
transfer of commodities from Africa and Egypt 
for the maintenance of Rome and Constantino- 
ple) and ANNONA MILITARIS, oF (2) any type of 
rations or provisions. Originally an irregular im- 
perial levy of commodities, annona was established 
by Diocletian as the empire’s fundamental tax, 
paid in kind and based upon periodic assessments. 
From the end of the 4th C., however, the role 
played by annona in taxation diminished, as taxes 
came to be assessed and remitted in money; even 
the remaining annona, although still assembled in 
kind, was now frequently commuted into cash 


106 | ANNONA MILITARIS 


payments (adaeratio). Thus, by the 6th C., the term 
was applied almost exclusively to rations and sup- 
plies, distinct from the public tax. When the term 
annona appears in later sources (e.g., the will of 
Eustathios Borras fed. Lemerle, Cinq études 
27.217]), it invariably refers to that portion of a 
salary paid in kind rather than with cash. 


LIT. A. Cerati, Caractère annonaire et assiette de l'impôt 
foncier au Bas-Empire (Paris 1975) 1-183. -A.J.C. 


ANNONA MILITARIS (&vvõva). The annona 
militaris began as an unofficial tax in kind imposed 
by Septimius Severus (193—211) to obtain rations 
(wine, meat, oil, bread) or other necessities (e.g., 
wood) for the army. Another ration, the capitus, 
provided fodder for its horses. The annona and 
capitus became regular issue during the grd C., 
and the task of their assessment, collection, and 
distribution fell to the praetorian prefecture (Jones, 
LRE 448-62). These provisions were collected in 
supply depots and issued to the soldiers by the 
army quartermasters (actuaru). As taxes in kind 
were increasingly commuted to cash throughout 
the 5th C., the annona and capitus became ration 
lowances (in some cases at fixed rates of 5 and 
solidi, respectively, in the Cod.Just. 1 27.1, par.22), 
though rations in kind continued to be issued, 
sp. in the East. Eventually soldiers’ pay, and that 
f civil officials, was computed in the cash equiv- 
ents of the annona and capitus, assessed at vary- 
ng rates according to rank or grade of service 
Haldon, Praetorians 1 20—25). 


mw 


bs 


w O 0 & 








pops 





aam, 


LIT. A. Cerati, Caractère annonaire ei assietie de Uimpét 
foncier au Bas-Empire (Paris 1975) 103-51. W.E. Kaegi, 
“The Annona Militaris in the Early Seventh Century,” By- 
zanlina 13.1 (1985) 589~96. —E.M. 


ANNUNCIATION (sbayyedkiopuss rìs QOeoró 
kov), feast of the angel Gabriel’s announcement 
of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Virgin 
Mary (Lk 1:26—38), celebrated 25 Mar. In Syria, 
Constantinople, and possibly Asia Minor, a feast 
of the Virgin that included the annunciation theme 
was originally part of pre-Nativity celebrations on 
the first or second Sunday before Christmas; this 
preparatory Sunday is attested in Constantinople 
before 431 (F.J. Leroy, L’Homuilétique de Proclus de 
Constantinople [Vatican 1967] 66). But in 560 a 
letter of Justinian 1 defended 25 Mar. as the 
historical date of the annunciation event and af- 




































































































































































































































































2th C. Mon- 


ANNUNCIATION. The Annunciation; icon, 
astery of St. Catherine, Sinai. 


firmed that the feasts of the Nativity and Presen- 
tation in the Temple (HyPAPANTE) should be cel- 
ebrated 25 Dec. and 2 Feb., respectively, because 
they depend on the Annunciation (M. van Es- 
broeck, AB 86 [1968] 351-71; 87 [1969] 442-44). 
Actually, the March date, probably introduced to 
Antioch in the 6th C., and to Jerusalem and the 
whole Christian world shortly thereafter, was cho- 
sen not in order to coordinate with Christmas, 
but because the identification of John the Baptist’s 
conception with the autumn equinox put Jesus’ 
conception at the spring equinox six months later 
and his Nativity (25 Dec.) at the winter solstice, 
The date 25 Mar. was, furthermore, considered 
the day of the Crucifixion, and to make Jesus’ life 
a perfect cycle, his conception and death had to 
coincide, since fractions were imperfect (Talley, 
Liturgical Year 8—13, 91—103). 

One of the five Marian Great Feasts, and, with 
the Hypapante, one of two not based on New 
Testament apocrypha, the Annunciation is the 


only one of the 12 fixed Great Feasts that can fall 
in Lent, Holy Week, or the week after Easter; if 
in Lent, it has an afterfeast of but one day, and 
if in Holy or Easter Week, this metheorta is sup- 
pressed entirely. On the day of the Annunciation, 
the emperor went in procession to the column of 
Constantine, celebrated the liturgy in the Church 
of the CHALKopRATEIA, and feasted in the palace 
(De cer., bk.1, ch.g0; Philotheos, Kletor. 195.16- 
197-5): 

Illustrations of the Annunciation show GaBRIEL 
approaching the standing or seated Virgin Mary. 
Depicted by the grd C., the Annunciation became 
a pervasive Christian image. It appears in Chris- 
tological cycles and also independently on jewelry, 
icons, bema doors, the triumphal arches of 
churches, and in some Gospel books preceding 
the text of Luke. The initial, simple confrontation 
of the holy figures was quickly elaborated. The 
well and purple wool, derived from the PRroro- 
EVANGELION OF JAMES (11:1-3), appear in 5th-C, 
art. The 6th-C. mosaic at Poreč shows Mary en- 
throned before a basilican facade, as a royal fig- 
ure, a type of the Church, and a portal of salva- 
ion. Post-Iconoclastic art, drawing on homilies, 
embroiders the scene with springtime elements 
incorporating Marian symbols (lilies, the closed 
garden) and doctrinal ones (the arc of Heaven, 
the dove and impregnating light, and—in the 
Hagioi Anargyroi at Kasroria—God himself). The 
richest of all Byz. Annunciation compositions is 
the late 12th-C. icon on Mt. Sinai, which, along 
with numerous Marian motifs, includes on Mary’s 
breast a faint mandorla containing the infant 
Christ, a reference to the VIRGIN BLACHERNITISSA. 




















LIT. R.A. Fletcher, “Celebrations at Jerusalem on March 
25th in the Sixth Century a.p.,” StP 5 (1962) go-34. Idem, 
“Three Early Byzantine Hymns and their Place in the 
Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople,” BZ 51 (1958) 
53-65. D.M. Montagna, “La liturgia mariana primitiva,” 
Marianum 24 (1962) 84—128. D. Denny, The Annunciation 
from the Right: From Early Christian Times to the Sixteenth 
Century (New York 1977). Maguire, Art & Eloquence 44-52. 

~R.F.T., A.W.C. 


ANOINTING (xpioya), a ritual rubbing with a 
blessed om or chrism, derived from widespread 
ancient use of unguents. Early Christian initiation 
rites like BAPTISM used anointing; in the medieval 
West it marked accession to political power from 
the 7th C. onward. At what date anointing en- 
tered Byz. CORONATIONS is controversial. Old Tes- 





ANONYMOUS, “ENANTIOPHANES” | 107 


tament metaphors, the Septuagint’s very frequent 
use of the phrase chriein basilea (e.g., 1 Sam [1 Kg] 
11:5, 15:17), and the iconography of Davidic 
kingship (C. Walter, BMGS 2 [1976] 58-73) en- 
couraged similar wording for the Byz. emperor’s 
accession, regardless of ritual. Neither De ceremoni- 
is nor euchologia make reference to coronation 
anointing. Although there is some discussion about 
Niketas Choniates’ testimony (Nik.Chon. 457.15), 
anointing in connection with coronations appears 
irrefutably only after 1204, when debate waxed 
over whether Byz. anointing was introduced in 
response to Baldwin I’s Latin-style coronation 
anointing at Constantinople or could have en- 
tered Byz. ceremonial shortly before. Even in the 
latter case, the Western presence at court and in 
the imperial family scarcely excludes the possibil- 
ity of Latin influence. 

Theodore I Laskaris was anointed emperor in 
1205 and anointing became solidly entrenched 
thereafter. A 14th-C. ceremonial book (pseudo- 
Kod. 258.3-29) describes how the patriarch 
mounted the ambo and anointed the emperor's 
head just before crowning him, as he declared 
him “Holy!” (hagios) and the audience echoed the 
ACCLAMATION. Symeon of Thessalonike (PG 
155:353B—D) gave the rite a christomimetic inter- 
pretation, reasoning that the emperor’s anointing 
paralleled that of Christ by the Holy Spirit. (For 
anointing of the sick, see UNCTION.) 








LIT. G. Ostrogorsky, Byz, Geschichte 142-52. D.M. Nicol, 
“Kaisersalbung: The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine 
Coronation Ritual,” BMGS 2 (1976) 97-52. M. Arranz, 
“L'aspect rituel de l'onction des empereurs de Constanti- 
nople et de Moscou,” in Roma, Costantinopoli, Mosca (Naples 
1983) 407-15. ~M.McC, 


ANONYMOUS, “ENANTIOPHANES,” jurist. 
Numerous scholia to the Basiika are inscribed 
“(rod) “Avwvipov” or “(rotv) "Evavriodavois.” Ac- 
cording to the generally accepted opinion of K.E. 
Zacharia von Lingenthal (Kleine Schriften 2:152- 
54), these texts originate in the writings of an 
“elder Anonymous” and a “younger Anony- 
mous,” the latter of whom should be identified 
with “Enantiophanes.” The “elder Anonymous” 
was perhaps active under Justinian I and may 
have composed a paraphrase of the Digest that 
served as the basis for the text of the Basilika. The 
“younger Anonymous” may have lived under 
Herakleios and provided the Digest paraphrase of 


108 | ANONYMOUS FOLLES 


the “elder Anonymous” with explanatory notes 
(paragraphat). The “younger Anonymous” was 
called “Enantiophanes” because he wrote a work 
entitled Peri enantiophaneton (On Apparent Con- 
tradictions), which is mentioned in the Nomoka- 
NON OF FOURTEEN TITLES, a work that likewise 
can be attributed to him. 

LIT. Scheltema, “Kommentarverbot” 308-15. N. van der 
Wal, “Wer war der ‘Enantiophanes?’ ” Tijdschrift 48 (1980) 
t25~36. L. Burgmann, “Neue Zeugnisse der Digesten- 
summe des Anonymos,” FM 7 (1986) 101-16. ~AS. 


ANONYMOUS FOLLES. See Corns; MINTS. 


ANONYMUS VALESIT. See EXCERPTA VALE- 
SIANA. 


ANSBERT. See HISTORIA DE EXPEDITIONE FRI- 
DERICI. 


ANSELM, author, ambassador, bishop of Havel- 
berg (1129—55), and archbishop of Ravenna (1155— 
58); born Germany? ca.1100, died Milan 12 Aug. 
1158. In 1198/6 Anselm visited Constantinople as 
the ambassador of the German emperor Lothair 
III to John H Komnenos to discuss possible joint 
action against RoGer II of Sicily. In Apr. 1136, 
with the cooperation of Emp. John and Patr. Leo 
Styppes (1134—43), he participated in public de- 
bates in Constantinople with Niketas, archbishop 
of Nikomedeia, on the FILIOQUE, the AZYMES, and 
papal primacy. In order to rebut Niketas’s criti- 
cism of the Roman church’s “innovations” in faith 
and practice, Anselm used his own theory of the 
church’s historical growth in understanding the 
faith through the Holy Spirit. He politely, but 
firmly, upheld the Latin filioque doctrine and 
claimed that Niketas accepted his compromise 
formula: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Fa- 
ther and the Son, but “properly and principally” 
only from the Father. Niketas evidently also agreed 
that the Greek “through the Son” was equivalent 
to the Latin “from both” (ab utroque). Both Anselm 
and Niketas called for an ecumenical council that 
would, they hoped, result in UNION OF THE 
CHURCHES. At the request of Pope Eugenius H, 
Anselm wrote (1150) the Dialogues, a detailed ac- 
count of his debates with Niketas. 

In 1153 Frederick I Barbarossa sent Anselm to 


Manuel I Komnenos to negotiate a marriage be- 
tween Frederick and the Byz. princess Maria. While 
in Thessalonike in 1154, en route home, Anselm 
discussed the procession of the Holy Spirit with 
Basi, oF Ourip and acknowledged that Latin 
arrogance impeded reunion. 

ED. Dialogues—PL 188:1199~—1248. Fr. tr. of book 1 by 
G. Saler (Paris 1966); book 2 by P. Harang, Istina 17 (1972) 
3757424- NR 

LIT. J. Dräseke, “Bischof Anselm von Havelberg und 
seine Gesandtschaftsreisen nach Byzanz,” ZKirch 21 (1901) 
160-85. L.F. Barmann, “Reform Ideology in the Dialogi of 
Anselm of Havelberg,” ChHist 30 (1961) 379~95. N. Rus- 
sell, “Anselm of Havelberg and the Union of the Churches,” 
Sobornost 1.2 (1979) 19—41; 2.1 (1980) 29—94. J. Darrouzės, 
“Les documents byzantins du XIe siècle sur la primauté 
romaine,” REB 23 (1965) 59—65. ~F.K. 


ANTAE (Avrat), a group of people in the area 
north of the Black Sea. According to Jordanes, in 
the 4th C. the Goths defeated the Antae and 
murdered their “king” (rex) Boz and 70 elders. 
Other authors (Prokopios, pseudo-Maurice, etc.) 
mention the Antae, usually alongside the SKLAv- 
ENOI, in connection with the events of 535—602. 
Prokopios describes the Antae as a conglomera- 
tion of primitive and dirty nomads who practiced 
democracy and made war on foot, half-naked, 
armed with only spears and shields; they vener- 
ated the god of lightning. 

The origin of the Antae is hotly discussed. Many 
scholars (e.g., Č. Bonev, EtBalk 19 [1983] no.3, 
10g—20) consider them early Slavs; G. Vernadsky 
(JAOS 59 [1939] 56—66} developed the theory of 
their Aran origin; B. Strumins’kyj (HURkSt 3/4 
[1979—80] 786—g6) saw in them Goths. The Antae 
were probably professional warriors, neighbors 
originally of the Alans and subsequently of the 
Ostrogoths, the Huns, the Bulgars, and the Avars. 
Justinian I, who accepted the title “Antikos,” made 
them allies, and between 545 and 602 the Antae 
usually cooperated with the empire. Around 560 
the Avars began to assume hegemony in eastern 
Europe and to demand the loyalty of the Antae. 
Attempts at negotiation failed, and the Avars killed 
the Antae envoy Mezamer. In 602 the Antae allied 
with Maurice against the Avars; Simokattes 
(Theoph.Simok. 293.15~16) relates that the kha- 
gan dispatched an army under the command of 
Apsich to exterminate the Antae but the Avars 
were afraid and began to desert; after 6o2 the 
Antae disappear from the sources. 





LIT. O. Pritsak, “The Slavs and the Avars,” SellStu 30 
(1983) 394-411. R. Werner, “Zur Herkunft der Anten,” 
in Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vit- 
unghoff (Cologne-Vienna 1980) 573—95. -O.P. 


ANTECESSORES (dåvrikývoopes, “those who 
precede”), an honorary designation used by Jus- 
tinian I for the professors of jurisprudence at the 
state LAW SCHOOLS in Constantinople and Berytus. 
The Constitutio Omnem (a. 533), which regulated 
legal education, is addressed to eight antecessores: 
THEOPHILOS, DoROTHEOS, Theodore, ISIDORE, 
ANATOLIOS, THALELAIOS, Kratinos, and Salami- 
nios. Of their writings—mainly summaries of and 
notes on the Corpus Juris Civilis—only the para- 
phrase of the Jnstitutes by Theophilos has been 
preserved in full; numerous fragments from works 
on the Digest and on the Codex Justinianus are 
transmitted, esp. in the scholia to the Basilika, 
often inscribed with the author’s name. With the 
decline of state legal instruction in the second half 
of the 6th C., the designation antecessor fell out of 
use. 











Lit. P. Jérs, RE 1.2 (1894) 2347f. H.J. Scheltema, L'en- 
seignement de droit des antécesseurs (Leiden 1970). P. Pieler, 
LMA 1:692. -AS. 


ANTHEMIOS (Av@é0s), prefect under Arka- 
dios and Theodosios II; died after 414. Probably 
of Egyptian origin, Anthemios was a member of 
one of the most distinguished aristocratic families 
of the period. He was magister officiorum in 404 
and praetorian prefect of the East from 405 to 
414. He may have assisted in the deposition of 
John Chrysostom in 404, but he was presumably 
a Christian and escorted the relics of the prophet 
Samuel into Constantinople in 406. Sokrates (Sokr. 
HE 7.1.1) reports that he was the virtual ruler of 
the empire during the critical period of the mi- 
nority of Theodosios II. He reorganized the food 
supply of the capital (Cod.Theod. XIII 5.32) and 
rebuilt its walls (Cod.Theod. XV 1.51) before he 
fell from power (see PULCHERIA). 


uit. PLRE 2:93-95. -T.E.G. 


ANTHEMIOS Western emperor (467—72); born 
Constantinople, died Rome go June or 11 July 
472. Grandson of the prefect ANTHEMIOS and 
son-in-law of Marcian, patrikios, and commander 





ANTHEMIOS OF TRALLES 109 


against the Huns and Ostrogoths, Anthemios was 
a candidate for the throne in Constantinople in 
454. Leo I named him caesar and in 467 sent him 
to Italy, where he was proclaimed augustus by the 
army. Leo concurred in the nomination as did 
RIciMER (who married the daughter of Anthem- 
ios), both hoping to counter the power and influ- 
ence of the Vandal king Gaisreric. Celebrated by 
Sidonius Apollinaris and by Leo as the hope for 
unity between East and West, Anthemios was dis- 
trusted as a Greek and suspected of pagan sym- 
pathies. He played no part in the naval expedition 
against the Vandals in 468. Hostility developed 
with Ricimer, who finally invested Olybrius with 
the purple in 492. Ricimer attacked Rome, and 
Anthemios was captured and beheaded. 

uit. Bury, LRE 1:335—40. Kaegi, Decline 35—43. G. Här- 
tel, “Die zeitgeschichtliche Relevanz der Novellen des Kai- 


sers Anthemius,” Klio 64 (1982) 151-59. PLRE 2:96—98. 
—T.E.G. 


ANTHEMIOS OF TRALLES, architect, engi- 
neer, physicist, and mathematician; born Tralles 
in Lydia, died Constantinople? before 558 (the 
traditional date of his death, ca.534, is erroneous: 
G. Soulis, Speculum 35 [1960] 124). Anthemios 
was the son of a physician, Stephen; one of his 
brothers, Metrodoros, was a grammarian, another 
was a lawyer, and others were doctors. Anthemios 
achieved fame as the architect (with ISIDORE oF 
Mizetus) of Hacia SopHiA in Constantinople. 
Nothing is known of his other architectural proj- 
ects. Prokopios relates that Justinian I consulted 
Anthemios about flood control at Dara. Accord- 
ing to Agathias, Anthemios was one of those sci- 
entists “who apply geometrical speculation to ma- 
terial objects and make models or imitations of 
the natural world” (Agath. 5:6.3). Anthemios’s 
experiments included the production of an arti- 
ficial earthquake (using steam power) and artif- 
cial thunder as well as the creation of a powerful 
reflector. He wrote treatises such as Concerning 
Remarkable Mechanical Devices and On Burning- 
Mirrors; in the former he describes a curved re- 
flector similar to one that he is said to have built. 
According to TzeTzEs, Anthemios also wrote on 
mechanical and hydraulic subjects. 

LIT. G.L. Huxley, Anthemius of Tralles (Cambridge, Mass., 


1959). G. Downey, “Byzantine Architects,” Byzantion 18 
(1946-48) 112-14. ~M.J., A.K. 





110 ANTHIMOS OF NIKOMEDEIA 


ANTHIMOS OF NIKOMEDEIA, martyr under 
Yiocletian and saint; feastday 3 Sept. According 
to Eusebios of Caesarea (Eusebios, HF 8.6.6), An- 
thimos (“Av6.0s), bishop of Nikomedeia, was de- 
capitated in 303; he was among those charged 
with setting fire to the imperial palace in Niko- 
medeia. A Life attributed to SYMEON META- 
PHRASTES presents the trial and torture of Anthi- 
mos by Maximian. It is questionable whether any 
of his writings survive: the legend of Sts. Domna 
and Indes mentions a letter of Anthimos to per- 
secuted communities (PG 116:1073C—1076B); a 
fragment, On the Holy Church, attributed to An- 
thimos by G. Mercati, is actually a work of MaR- 
KELLOS OF ANKYRA according to Richard (Opera 
minora 2, 20.33). 

Representation in Art. The earliest known por- 
trait of Anthimos, on a mosaic (now lost) in the 
south tympanum of Hacia Sopuia, apparently 
showed the saint as an elderly bishop; this is the 
most usual type, though his features vary. In the 
THEODORE PSALTER (fol.gav), he bears witness to 
the burning of the church in Nikomedeia in which 
20,000 Christians are said to have lost their lives. 
Four scenes enclosed in roundels recount his mar- 
tyrdom (including torture on a wheel) in a meno- 
logion MS of Symeon Metaphrastes (London, B.L. 
Add. 11870, fol.44v); other MSS depict only his 
beheading. 



































SOURCE. PG 115:171—84. 
LIT. BHG 134y—135¢. U. Knoben, LCI 5:1 99f. 
—A.K., N.P.S. 


ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA AND ANTHO.- 
LOGIA PLANUDEA. See GREEK ANTHOLOGY. 


ANTHOLOGIES, collections of largely secular 
verse, esp. EPIGRAMS, similar to a FLORILEGIUM 
(excerpts from theological texts) or a gnomologion 
(GNomal, or moralizing excerpts from secular texts 
in both prose and verse). Selections from the 
major classical anthologies (those of Meleager of 
Gadara, Philip of Thessalonike, etc.) were com- 
bined in the oth C. by Constantine KEPHALAS 
with material from the Byz. period, esp. from the 
Cycle of AcaTuias. This collection, now lost as an 
independent work, in turn formed the basis for 
the main surviving Byz. anthologies, the Antholo- 
gia Palatina and the Anthologia Planudea (see GREEK 
ANTHOLOGY). There also survive a number of 


short anthologies (e.g., the gth-C. Sylloge Euphemi- 
ana, the 13th-C. Sylloge Crameriana, the 14th-C, 
Appendix Barbaro-Vaticana), which contain a few 
epigrams not attested by the two major collections. 


ED. See GREEK ANTHOLOGY. 


LIT. AnthGr 1:82-84. -E.MJ. 


ANTHOUSA (’Av6ovca, lit. “flourishing”), the 
name or epithet given by Constantine I the Great 
to Constantinople~New Rome. John Lydos uses 
the epithet as a translation of Roman Flora, but 
E. Fenster (Laudes Constantinopolitanae [Munich 
1968] 93, n.5) questions his explanation. The epi- 
thet appears in historians and panegyrics; PauL 
SILENTIARIOS, for instance, speaks of “golden-clad 
Anthousa” who subjugates barbarians (vv. 156- 
58). It is also found in geographical nomenclature 
(e.g., Eustathios of Thessalonike’s commentary on 
Dionysios Periegetes), and Manuel Holobolos still 
used it in his speech on Michael VIII’s reconquest 
of Constantinople. 

ur. J. Bernays, “Quellennachweise zu Politianus und 
Georgius Valla,” Hermes 11 (1876) 129-34. A. Riese, “An- 


thousa,” Hermes 12 (1877) 143f. M. Alföldi, Die constanti- 
nische Goldpragung (Mainz 1963) 151, n.2. -A.K. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. The classical Byz. definition 
of man stems from the Greek philosophical tra- 
dition and is common to theologians, philoso- 
phers, and even elementary school textbooks; man 
is a rational, mortal being, or corporeal essence, 
endowed with speech and thought, capable of 
reason and knowledge. Man, a being that unites 
two natures in one person, was the favorite model 
for the hypostatic union from the 6th C. In this 
context the souL or spirit of man is contrasted to 
the Bopy in purely negative terms (incorporeal, 
immortal, incorruptible), and man is perceived as 
a simultaneous synthesis of opposites: as “a being 
united ineffably and simultaneously of different 
essences” (Anastasios of Sinai, ed. Uthemann, Vitae 
Dux 2.5, p.58f), or as a “mixture of opposites” 
(Maximos the Confessor, PG 91:212D, 1032B). 
In referring to Genesis 1:27, the patristic tra- 
dition sees man as the image of God, or, insofar 
as the Logos alone is the image of God, man is 
seen as an “image in the image of God.” From 
Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, 
and according to our likeness,” man is seen as an 
image of the Trinity in the structure of his soul, 


not in the sense of Plato’s tripartite division of the 
soul, but rather in the relationship of man’s psyche 
to his logos and nous or pneuma. 

The ability of Byz. anthropology to shed its 
theological context, at least outwardly, is shown 
in the thought of Michael Psellos and John Italos 
in the 11th C. (See also NEMEsIOs.) 

LIT. S. Otto, Person und Subsistenz; Die philosophische An- 
thropologie des Leontius von Byzanz (Munich 1968). K.-H. 
Uthemann, “Das anthropologische Modell der hyposta- 
tischen Union,” Kleronomia 14 (1982) 215-312. F.R. Gah- 
bauer, Das anthropologische Modell: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie 
der frühen Kirche bis Chalkedon (Würzburg 1984). L. Benakis, 
“Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos in der byzantin- 
ischen Philosophie,” in L'homme et son univers au moyen âge 
(Louvain-la-Neuve 1986) 56—76. P. Joannou, Die Ilumina- 
tionslehre des Michael Psellos und Joannes Italos (Ettal 1956) 
88-106, 126-135. —K.-H.U. 


ANTHROPOS (dv@pw7ros, “man,” Lat. homo), a 
term designating an individual in a relation of 
personal dependence; its synonyms were philos 
(“friend”), orke1os, and Liztos. The term anthropos 
could cover relations between a strategos and his 
retinue, as in the Strategikon of Maurice; this usage 
is also found later, for example, in a 1oth-C. 
source (TheophCont 374.17) that relates that Leo 
Argyros attacked Tephrike “with his anthropot.” 
An anthropos could be a subordinate of a civil 
official; thus an anonymous letter of the 10th C. 
was addressed to an anthropos of the krites of the 
Aegean Sea (Darrouzés, Epistoliers 377, no.47). 
More evidence of the “parafeudal” nature of Byz. 
“homage” is revealed in sources of the 11th and 
12th C., in a Cretan charter of 1118 (MM 6:95- 
99), and in Kekaumenos as well as in the typika of 
Pakourianos and of the Kosmosoteira monas- 
tery. A seal of Niketas, “anthropos of the most 
fortunate caesar,” is published but not dated (Za- 
cos, Seals 1, no.643). Anthropoi not only served as 
a private retinue that followed their commander 
to battle, but also received land for their service. 
In later documents the term anthropot was also 
applied to pAROIKOI. The “imperial men,” BAsI- 
LIKOI ANTHROPOL, formed a special category. 











LIT. Kazhdan, Gosp.klass, 236-38. V. Arutjunova, “K 
voprosu ob anthropoi v ‘tipike’ Grigorija Pakuriana,” Viz- 
Vrem 29 (1968) 63—76. N. Oikonomides, “Hoi authentai 
ton Kretikon to 1118,” Pepragmena tou D’ diethnous Kretolo- 
gikou synedriou, vol. 2 (Athens 1981) 3139-17. -A.K. 





ANTHYPATOS (dv@v7raros), Greek translation 
of Latin proconsul or CONSULARIS, a governor of 

















ANTICHRIST | 111 


some special provinces (B. Kübler, RE 4 [1901] 
1140—42). The term probably also designated the 
head of the administration of Constantinople un- 
til 359, when it was replaced by the URBAN PRE- 
FECT. From the gth C. anthypatos was used as a 
DIGNITY. According to E. Stein (BNJbb ı [1920] 
372f), the TAKTIKON of Uspenskij (842/3) still listed 
the anthypatos as a provincial governor—a conclu- 
sion based only on the place of the title in the list. 
Guilland suggests that anthypatos as a dignity was 
first applied to Alexios Mousele under Emp. 
Theophilos. In the late gth-C. Kletorologion of Philo- 
theos the term, often in conjunction with PATRI- 
KIOS, was listed in a position between MAGISTROS 
and regular patrikios. The term protanthypatos is 
known from 11th-C. sources. A disanthypatos is 
also mentioned on a seal. These titles were not 
used after the beginning of the 12th C. 

LIT. Guilland, Institutions 2:68—79. Oikonomides, Listes 
287, 294. Bury, Adm. System 28f. C. Emereau, “L’archonte- 


proconsul de Constantinople,” RA® 23 (1926) 103-08. 
~A.K. 


ANTICHRIST (Avrixptores), the greatest antag- 
onist of Christ, esp. at the Second Coming (Pa- 
rousia). The Greek word Antichristos appears in 
the Bible only in the epistles of John (2 Jn 2:18— 
22; 4:3; 2 Jn 7), but the concept of the final 
struggle between a diabolic ruler (anti-Messiah or 
“the beast”) and the divine forces is to be found 
in the Hebrew (esp. Essene and apocalyptic) tra- 
dition. Hippolytos of Rome in the grd C. was the 
first Christian author to devote a tract to the 
Antichrist (On Christ and on the Antichrist), the core 
of which was opposition to the Roman Empire. 
The theme was developed in Byz. commentaries 
on the APOCALYPSE by OIKOUMENIOS, ANDREW of 
Caesarea, ARETHAS OF CAESAREA, and NEOPHYTOS 
ENKLEISTOS, since the two beasts in the Apoca- 
lypse that are identified with the Roman Empire 
or the cult of the emperor were interpreted as 
referring to the Antichrist. 

Byz. theologians gave the Antichrist various 
names: Lampetis, Tetian, Lateinos, Benediktos 
(or Niketas), names for which the numerical 
equivalents of their Greek letters add up to 666, 
the number of the Antichrist (Rev 19:18). He was 
perceived either as the Devi incarnate or as a 
being consisting of a man combined with satanic 
energy. He was expected to come “when the time 
of the Roman Empire was fulfilled” (Cyril of Je- 





112 ANTIGRAPHEUS 


rusalem, Catech. 15.12, PG 33:885A) and to sub- 
jugate Egypt, Libya, and the Ethiopians. He will 
deceive people by his external resemblance to 
Christ and by his power of working miracles. 
Drought, famine, and portents will manifest his 
coming, and he will persecute the saints. Accord- 
ingly, drought and similar phenomena were often 
interpreted as foreboding the coming of the An- 
tichrist. The years of the reign of the Antichrist 
are numbered, and in the end he is to be defeated. 

The Antichrist was often connected with the 
Jews, whom he specially honors, even rebuilding 
the Temple, over which he will preside, proclaim- 
ing himself a god. Pseudo-METHODIOS OF PATARA 
as well as SopHronios of Jerusalem (PG 
87.3:3197D) identified the Antichrist with Is- 
lam—an interpretation that spread particularly in 
the post-Byz. period. 

ur. B. Rubin, “Der Antichrist und die ‘Apokalypse’ des 
Prokopios von Kaisareia,” ZDMG 110 (1961) 55-63. G. 
Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie (Munich 1972) 
79—99. P.J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition 


(Berkeley 1985) 193-225. K. Wessel, “Der Antichrist am 
Kreuz,” in Eikon und Logos, ed. H. Goltz, vol. 2 (Halle 1981) 


323737- -G.P. 


ANTIGRAPHEUS (dévrivypadevs), in the Kletoro- 
logion of Philotheos a subordinate of the Quags- 
ror. According to Bury (Adm. System 75f), anti- 
grapheis were successors of the late Roman magistri 
scriniorum under the MAGISTER OFFICIORUM. As the 
Greek rendition of the magister of a scrinium, the 
term antigrapheus was used by various late Roman 
authors. It is not known what the functions of the 
antigrapheis were after they moved to the depart- 
ment of the quaestor. Antigrapheis are mentioned 
in the EcLoca (162.42, 166.104) as involved in 
the preparation of legislative acts. Later, the term 
antigraphe designated responses issued by the em- 
peror (e.g., Lavra 1, no.67.17), letters sent abroad 
(Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 8g), etc. 
The seals of antigrapheis, some dated to the 7th 
C., do not clarify their duties. 

LIT. J. Bury, “Magistri scriniorum, antigraphes, and re- 
pherendarioi,” HSitCIPhil 21 (1910) 23—29. Zacos, Seals 
22159. —A.K. 


ANTIMENSION (a@vrizjvotov), also antimesion 
(from Lat. mensa, “table”), a portable ALTAR, often 
made of cloth. The term is first found in an 
enkomion of an obscure saint, Markianos of Syra- 


cuse (text probably early 8th C.), where the “an- 
timinsion” is identified as “mystike trapeza” (AASS 
June 3:281C—282D). Patr. Niketas I (766-80) re. 
portedly set up an “antimission” in the Hippo- 
drome and prayed before it when Leo IV crowned 
his son Constantine VI (Theoph. 450.16). The 
word occurs more frequently from the tath C. 
onward when it refers specifically to a piece of 
cloth—linen (Symeon of Thessalonike, PG 
155:332D—333A) or possibly silk. The so-called 
Nomocanon of Cotelier (J.B. Cotelier, Monumenta 
ecclesiae graecae 1 [Paris 1677]), produced between 
the 12th and 14th C., prescribes punishment for 
a priest who officiates without an antimension. The 
antimension contained a small pocket for RELICS 
and had to be consecrated by a bishop. Although 
consecrated as a portable altar, an antimension was 
to be used only when a consecrated altar-table 
was not available, or if consecration was in doubt. 
Its usage was quite common, esp. during the late 
period. The antimension became mandatory for 
the celebration of liturgy only in the post-Byz. 
period when it replaced the E1LIToN as the altar 
cloth on which eucharistic vessels were set; in 
earlier practice the antimension had been spread 
underneath the ENDYTE. Since no Byz. antimensia 
are preserved, their exact appearance is not known, 
and there is no evidence that they were ever 
extensively decorated. 








Lit. J. Izzo, The Antimenston in the Liturgical and Canonical 
Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Churches (Rome 975) 
23-144. 5. Pétridés, DACL 1.2:231g—26. ~AG. 


ANTINOOPOLIS (‘Avrwéov médis, also An- 
tinoé, Antinou, mod. Shaikh Abada), town in Up- 
per Egypt founded by Hadrian in 130; a flourish- 
ing center of Hellenic culture. In 297 Diocletian 
made Antinoöpolis an important administrative 
center and under Justinian I it became the seat 
of the doux of the Thebaid. It had a Christian 
community and was an episcopal see already in 
the early 4th C. The ANTINOGPOLIS PAPYRI make 
reference to many churches, but excavations have 
unearthed only a few. There are two large basil- 
icas in the east and south parts of the town, the 
latter of which dates probably from the 4th C.; it 
has five aisles and is built entirely of mudbrick. 
Of the former, only the crypt and sections of the 
atrium have survived. A third smaller church was 
discovered in the north cemetery. The site pre- 
serves traces of a colonnaded street, a large bath, 


a theater, a hippodrome, and other public build- 
ings. The ruins to the south of Antinoöpolis are 
of early monasteries. 

Among the burials of Antinoöpolis the most 
famous is the chapel of Theodosia (probably late 
4th C.); its frescoes represent Christ and the owner 
of the tomb accompanied by several saints. Other 
painted tombs were discovered in the mountains 
east of the city. The so-called Underground Church 
contains biblical scenes, e.g., The Marriage at CANA 
and the Massacre of the Innocents. 

Lit. Antinoe 1965—1968, ed. S. Donadoni (Rome 1974). 
P. Grossmann, “Die von Somers Clark in Ober-Ansina 
entdeckten Kirchenbauten,” MDAI K 24 (1969) 144—68. E. 
Mitchell, “Osservazioni topografiche preliminari sull’im- 
pianto urbanistico di Antinoe,” Vicino Oriente 5 (1982) 171- 
go. Timm, Agyplen 1:1 11—28. —P.G. 


ANTINOOPOLIS PAPYRI, literary and docu- 
mentary papyri and parchments in Greek, Latin, 
Copuc, Arabic, Hebrew, and even Gothic, found 
by British and Italian excavations at the site of 
Hadrian’s foundation in Middle Egypt (modern 
Shaikh Abada), attesting to the flourishing and 
multiform culture of AnTINOÖPOLIS from the 2nd 
C. until after the Arab conquest. They include 
biblical, theological, medical, legal, grammatical, 
and stenographic texts, poetry, drama, philoso- 
phy, rhetoric, and al} the usual documentary 
genres, from petitions to letters. The role of An- 
tinodépolis as capital of the Thebaid under its doux 
in the 6th C. is apparent from the abundant 
paperwork generated by the official chancery. The 
lawyer-poet Dioskoros OF APHRODITO lived and 
practiced there during 566-73, and many papyri 
from his archive were written at Antinoöpolis. 
Illustrated Greek papyri were found at the site, 
including herbal illustrations and a drawing of 
charioteers. Coptic papyri, esp. tax receipts, pro- 
vide evidence of ecclesiastical institutions and of 
the role of the doux of the Thebaid into post- 
conquest times. 

ep. C.H. Roberts, J.W.B. Barns, H. Zilliacus, The Anti- 
nodpolis Papyri, 3 vols. (London 1950-67). 

LIT. Antince 1965-1968 (Rome 1974). M. Manfredi, 
“Notizie sugli scavi recenti ad Antinoe,” Atti del XVH Con- 
gresso Internazionale di Papirologia, vol. 1 (Naples 1984) 85- 


96. S. Timm, Das christlich-koptische Ägypten in arabischer Zeit, 
vol. 1 (Wiesbaden 1984) 111-28. -L.S.B.MacC. 

















ANTIOCH (Apridyeta), the name of two cities 
in the Byz. Empire. The less important city was 


113 





ise] 
m 


ANTIOCH: ANTIOCH ON THE ORONTI 


located in Anatolia, while Antioch on the Orontes, 
in Syria, was one of the major cities of late anti- 
quity and the seat of one of the four Eastern 
patriarchates. 


ANTIOCH OF PISIDIA, metropolis east of Lake 
Egridir on major routes through southern Ana- 
tolia; now Yalvaç. A Roman colony, Pisidian An- 
tioch saw a revival of Latin and of prosperity in 
the 4th C. It remained a stronghold of pagan- 
ism—centered on its temple of the moon god, 
Men—until ca.goo, when the temple was de- 
stroyed and replaced by a church. Remains, which 
include a church with a floor mosaic of ca.g8o, 
indicate an active civic life in late antiquity. There- 
after, Antioch was exposed to attack: the Arabs 
wintered there in 665/6 and destroyed it in 717. 
The city never really recovered, but it did remain 
the ecclesiastical metropolis into the 12th C. The 
PAULICIANS established their church, Philippi, here 
in the mid-8th C. In 1097, the First Crusade 
rested in the fertile plain of Antioch, which by 
then had been permanently lost to the Turks. 

Lit. B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor 
(Oxford 1967) 178-81. D.M. Robinson, “A Preliminary 
Report on the Excavations at Pisidian Antioch,” AJA 28 
(1924) 435-44. E. Kitzinger, “A Fourth Century Mosaic 


Floor in Pisidian Antioch,” in Mél. Mansel 385-95. S. Mitch- 
ell, “Pisidian Antioch,” AnatSt 34 (1984) 8—10. -C.F. 


ANTIOCH ON THE ORONTES (now Antakya in 
Turkey), city about 25 km from the Mediterra- 
nean and its port at SELEUKEIA PIERIA, situated 
between the Orontes River and Mt. Silpios, and 
crossed east to west by the Parmenios torrent. 
Seleucid Antioch came to replace Berrola as the 
principal city of Syria until the latter city regained 
preeminence following the Arab conquest (636/ 
7). The evidence varies as to the size of Antioch’s 
population. In 363 Libanios referred to 150,000 
anthropoi, while 250,000 or 300,000 people re- 
portedly perished in the earthquake of 526 (G. 
Downey, TAPA 8g [1958] 87—90). Excavations in 
1939—45 at Antioch, its port, and the suburb of 
Daphne, revealed large houses and five churches 
at the three sites; a circus, stadium, the cardo, and 
several baths in Antioch itself; and a theater at 
Daphne. The numerous tessellated pavements 
uncovered illustrate the development of FLOOR 
Mosaics from the end to 6th C. As an imperial 
residence (of Constantius I], Julian, Jovian, and 
Valens) in the 4th C., Antioch expanded. In its 


114 ANTIOCH: ANTIOCH ON THE ORONTES 





environs, at Kausiye, a cruciform basilica was built, 
probably in 379, for the local martyr Ba- 
BYLAS. The city walls were extended by Theodo- 
sios II in 430/1, and numerous other emperors 
also erected public buildings at Antioch. At least 
four gates led into the walled city, which was 3 
km long from the years 430 to 540 and 2.3 km 
thereafter, when it was approximately 1.6 km 
wide. 

The Tetrarchic palace, public baths, circus, and 
stadium (built 5th—6th C.) were on an island in 
the Orontes excluded from Justinian I’s circuit 
wall, which reduced the defended perimeter of 
Antioch. The island was connected by a bridge 
with the heart of the city, which was constructed 
in part over the Parmenios and contained the 
Forum of Valens, the praetorium of the governor 
of Syria I, a public bath (the Kommodion), and a 
market. To the southeast of this lay the district of 
Epiphaneia built against the slopes of Mt. Silpios. 
Here were concentrated the bouleuterion, the prae- 
torium of the comes Orientis, a law court, two tetra- 
pylons, an antephoros (an open space in front of a 
forum), various civil basilicas and stoas, and the 
Church of Sts. Kosmas and Damianos. The south 
gate of the city, beyond the Jewish quarter of 
Kerateion, led to Daphne with its theater, hippo- 
drome, and closely spaced “country houses.” 

Antioch was capital of the diocese of ORIENS 
inder the comes Orientis, provincial capital from 
ca.350 of Coele-Syria, and from ca.415 of Syria I 
under a governor, and seat of the MAGISTER MIL- 
TUM for Oriens. Antioch was also the seat of a 
patriarch (see ANTIOCH, PATRIARCHATE OF). In 
451, JERUSALEM (which had been a suffragan of 
CAESAREA MARITIMA) became a separate patriar- 
chate with control over the three provinces of 
Palestine; in 488, the church of Cyprus was like- 
wise made independent of Antioch. 

Antioch has been described (Jones, LRE 857f) 
as a consumer rather than a manufacturing city. 
Certain goods were, however, produced there in 
connection with its role as an administrative cen- 
ter. It had an arms factory and a provincial mint 
from the 4th C. to 611, with workshops producing 
ceremonial armor and, in the 4th C. and 602-10, 
silver vessels with SILVER STAMPS. Antioch was also 
a commercial center whose port linked the trade 
routes from the East with the Mediterranean. 
There were KOMMERKIARIO! of Antioch from the 
6th C. The city apparently had a large middle 

















class: in the late 4th C. John Chrysostom claimed 
that only 10 percent of the population was wealthy 
and only 10 percent poor. The inhabitants of 
Antioch were, moreover, “urbanized,” preferring 
the suburban pleasures of Daphne to rural villa 
life (Liebeschuetz, infra 51). The country around 
Antioch was noted for its pasture land (Libanios, 
or.11.23,26), and the province of Syria I con- 
tained such agriculturally productive centers as 
Denes and Kaper BARADA. 

The literary culture of Antioch was primarily 
Greek, and the use of Latin by the imperial gov- 
ernment was considered an intrusion. The city 
was noted for rhetoricians, historians, and theo- 
logians. In the 4th C. all these came under the 
influence of the pagan rhetor Lrpanros whose 
pupils at Antioch included—in addition to nu- 
merous future civil servants—not only AMMIANUS 
MARCELLINUS but also the Christian authors Basi. 
THE GREAT, JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, and THEODORE 
or Mopsuestia. The last, the foremost member 
of the ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL, which later came to 
include THEODORET OF CYRRHUS, applied to the 
Bible the principles of Hellenistic exegesis learned 
from his teacher. A prolific church writer in Greek 
in the 6th C. was the Monophysite Severos of 
Antioch (although his works survive only in Syr- 
iac). Three types of historiography are repre- 
sented by the works of Antiochene authors: the 
classical history of Ammianus, who followed Taci- 
tus; the universal chronicle of MALALAS; and the 
church history of Evacrios ScHoLastTikos—the 
last following in the tradition of EusEBios oF CAE- 
SAREA. 

Antioch was proud of a classical heritage that 
also manifested itself in art (e.g., in the personi- 
fications and mythological subjects of its 5th—6th- 
C. pavements) and in a civic pride, best exempli- 
fied by Libanios’s Oration on Antioch. In 438 the 
city was flattered by another oration, that of the 
visiting empress ATHENAIS-EupokiA, who alluded 
to the Athenian heritage that she shared with 
Antioch. The city responded appropriately with 
the erection of two statues in her honor by the 
local boule. Other classical traditions were main- 
tained: curial building continued alongside public 
works financed by the imperial government. Al- 
though described by Prokopios in 540 as hedon- 
istic and “not seriously disposed” (Wars 1.17.37, 
2.8.6), the Antiochene mentality was then 
undergoing a change toward a collective religious 





consciousness. When in 459 the body of Symeon 
the Stylite the Elder was brought from Telanissos 
into Antioch, the people refused to give it up to 
Emp. Leo I because they felt it would protect 
their city. The sanctification of the city proceeded 
when, after the earthquake of 526, a cross ap- 
peared in the sky and Antioch was renamed (528) 
Theoupolis in propitiation for contemporary ca- 
lamities. 

Like other cities, Antioch experienced incidents 
of urban unrest in the 4th—7th C. After the Riot 
of the Statues (387), when, in response to in- 
creased taxation, the population overturned the 
imperial images, both city and rioters were pun- 
ished by Theodosios I: Antioch was for a time 
stripped of metropolitan rank and its baths, hip- 
podrome, and theaters closed; some rioters were 
executed, Antioch also witnessed the intrigues of 
the imperial usurpers GaLLus (died 354) and IL- 
Los (died 488). The first outbreak of violence at 
Antioch involving the Blue and Green circus FAC- 
TIONS occurred in the Hippodrome ca.qgo, with 
further riots in 494/5 and 507, when the chari- 
oteer Porphyrios was transferred to Antioch from 
Constantinople. The unruliness of the factions 
and financial problems led to the closing of the 
Olympic Games at Antioch in 520, but the theater 
was still in use in 531. 

Religious divisions and conflict recurred in this 
period. Paganism continued late at Antioch: the 
sophist Isokasios was prosecuted for pagan beliefs 
in 468, and in 562 two pagan priests from Antioch 
were brought to trial in Constantinople. In 578 a 
circle of pagans, exposed by popular protest, was 
said to include highly placed individuals in several 
cities including HEeLiopouis, EDESSA, and, at An- 
tioch, the patriarch Gregory himself, who was, 
however, acquitted. Antioch was also the scene of 
heretical conflict: until 378 the Arians at Antioch 
were alternately supported and persecuted by the 
resident emperors Constantius, Julian, and Va- 
lens. The local council of 341 (see under ANTI- 
ocH, Loca. CounciLs oF) dealt with the problem 
of Athanasios and Arianism by drawing up four 
creeds. With the rise of the Monophysite move- 
ment in the 5th—6th C., the Chalcedonian patri- 
arch Stephen was murdered (479) and succeeded 
by the Monophysites PETER THE FULLER (died 488) 
and Severos (512-18). From 518, when a separate 
Monophysite patriarch was established in exile, 
local Monophysites were persecuted, notably by 




















ANTIOCH: ANTICCH ON THE ORONTES | 115 








Ephraim, Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch (526- 
45). In 610 there was an uprising of both Mono- 
physites and Jews at Antioch. 

Antioch served as a military administrative cen- 
ter between the 4th and yth C. The large army 
stationed in the East was paid and provisioned 
from here. It was the headquarters of the magister 
militum (e.g., Zeno, Belisarios, Tiberios, Maurice) 
and served as a base for imperial campaigns led 
by Constantius, Julian, and Jovian into Persia in 
the 4th C. and for Herakleios’s defense against 
the Arabs in the 7th C. The city itself was besieged 
by the Lakhmids in 529 and taken and sacked in 
540 by the Persians; the Sasanians led away many 
of the inhabitants and resettled them in a repli- 
cated Antioch at Ctesiphon. After an unsuccessful 
attack in 573, the Persians occupied the city from 
609/10 to 628. 

According to Downey the decline of Antioch 
was occasioned by the Persian sack of 540, after 
which the city was rebuilt by Justinian on a lesser 
scale but never recovered its former vitality. Las- 
sus, however, has demonstrated that in the end 
half of the 6th C. the reconstruction of the main 
street was on a large scale. Furthermore, the city 
was again rebuilt by Maurice in 588, following an 
earthquake, and in 592 Evagrios Scholastikos 
mentions by name as still standing many of the 
buildings erected from the 4th C. onward (HE 
1.16,18,20; 3.28; 6.8). From the late 6th through 
1oth C. Antioch’s local history is obscure. Physi- 
cally, however, many buildings erected before the 
yth C. still stood in the Arab (later Byz. and 
Crusader) city, as attested by Arab geographers, 
and Justinianic circuit walls enclosed the medieval 
city. 

After Antioch fell to the Arabs in 636-37 (Don- 
ner, Conguests 148-51), it became part of a fron- 
tier district called al--AwAsim and was hardly men- 
tioned. In 944 it was taken by the Hamdanid SAYF 
AL-DAWLA, who lost it in turn to the Byz. generals 
Michael Bourrzes and Peter Phokas on 28 Oct. 
969. NrxepHoros II Puoxas described it as the 
third city of the world, noted for its beauty, 
strength, size of population, and impressive build- 
ings (Leo. Diac. 73.12-15). While Arab geogra- 
phers likewise praised its attractions, IBN HAwQAL 
complained in 978 of the damage inflicted there 
by the Byz. (G. LeStrange, Palestine under the Mos- 
lems [rp. Beirut 1965] 369). After its recovery by 
the Byz., Antioch was administered after g6q first 





LOCAL COUNCILS OF 





then a doux or katepano 
38 [1962] 221-54). It ser 
y Operations elsewhere in 
e Hamdanids and, starting 
‘atimids, whose authority had extende 
into central Syria. The Seljuk invasions of the 
Caucasus in the 1040s drove the inhabitants of 
Armenia into northern Syria, where they infil- 
trated the government at Antioch until in 1078 
Philaretos BracHamios established his rule there, 
becoming a vassal of the atabeg of Mosul, Six years 
later Antioch fell to the Seljuks and in 1098 to 
the Crusaders (see ANTIOCH, PRINCEDOM OF). 





























ory of Antioch in Syria (Princeton 
1961). P. Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au [V* 
siècle après J.-C. (Paris 1955). J-H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Anti- 
och: City and a Administration in the Later Roman Empire 
(Oxford 1972). G.L. Kurbatov, Rannevizantijskij gorod (At 


ur. G. Downey, A Hist 















ques d'Antioche (Princeton 1972). 


Li 


-M.M 





AL COUNCILS OF. Antio 
o notable local councils. 


. OF 324/5. This pre-Nicene 
nder the presidency of Hos 
purpose was to forestall, throu 
its censure of ARIAnIsM, any favorable outcome 
regarding ARIUS at the first ecumenical council of 
Nicaea. Its relationship to the latter is under- 
scored by its provisional excommunication of the 
Arian sympathizer Evsesios OF CAESAREA, whose 
formal rehabilitation or condemnation was left to 
Nicaea to decide. Additionally, its anathemas an- 
ticipate those adopted later by the general council. 
Furthermore, its censorship of Arianism was quite 
explicit—Christ was said to be begotten “not from 
that which is not,” but ineffably and indescribably 
from the Father—even though the council was 
unaware of the theological terminology subse- 
quently used at Nicaea. The council’s existence 
was unknown until E. Schwartz discovered a Syr- 
iac translation of its synodal letter. Its authenticity 
is now gencrally assumed, although contested ini- 
tially by A. Harnack (Sitzungsberichte der königlichen 
preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 26 [Berlin 

1908] 477-9)). 

ep. Synodal letter—E. $ 
Athanasius, VJ,” NachGétt 


Cross, “The Council of Antioch in 925 a.p.,” 
ierly Review 128 (1939) 49—760. 

































chwartz, “Zur Geschichte des 
(1905) 271-88. Eng. tr. F.L. 
Church Quar- 












synode von Antiochien im Jahre 324- 
n 1973). H. Chadwick, “Ossius of 
ency of the Council of Antio 
) 292-304. D.L. Holland, “Die 
(324/25) und ihre Bedeutung für 
area und das Konzil von Nizda,” ZKirch 
81 (1970) L. Abramowski, “Die Synode von Anti- 
ochien 324/25 und ihr Symbol,” ZKirch 86 (1975) 3956—66. 

—ALP, 











103-38 is 


r the 









LocaL CouNcIL oF 341. The pretext fc 
convocation (6 Jan.) of this “Dedic; 
(concilium in encaeniis) was the 
KAINIA) of the Golden B 
of Emp. CONSTANTINE Í R. 
bishops and Emp. Constantius IH, an Aria 
pathizer, attended. The four cree é 
associated with the council wer 
if not nies the homoousian terminology adop 

zA l; hence their subsequent condemna- 
x party. The first of these 
is susceptible to an orthodox 
the second is possibly based 
AN OF ANTIOCH. Equally, the 
ntionally disloyal to Nicaea, 
nied that its members were 
cil’s pre-Nicene theology was 
sios of Alexandria and the 
perceived. Most scholars be- 
lieve the so-called 25 disciplinary “Canons of An- 
tioch” to be the work of this council. 
































































SOURCE. Mansi 2:1305—-50. 

LIT. Beck, Kirche 50f. E. Schwa 
Athanasius, IX,” NachGött (1911) 
cherches sur S. Lucien d'Antioche et se 
132. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian ¢ 
263-74. W. Schneemelcher, “Die K 
Antiochien 341,” in Bonner Festgabe Jo 
1977) 319-46. 







ANTIOCH, PATRIARCHATE OF, one of the 
earliest bishoprics. Its archiepiscopal status and 
jurisdiction received canonical sanction at NICAEA 
I when it was recognized, together with the bish- 
oprics of Rome and Alexandria, as a major see of 
Christendom (canon 6). Given Antioch’s size and 
importance within the empire, the city—the cap- 
ital of the civil diocese of OrreENs—was the major 
ecclesiastical center in the East after Alexandria. 
In the 5th C., however, the patriarchate began to 
lose its prestige as well as some of its jurisdiction 
the result often of imperial pressure. At the Coun- 
cil of EpHesus (431) it failed to annex CYPRUS, 
which was declared autocephalous. Then, at the 








Council of CHALCEDON (451), its Palestinian 
dioceses were placed under the jurisdiction of the 
newly created patriarchate of JERUSALEM. This 
reduced the see to eleven provinces. The religious 
crises of NESTORIANISM and MONOPHYSITISM and 
the simultaneous growth of the patriarchate of 
CONSTANTINOPLE also contributed to Antioch’s 
weakness and dismemberment. Monophysitism, 
in fact, resulted in permanent schism dividing the 
faithful into MELCHITES and JAcosiTes and the 
formation of a separate “heretical” hierarchy within 
its borders. 

After the Arab conquest (636) Antiochene met- 
ropolitans with provinces still under imperial con- 
trol were placed under the jurisdiction of Con- 
stantinople. The vacancy in the throne that 
occurred after 702 ended only in 742 when elec- 
tions were again permitted. After the Byz. recon- 
quest (969) candidates were appointed by the em- 
peror and often consecrated, as in the case of 
Joun HI, by the patriarch of Constantinople, but 
Antioch did not sever its relations with Rome (J. 
Nasrallah, Istina 21 [1976] 184f, 975f). Eventually, 
though, the synod of Antioch was allowed to pre- 
sent its own candidates for the emperor’s selec- 
tion. The Crusaders’ promise not to elect the 
patriarch was not always kept. The existence of a 
Latin patriarch along with the Orthodox of course 
caused frequent tension. During the Crusades 
and Mamluk period, the titular patriarchs of this 
once powerful see usually resided in Constanti- 
nople. The transfer of the see to Damascus oc- 
curred under the MAMLUKS. 

tir. R. Devréesse, Le patriarcat d’Antioche (Paris 1945). 
Ch. Papadopoulos, Historia tes Ekklesias Antiocheias (Alex- 
andria 1951). Grumel, “Patriarcat.” J. Nasrallah, Notes et 
documents pour servir à l'histoire du patriarcai Melchite d’Antioche 
1 (Jerusalem 1965). E. Honigmann, “The Patriarchate of 
Antioch: A Revision of Le Quien and the Notitia Antio- 
chena,” Traditio 5 (1947) 135-61. H. Kennedy, “The Last 
Century of Byzantine Syria: A Reinterpretation,” ByzF 10 
(1985) 141-83. —A.P. 


ANTIOCH, PRINCIPALITY OF. Founded by 
Bouemunp after he took the city, the principality 
included the lower Orontes valley, the adjacent 
coast, and occasionally parts of Cilicia. ALEXIOS I 
and his successors never abandoned their claims 
to the region, which still had a substantial Ortho- 
dox population. Bohemund’s promised allegiance 
(1108) was refused by Tancrep. Prince RAYMOND 
OF Porriers was constrained by John II to render 


ANTIOCH “CHALICE” | 117 


homage but avoided surrendering the citadel to 
the emperor. Following conflicts with John and 
ManuEL I, Raymond had to visit Constantinople 
and renew his allegiance. After Raymond's death, 
his widow Constance married Renaud of Chatil- 
lon, who first allied himself with Manuel, then, in 
1155, plundered Cyprus. In 1158 Manuel’s ad- 
vance through Cilicia obliged Renaud to beg for 
mercy. He acknowledged his vassalage to Byz. and 
promised to yield the citadel of Antioch and ac- 
cept a Greek patriarch. In 1159 Manuel entered 
the city in triumph. After Renaud’s capture by 
the governor of Aleppo-Berroia (1160), Manuel 
assisted Antioch. In 1161 he married Constance’s 
daughter Maria oF ANTIOCH. His general Con- 
stantine KaLAMANOS was captured by Nir al-Din 
along with Bohemund III in 1164. After Bohe- 
mund was ransomed by Manuel, he had to intro- 
duce an Orthodox patriarch into Antioch (1165-~ 
70). About 1178 Bohemund married a niece of 
Manuel, but abandoned her when Manuel died. 
Thereafter, Byz. was too preoccupied to pursue 
domination of the principality, one of the long- 
term goals of the Komnenoi. Antioch was seized 
by the Mamluks on 18 May 1268. 

ur. C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l'époque des croisades et 
la Principauté franque d’Antioche (Paris 1940). S. Runciman, 
“The Greeks in Antioch at the Time of the Crusades,” 
Pepragmena, 9 CEB (Athens 1956) 2:583~91 [= Hellenika 
supp. 9.2]. ~C.M.B. 


ANTIOCH “CHALICE,” dated to the 6th C., an 
ornate silver goblet on a low foot, composed of a 
plain cup set inside an openwork shell decorated 
with a grapevine containing 12 seated figures 
{identified as two representations of Christ and 
ten Apostles). It was reportedly found at Antioch 
in 1910, as part of the Antioch Treasure (see 
Kaper KORAON TREASURE), and is now in the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Its first 
modern owners, Kouchakji Frères, maintained that 
the inner cup was the Holy Grail, which Christ 
used at the Last Supper and which, as a holy 
object, had been placed soon after within the 
protective and decorative outer cup. Although 
initially accepted by some scholars as a work of 
the ist C., it was seen by others as either a late 
Roman object or a modern forgery; the general 
consensus is for a date of 500~550 (Age of Spirit., 
no.542). Now corroded and in fragile condition, 
its craftsmanship was of a high order, including 








118 ANTIOCHENE ERA 








figures carved from solid silver. Its original func- 
tion—as a CHALICE Or LAMP—remains unclear. 


uT. G.A. Eisen, The Great Chalice of Antioch, 2 vols. (New 
York 1923). Mango, Silver 183-87. -M.M.M. 


ANTIOCHENE ERA. In antiquity there was a 
proliferation of eras in which events were dated 
from some fixed starting point of purely local, 
rather than cosmic, significance. The era used at 
Antioch in Syria began on 1 Oct. 49 B.c. in honor 
of some event associated with Julius Caesar (prob- 
ably the commencement of his dictatorship). It 
was established in 47 B.c. when Caesar visited 
Antioch. Each new year of the Antiochene Era 
began on 1 Oct., until some point in the second 
half of the 5th C. when it reverted to 1 Sept., 
thereby bringing it into line with the official Byz. 
year. The Antiochene Era continued in use until 
the time of the Arab conquest and was esp. em- 
ployed by two 6th-C. Antiochenes, the chronicler 
John Maratas and the church historian Evacrios 
SCHOLASTIKOS. To convert an Antiochene date to 
an a.D. date, subtract 49 for dates between 1 Sept. 
(or 1 Oct.) and 31 Dec., but 48 for dates between 
1 Jan. and 31 Aug. (or 30 Sept.). 

LIT. Grumel, Chronologie 215f. G. Downey, A History of 
Antioch in Syria (Princeton 1961) 157f. —B.C. 


ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL, a conventional des- 
ignation for a group of theologians (DIODOROS OF 
Tarsos, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, JOHN CHRY- 
SOSTOM, THEODORET OF CYRRHUS) active mainly 
in Syria in the 4th and 5th C. Unlike the ALEx- 
ANDRIAN SCHOOL it had no formal institution, and 
the “Antiochene” theologians taught in different 
cities, The origin of the tradition is obscure; it is 
often connected with Lucian of ANTIOCH who 
reportedly conducted a didaskalewon ca.270—-312, 
but Lucian was probably an editor of the Old 
Testament rather than an exegete. EUSTATHIOS 
or ANTIOCH, the anti-Arian leader, attacked the 
Alexandrian School and its allegorical interpre- 
tation of the Bible and thus set the foundation 
for future Antiochene exegesis and theology. One 
of its main points was an emphasis on “historical” 
(sometimes literal) interpretation of the Bible in 
the manner of classical philology and its commen- 
taries on Homer; allegorical exegesis was not com- 
pletely rejected but the Antiochenes criticized ar- 


bitrary associations between the Old Testament, 
the New Testament, and contemporary events, 
Their glorification of the human nature of Christ 
was closely connected with this “rationalist” inter- 
pretation of the Bible. The Antiochene stress on 
the immutability of the Logos, and accordingly 
the existence of two natures in Christ as “Son of 
God” and “Son of Mary,” led to a conflict with 
Alexandrian Monophysitism and to a moderate 
attitude toward Nestorianism. The “school” did 
not survive the 5th C.; some of its representatives 
were posthumously condemned in the 6th C. (see 
THREE CHAPTERS, AFFAIR OF THE), and allegorical 
biblical interpretation won out over a rationalist 
historical approach. 

LIT. A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition (London 
1965) 243-70, 329-452. R.V. Sellers, Two Ancient 
Christologies? (London 1954) 107—201. C. Schaublin, Unter- 


suchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese 
(Cologne-Bonn 1974). -T.E.G. 


ANTIOCHOS ('Avrioyos), or Antiochites (Ar- 
Tioxlejirns, fem. “Avrioyeitiaa@a), a name, latera 
family name, deriving from the city of Antioch 
where it was common in the 4th C. Several sth- 
C. Antiochoi were high-ranking officials in Con- 
stantinople (O. Seeck et al., RE 1 [1894] 2491; 
PLRE 2:101—06): the eunuch Antiochos, Persian 
by origin, had much influence with Arkadios but 
was dismissed by Theodosios lH ca.421; Antiochos 
Chouzon (died between 438 and 444), was prae- 
torian prefect of the Orient (430) and a member 
of the commission on the Theodosian Code; his 
son was praetorian prefect of the Orient in 448. 
Another Antiochos was prefect of Italy from 552 
to 554. Some Antiochoi were active in cultural 
life: Antiochos, the rhetorician, bishop of Ptole- 
mais (Palestine) ca.g00, is known as an adversary 
of John Chrysostom; another Antiochos, author 
of the Pandektes, a collection of biblical and pa- 
tristic quotations, witnessed the fall of Jerusalem 
in 614—his identification with ANTIOCHOS STRA- 
TEGOS, however, cannot be proved. In the mid- 
8th C., Antiochos, logothetes tou dromou, was a very 
influential politician; condemned by the council 
of 754, he was blinded and exiled. Another An- 
tiochos was protostrategos of Italy ca.763. Antiochoi 
of the 10th and rth C. held military posts: An- 
tiochos, father of PauL or Latros, was komes of 
the fleet; another Antiochos was doux of the ME- 


pincol; the protospatharios Antiochos was doux of 
Calabria probably in the 11th C.; another Anti- 
ochos commanded a troop of Macedonians in 
1081. 

As a surname, Antiochos appears from the 11th 
C. onward: Leo Antiochos, Isaac Ps general, fell 
in battle in 1057; Constantine was megas hetai- 
yeiarches ca.1094; his contemporary Michael An- 
tiochos was primikerios of the external vestiaritai. 
The sister of Stephen Antiochos married Con- 
stantius, son of the sebastos Isaac Komnenos 
ca.1100—the identification of the Isaac is impos- 
sible. The noble family of Antiochos was suppos- 
edly involved in a plot against Alexios I. In the 
12th C. Gregory Antiochos was an official and a 
literary figure (see ANTIOCHOS, GREGORY). 

Several 11th- and 12th-C. Antiochitai are known, 

rimarily from seals that preserve their titles but 
rarely their offices (e.g., Theocharistos, a fortress 
commander, or kastrophylax). Epigrams of the 12th 
C. also mention several Antiochitai, praising George 
for decorating a monastery and Theodore and 
John for supporting the poor (Lampros, “Mark. 
kod.,” nos. 77.3, 82.11). The social character of 
the Antiochites family is unclear, esp. since their 
identification with the Antiochol remains ques- 
tionable. Apparently part of the 11th-C. military 
aristocracy, they seem to have lost their military 
functions after Alexios I. They possessed lands 
and supported monasteries; they produced a few 
intellectuals, including a military engineer ca.1091 
and an Antiochites who corresponded with Eu- 
STATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE. The names of Anti- 
ochos and Antiochites are rare in later centuries 
(PLP, nos. 1031—40); Theodore Antiochites (died 
1407), a friend of John Chortasmenos, was John 
VIII's tutor in 1400—03. 

uit. PLRE 1:71f. J. Darrouzés, “Notice sur Grégoire 


Antiochos,” REB 20 (1962) 76f. Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 
198f. Chortasm. 67f. Seibt, Bleisiegel 233F. -À.K. 





ANTIOCHOS, GREGORY, high-ranking offi- 
cial, writer; born Constantinople 1125?, died after 
1196. Antiochos did not claim descent from a 
noble lineage (Darrouzès incorrectly hypothesized 
his relationship to the Komnenoi), but his father 
was a man of means able to found a small convent. 
Antiochos was educated in Constantinople under 
magistros ton rhetoron Nicholas KATAPHLORON, 











ANTIOCHOS STRATEGOS 119 








Nicholas Hagiotheodorites, and EUSTATHIOS OF 
THESSALONIKE. His first datable work is of ca.1159. 
He gave up intellectual circles and his literary 
career, however, and entered the civil service. 
After a brief and unhappy period of private em- 
ployment, he served in the imperial administra- 
tion; in 1181 he was imperial secretary, then a 
judge. It is plausible that Antiochos supported 
ANDRONIKOS I and Patr. Basil H Kamateros (1183-~ 
86) and was forced to resign under Isaac II. He 
reappeared in the administration as megas droun- 
garios ca.1196. Antiochos was a defender not only 
of imperial omnipotence, but also of the senate; 
he favored “democratic” phraseology but stood 
aloof from military commanders. As a writer he 
was influenced by Eustathios of Thessalonike (esp. 
in letters addressed to the latter). He presents a 
vivid description, tinged with sarcasm, of the cli- 
mate of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian way of life. 
He gives life to books and fruits, and endows 
animals with reason. 

ED. Regel, Fontes 183-228, 300-04. M. Bachmann, F. 
Dilger, “Die Rede des megas droungarios Gregorios Anti- 
ochos auf den Sebastokrator Konstantinos Angelos,” BZ 40 
(1940) 364-401. J. Darrouzés, “Deux lettres de Grégoire 
Antiochos écrites de Bulgarie vers 1173,” BS 23 (1962) 
276-80; 24 (1963) 65—86. 

uv. Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 196—223. Darrouzés, Lit- 
térature, pt.V11 (1962), 61-92. G. Cankova, P. Tivéev, “Novi 
danni za istorijata na Sofijskata oblast prez poslednite de- 


setiletija na vizantijskoto vladičestvo,” [zuInstBillgist 14-15 
(1964) 315-24. Wirth, Untersuchungen 10—12, 22f. —A.K. 


ANTIOCHOS STRATEGOS, author of a narra- 
tive on the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians 
in 614. The Greek original is lost, the text pre- 
served in Georgian and Arabic versions. The 
identification of Antiochos Strategos with a con- 
temporary monk ANTIOCHOS, author of the Pan- 
dektes, is not proved. Antiochos Strategos describes 
the siege of Jerusalem, stressing, on the one hand, 
the role of the Jews in the massacre and, on the 
other hand, the desire of the patriarch Zacharias 
(609-31) to conclude a treaty with the Persians 
and to prevent the pillaging of the city. The last 
chapter of the narrative is dedicated to the res- 
toration of the Trur Cross to Jerusalem by Hera- 
kleios on 2: Mar. 631. 

ED. Georgian version with Lat. tr.—G. Garitte, La prise 


de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614, 2 vols. (Louvain 1960). 
Eng. tr., F.C. Conybeare, “Antiochus Strategos’ Account of 


120 | ANTIOCH TREASURE 





the Sack of Jerusalem in a.D. 614,” EHR 25 (1910) 502— 
17. Arabic version—P. Peeters, Recherches d'histoire et de 
philologie orientales, vol. 1 (Brussels 1951) 78-116. 9 —A-K. 


ANTIOCH TREASURE. See Kaper KORAON 
TREASURE. 


ANTIPHON (avridwvov), a selection from the 
Psalter, followed by a Doxo.ocy, to be sung in 
the liturgy by two choirs in alternation. The sing- 
ing of antiphona (antipsallein) is known from the 
4th C. onward (Basil the Great, PG 32:764A). An 
antiphon may consist of several psalms, not nec- 
essarily consecutive; of one psalm only; or even 
of single verses. A refrain is not essential, but 
when found it is called hypopsalma, ephymnion, hy- 
pakoe, or TROPARION—the name antiphon never 
being applied to the refrain itself. An archaic 
musical feature survives in the cadence of the 
antiphon, where the last four syllables of a line are 
applied mechanically, without regard for word 
accent, to four fixed, stylized melodic elements. 


LIT. Strunk, Essays 112-50, 165—-go. ~D.EC. 


ANTIPROSOPON (davrinmpoownar), a deputy, 
probably identical with the Ek PROSOPoU. The 
term is known from gg5 onward (/vir. 1, no.8.10— 
11) and was used primarily in the 11th C. The 
earlier chrysobulls describe exemptions from the 
antiprosopountes of the strategoi, but a charter of 
1081 (Lavra 1, no.43.45—49) mentions the depu- 
ties of both military commanders and civil offi- 
cials; in later documents the antiprosopon of the 
PARATHALASSITES is cited (nos. 55.32—-33, 67.57). 
Seals dated by the editors to the 11th C. belonged 
to the antiprosopountes of the GENIKON (Zacos, Seals 
2, n0.g57), of the sekreton of the sakelle (Laurent, 
Corpus 2, no.817), and of an unspecified sekreton 
(Zacos, Seals 2, no.851). -AK. 





ANTIQUITY. The Greco-Roman heritage was a 
powerful tradition, which, together with that of 
the Bible, influenced Byz. CULTURE. From anti- 
quity Byz. inherited the Greek LANGUAGE, the 
system of EDUCATION, Roman Law, the basic prin- 
ciples of RHETORIC and literary STYLE, and sub- 
stantial forms of social and political organization. 
The Byz. did not differentiate themselves from 
their ancestors who lived in the eastern Roman 


Empire, but called themselves RHomarol and 
viewed classical Greek authors as models for mī- 
TATION: HOMER was the Poet, ARISTOTLE the Phi- 
losopher, Garen the Physician, etc. They often 
compared events of their lives with episodes of 
Greek or Roman history, their institutions with 
those of the Greco-Roman past. Nevertheless, Byz. 
cannot be placed within the framework of anti- 
quity. 

First of all, the general social and cultural set- 
ting had changed: high antiquity was primarily 
an urban society, but after the 7th C. the empire 
lost its predominantly urban character; antiquity 
was a society of cives (“citizens”), united around 
municipia and gentes, whereas Byz. was family ori- 
ented; antiquity was pagan, while Byz. was consis- 
tently Christian, thus entailing a radical change 
in ethical values and the replacement of pluralistic 
approaches in philosophy by mandatory doctrine. 
The ancient heritage, always present, was in a 
state of constant flux. This was partly a natural 
result of the passage of time. Thus the vERNACcU- 
LAR, developing beneath the surface of written 
compositions, from the 12th C. onward overtly 
penetrated into written literature, first into po- 
etry: meter based on the length of vowels—HEx- 
AMETER, eic.—was pushed into the background by 
meter based on accentuation; toward the very end 
of Byz. RHYME began to develop under Western 
medieval influences. The transformation of the 
ancient heritage was also connected with the change 
in the social and cultural setting. Even though the 
principles of Roman law remained alive in the 
works of 14th-C. jurists, the elaborate system of 
contracts was simplified, the distinction between 
ownership and possession confused, the law of 
marriage radically changed, and the impact of the 
totalitarian state on law grew substantially. Edu- 
cation also retained general patterns of the an- 
cient system, but Christian textbooks were intro- 
duced, concern with physical development 
(gymnastics) was abandoned, elementary educa- 
tion shifted from the school of the paedagogus to 
the church, monastery, or the family circle, and 
the purpose of liberal education became the de- 
velopment not of a free and noble citizen, but of 
a state functionary or a high ecclesiastic. 

Second, even though the Byz. referred often to 
classical authors they were more likely to cite late 
Roman masters. In an analysis of Byz. attitudes 
toward the past, I. Ševčenko (infra [1987-88] 20- 


24) has suggested three phases, corresponding to 
the 4th—6th C., the 7th-11th C., and the 12th— 
15th C., respectively. During the 4th—6th C., there 
was a manifest familiarity with antique authors. 
In the 7th—11th C., Byz. writers made greater use 
of late antique models than of ancient Greek 
authors. Thus the works produced in the 10th C. 
under the patronage of Constantine VII Porphy- 
rogennetos more frequently cited the Old Testa- 
ment, Hellenistic and late Roman authors, even 
authors of the 6th—gth C., than Homer or De- 
mosthenes. Similarly the Bibliotheca of Photios cites 
a number of late Roman historians while ignoring 
classical poetry. Finally, during the 1gth—15th C., 
admiration for classical Greek authors revived, 
and Byz. scholars prepared commentaries on and 
new editions of the writings of high antiquity. 

Third, there was an ideologically mandated am- 
bivalent attitude toward antiquity among Byz. lay 
and ecclesiastical literati. Conditional veneration 
and respect had to go side by side with official 
rejection—this ambivalence was codified by church 
fathers (esp. the Cappadocians), who repudiated 
paganism, mythology, theater, “licentious behav- 
ior,” luxury, and the ideology of success, but in 
practice retained most elements of Hellenic cul- 
ture (as transmitted by the Seconp SopHISTIC) as 
a powerful means of education and mental train- 
ing. In the roth and 11th C., involvement in the 
study of antiquity and ancient philosophy could 
make one liable to accusations of anti-Christian 
attitudes, and a few literati discussed the images 
of mythology and history to claim that “our” events 
are more significant, more virtuous, and more 
beneficial than those of antiquity. It must be re- 
membered that more than half of surviving Byz. 
literature, for example, hagiography and hym- 
nography, was virtually devoid of any influence 
from or allusions to classical authors. 

Not many Byz. were able to understand the 
achievements of antiquity as well as did Michael 
Psellos or Eustathios of Thessalonike; cases of 
misunderstanding and distorting of tradition are 
numerous. Sometimes this distortion reflected a 
Byz. perspective: when Photios read Herodotus, 
he remained lukewarm to the development of 
Athens as a democratic republic—in his percep- 
tion Herodotus was a historian of Persian basileis 
and of a Persian usurper; Eustathios used Ho- 
meric images to criticize excessive asceticism. 

The concept of antiquity varied, depending on 





ANTIQUITY | 121 


a Byz. author’s social and educational level. Thus 
the world chronicle of MALALaS mentions almost 
nothing about Periclean Athens, but a great deal 
about Roman history, esp. the imperial period. 
On the other hand, Nikephoros BLEMMYDES is 
well informed on Persian campaigns against Ath- 
ens. The concept of antiquity also changed as time 
went on. The late Roman period assumed antiq- 
uity to be a living phenomenon. Consequently, 
we view the philosophy of this period, repre- 
sented by PROKLOS, OLYMPIODOROS OF ALEXAN- 
DRIA, and even John PHILOPONOS, as a branch of 
ancient philosophy, while in 6th-C. Italy BoE- 
THIUS continued the same tradition. Historians 
such as PROKOPIOS OF CAESAREA also worked in 
the classical vein and even many church fathers 
were educated in the principles of classical rhet- 
oric and applied it to their sermons. It was prob- 
ably the art and architecture of the period that 
diverged most from the antique ideal. 

The second half of the 7th C. and the 8th C. 
were difficult times, when much of the learned 
tradition, including the ancient heritage, was lost. 
It is therefore logical that the next period of 
material and cultural revival—which acquired, 
undeservedly, the title of “Macedonian renais- 
sance”—was devoted primarily to the retrieval 
and collection of the cultural, including ancient, 
heritage; from the Bibliotheca of Photios to the 
Souda the main tasks were the reediting and copy- 
ing of the surviving texts, the accumulation of 
excerpts and fragments, and the ordering of scraps 
of information. 

The situation changed in the 11th and 12th C., 
when the simple collection and organization of 
materials was replaced by commentaries and the 
development of the heritage. An advance was 
made from the satisfaction of practical needs 
(mathematics, agriculture, moral “science,” polit- 
ical “science”) that was predominant in the gth— 
roth C. to an aesthetical perception of antiquity. 
The study of Homer, the tragedians, and Aris- 
tophanes progressed from the copying of scholia 
typical of the gth and 1oth C. to the essays and 
detailed commentaries of scholars such as Michael 
PSELLOS, EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE, and John 
TZETZES; a very nonorthodox Lucian was broadly 
copied and imitated, and PLaro gained popularity 
on a level with Aristotle. There was a trend to 
combine both heritages—the ancient and the bib- 
lical—and direct comparison with personages of 


122 ANTIRRHETIKOS 





myth and ancient history became legitimate. 
Scholars and writers like Psellos, Tzetzes, and 
Eustathios had an enormous, if antiquarian, 
knowledge of ancient events, names, and terms. 

Thus reacquired in the gth-1ath C., after a 
short gap around the 8th C., the ancient tradition 
was not lost during the Palaiologan period. The 
greatest achievements of Byz. classical philology 
occurred during that period, in the work of Max- 
imos PLANOUDES, THOMAS MaGIsTROS, and De- 
metrios TRIKLINIOS. As a result of contacts with 
the West, the Byz. concept of antiquity was even 
expanded to the Latin heritage, including poets 
such as OviD. PLETHON made the most passionate 
attempt ever to use ancient tradition as a tool for 
reorganization of society and its beliefs, or at least 
as a vehicle for criticism of its social, political, and 
religious shortcomings. It was, however, impossi- 
ble to restructure the Byz. world and to achieve 
a Platonic uropia. Moreover, the Byz. began to 
feel some weariness with regard to antiquity: 
Theodore Metochites was extremely well read in 
ancient literature (albeit he sometimes misunder- 
stood his reading), but he complained that the 
ancestors of the Byz. had said everything so per- 
fectly that there was no room for improvement 
by posterity. This awe of antiquity was in stark 
contrast to a RENAISSANCE perception of ancient 
culture as exemplary, but distinct from the pres- 
ent. 

LIT. Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, ed. M. Mullett, 
R. Scott (Birmingham 1981). Anticnost’ i Vizantija, ed. L. 
Freiberg (Moscow 1975). L Ševčenko, “A Shadow Outline 
of Virtue: the Classical Heritage of Greek Christian Liter- 
ature,” in Age of Spirit. 53—73. Idem, “Byzantium, Antiquity 
and the Moderns,” Association Internationale des Etudes Byz- 
antines: Bulletin d'Information et de Codrdination 14 (1987— 
88) 19-26. Délger, Paraspora 38—45. E. von Ivanka, Hellen- 
isches und Christliches im friihbyzantinischen Geistesleben (Vi- 
enna 1948). A. Garzya, “Visage de lhellénisme dans le 
monde byzantin ([Ve~XIle siécle),” Byzantion 55 (1985) 
463~82. G. Cavallo, “Conservazione e perdita dei testi 


greci: fattori materiali, sociali, culturali,” in Società romana 
e impero tardoantico 4 (Bari 1986) 83—172. ~A.K., LS. 


ANTIRRHETIKOS (avrippnrixés), “refutation,” 
a genre of polemical literature; often used as an 
adjective with such nouns as logos, kephalaia, and 
biblion. The word is rare in classical Greek (e.g., 
Sextus Empiricus 1:21), but Photios (Bzbi., cod.160) 
uses it as a generic term when he writes that 
CuHorikios OF Gaza produced panegyrics, mono- 


dies, epithalamia, and antirrhetics; by the last 
term Photios probably meant Chorikios’s refuta- 
tion of the common views that attacked the the. 
ater. Palladios in the Lausiac History (ch.38, ed. C. 
Butler [Cambridge 1898; rp. Hildesheim 1967] 
2:121.1~2) relates that a certain deacon Evagriogs 
wrote three books against demons, one of them 
entitled Anderrhetikon. From the gth C. , when Patr., 
NikEPHOROS I and THEODORE OF STOUDIOS issued 
their antirrhetics against the Iconoclasts, and esp, 
in the 12th—15th C., the term designated treatises 
refuting heretical tenets: thus NICHOLAS of 
METHONE devoted an Antirrhesis to the refutation 
of Soterichos PANTEUGENOs, and George Moscua- 
BAR and JOHN XI BeKkos exchanged antirrhetics 
(Beck, Kirche 678, 683); an anti-Palamite Arsenios 
wrote several antirrhetics against the Latins (Beck, 
Kirche 722), and Patr. PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS com- 


posed antirrhetics against GREGORAS. 
-A.K., EM J. 


ANTI-SEMITISM. In Byz. anti-Semitism was 
manifested primarily in legal, secular, and reli- 
gious texts; iconography; and periodic forced 
baptism of Jews. The economic rivalry and mob 
violence that characterized post-11th-C. Western 
Christendom appeared late in Latin-controlled 
areas such as Crete and Corfu. Theodosios II's 
codification of many local or ad hoc anti-Jewish 
laws effectively reduced Jews to a second-class 
citizenship, prohibiting proselytism, government 
or military service, and use of public baths. The 
Codex Justinianus interfered with their hitherto 
guaranteed social and religious autonomy as a 
religio licita (nov.146). Subsequent Byz. law codes 
(Basilika, Ecloga) and legal collections (HARMENO- 
POULOS) perpetuated some restrictions. Parallel- 
ing Muslim discrimination, Jews were forbidden 
to ride horses. 

BENJAMIN OF Tupela observed that 1eth-C. 
Greeks hated Jews (particularly tanners); further 
evidence of this prejudice is found in ANACHAR- 
sts’s snub of social climbers and Tzetzes’ outright 
nastiness; the introduction of a humiliating oath; 
and their expulsion from Chonai by Metr. Nike- 
tas. This secular and intellectual animosity was 
replaced under the Palaiologoi by concern over 
Jewish influence. Patr. Athanasios I protested their 
importance at court and in the market and ob- 
jected to Byz. recourse to Jewish doctors; he tried 


to banish all Jews from Constantinople. So too 
Maximos Planoudes complained of Jewish tanners 
housed in an abandoned monastery. 

Byz. anti-Semitism derived mainly from polem- 
ics that justified the Christian appropriation of 
the Bible by denigrating Jews and Judaism. Byz. 
ecclesiastics effectively used the chastising and 
polemical language of the Septuagint and New 
Testament against Jews. In his Evangelical Dem- 
onstration, Eusebios of Caesarea emphasized Paul's 
teaching of God’s rejection of Old Israel and 
Christ’s salvation of New Israel. Patristic and later 
sermons (John Chrysostom’s attack on the Jewish 
Sabbath) and hagiography (the vita of Basil the 
Younger even questions whether Jews can attain 
salvation) influenced the masses as did an icon- 
ography that depicted Jews as Christ-killers. In 
marginal PsALTER illustration they are physically 
caricatured, to the point of being given dogs’ 
heads, and are shown tormenting Christ. Athana- 
sios I refers to the “deicidal synagogue”; and from 
the 11th C., in MS illustration the personification 
of Synagogue (see EKKLESIA) is driven from the 
crucified Christ by an angel, while the apocryphal 
story of Jephonias the Jew, whose hands are cut 
off for upsetting the Virgin’s bier, enters images 
of the Dormirion. Indeed, Jews were frequently 
accused of desecrating icons while Jewish insults 
to icons are an abiding theme in hagiography. A 
vocabulary of rejection permeates church canon 
and liturgy (esp. in Jerusalem). Theological po- 
lemics continued as a popular literary genre, for 
example, Matthew Blastares and John VI Kanta- 
kouzenos. The non-Orthodox practices and be- 
liefs of heterodox Christians (pejoratively called 
“Jews”) were rejected or punished as “judaizing,” 
as in Latin AzyMEs. Even ICONOCLASM was blamed 
on the Jews; for example PHotios (Hom. 17.3) 
attributes the destruction of the apse mosaic of 
Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, to a Jewish hand. 
Christian ecclesiastics recognized and feared the 
passive challenge of Judaism both as ideology and 
system of practices and its potential appeal to 
Christian converts, heretics, and rebels against the 
state religion. Condemnation of judaizing here- 
sies—Quartodecimanism, NOVATIANISM, Tetradi- 
tism, etc.—permeate Byz. legislation. Judaism thus 
became the perennial foil against which Christian 
Byz. expressed its self-identity. (See also Jews and 
Jupais.) 














ANTITHESIS 123 


uit. AL. Williams, Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge 1935). 
D.J. Constantelos, “Greek Orthodox—Jewish Relations in 
Historical Perspective,” GOrThR 22 (1977) 6—16. Z. Ankori, 
“Greek Orthodox—Jewish Relations in Historical Perspec- 
uive—The Jewish View,” ibid. 28—46. J. Mann, “Changes 
in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Religious 
Persecutions,” Hebrew Union College Annual 4 (1927) 241- 
310. A.W. Epstein, “Frescoes of the Mavriotissa Monastery 
near Kastoria: Evidence of Millenarianism and Anti-Semitism 
in the Wake of the First Crusade,” Gesta 21 (1982) 21-29. 

~S.B.B., A.C. 


ANTITHESIS (dvri8eois), opposition or con- 
frontation, was considered by ancient rhetoricians 
as a kind of RHETORICAL FIGURE of expression 
(Martin, Rhetorik 312f). Church fathers used an- 
titheses both for doctrinal and stylistic purposes 
(opposition between divinity and humanity of 
Christ; Christ the child and Christ the universal 
ruler). Byz. writers broadly employed traditional 
antitheses, such as light and darkness; esp. mas- 
terful use of antithesis is found in ROMANOS THE 
MELODE. Antithesis encompasses not only the con- 
trasting of opposites (strong-weak, cold-hot), but 
also more complex cases; thus, Niketas Choniates 
constantly contrasts the objective and result: de- 
scribing the defeat of the Normans, he exclaimed 
that “the captors became captives and the victors 
were vanquished” (Nik.Chon. 362.81—84, tr. Ma- 
goulias 200). On the lexical level, antithesis could 
be expressed as oxymoron, e.g., “unplowed plow- 
land” in Germanos I (PG 98:308C). More than a 
figure of speech, however, antithesis was a sub- 
stantial element of the worldview: the cosmos was 
an antithesis between earth and heaven, the mi- 
crocosm an antithesis between soul and body. 
Existence seemed to be permeated by oppositions, 
floating in a constant imbalance. The resolution 
of this contradiction could be achieved only by 
means of a miracle: in the sphere of theology, the 
major miracle was that of the INCARNATION. Lit- 
erature also sought to resolve antitheses. Thus 
Gregoras (Greg. 3:190f) tells the legend of the 
kingfisher, based on the antithesis between violent 
storms and the bird hatching its chicks; the reso- 
lution is achieved “by God’s hand” that cares for 
both the chicks and, by analogy, Gregoras himself. 
The principle of antithesis was also used by Byz. 
artists (e.g., juxtapositions of the birth of Christ 
and the death of the Virgin; Christ as an infant 
and presiding over the Last Judgment; Christ 


124 | ANTONINA 





entering earthly Jerusalem on a donkey and Christ 
in heavenly glory). 


uT. H. Hunger, “Die Antithese,” ZRVI 23 (1984) aap 
Maguire, Art & Eloquence 53-83. —A.K., LS. 


ANTONINA (Avrwviva), wife of BELISARIOS; born 
Constantinople (?) ca.484, died probably Constan- 
tinople after 548. She was the daughter and 
granddaughter of charioteers in Constantinople 
and Thessalonike. Her mother may have been an 
actress at Constantinople. Married to an Antioch- 
ene merchant, Antonina had one legitimate 
daughter and no legitimate sons before being 
widowed. She married Belisarios and accompa- 
nied him to Carthage in 533 and thence to Italy 
in 535/6; she was at Porto during the siege of 
Rome by Tortila in 546. Antonina remained at 
Constantinople when Belisarios was ordered to 
lead armies against the Persians in 540, but later 
set out to join him. Prokopios accuses her of 
sinister political influence on Justinian’s wife 
THeopora (e.g., contriving to depose Pope Sil- 
verius [336-37] and undermine JOHN oF CAPPA- 
DOCIA) and of conduct that made Belisarios look 
foolish, allegedly including a romance with her 
adopted son Theodosios and the execution of two 
pages to hide the affair. 

ut. Cameron, Procopius 7o—74, 159-62. Stein, Histoire 


2:285f, 495-98. E.A. Fisher, “Theodora and Antonina in 


the Historia Arcana,” Arethusa 11 (1978) 253-79. 
—W.E.K. 


ANTONY (secular name Dobrynja Jadrejkovič), 
archbishop of Novgorod (1210—22, 1223, 1225— 
28); died 8 Oct. 1232. He authored a description 
of Constantinople, Kniga palomnik (The Pilgrim 
Book, ca.1200), and possibly also the TALE OF THE 
TAKING OF TsarR’GRAD [by the Franks] (M. Aleš- 
kovskij, Povesť vremennych let [Moscow 1971] 71- 
83). The most detailed account of Constantino- 
ple’s sacred sites immediately preceding 1204, the 
Kniga palomnik is esp. valuable for its information 
on objects destroyed or looted by the Latins, such 
as the icon of Christ Antiphonetes taken from the 
Chalkoprateia. It describes sites in Constantino- 
ple, Pera, and Galata as well as Hagia Sophia, 
where Antony pays particular attention to the 
relationship between the church’s layout and the 
conduct of services, although he is not above 
inventing pipes, a cistern, and “patriarchal baths” 


in the galleries. Antony is esp. interesting on the 
use made of RELICS—the head of STEPHEN THE 
YOUNGER carried around Constantinople by the 
city eparch on the saint’s day—and miraculous 
objects: a door bolt, called the Romaniston, lo- 
cated somewhere in Hagia Sophia, would draw 
the venom from snakebites. Antony also notes 
items of specific interest for the Rus’ (two tombs, 
an icon and church of Boris anb GLEB) and 
provides the only known reference to an embassy 
to Constantinople from Roman of Galič (GaLiTza) 
in 1200. The literary and formal qualities of the 
Kniga palomnik have been variously interpreted as 
either a plain and factual guidebook with anec- 
dotal digressions or as a rhetorical narrative in 
which Constantinople is presented as a model. 

ED. Kniga palomnik, ed. Ch. Loparev (St. Petersburg 1899). 
Fr. tr. by M. Ehrhard, Romania 58 (1932) 44-65. 

LIT. Seemann, Walifahrtslit. 213-21. G. Lenhoff, “Kniga 
Palomnik: A Study in Old Russian Rhetoric,” Scando-Slavica 
23 (1977) 39-61. O.A. Belobrova, “O ‘Knige Palomnik’ 


Antonija Novgorodskogo,” VizOé (Moscow 1977) 225-35. 
~S.C.F., A.C. 


ANTONY I KASSYMATAS (Kao(o)vparés), pa- 
triarch of Constantinople (ca.Jan. 821—Jan. 8377); 
baptismal name Constantine. Of low birth, he 
received a good education and became a lawyer 
({nomikos) in the Sphorakiou district of Constanti- 
nople ca.800. Subsequently he became a monk 
and then kegoumenos of the Constantinopolitan 
monastery called Ta metropolitou (Janin, Eglises CP 
197). By 814 he was the Iconodule bishop of 
Syllaion; when Emp. Leo V ushered in a new 
period of IconocLasm, however, Antony shifted 
his position, tempted by the offer of the patriar- 
chate (Script. incert, 350-52). In 814 he became a 
member of the committee headed by Jonn (VII) 
GRAMMATIKOS that prepared a florilegium of 
scriptural and patristic passages supporting Icon- 
oclasm. In 821 Emp. Michael II named Antony 
patriarch, thus disappointing Theodore of Stou- 
dios, who hoped that NrkepHoros I might be 
recalled to the patriarchal throne. Around 822 
Antony excommunicated Job, patriarch of Anti- 
och, for proclaiming THOMAS THE SLAV emperor 
(RegPatr, fasc. 2, no.412). According to the Letter 
of the Three Patriarchs (ed. L. Duchesne, Roma e 
l'Oriente 5 [1912-13] 359), Antony participated in 
an Iconoclast council (of uncertain date) and, as 
divine punishment, was stricken with a loathsome 


disease. The sources differ on the length of his 
patriarchate, ranging from 12 to 16 years. V. 
Grumel argues that Antony was still alive in Apr. 
836, but gravely ill, and continued to be patriarch 
until 837, when he was succeeded by his synkellos, 
John VII Grammatikos (EO 34 [1935] 162-66, 
506). He was anathematized in the SYNODIKON OF 
OrTHODOXY (ed. Gouillard, “Synodikon” 57.173). 


LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 2, no.112. Lemerle, Humanism 161f. 
Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.4. -A.M.T. 


ANTONY II KAULEAS, patriarch of Constanti- 
nople (Aug. 893-12 Feb. go1 [Synax.CP 461]) and 
saint; feastday 12 Feb. The scanty facts of An- 
tony’s biography are known primarily from a 14th- 
C. vita by Nikephoros Grecoras. According to 
this source, Antony lost his mother as a child, 
became a monk at age 12, was subsequently or- 
dained priest, and elected hegowmenos of an un- 
named monastery. He then came to the attention 
of Emp. Leo VI, who made him patriarch; An- 
tony supported the emperor against Photios. Gre- 
goras emphasized the charitable works of the pa- 
triarch and praised his acts of social justice. 

Antony is best known as the founder or restorer 
of the monastery known variously as tou Kaleos, 
tou Kailiou, or tou Kaulea. After 1192 the foun- 
dation was called tou kyr Antoniou. Emp. Leo VI 
preached at the dedication of a church in this 
monastic complex (ed. Akakios, Leontos tou Sophou 
panegyrikot logoi [Athens 1868] 243-48), describ- 
ing its mosaics, pavement, and polychrome mar- 
ble revetment. This text, outlining a conventional 
program of church decoration of the gth—1oth 
C., is notable for the analogy drawn between the 
splendor of the mosaics and that of the emperor’s 
entourage. Antony was buried in this church, as 
was Stylianos Zaoutzes. The vita by Gregoras de- 
scribes a number of posthumous miracles at An- 
tony’s shrine. 





source. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Monumenta graeca 
et latina ad historiam Photii patriarchae pertinentia, vol. 1 (St. 
Petersburg 1899) 1-25. 

UT. R. Guilland, Essai sur Nicéphore Gregoras (Paris 1926) 
i74f, BHG 139-139b. RegPatr, fasc. 2, nos. 594-97. A. 
Frolow, “Deux églises byzantines,” Etudes byzantines 3 (1945) 
43—63. Janin, Églises CP 39-41. —A.C., A.M.T. 


ANTONY IV, patriarch of Constantinople (Jan. 
1389—July 1390; early 1391—-May 1397); died 
Constantinople May 1397. A former hieromonk, 


ANTONY THEGREAT | 125 





perhaps from the Dionysiou monastery on Athos 
(F. Tinnefeld, JOB 36 [1986] 106 and n.130, 115), 
Antony served twice as patriarch under John V 
and Manuel II. He was deposed in 1390 during 
the occupation of Constantinople by Jonn VII 
PaLAIOLoOGos and temporarily replaced by Maka- 
rios (who had previously been patriarch during 
1377-79). Antony was restored to the patriar- 
chate after Manuel regained his throne. 

Antony is best known for a letter addressed to 
Grand Prince Basi: I of Moscow, probably in 
1393 (Meyendorff, infra 254), which not only as- 
serts the universal spiritual authority of the ecu- 
menical patriarch but also defends the universal 
sovereignty of the Byz. basileus, even though the 
empire was severely weakened by Ottoman inva- 
sions. In response to Basil’s statement, “We have 
a Church, but not an emperor,” Antony replied, 
“Tt is not possible for Christians to have a Church 
without an emperor,” and urged that the name 
of the Byz. emperor be restored to the diptychs 
in Moscow. Antony also corresponded in 1397 
with Jagiello, grand duke of Lithuania (1377- 
1434) and king of Poland (1386—1434), saying 
that he would consider UNION OF THE CHURCHES 
if Jagiello joined Sigismund, king of Hungary 
(1387-14937), in a crusade against the Turks. Three 
of Antony’s seals survive (Oikonomides, Dated Seals, 


nos. 155-57). 


ED. Acts—MM 2:112-14, 156-292. 
LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 6, nos. 2844—77, 2882—3051. Barker, 
Manuel H 105-10, 150-53. Meyendorff, Russia 75f, 236— 
40, 253-57, 307-10. 1. Sorlin, “Un acte du patriarche 
Antoine IV en version slave,” REB 43 (1985) 253-58. 
A. 














M.T. 


ANTONY THE GREAT, Egyptian hermit and 
saint; born Kome, Upper Egypt, ca.251, died Pis- 
pir 356; feastday 17 Jan. Antony is often cited as 
one of the founders of the eremitic form of MoN- 
ASTICISM. 

Born to a prosperous peasant family, Antony 
gave away all his propérty and withdrew from 
society in order to follow strict asceticism. After a 
period of complete isolation in an abandoned fort, 
he began to attract followers. Together they set- 
ted at Pispir in the Egyptian Desert. Here the 
monks lived separately but received guidance from 
their leaders. 

The Life of Antony (356-57), attributed to 
Atuanasios of Alexandria after a Coptic original, 


126 ANTONY THE YOUNGER 


made him the model for many Christians, even 
outside of Egypt, who were drawn to the solitary 
life. In the Life, Antony is depicted as the perfect 
man who follows moderate ascetic practices, sup- 
ports the church hierarchy, and performs mira- 
cles with divine assistance. According to the Life, 
he visited Alexandria to support Athanasios against 
the Arians. But there is no independent confir- 
mation of his anti-Arianism; in the sayings and 
letters, Antony addresses practical and ethical 
questions only, 

Antony was Coptic-speaking, not Greek- 
speaking, and probably dictated his letters in Cop- 
tic, even though it is not impossible that a Greek 
papyrus contains a fragment of Antony’s letter to 
Am[mon?], his pupil (G. Garitte, Muséon 52 [1939] 
17, n.23). The letters of Antony are preserved in 
two collections: seven letters surviving in Latin 
translation are usually considered genuine since 
Jerome mentioned a collection of Antony’s letters 
in seven parts—but Bardenhewer (Literatur 9:81) 
questioned their authenticity; a collection of go 
Arabic letters is attributed to Antony. In addition, 
some Georgian, Syriac, and Coptic letters and 
fragments are known. The Sahidic vita of Pacno- 
mios contains fragments of two of Antony’s let- 
ters. Some forged texts exist under his name, 
including monastic rules. Some of his sayings were 
incorporated into the APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM. 





ED. PG 40:977—1000. Lettres de S. Antoine: version géor- 
gienne et fragments coptes, ed. G. Garitte (Louvain 1955), with 
Lat. tr. CPG 2 (1974) 2330-50. 

sources. Athanasios, Life of Antony, PG 26:835-978; 
Eng. tr. R.T. Meyer, The Life of Saint Antony (Westminster, 
Md., 1950) and R.C. Gregg, Athanasius; The Life of Antony 
and the Letter to Marcellinus (New York 1980) 29-99. 

LIT. T.D. Barnes, “Angel of Light or Mystic Initiate? 
The Problem of the Life of Antony,” J7hSt 37 (1986) 353- 
68. H. Dérries, Die Vita Antoni als Geschichtsquelle [= NachGéu 
14] (Göttingen 1949). R.C. Gregg, D.E. Groh, Early Arian- 
ism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia 1981) 131-59- 

~J.AT., A.K. 


ANTONY THE YOUNGER, saint; baptismal 
name John; born Phossaton near Jerusalem 785, 
died 11 Nov. 865. Born to a noble family, Antony 
left for Attaleia, enlisted in the navy, and was 
eventually promoted by Michael II to ek prosopou 
(deputy governor) of the theme of Kibyrrhaiotai. 
He successfully fought against THOMAS THE SLAV 
in 822/3, but in 825 abandoned his post to become 
the disciple of a stylite monk. He took the mo- 
nastic habit and lived in various monasteries on 
Bithynian OLymros and in Constantinople. An- 


tony was very close to PETRONAS, whose victory 
over the Arabs (863) he predicted 

His picturesque vita, written by a contemporary 
and preserved in 1oth-C. and later MSS, is rich 
in information about Byz. medical services, every- 
day life, law, and the administrative system; for 
example, the trial of Antony by the epi ton deeseon 
Stephen in 829/30 is described in detail. 

source. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ed., PPSb 19.3 
(1907) 186-216, corr. P. van den Ven, BZ 1g (1910) 307~ 
1g. Add. F. Halkin, AB 62 (1944) 210-23. 

uit. BHG 142-14 9a. F. Halkin, “Saint Antoine le Jeune 
et Pétronas le vainqueur des Arabes en 863,” AB 62 (1944) 
187—225. ~A.K. 


ANZAS (Avlés, ’Avrfas), a family of civil func- 
tionaries. Their origins, which are unclear, are 
variously described: Zlatarski (Ist. 2:554) con- 
sidered Ivan Anzas (Ančo, his transliteration) a 
Bulgarian name; S. Rudberg (Études sur la tradition 
manuscrite de saint Basile [Lund 1953] 149f) thought 
it Italian. The frst of them, John Anzas, assisted 
Theodoulos, archbishop of Bulgaria, in building 
the Church of Hagia Sophia in OHRID in 1056. 
The family was active in administration in the 
second half of the 11th C. : Michael, quaestor and 
nomophylax (1077); John, notary (1087); Niketas, 
judge of the velum (1098). Some are known only 
by their seals (Laurent, Corpus 2:679), which are 
dated predominantly to the same period: Con- 
stantine, judge of the velum; Nikephoros, SYM- 
ponos; Niketas and Nicholas, judges of the Hip- 
podrome. The Anzades served throughout the 
12th C. as civil (Nik. Chon. 57.57) and ecclesias- 
tical officials: Leo, bishop of Argos and Nauplia 
(ca.1143—-57) and founder of the AREIA MONAS- 
TERY, Calls himself nephew of Constantine Anzas; 
the monk and orphanotrophos Basil Anzas was the 
addressee of Manuel I’s ordinance of 1171. The 
last known Anzas, John, was an official responsi- 
ble for assigning land to the Genoese in 1202. 


-A.K. 





LIT. Svoronos, Etudes, pt. VL (1965), 327, n.12. 


ANZITENE ('Avģryvý), district of the eastern 
Byz. frontier, southeast of Armenia, commanding 
major routes through Armenia and across the 
Euphrates. Conquered from Persia by Diocletian 
in 297, Anzitene was important for frontier de- 
fense until Justinian I conquered territory farther 
east. Under the Arabs, who took it in the 640s, 
Anzitene was a base for attacks against Byz. and 


for control of Armenia. During this period, much 
of its Christian population immigrated to the more 
protected hills to the north. The object of fre- 
quent Byz. attacks, Anzitene was reconquered by 
g50 and assigned to the theme of MESOPOTAMIA. 
Anzitene, whose centers were at ARSAMOSATA and 
CHARPETE, is best known from the narrative of 
the campaign of Sayf al-Dawla in 956 and from 
the surveys and excavations at Asvan and the 
Keban region that have revealed many details of 
local conditions in the Byz. period, which here 
ended after the battle of Mantzikert in 1071. 

uit. J. Howard-Johnston, “Byzantine Anzitene,” in Ár- 


mies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, ed. S. 
Mitchell (Oxford 1983) 239-90. -C.F. 


APA ABRAHAM, bishop of Hermonthis in Up- 
per Egypt and hegoumenos of the nearby monas- 
tery of Phoibammon; born ca.554, died 624. His 
archive consists of more than one hundred Coptic 
ostraka, primarily letters, and his will, written in 
Greek but dictated in Coptic. The contents illus- 
trate the power and prestige of the local bishop: 
supervising the requirements for candidates for 
ordination; celebrating the Eucharist and admin- 
istering the provision of the bread and wine; 
£ or as hegoumenos and dispos- 
; imposing ecclesiastical sanc- 
rned with the morals and b 
and protecting the interests 
austic portrait is preserved 
Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprac 
3-12), and a liturgical book bindi 
; ath his name) and other altar furnish- 
ings from his church near Luxor are in the Coptic 
Museum in Cairo (M. Krause in The Future of 
Coptic Studies, ed. R. McL. Wilson [Leiden 1978] 
10—12). 
ED, W.C. Till, Datierung und Prosopographie der koptischen 
Urkunden aus Theben (Vienna 192) 52 (list of sources). 
P.Lond. 1 77. W.E. Crum, Coptic Ostraca (London 1902) 


nos. 49—76. 
LIT. M. Krause, “Apa At 






























Gnscribed wit 









m von Hermonthis” (Ph.D. 
diss., Berlin 1956), summ y C.D.G. Müller in ZKirch 
75 (1964) 283~92. Idem, “Die Testamente der Abte des 
Phoibammon-Klosters in Theben,” MDAI K 25 (1969) 58- 
60. —-L.S.B.MacC. 





= 


eta) on the Orontes River, no 
‘at al-Mudigq in modern Syr 
netropolitan bishopric of 
H that was formed between 







> 








127 





413 and 417. The Neoplatonic school of IAMBLI- 
chos flourished there in the 4th C. A synagogue 
was paved probably in 391 by donors who re- 
corded in inscriptions the size of the | 
each had financed. Following earthquakes in 
28, the tetraconch cathedral was rebuilt (?} in 533 
by the archbishop Paul, and what may have been 
the governor’s palace was redecorated in 539, with 
a hunting pavement. An important relic of the 
‘TRUE Cross was preserved at Apameia until its 
removal by Justin H (566 or 574). In 540 Apameia 
was stripped by the Persians of over 10,000 pounds 
of silver (Prokopios, Wars 2.11.2—38), and of yet 
more silver in 573 when they burned the city 
(john of Ephesus, HE 6.6). Following this event 
the cardo, an “atrium church,” numerous large 
private houses, and other buildings were rebuilt 
or repaired. Urban life continued at A ej 
after the Arab conquest of 639 and « 
end only at some undetermined perioc 
after. 

In the illuminated Kyr 
Oppian (Furlan, Marciana 5, fig.37 
represented as a walled city, dom at l by a hug 
Jrontes be- 






















k he 





ha of 



















domed church and flanked by the 
tween Mt. Diokleos and Mt. Emblonas. 
uit. J.C. Balty. Guide d’Apamée (Brussels 1981). Apamdée 
hes scientifiques 1973-1979. ed. J. 


-M.M.M., A.C. 


edarns, lit. “one who drives 
vaj gular light soldiers stationed along the 
frontiers who a a their military activi- 
ties with BRIGANDAGE, first appear under Basil I 
(TheophCont 685.5). Their ¢ ane r 
volved raiding (and plund 
and acting as border-scouts and guides 
expeditionary forces (Di Re min LLARG ed, 
292.16—34). Apelatai w 
nian and Bulgarian freeboc 1 fi 
soldiers otherwise unable to fulfil] obligati 
military service (De cer. 696.4); their comma: 
were appointed by Byz. pre ovincial othe tals 
VELITATIONE, 41.19~20). Apelaiai were include 
the muster rolls of themes, although it is une 


ig 
ip 
iS 










= 
































din 
clear 
ration comprised simply cash 


























TRATIOTIKA KTEMATA. In west- 
empire, apelatai were also 
lg. for “thieves’—Souda 














128 | APHRAHAT 


4:814.10), in the East trapezetat or tasinariot. In 
Dicenes AKRITAS apelatai likewise fulfill this dual 
role as soldiers/brigands and in the latter capacity 
form the hero’s principal adversary. 

tir. Dagron-Mihaescu, Guérilla 245-57. N. Oikono- 
mides, “L’épopée de Digénes et la frontière orientale de 
Byzance aux Xe et XIe siècles,” TM 7 (1979) 385-89. A. 


Syrkin, Poema o Digenise Akrite (Moscow 1964) 153-56. 
Aj 


APHRAHAT (’Adpaadrns), Syrian theologian, 
often called “the Persian Sage”; died ca.345. Un- 
der his name have come down 29 spiritual trea- 
tises called Demonstrations (Syr. tahwydatha). He lived 
in the Adiabene region of Persia, east of Nisibis, 
and was of clerical status, though apparently not 
a bishop or monk, but rather one of the celibate 
“Sons of the Covenant” (Syr. Benai Qyémd) who 
lived in the world. His Demonstrations range in 
date from 336/7 to 344/5: the last one was written 
during the persecution of Shapar II (M. Higgins, 
BZ 44 [1951] 265—71). The first 22 are numbered 
by the letters of the Syriac alphabet. 

The theology and writings of Aphrahat draw 
extensively on the Old Testament, reflecting the 
religious milieu of 4th-C. Mesopotamia in which 
Christianity was seeking to define its identity as 
separate from Judaism. He praises Christ as the 
divine conqueror of death and as the completion 
and fulfillment of all the types and prophecies of 
the Old Law. Aphrahat is concerned with how to 
live as a Christian in this world, with prayer, 
charity, endurance of persecution, and concern 
for the poor; Demonstration 1 preserves an early 
credal text. There is an Armenian translation 
(ascribed to Jacob of Nisibis) of 19 of the Demon- 
strations; separate ones are also known in Ethiopic 
and Georgian. 








ED. I. Parisot in Patrologia Syriaca, vol. 1 (Paris 1894) 1— 
1050; vol. 2 (1907) 1-489. G. Lafontaine, La verston armén- 
ienne des oeuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien [CSCO 382-83, 405— 
oô, 423-24] (Louvain 1977-80). 

LIT. A. Védbus, RAC supp. lief. 4 (1986) 497-506. R. 
Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge 1975) 
205-38. S. Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spir- 
itual Life (Kalamazoo 1987) 1—28. —-L.S.B.MacC. 


APHRODISIAS (Adpodictds, now Geyre), city 
of Carta, notable for its extensive and well- 
preserved remains. Aphrodisias was metropolis of 
the province and had active schools of sculpture 
and philosophy. It was a seat of pagan teaching 


through the late 5th C. and had an important 
Monophysite church—sometimes with its own 
bishop—in the sth and 6th C. Aphrodisias as- 
sumed the name Stauropolis in the 7th C., but by 
the 12th was usually known by the name of the 
province, Caria, It was sacked by Theodore Man- 
kaphas in 1188 and by the Seljuks in 1197; it 
became Turkish in the late 13th C. 

Excavations have revealed much of Byz. 
Aphrodisias within its mid-4th-C. walls. The city 
centered on its cathedral church, formerly the 
temple of Aphrodite (converted in the mid-5th 
C.). Palaces with audience halls, probably of the 
bishop and governor, Hanked the church. The 
agora to the south was apparently abandoned 
after a devastating earthquake in the qth C. per- 
manently altered the water table; many public 
buildings were rebuilt at that time. The south 
part of the city included baths, a basilica where 
the price EDICT of Diocletian was displayed, and 
the theater, before which lay a large paved square. 
This became the main marketplace after the agora 
was abandoned, and commerce extended into the 
adjacent bath, whose basilica was converted into 
shops. The city was destroyed in the early 7th C. 
and never recovered. Thereafter, the theater be- 
came the main fortress and center of habitation. 
In the ioth/iith C. the cathedral was restored 
and a triconch church was built over the intersec- 
tion of two abandoned streets. 

LIT. K. Erim, Aphrodisias (New York 1986). R. Cormack, 
“The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Provincial City: 
The Evidence of Thessalonike and Aphrodisias,” in Clas- 
sical Tradition 103-18. J.W. Nesbitt, “Byzantine Lead Seals 


from Aphrodisias,” DOP 37 (1983) 159-64. C. Roueché, 
Aphrodistas in Late Antiquity (London 1989). -C.F. 


APHRODITE, identifed with Roman Venus, 
goddess of love, beauty, and fertility, was wor- 
shiped until the beginning of the 4th C. when, 
according to Sozomenos, her temples were de- 
stroyed in Jerusalem, Aphaka (near Mt. Leba- 
non), and Heliopolis; in Heliopolis, he says (So- 
zom., HE 5.10.7), Constantine I built a church on 
the site of the temple and prohibited the “habitual 
fornication” evidently connected with the cult of 
Aphrodite. The neighboring Arabs venerated 
Aphrodite or a goddess identified by Prokopios 
(Wars 2:28.13) with Aphrodite and offered her 
human sacrifices. 

After the victory of Christianity Aphrodite 


underwent the regular procedure of allegoriza- 
tion, even if, in the decorative arts (Age of Spirit., 
nos. 288, 318), her image appears to have been 
used without ulterior significance well into the 6th 
C. Malalas mentions Aphrodite in connection with 
the story of Paris who proclaimed her the great- 
est of goddesses; in discussing the Judgment of 
Paris (Malal. gef), he says that Aphrodite means 
desire from which everything is born—children, 
wisdom, temperance, skills, and all other material 
and intellectual things. In later literature Aphro- 
dite appears primarily as a metonymy for sexual 
desire: Tzerzes (Hist. 9:16) calls Antony the pris- 
oner of Aphrodite, while Niketas Choniates 
(Nik.Chon. 139.31~32) describes Andronikos I 
Komnenos as giving himself completely “to the 
orgies of Aphrodite.” Choniates also reports that 
during the sack of Constantinople in 1204 the 
Crusaders destroyed a statue of Paris handing the 
apple of discord to Aphrodite (648.42—49). 

The birth of Aphrodite is depicted in a MS in 
Paris (B.N. Coisl. gr. 239). In a MS from Athos 
(Pantel. 6) the goddess is shown bare-breasted and 
standing on a column. 


Lit. Lawson, Folklore 117-20. Weitzmann, Gr.Myth. 52— 
54, 90, 146f, figs. 63—66. -A.K., A.C. 


APHRODITE PAPYRI, Greek, Coptic, and Ar- 
abic literary and documentary papyri found in 
1901 and 1905 at the site of the city of Aphrodite 
(later spelled Aphrodito, Coptic Jkow; mod. Kom 
Ishgaw) in northern Upper Egypt, which have 
provided rich documentation for the life of this 
community from the 5th to the mid-8th C. The 
1905 find comprised mostly 6th-C. material, while 
that of 1901 yielded documents of the Arab pe- 
riod ca.680—750. Sixth-century Aphrodite is best 
known for its archive of DioskoRos, a hellenized 
Coptic lawyer who owned literary codices and 
wrote both encomiastic poetry and many docu- 
ments. The later material embraces requisitions, 
orders (entagia), correspondence between the Arab 
governor and the pagarches, and long, detailed tax 
record books. Palaeographically these documents 
display a preparatory stage of the minuscule. The 
Aphrodite papyri are dispersed today among many 
museums and libraries. Many of the Coptic pieces 
have been difficult to trace and remain less known 
than the Greek (and Arabic), although the city 
was bi- and trilingual. Location and edition of the 


APHTHARTODOCETISM 129 


Coptic Aphrodite papyri remains a major desi- 
deratum. Thanks to all these documents we can 
know the institutions and culture of this city in 
unparalleled detail. 

ED. J. Maspero, Papyrus grecs d'époque byzaniine, 3 vols. 
(Cairo 1911—16; rp. Milan 1973). H-I. Bell, Greek Papyri in 
the British Museum, vols. 4—5 (London 1910~17; rp. Milan 
1973). P.J. Sijpesteijn, The Aphrodite Papyri in the University 
of Michigan Papyrus Collection (Zutphen, Holland, 1977). R. 
Pintaudi, 7 papiri vaticani greci di Aphredito, 2 vols. (Vatican 
1980). 

LIT. J.G. Keenan, “The Aphrodite Papyri and Village 
Life in Byzantine Egypt,” BSAC 26 (1984) 51—63. J. Gascou, 
L. MacCoull, “Le cadastre d’Aphrodité,” TM 10 (1987) 
103-58. ~L.S.B.MacC. 


APHTHARTODOCETISM (from &@@apros, “in- 
corrupuble,” and doxéw, “to seem”), a form of 
Monopuysirism; the doctrine was formulated by 
Jurian oF Haumarnassos after his flight to Al- 
exandria. In contrast to SEveRos of Antioch, Ju- 
lian denied any distinction between ousia and physis 
in Christ and thus saw in him only divine sub- 
stance. Accordingly, he asserted that Christ’s flesh 
was incorruptible not only after the resurrection 
but from the moment of conception—like Adam’s 
flesh before the Fall. Christ’s suffering was con- 
trary to the nature of his flesh but was the result 
of a miracle and due to his will. Julian based his 
soteriology not on the principle of man’s similarity 
to Christ but on the dissimilarity—Christ was in- 
corruptible in order to free others from corrupti- 
bility. Thus, he distanced Christ from mankind 
even further than other Monophysites. 

Aphthartodocetism was criticized by the Ortho- 
dox (esp. LEONTIOS OF BYZANTIUM) and by Mon- 
ophysites (Severos of Antioch). The teaching spread 
in the East, esp. in Egypt where Julian’s friend 
Gaianos propagated it; he managed temporarily 
to seize the see of Alexandria in 535; thus his 
supporters were called Gaianitai. Some went so 
far as to assert that Christ’s body was not created, 
giving them the sobriquet aktistetai (Patr. Timo- 
theos, PG 86:44C). Late in his life Justinian I saw 
Aphthartodocetism as a means to promote unity 
among his subjects, and in 565 he issued a now- 
lost edict supporting its teachings. The patriarch 
Eutychios refused to sign it and was exiled, but 
further difficulty was prevented by the emperor’s 
death. 

ur. F. Diekamp, “Zum Aphthartodoketenstreit,” Theo- 
logische Revue 26 (1927) 89-93. M. Jugie, DTC 6 (1924) 
999—1023. M. Simonetti, DPAC 2:1603f. ~T.EG. 


130 | APHTHONIOS 





APHTHONIOS (CA@@ove0s), rhetorician from 
Antioch and pupil of Lrsanros; fl. late 4th to 
beginning of 5th C. Of his abundant works only 
a textbook of exercises (PROGYMNASMATA) and 40 
FABLES (mythoi) survive. He used the textbook of 
HeRMOGENES and described the same types of 
exercises, but following the example of Theon 
(ast C.) reintroduced the psogos (INVECTIVE) as a 
genre side by side with the ENKOMION. Aphthonios 
was popular with the Byz., who praised his clarity, 
contrasting it with Hermogenes’ complexity; 
Tzetzes (Hist. 11.112—48) evaluates Aphthonios 
at length, emphasizing his use of EXAMPLES. The 
progymnasmata are, however, treated in isolation 
and not integrated with other aspects of rhetorical 
theory. Used for the teaching of RHETORIC, 
Aphthonios’s exercises were extensively com- 
mented upon by Jonn oF Sarpbis, JOHN GEO- 
METRES, and John DOXOPATRES. EUSTATHIOS OF 
THESSALONIKE and THOMAS MAGISTROS con- 
sidered him as a paradigm of ATTICISM. 

















ED. Progymnasmata, ed. H. Rabe (Leipzig 1926). Eng. tr. 
R. Nadeau, “The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius,” Speech 
Monographs 19 (1952) 264-85. 

Lit. Kustas, Studies 22—26. Kennedy, Rhetoric sof. P. 
Schaefer, De Aphthonio sophista (Breslau 1854). 

-E.M.J., A.K. 


APICULTURE (uedtocoxopueia), beekeeping, 
provided the major source of sugar in the Middle 
Ages; Byz. was not influenced by the diffusion of 
sugar cane in the territories of the caliphate (A.M. 
Watson, Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic 
World [Cambridge 1983] 24—30). Apiculture also 
supplied Byz. with wax for CANDLES and with the 
ingredients of medical remedies and alcoholic 
beverages: the Slavic (?) word for honey as a 
drink, in the form medos (cf. mead), was known 
to Priskos of Panion. Ancient traditions of api- 
culture were preserved in the GEOPoNIKa, which 
devoted book 15 to the location and construction 
of beehives, the behavior of bees, and the har- 
vesting of honey. Byz. apiculture stood on a high 
level. A 12th-C. Jewish writer from northern 
France, Samuel ben Meyr, wrote that beekeeping 
in “the Greek realm” was more developed than 
in his motherland (S. Krauss, Studien zur byzanti- 
nisch-jiidischen Geschichte [Vienna 1914] 1193). 
Beekeeping is mentioned in various sources. 
The vita of St. PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL reports 
that he possessed 250 beehives (boutia), and prak- 


tika of the Palaiologan era show that peasants 
might possess as many as 30 beehives (melissia; cf. 
Lavra 2, no.gi.III.4). A special tax on beehives, 
melissennomion, was levied, and a special name for 
beekeeper, melissourgos, was in use. The gathering 
of honey from wild bees is mentioned in the vita 
of St. Lazaros or MT. Gatesios and illustrated in 
the Venice Kynegetika of pseudo-Oppian (Kádár, 
Zoological Illuminations, pl.183, 1), where a man is 
shown being attacked by a swarm of wild bees as 
he raids their nest. Ceramic beehives of the 6th- 
7th C. have been found at several sites in Greece. 

The image of the industrious bee was frequent 
in Byz. literature; thus Neilos of Ankyra (PG 
79:180B) calls the prophets bees and Holy Scrip- 
ture their beehive. 

Lit. Ph. Koukoules, “He melissokomia para Byzanti- 


nois,” BZ 44 (1951) 347-57. Rudakov, Kultura 182. 
-A.K., A.C., J-W.N. 


APION (Ariwv), an Egyptian family of large 
landowners of uncertain origin. Before 328 Au- 
relius Apion was eparch or prefect of Egypt (PLRE 
1:82), but there is no evidence that either he or 
Flavius Strategius, comes and praeses of the The- 
baid in 349 (PLRE 1:858—59), was related to the 
family that came to prominence in the late 5th C. 
Apion I, apo hyparchon in 497 (whose identity with 
Apio Theodosius, praeses of Arkadia in 488, can- 
not be proved), served under the command of 
AREOBINDUS in 503. He fell from favor in 510 but 
returned to court under Justin I and in 518 be- 
came praetorian prefect. His son, Flavius Strate- 
gius, was comes sacrarum largitionum from 535 to 
538 and an envoy to the Persians in 531; Flavius’s 
son Apion II was consul in 539, but by 548 or 
550 he had returned to Egypt where he was 
subsequently doux of Thebaid, administrator (pa- 
garches) of Arsinoé, and chief of the curia in 
Oxyrhynchus. His descendants (attested until 623) 
bore high titles (patrikios, honorary consul) and 
maintained a palace near the Hippodrome of 
Constantinople; in 603 Pope GREGORY I THE GREAT 
advised Apion III not to become involved in po- 
litical activity (evidently against Phokas). The basis 
of the family wealth was their estate (oikos) in 
OxyrHyncHus. The Apions were Monophysites 
until 532 when Apion I solemnly abjured that 
form of Christianity. Gascou rejects Hardy’s hy- 
pothesis that in the second half of the 6th C. the 


Apions reverted to Monophysitism and retired 
from the capital. 

LIT. J. Gascou, “Les grands domaines, la cité et létat en 
Egypte byzantine,” TM g (1985) 61—75. E.R. Hardy, The 
Large Estates of Byzantine Egypt (New York 1931) 25-37. 
PLRE 2:1325. A.C. Johnson, L.C. West, Byzantine Egypt: 
Economic Studies (Princeton 1949) 50—55. -A.K. 


APLEKTON (a7Anxrov, from Lat. applicatum), lit. 
fortified camp; in documents of the 1oth—1 4th C. 
the term designates the billeting of troops. The 
privilege granted to Ioannina by Andronikos I] 
in 1319 prohibited the billeting (aplekeusai) of a 
soldier (stratiotes) in the house of a citizen “against 
his desire and will” (MM 5:81.27—28). In some 
documents the term aplekton is paired with MITA- 
TON (e.g., Lavra 1, no.6.23; Koutloum. no.10.62), 
and it is not always possible to understand the 
distinction between the two. Since a chrysobull of 
i086 speaks of “the provisioning and aplekion of 
an army heading for or returning from war” 
(Lavra 1, no.48.44—45), one can hypothesize that 
aplekton was short-term billeting. 

uit. M. Bartusis, “State Demands for the Billeting of 


Soldiers in Late Byzantium,” ZRVI 26 (1987) 1216. 
—A.K. 





APOCALYPSE ( AvoxeaAviis), revelation, a genre 
of Hebrew and Christian literature that describes 
prophetic visrons of the future. Several Hebrew 
books (ENocH, BARUCH, etc.) belong to this genre, 
and among the Nac HammMabDI texts are Apoca- 
lypses ascribed to Peter, Paul, and James. The 
Apocalypse included in the New Testament, often 
called the Book of Revelation, has traditionally 
been attributed to Joun the Apostle; Eusebios of 
Caesarea, however, doubted its authenticity, and 
Amphilochios of Ikonion confessed that most 
people considered it spurious. 

From the beginning, exegesis of John’s Apoca- 
lypse was tinged with eschatological expectations 
of the end of the wicked world. In the West, this 
radical interpretation was rejected by AUGUSTINE: 
according to him, the Apocalypse gave only the 
general outlines of future history, without going 
into detail; in the East, the eschatological inter- 
pretation of the Apocalypse was abandoned al- 
ready by ORIGEN, and later exegetes (OLKOUMENI- 
os, ANDREW of Caesarea, ARETHAS OF CAESAREA) 
avoided the concept of the millennial reign of 
God on earth before the Second Coming (PA- 


APOCALYPSE 131 


ROUSIA). After Arethas, creative interpretation of 
the Apocalypse came to a standstill. 

Among later APOCRYPHAL apocalypses are those 
ascribed to Elijah, Mary, and the apostles Thomas, 
John, and Bartholomew. Some apocalyptic 
prophecies name as their authors nonbiblical per- 
sonages: they deal primarily with the political 
future of Byz. and its struggle against the Sara- 
cens (pseudo-METHODIOS OF PATARA, LEO oF CON- 
STANTINOPLE) as well as the vision of sinners pun- 
ished in Hell (ANASTASIA). 

Apocalypse Illustration. Despite the consider- 
able quantity of Byz. apocalyptic literature treat- 
ing the end of the empire, only one text—the 
Oracle of Leo VI—was surely illustrated. How- 
ever, biblical apocalyptic illustration abounded, 
ranging from private mortality images through 
the Mayestas Domini and prophetic Visions to 
the Last JUDGMENT. Based on Old Testament 
visions, on Matthew ig and 24—25, and on EPHREM 
THE SYRIAN, it almost never reflects the Apoca- 
lypse of St. John. Though read, and in three 
surviving MSS prefaced with an author portrait, 
John’s Revelation was not accepted as canonical 
until the 14th C. and left no imprint on the Byz. 
liturgy. Its influence was peripheral, both geo- 
graphically (Egypt, where Revelation was ac- 
cepted as canonical, and Cappadocia, home of the 
two Byz. commentators on Revelation) and in 
content, as art reflects commentaries and magical 
texts more often than Revelation itself. In Cap- 
padocia, gth-C. versions of the Prophetic Vision 
and Last Judgment include the 24 Elders, the sea 
of glass, the river of fire, the sea vomiting up its 
dead, and the angel rolling up the scroll of Heaven. 
Of these motifs, only the sea of glass is unique to 
John, and it vanishes by the 10th C. The other 
elements continue to be used, but all reflect mod- 
ifications based on non-Johannine sources, such 
as the Elders who carry the letters of the alphabet 
associated with them in magical texts; if other 
elements survive in Last Judgment representa- 
tions, they are also from texts other than John’s. 


LIT. Apokalyptik, ed. K. Koch, J.M. Schmidt (Darm- 
stadt 1982). J. Schmid, “Die griechischen Apokalypse- 
Kommentare,” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1931) 228-54. G. 
Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie (Munich 1972) 
77—94. P. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition 
(Berkeley 1985). H. Suermann, Die geschichtstheologische 
Reaktion auf die einfallenden Muslime in der edessenischen Apo- 
kalyptik des 7. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt am Main-New York 
1985). G. Kretschmar, Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Die 





132 APOCRYPHA 


Geschichte ihrer Auslegung im 1. Jahrtausend (Stuttgart 1985). 
Brenk, Tradition und Neuerung. G. Millet, La Dalmatique du 
Vatican. Les élus, images et croyances (Paris 1945). N. Thierry, 
“L’Apocalypse de Jean et liconographie byzantine,” in 
L’Apocalypse de Jean: Traditions exégétiques et iconographiques, 
II-XIII siècles (Geneva 1979) 319-39. 

~J.1., A.W.C., A.K. 


APOCRYPHA (åróxpvęġa, lit. “concealed or re- 
jected [books]”), works that in their title, form, 
and contents resemble books of the Old Testa- 
ment and New Testaments, but are not accepted 
in the biblical canon. The discussion of what is 
canonical and what is apocryphal lasted through 
the qth C.; in the early 6th C., a cleric in southern 
Gaul presented, in the so-called Decretum Gela- 
sianum, the first (incomplete) list of apocrypha. 
The Old Testament apocrypha are mostly trans- 
lated from Hebrew; among those that underwent 
substantial Christian revision are the Testaments of 
the Twelve Patriarchs, the Martyrdom and Ascension 
of Isaiah, the Testament of Solomon, and the SıBYL- 
LINE OrACLES. New Testament apocrypha were 
more varied. They can be categorized as apocry- 
phal gospels, acts, letters, and apocalypses, follow- 
ing the main New Testament genres. Some of 
them are as old as the 2nd C. and probably orig- 
inated in (or were eventually connected by their 
orthodox opponents with) a Gnostic or Mani- 
chaean milieu. Some of them are known from 
papyri fragments, some from MSS from Nac 
Hammani. Several apocrypha have survived only 
in Oriental, Latin, and/or Slavic versions. 

Among apocryphal gospels one may distin- 
guish, besides earlier (primarily Judaeo-Christian) 
texts, those dealing with the childhood of Jesus 
(PROTOEVANGELION OF JAMES, the Gospel of 
Tuomas, the story of Joseph the Carpenter— 
written in Greek ca.goo but known only in Coptic 
and Arabic versions) and with his trial and exe- 
cution (the Gospel of NicopEmus, various texts 
on Pontius Pilate, the Coptic gospel of Gamaliel). 
The and-C. Gospel of Peter (known to Eusebios 
of Caesarea) tends to whitewash Pilate and to 
impose the guilt for Jesus’s execution fully on the 
Jews and Herod. The apocryphal gospels had to 
satisfy pious curiosity in the areas where canonical 
texts were reticent; they stimulated imagery in art 
(e.g., ANASTASIS, DoRMITION), but had a lesser 
impact on literature. 

The case of apocryphal acts was different. Most 
are associated with the apostles PETER (esp. the 





so-called pseudo-Clementinae, which describe his 
travels and preaching), PAUL, ANDREW, JOHN, and 
Tuomas; the story of the apostle Thaddeus 
emerges in the legend of the MANDYLION—both 
in the letter of Abgar and in the DOCTRINE oF 
Appal (written in Edessa ca.400). The apocryphal 
acts were influenced by Greek erotic ROMANCES, 
with their journeys to exotic regions, themes of 
separation and recognition, and mirabilia; hagio- 
graphic elements are also very strong—suffering, 
imprisonment, and martyrdom, together with the 
resultant mass and individual conversions, consti- 
tute their essence. Church leaders judged the 
apocryphal acts severely: Amphilochios of Ikon- 
ion called them “diabolical works” (R.A. Lipsius, 
Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegen- 
den, vol. 1 [Braunschweig 1883] 57), while Photios 
(Bibl., cod. 114) says that the acts of Peter, John, 
Thomas, Andrew, and Paul, published by a cer- 
tain Leukios (Lucius?) Charinos, originated in a 
heretical milieu. 

The original apocryphal acts are mostly lost: 
from the Acts of Peter only fragments survive, 
including the description of his martyrdom under 
Nero; Andrew’s Acts can be tentatively restored 
on the basis of later (partially Western) tradition; 
a substantial part of John’s Acts, ending with his 
death in Ephesus, is known. Significant sections 
of the Acts of Paul have been discovered in papyri 
as well as in Latin and Oriental translations; the 
story of his life served also as material for the vita 
of THexia. The Acts of Thomas were written in 
Syriac, probably in the first half of the grd C. in 
a Gnostic milieu. They are the only apocryphal 
acts to survive in full; Greek, Latin, Ethiopic, and 
Armenian revisions of them are also preserved. 

Apocryphal epistles include the so-called Epistle 
to the Inhabitants of Laodikeia, a 4th-C. compi- 
lation from Paul’s epistles that is sometimes in- 
serted in Latin Bible MSS; the forged correspon- 
dence between Paul and a converted Seneca that 
was already known to JEROME; a third Epistle to 
the Corinthians, Paul’s refutation of the Gnostic 
tenets, that was eventually inserted in the Acts of 
Paul; the Epistle of Titus (Paul’s disciple) on the 
virtue of virginity—probably a Spanish work of 
the 5th C.; the Epistle of BARNaBas; the Epistle 
of James on Christ’s teaching after his resurrec- 
tion—a text of Gnostic character (probably of the 
end C.); the Epistle of apostles reporting their 
conversations with Jesus after his resurrection— 








the text, which probably originated in Asia Minor 
ca.170, survives in full only in an Ethiopic trans- 
lation. The Epistle to the Alexandrians has dis- 
appeared without a trace. The genre was not 
developed in Byz., even though a number of 
hagiographic and homiletic works on Barnabas, 
Titus, and other apostles appeared. 

The apocryphal aPOcALYPSES were also unpop- 
ular in Byz. The genuine Byz. “apocalypses” dealt 
with the political situation of the empire more 
than with prophetic vision of the eschatological 
future of humankind. 

The genre of apocrypha was more widely dif- 
fused in Slavic, Caucasian, and Oriental literature 
than in Byz. It was esp. important for the elabo- 
ration of Bogomil ideology (see APOCRYPHA, Bo- 
GOMIL). 

ED. and TR. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. 
Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, N.Y., 1983—85). New 
Testament Apocrypha*, ed. R. McL. Wilson, 2 vols. (London 
1973—74). Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, ed. M. Erbetta, 


4 vols. in 4 pts. (Turin 1966-81). Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 
ed. R.A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, 2 vols. in 3 pts. (Leipzig 1891- 


1904). 

ae G. Jossa, “Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento,” 
Augustinianum 23 (1983) 19-40. K.L. Schmidt, Kanonische 
und apocryphe Evangelien und Apostelgeschichten (Basel 1944). 
J.B. Bauer, Die neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Düsseldorf 
1968). H. Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” 
HTRR 73, (1980) 105-90. A.F.J. Klijn, “The Apocryphal 
Acts of the Apostles,” VigChr 37 (1983) 193-99. F. Bovon, 
M. van Esbroeck et al., Les Actes Apocryphes des apôtres (Ge- 
neva 1981). E. Turdeanu, Apecryphes slaves et roumains de 
l'Ancien Testament (Leiden 1981). -J.L 


APOCRYPHA, BOGOMIL. The Bocomis, in 
an effort to justify and propagate their teachings, 
made use of the Slavonic versions of several early 
Greek apocryPHa, among them The Book of Bar- 
uch, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, and The Vision 
of Isaiah. Only one apocryphal work is known to 
be an authentic Bogomil creation: the Interrogatio 
Johannis (or Liber Secretus, i.e., “Secret Book”), 
brought to Italy ca.1190 by Nazarius, the bishop 
of a CATHAR community in Lombardy, who had 
obtained it from a high-ranking Bogomil in Bul- 
garia. It is a dialogue between John the Evangelist 
and Christ, who replies to his disciple’s questions 
about the origin of the world, Satan’s power over 
man (whose body Satan created), and the end of 
all things. Satan’s final defeat, after the destruc- 
tion of this world by fire, shows that the cosmo- 
logical puaLism of this text is of the “moderate” 
variety. The importance of this document lies in 


APO EPARCHON 133 


its uniqueness: no other known work stems di- 
rectly from the Bogomils. It survives in two slightly 
different Latin versions, one of them going back 
to a document, now lost, from the archives of the 
Inguisition in Carcassonne. Whether the original 
was Greek or Slavonic is uncertain. 

ep. J. Ivanov, Bogomilski knigi i legendi (Sofia 1925; rp. 
1970). Fr. tr., idem, Livres et légendes bogomiles (Paris 1976). 
Le livre secret des Cathares. interrogatio lohannis, ed. E. Bozéky 
(Paris 1980), with Fr. tr. 

LIT. E. Turdeanu, “Apocryphes bogomiles et apo- 


cryphes pseudo-bogomiles,” RHR 138 (1950) 176-228. 
~D.O. 


APODEIPNON (amddetrvor, lit. “after supper”), 
compline, the liturgical HOUR that completes the 
monastic day with prayer for a tranquil night free 
from sin and evil dreams. First seen in the Longer 
Rules of St. Basi, THE GREAT (PG 31:1016A) and 
possibly originating with him, apodeipnon is a mo- 
nastic duplication of vespers, which had formerly 
constituted the final hour of the day. Psalm go, 
cited by Basil, is always central to the apodeipnon 
ritual. Byz. apodeipnon also includes other psalms, 
the DoxoLocy, the creed, a kanon, the TRISAGION, 
Our Father, TRopARIA, the Kyrie eleison repeated 
40 times, prayers, a rite of mutual pardon, and a 
final Lrrany. In the Byz. HOROLOGION, there are 
two forms of apodeipnon: the mega apedetpnon, re- 
served for Lent and certain VIGILS, is a series of 
three offices, each with its own introductory and 
concluding prayers, while the mzkron apodeipnen is 
an abbreviated version comprising select elements 
of the mega apodeipnon, esp. its final part. Apodeip- 
non was unknown to the cathedral rite of Hagia 
Sophia in Constantinople (see ASMATIKE AKO- 
LOUTHIA), which had instead an evening service 
called pannychis (see ViciL); cf. Mateos, Typicon 
2:285, 311. 

LIT. A. Raes, “Les Complies dans les Rites orientaux,” 
OrChrP 17 (1951) 133-45- -Ri i. 


APO EPARCHON (rò ézapxwv), or apo hypar- 
chon, designation of a former prefect as well as 
an honorific title. To the first category belonged 
people like the apo eparchon poleos Theodore, a 
participant in the council of Chalcedon (451), and 
probably another Theodore, a 7th-C. “apo epar- 
chon and eparch of Italy” (Zacos, Seals 1, no.2923). 
Unlike these high-ranking officials, ordinary apo 
eparchon, whose numerous seals are predomi- 

















134 | APOGRAPHEUS 


nantly of the 7th C., were modest dignitaries often 
involved in the supervision of state workshops or 
toll collection; others were notaries, chartoularioi, 
droungarioi, etc. The title was granted to various 
intellectuals such as Zacharias, physician of Tiber- 
ios I]; the historians EvaGRios SCHOLASTIKOS and 
MENANDER Protector; and Exias, the 6th-C. 
commentator on Aristotle. The origin of the title 
is obscure-—Justinian 1 refers to it as an “ancient” 
one. The last mention is in the late gth-C. Kleto- 
rologion of Philotheos, in which apo eparchon con- 
stituted the lowest grade of dignitaries. 


LIT. R. Guilland, “L’apoéparque,” BS 43 (1982) 307 A 
Bury, Adm. System 23f. Jones, LRE 1:534f. 


APOGRAPHEUS (åmoypagpevs), fiscal official who 
seems to have replaced the ANAGRAPHEUS in the 
12th C. Zonaras (Zon. 3:737f) relates that Alexios 
I sent to “the fields and villages” apographeis who 
introduced some fiscal innovations. Délger argues 
that Zonaras used the term in a nontechnical 
sense, but in 1175 a certain Andronikos Kanta- 
kouzenos functioned as the doux and apographeus 
of the theme of Mylasa and Melanoudion. The 
term remained in use through the 15th C. Some- 
times apographers combined their duties with those 
of the governor (doux or KEPHALE). Their signa- 
tures are found on various PRAKTIKA; they appor- 
tioned the posotes of paroikoi and land to the 
monasteries (Lavra 2, no.g7.1—5) or conducted 
MERISMOS (Lavra 3, no.165.91-32). LAND SURVEY 
for tax purposes was called apographe or more 
elaborately apographtke exisotes kai apokatastasts (e.g., 
Pantel., no.1'7.g)—it involved the measurement of 
land and the assessment of taxes. Apographeis were 
usually local functionaries (of Thessalonike, Lem- 
nos, and so on); an act of 1344 employs the term 
katholikos apographeus (Dochetar., no.23.22), even 
though the individual, John Vatatzes, is known as 
apographeus of Thessalonike (PLP, no.25 18). 





ur. Délger, Beiträge 88—go. D. Angelov, “K voprosu o 
praviteljach fem v Epirskom despotate i Nikejskoj imperii,” 
BS 12 (1951) 70f. Maksimović, Administration 186—91. 

—A.K. 


APOKAUKOS (Arókavkos, fem. °“Amoxav- 
kiara), family known from the end of the 1oth 
C. Basil Apokaukos was strategos of the Pelopon- 
nesos ca.ggo. Two other strategoi named Apokau- 


kos are known from seals (Davidson, Minor Objects, 
no.2764; Schlumberger, Sig. 363). From the end 
of the 12th C. Apokaukoi served as metropolitans 
in the region of Dyrrachion and Naupaktos (see, 
e.g., APOKAUKOS, JOHN). The position of the fam- 
ily at the end of the 13th C. is far from clear: 
Gregoras emphatically asserts (Greg. 2:577.20— 
21, 585.5) that Alexios Apokaukos belonged to 
an obscure and low-born family (see APOKAUKOS, 
ALEXIOS), but in 1277 a certain John Apokaukos 
bore the high title of sebastopanhypertatos and served, 
together with George Akropolites and Theodore 
Mouzalon, as witness to Michael VIII's treaty with 
Venice (MM 3:96.24). Alexios Apokaukos’s high 
position served to promote the careers of many 
of his relatives, who functioned as governors of 
Thessalonike and Adrianople, megas droungarios, 
etc. The family lost its position after 1345, even 
though George Apokaukos was an archon in Con- 
stantinople in 1403. Another Alexios Apokaukos, 
a painter and friend of Joseph BryEnnros, settled 
in Crete after 1402. Demetrios Kyritzes Apokau- 
kos was in the service of Mehmed I] after the fall 
of Constantinople. 


LIT. Polemis, Doukai 101. PLP, nos. 1178—95- ~AK. 


APOKAUKOS, ALEXIOS, megas doux; born Bi- 
thyma late 13th C., died Constantinople 11/12 
July 1345 (for date, see Kleinchroniken 2:263). Born 
to an obscure provincial family, Apokaukos 
amassed great wealth as a tax collector and (after 
1320) as superintendent of salt works. During his 
early career he was a protégé of JOHN (VI) Kan- 
TAKOUZENOS. When ANpRONIKOoS III rebelled 
against his grandfather Andronikos II in 1321, 
Apokaukos, who was also domestikos of the West, 
supported the young emperor and was rewarded 
with the post of parakotmomenos. After Andronikos 
II won the civil war in 1328, Apokaukos served 
the new government as MESAZON. When Andro- 
nikos died (1341), Apokaukos turned against his 
former patron Kantakouzenos and supported the 
regency of ANNA OF Savoy and Patr. Jonn XIV 
KaLekas. He became megas doux, in command of 
the fleet; as eparch of Constantinople he repaired 
and strengthened the Theodosian walls. The re- 
gime of Apokaukos was backed by merchants and 
sailors. Thessalonike, as a relatively independent 
trade center, was an important base of support 





APOKAUKOS, ALExios. Portrait of Apokaukos as donor 
in a manuscript of the works of Hippokrates (Paris gr. 
2144, fol.lir). Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. 


for him (M. Sjuzjumov, VizVrem 28 [1968] 23f), 
and he backed the ZEALoT revolt there. According 
to Kantakouzenos, Apokaukos instituted a “reign 
of terror” in the capital, arresting wealthy citizens 
and confiscating their property; the family and 
followers of Kantakouzenos, in particular, were 
targets of the mob violence and destruction. Apo- 
kaukos was murdered by aristocratic political pris- 
oners (archontes) as he was inspecting construction 
of a new prison. 

Apokaukos built a fortress on the Bosporos at 
Epibatai and may have founded or restored a 
church at Selymbria (S. Eyice, Byzantion 34 [1964] 
77—104; O. Feld, Byzantion 37 [1967] 56-65). He 
had a lively interest in medicine. He commis- 
sioned the deluxe MS of Hippocrates (Paris, B.N. 
gr. 2144) that includes his fine portrait (Spatha- 
rakis, Portrait 148—51, figs. 96—97). The De metho- 
do medendi of [JOHN AxkTouarios is dedicated to 
Apokaukos. 


APOKOMBION 135 





uT. R. Guilland, “Études de civilisation et de littérature 
byzantines, I: Alexios Apocaucos,” Revue du Lyonnais (1921) 

523-41. Matschke, Fortschritt 1393—68. PLP, no.1180. 
-A.M.T. 


APOKAUKOS, JOHN, a leading clergyman in 
the independent principality of Epiros; born 
ca.1155, died Kozyle near Arta 1233. Apokaukos 
was a fellow student in Constantinople with Man- 
uel Sarantenos, the future patriarch at Nicaea. As 
a deacon, he assisted his uncle, Constantine Man- 
asses, metropolitan of Naupaktos. In 1186 Apo- 
kaukos is attested as a notary at the patriarchate 
in Constantinople under Patr. Niketas II Moun- 
tanes (1 186-89), and again in 1193 (RegPatr, fasc. 
3, no.1125). Metropolitan of Naupaktos from 1199/ 
1200 to 1232 (L. Stiernon, REB 28 [1970] 305f), 
he was, like Demetrios CHOMATENOS and George 
BaRDANES, outspoken in support of Theodore 
Komnenos Doukas and the Epirot church in the 
schism with Nicaea. Apokaukos’s letters and de- 
cisions, like those of Chomatenos, are of central 
importance for the legal and social history of the 
period (A. Laiou, FM 6 [1984] 275-323). His 
writings, which show him to be less knowledgeable 
in the law and less exacting in its application 
than his colleague (M.Th. Fégen in Cupido Legum 
47-71), are remarkable for their clear and hu- 
morous portrayals of daily life and popular cul- 
ture (P. Magdalino, BS 48 [1987] 28—38). He died 
a monk. 

















Eb. N.A. Bees, “Unedierte Schriftstiicke aus der Kanzlei 
des Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos 
(in Aetolien),” BNJéb 21 (1971-74) 55-160. M.Th. Fégen, 
“Ein heisses Eisen,” RJ 2 (1983) 85—96. 

tir. M. Wellnhofer, Johannes Apokaukos, Metropolit von 
Naupaktos in Aetolien (c.1155-1233) (Freising 1913). Ma- 
crides, “Killing, Asylum & Law.” —-R.J.M. 


APOKOMBION (årokóußiov, also KépBtov), a 
purse in which the emperor carried coins to dis- 
tribute on feastdays. The term is derived from 
the word kombos, meaning joint or knot (e.g., Gre- 
gory of Nyssa, PG 46:669B), since apokombia were 
small bags tied with a ribbon. Sometimes the purse 
contained only one nomisma as a symbolic gift to 
a poor person (Oikonomides, Listes 181.9), while 
apokombia given to the patriarch might hold more 
than 100 litrat of gold (De cer. 182.8-11). A 10th- 
C. ceremonial book (De cer. 76.22—23) describes 


136 | APOKRISIARIOS 


how the emperor took the aepokombion from the 
praiposites and placed it on the holy altar. Repre- 
sentations of the apokombion are found in the 
mosaic panels in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, 
depicting Emp. Constantine IX Monomachos (N. 
Oikonomides, REB 36 [1978] 220) and John H 
Komnenos. 


LIT. Treitinger, Kaiseridee 154. ~ALK. 


APOKRISIARIOS (d7roxpiovapios, Lat. respon- 
salis), in its ecclesiastical sense, the messenger or 
representative of a bishop or hegoumenos in deal- 
ings with higher authorities. The institution ex- 
isted in the 5th C., but was first systematically 
established by Justinian I to prevent the heads of 
churches from neglecting the care and wasting 
the resources of their flocks in prolonged or 
frequent absences (Cod.Just. 1.3; nov.6.2—-3; 
nOv.123.25). Apokrisiarioi were received by patri- 
archs and metropolitans from their respective 
subordinates, but the chief function of apokrisiario: 
was to represent provincial churches at the im- 
perial court. The most important patriarchal, ar- 
chiepiscopal, and metropolitan sees maintained 
resident apokristarioi in Constantinople. Among 
famous churchmen who served as apokrisiariot were 
Pope Grecory | THE GREAT, who represented the 
Roman church at the imperial court (ca.578-86), 
and Demetrios CHOMATENOS, who represented the 
see of Ohrid at the patriarchate at the end of the 
12th C. (For apokrisiarios as a term for diplomat, 
see AMBASSADORS.) 














tir. Beck, Kirche 103. J. Pargoire, DACL 1.2:2537—55. 
A. Emereau, “Apocrisiaires et apocrisiariat,” and “Les apo- 

crisiaires en Orient,” EO 17 (1914) 289-97, 542-48. 
—P.M. 


APOLLINARIS, or Apollinarios, bishop of Lao- 
dikeia (from ca.360), theologian; born Laodikeia 
ca.310, died ca.ggo. A friend of ATHANASIos of 
Alexandria, Apollinaris polemicized against ARI- 
us and Dioporos or Tarsos and elaborated a 
Christology stressing the divine element in Christ; 
he taught that in Christ the human soul was 
replaced by the Locos. Later Apollinaris revised 
his views and proposed that Christ had a human 
body and soul, but “heavenly nous” (reason). At 
first accepted as orthodox, Apollinaris played the 
role of Athanasios’s successor, but then became 
embroiled with BASIL THE Great. At the Council 


of Constantinople in 381 his teachings were 
condemned; he was eventually proclaimed a 
precursor of MownopuysitismM and a heretic, 
and his works were destroyed or preserved under 
wrong names (E. Cattaneo, Trois homélies pseudo- 
chrysostomiennes sur la Pâque comme oeuvre d'Apollinaire 
de Laodicée [Paris 1981]). JEROME, who attended 
the lectures of Apollinaris in Antioch (P. Jay, 
REAug 20 [1974] 36—41), knew his exegetic works 
on the Bible, but found them inadequate. Ac- 
cording to Sozomenos (Sozom., HE 5.18.3~4) 
Apollinaris tried to replace Homer with a work 
in epic verse on the antiquities of the Hebrews in 
24 parts, in which he presented biblical history 
from Creation to the reign of Saul; he imitated 
Pindar, Euripides, and Menander in writing on 
themes of the Holy Scriptures. Apollinaris also 
wrote hymns for church services as well as songs 
in praise of God to be recited at work and play 
(Sozom., HE 6.25.4-5). According to Sokrates 
(Sokr., HE 3.16) he recast the New Testament in 
the form of Platonic dialogues, none of which has 
survived. Attribution to Apollinaris of a hexame- 
ter paraphrase of the Psalms (ed. A. Ludwich 
{Leipzig 1912]) is questionable. 

ED. H. Lietazmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule 
(Tübingen 1904). CPG, nos. 3645—3700. 

uT. E. Miihlenberg, Apollinaris von Laodicea (Göttingen 
1969). C.E. Raven, Apollinarianism (Cambridge 1923). A. 
Tuilier, “Le sens de l'Apollinarisme dans les controverses 
théologiques du IVe siècle,” StP 13 (1975) 295-305. E. 
Cattaneo, “Ii Cristo ‘uomo celeste’ secondo Apoilinare di 


Laodicea,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 19 (1983) 
415-19. —B.B., A.K. 


APOLLO, Greek god of the sun, music, truth, 
and healing. His embodiment of the divinity of 
the sun (Heros, SoL Invictus) caused his ven- 
eration to continue into late antiquity, as seen in 
Constantine Is solar piety (Panegyrici Latini 
7.177.10, 4.321) and the 4th-C. statues identified 
as Apollo (G. Mansuelli, FelRav 127-30 [1984/5] 
291-95; the anecdote of the statue of Apollo 
brought by Constantine from Troy in Malal. 
320.10—13). As late as 529, Benedict of Nursia 
tried to stamp out the worship of Apollo in the 
vicinity of Montecassino (Grégoire le Grand: Dia- 
logues, ed. A. de Vogüé [Paris 1979] 2:166—69). 
Since Apollo’s oracle at DeLpHI was the most fa- 
mous in antiquity until its suppression by Theo- 
dosios I in 392, Byz. legend sought to attribute to 
it prophecies of the coming of Christ. A 12th-C. 


historian (Cedr. 1:592.4~10) relates the oracle’s 
sad response to Julian’s s emissary Oribasios just 
before his Persian expedition, while the vitae of 
ARTEMIOS and other texts preserve Apollo’s 
prophecy of Christ’s divinity and sufferings (A. 
von Premerstein in is mnemen Spyridonos Lamprou 
[Athens 1935] 185-89; J. Bidez, BZ 11 [1902] 
392). Three statues of Apollo still standing in the 
Baths of Zeuxippos in Constantinople were de- 
scribed in epigrams by CHRIsTODOROS OF KOPTOS 
in the late 5th C. The Delphic tripod is depicted 
in MS illustrations of the scholia of pseudo-NoNNnos 
oF PaNopoLis on the homilies of GREGORY OF 
Nazianzos, while Apollo and Daphne appear in 
an Antioch mosaic and in numerous ivory carv- 
ings. The latter myth furnished a subject to Byz. 
writers from Droskoros OF ApHRopITO to KIN- 
NAMOS. George Gemistos PLETHON included a hymn 
to Apollo in his Laws, hailing him as the lord of 
justice and homonoia, inspirer of love of divine 
beauty (Alexandre, Piéthon 208). 

utr. D. Detschew, RAC 1:528f Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 


64f. C.M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of 
the Hellenes (Oxford 1986) 348-51. -L.5.B.MacC. 



















APOLLONIA (Aroiwviaj Called Sozousa in 
late antiquity, Apollonia was one of the five Greek 
loni ul naican PENTAPOLIS. A bish 
t recorded at the Synod 
in 359. During the qth a 
were made to the city’s foru 
e to raids by the Austuri 
he late 5th and early 6th 
s to have become the capital 
















































Apouonia 


Libya Penta 


To the same period belongs the 
construction ae cae east church and triconch ba- 


silica and the refurbishing of the baths originally 
built in the 4th C. to replace those perhaps dam- 
aged in the earthqu of 365. The first half of 






the 6th C. saw the construction of the central and 
west churches and the so-called Palace of the Dux, 
is ( eo to a the house of 


recently argued by El 
a local illustris. The 
eled and further repairs were made to the forti- 
fications. Apart from later additions to the Palace 
of the Dux and urban defenses, nothing is known 
of the city’ s later history down to the Arab inva- 
soon after which urban life at Ap 

























J.-G. Pedley, D. White, Apollo 
ations by the University of Michigi 


137 





APOLLONIOS OF TYANA 


1965~1967, ed. J.-H. Humphrey (Tripoli 1976). 5. Ellis, 
“The Palace of the Dux at Apollonia and Related Houses,” 
in Cyrenaica in Antiquity, - G. Barker, J. Lloyd, and J. 
Reynolds (Oxford 1983) ı A. Laronde, “Apollonia 
de Cyrénaique et son ae CRAI (1985) 93—) 








APOLLONIAS (AzodAwreds, anc. Apollonia ad 
Rhyndacum, mod. Apolyont), city in Bithynia sit- 
uated on a lake of the same name. Apollonias 
appears in history in the 8th—gth C. as a strong 
fortress; it was a refuge for the deposed emperor 
Tiberios H and a place of exile for Theodore of 
Stoudios. Apollonias was briefly taken by the Turks 
in 1093, recaptured by Alexios I, then attacked 
again in 1113. Apollonias then remained Byz. 
until the early 14th C., except for a Latin occu- 
pation in 1204-05. Apollonias was a SL uf 
bishopric of NikoMEDEsA; it derived strengt] 







probably the monastery from 


AUTOREIANOS was Called to the patriarchate in 
1254. 


8-73. C. Mango, “The Monastery 
e Apolyont,” DOP 33 (1979) 329- 


ations 139. -C.F. 









F TYANA (in Cappadocia), pa- 
ind Neopythagorean philos- 
E . whose reputation survived 
into the Byz. era. His legendary biography, 
written by Philostratos after 217, reflects the cos- 
mopolitan worldview of me Raman Empue, mal 













Ethiopia, and the Pillars ef H 
Apollonios, who was conside 


C., and he came to be re 
rival to Moses and Chri: 
Nikomedeia (ca.307) argued that Apollo 
a greater worker of miracles than Jesus; 
ios was also praised by Flavianus Nicomachus ¿ 
in the Historia AuGUSTA. His image appears on 

bios of Caesarea (PG 22:795- 

se ca.gi2 to the claims of 
Apollonios as a charlatan 
gue with evil spirits. None- 





























































138 | APOLLONIOS OF TYRE 


theless, the Christian world was slow to reject the 
cult of Apollonios. Until the 12th C. Byz. authors 
(Malalas, Kedrenos, Tzetzes) mention him in fa- 
vorable light, remembering his power to tame 
snakes and scorpions and describing the talismans 
erected by Apollonios in various cities to ward off 
fierce animals, noxious insects such as mosquitoes, 
and natural disasters. Whereas some Christian 
writers (e.g., the hagiographers of St. THEKLA and 
ANASTASIOS OF Sina!) denied the ability of Apol- 
lonios to work genuine miracles, for others he 
was a semi-Christian prophet. It is possible that a 
saint Balinas, known from a Greek prayer, may 
represent a transformation of Apollonios (Speyer, 
infra 63). 

source, Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, ed. 
F.C. Conybeare, 2 vols. (London—New York 1912; vol. 1 
rp. 1917, 1927, vol. 2 rp. 1921) with Eng. tr. 

tir. W. Speyer, “Zum Bild des Apollonios von Tyana 
bei Heiden und Christen,” JBAChr 17 (1974) 47-63. W. 
Duliére, “Protection permanente contre des animaux nuli- 
sibles assurée par Apollonius de Tyane dans Byzance et 
Antioche,” BZ 63 (1970) 247-77. C.P. Jones, “An Epigram 


on Apollonius of Tyana,” JHS too (1980) 190-94. 
-A.K., A.M.T. 


APOLLONIOS OF TYRE, hero of a novel dis- 
seminated throughout Europe in the Middle Ages. 
The extant Latin version dates from the 6th C. 
Whether the original was written in Latin or Greek 
has been inconclusively debated. Certainly the 
plot presents many of the characteristics of a 
Greek ROMANCE of the 2nd or ard C.: separations, 
false deaths, violent storms, a happy ending, etc. 
‘Two versions in medieval vernacular Greek exist: 
one, in 852 unrhymed political verses, based on a 
Tuscan reworking of the Latin and dated to the 
14th C.; and another, in 1,894 rhymed political 
verses, a free adaptation of the Istoria d’Apollonio 
de Tiro of the Florentine Antonio Pucci (ca.1310- 
80) and dated to the late 15th C. Despite a veneer 
of Byz. piety and the Italian intermediaries, the 
world in both cases remains that of late antiquity. 

ED, Lat.—Historia Apollonu Regis Tyrii, ed. G.A.A. Kor- 
tekaas (Groningen 1984). Greek—(1) Narratio neograeca 
Apollonii Tyrii, ed. A.A.P. Janssen (Nijmegen 1954); (2) 
Venice 1534; rp. 1805. 


uit. Beck, Volksliteratur 1395—38. —E.M.J., M.J]. 


APOLLONOS ANO PAPYRI, documents discov- 
ered by French excavations in a jar at Edfu in 
1921—22, comprising the bilingual archives of the 


Apollinopolite pagarches Papas from ca.648 to 
ca.708. R. Rémondon published 104 Greek doc- 
uments in 1953, but the Coptic pieces are still 
being edited. The Greek documents include offi- 
cial letters and orders from the Arab governor, 
memoranda from the ¢opoteretes, requisitions of 
men and supplies for the cursus (expeditions against 
Constantinople), lawsuits, tax records, contracts, 
accounts, lists of goods, and private letters. The 
competence of the Arab emir’s Greek-speaking 
chancery is apparent, as is the problem of fugi- 
tives and their tax responsibility in their origo. 
The language of the documents displays the rich- 
ness of official terminology that lived on in both 
Greek and Coptic long after attempted arabici- 
zation of the chancery. These documents, along 
with the 8th-C. APHRODITE PAPYRI, furnish a richly 
detailed picture of local administration in Egypt 
as it was carried on by Christian officials still in 
responsible positions after 642. 

ED. R. Rémondon, Papyrus grecs d’Apollénos Ané (Cairo 
1953). L.S.B. MacCoull, “The Coptic Papyri from Apol- 
lonos Ano,” Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of 
Papyrology, vol. 2 (Athens 1988) 141-60. 

LIT. ]. Gascou, “Papyrus grecs inédits d’Apollénos Ané,” 
in Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron, vol. 2 (Cairo 
1979) 25—34. J. Gascou, K.A. Worp, “Problèmes de docu- 


mentation apollinopolite,” ZPapEpig 49 (1982) 83—95. 
-L.S.B.Mact. 


APOLOGY (dmrodoyia), speech of defense or self- 
defense such as Plato’s Apology of Socrates. The 
term was esp. applied to the speeches of MARTYRS 
in defense of the Christian faith: thus, Eusebios 
of Caesarea (Eusebios, HE 5.21.4) relates that the 
martyr Apollonios gave “the most rational apol- 
ogy” before the senate. The apology of Justin 
Martyr (2nd C.) is the first example preserved of 
this genre. The earliest apologies were directed 
against the misconceptions of Christianity held by 
pagans and Jews. As Christianity gathered mo- 
mentum, the apology acquired the character of 
POLEMIC rather than defense: ATHANASIOS of Al- 
exandria used this title for the defense of his 
escape, for his apology addressed to Emp. Con- 
stantius II, and for his Apologetikos against the 
Arians. The conventional term “apologists” has 
been introduced by scholars to designate Chris- 
tian writers of the znd—5th C. who both defended 
Christianity and refuted pagan or Jewish views. 
After the final victory of Christianity the term was 
rarely used: ANASTASIOS OF SINAI wrote a Tomos 


apologetihos. As late as the 15th C., however, An- 
drew Chrysoberges addressed an apology to Bes- 
sarion dedicated to the Palamite question (Beck, 
Kirche 743). 

In a secular sense apology referred to a literary 
genre of self-defense (e.g., ARETHAS OF CAESAREA 
wrote an apology to explain his political position), 
a judicial defense (Ectoca 17.3, ed. Burgmann 
p-226.777), or—in the field of diplomacy—a re- 


buttal of importunate claims (De adm. imp. 13.21). 
-A.K., E.M.J. 





APOLYSIS. See DISMISSAL. 


APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM (“Sayings of the 
Fathers), the anecdotes and maxims sor the Egyp- 





alp zed by speaker’s name) 
compiled in the 5th or 6th C., perhaps by ad- 
mirers of a certain Poimen who is disproportion- 
ately well represented. This collection is supple- 
mented by a group of 400 anonymous sayings. 
They are written in simple language and offer 
practical advice on problems faced by cenobitic 
Some sayings inculcate ex 
d reflect an antipathy towar 
women, while others are i 
on-sense attitude toward t 
anchorite. They may be view 
Christian rivals to the ma 
¿dims of pagan thinkers, whil 
i sciously providing one of the most fascin 
ing $ sources of social and intellectual life in the 
late Roman period. Latin translations survive of 
four different collections, along with Arabic, Cop- 
tic, Syriac, Armenian, and Church Slavonic ver- 
sions. 

On the basis of two miniatures in the SACRA 
PARALLELA, K. Weitzmann suggested that some 
MSS of the Apophthegmata were richly illustrated 
(Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela 250, 262). 




















































» 65:71—440. Eng. tr. 
ings of the Desert Fathers: The 
fork 1980). Anonymous—ed. 
‘Histoires des solitaires Égyptiens,” ROC 12 (1907) 
13; 13 (1908) 47-66, 266-97; 
y82) 204-11, 294-301; 18 (19 
. B. Ward, The Wisdom of the De 
atrum from the Anonymous Series (Q 


ED. Alphabetic collection—PC 
Ward, The Desert Christian. 
Alphabetical Collection oe w 
F. Nau, ‘ 




















| 439 









Lit. J.C. Guy, Recherches sur ia om grecque des 
Apophthegmata Patrum (Brussels 1962). L. Regnault, Les pères 
du désert à travers leurs apophtegmes (Sablé-sur-Sarthe 1987). 

~B.B., AVC. 





APOROS (dzopos, “without means”), term with 
several related meanings a all derived from the 
general meaning “lacking sufficient resources”; 
the Farmer’s Law (par.14) mentions aporoi farm- 
ers, incapable of working all their land, who con- 
tract with another party to cultivate a portion of 
it. As an economic term, aporoi normally desig- 
nates the destitute, such as a widow left impov- 
erished by her husband’s death (Ecloga 2:7), and 
can serve to distinguish them from the working 
poor (Zepos, Jus 1:216.17). The term also denotes 
individuals unable to fulfill some legal or social 
obligation; here it does not refer s 
poverty, although it still normally encomp 
economically marginal elements of the pop 
tion. An aporos thief is one who cannot pre 
the legally mandated twofold restitution of sto 
property (Ecloga 17:11), an aporos ei 
unable to provide reimbursement 
(Ecloga 8:2). The De ceremoniis (De 
trasts poor soldiers who can still me 
gations for military service with exapore 
sources, Gporos is applied tc to: 
ited, or uncultivated land 
, NOS. 7, 5.10, 14) or (2) indi- 
to cultivate (Lavra 2, nogi 
In this context, aperes may 
who for some reason are 





Spec LoCaly 
) 

















g 





ransom 
1) con- 











eir obti- 

































LIT. Litavrin, VizObséestvo 117f, 215. R. Morris, “The 
Powerful and the Poor in Tenth-Century Byzantium,” Past 
and Present 73 (1976) 3—27. -A.J.C. 


APOSTLES (&rmósrtoàos, lit. * 
plied primarily to the 12 disci; 
synoptic Gospels and Acts of the 
list the apostles with sli 


difficulties for theologi: 









in Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels. 
always at the head of the Twelve; he i: 
by ANDREW, JAMES, or JOHN; then in all lists ; 
; F EW, THOMAS, T the 
es, son of Alpheus; Thad- 
anite, Simon the Zealot, and 
es, do not occur in all lists; 









































ES, MICHAEL 






t is Jupas Iscariot who, aft 
replaced by Matthias. Pau 
stle, although usually distir 
Twelve. The title was extend 
zes (esp. the Seventy Teachers, 
‘the Twelve), to THEKLA, and to 
CONSTANTINE I THE Great; the term was further 
applied to priests, bishops, and esp. to the pope, 
the holder of the “apostolic see.” 

Tradition stressed the humble origin and lowly 
professions of the Twelve: Chrysostom calculates 
that four were fishe 1 and two, tax collectors, 
and emphasizes that their leader was illiterate (PG 
57:381.7~12). Nevertheless, they were “trumpets 
of the Spirit” (Tarasios, PG 98:1437B), prophets, 
and performers of miracles. They were held to 
be administrators of the church, legislators who 
created the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS, the au 

of s ural writings, and itinerant teac 
2. The Byz. compiled vario 
ll apostles (attributed to E 
s, and Hippolytos), but B 
graphical, and homuiletic te 
vidual apostles, rather th 
less, SYMEON METAPHRAST 
poem in dodecasyllables 
LAS OF METHONE produced a 
treatise on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in 
the apostles: and Pur, EOS KOKKINOS wrote an 
enkomion on the Twelve, as did Makarios CHOUM- 
Nos and GENNADIOS [I Scoo_artos. A number of 
important churches were dedicated to the Holy 
Apostles, such as those in Constantinople and 
Thessalonike. 

Representation in Ar t . Toga-clad, sandaled, and 
shown at first as be ess youths, the apostles 
were slowly individualized: Peter and Paul by the 
4th C.; Andrew, Philip, John, and Thomas by the 
mid-6th C.; the others later and less consistently. 
The apostles initially acclaim Christ or his Cross 
(Sarigtizel sarcophagus [Volbach, Early Christian 
Art, pl. 75]; dome mosaics in RAVENNA) or are the 
witnesses obligatory in Late Antique images of 
theophany——observing Christs miracles or wit- 
nessing while participating (TRANSFIGURATION, 
ASCENSION), As the original community of the 
faithful, the 12 apostles symbolize the church. 
Thus APPEARANCES OF CHRIST AFTER THE PASSION 
are represented with 12, rather than the canonical 
11, disciples to indicate each scene’s importance 
in the history of the church; the symbolic com- 
position of the Communion of the Apostles (see 


Sh z 
e OG 


the successors ¢ 













> 






































































































am 
















ws the church’s foundation in 
1 episodes involving Christ and 
up—DORMITION, PENTECOST, 
opt formalized compositions 
i i church-historical significance. 
Scenes from the individual lives of the apostles 
are rare and, except for ie three surviving ACTS 




















that sometimes include v igne 
(see HoLy APOSTLES, CHU 
S. Marco in VENICE); im 
accompany Psalms 19 and 
PSALTERS. 


uT. BHG 150—160p. A. Medebielle, 
88. Beck, Kirche 57}, Sr 
























aris oa fae 200. 
~J.L, AK. A.W.C, 


CHAEL, teacher, writer, and 
orn Constantinople? ca.1420, 
4 or 1486. After studying in 
John ARGYROPOULOS, Apos- 
‘AmroaToatos) taught briefly at at 
XENON OF THE KRAL, located 
ry. When Constantinople fi 


































to the Turks, he was taken apea after his 
release, he went to Crete, where he nt most of 
his remaining years teaching privaie pupils. He 
failed to achieve financial backi | up his 
own school in Italy, and com juently 
of his straitened circumstances. He w: Unitate 
and made frequent visits to humanist circ 


Italy. BESSARION commissioned Apostoles 
out old Greek MSS for his library or, wh 
essary, to make copies; he is known to have : 
{at least in part) about 115 MSS for Bessarion and 
others (partial list: C.G. Pediacles EpMesArch 8— 
g [1958-59] 69f). Apostoles made an important 
collection of proverbs (ed. Leutsch-Schneidewin, 
Corpus 2:233~-744) and maintained an extensive 
correspondence. His literary oeuvre also includes 
treatises in defense of PLato (J.E. Powell, BZ 38 
[1938] 71—86), an essay on the proper method of 
teaching Greek to Italians, and rhetorical pieces. 
His Oration on Greece and Europe, written after 
1453, asserts the cultural superiority of the Greeks 
over Westerners; at the same time he } PIM ee 
that the Byz. era is at an end, while Italy is at the 
beginning of a new age (D.J. Geanakoplos, GRBS 
1 [1958] 157-62). 











ep. Letters—E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique 2 (Paris 
1885; rp. 1862) 233—59. Letires inédites de Michel Apostolis, 
ed. H. Noiret (Paris 1889). For list of works, see Tusculum- 
Lexikon 6g. 

LIT. D. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice (Cambridge 
1962) 73-110. Beck, Kirche 770f. PLP, no.1201. A.F. van 
Gemert, “O Michael Apostoles os daskalos ton ellenikon,” 
Hellenika 37 (1986) 141-45. A. Frangedaki, “On fifteenth- 
century Cryptochristianity: a letter to George Amoiroutzes 
from Michael Apostolis,’ BMGS g (1984/85) 221-24. 

—A.M.T. 


APOSTOLIC CANONS (Kavoves trav Aro- 
aorddwy), a collection of 85 ecclesiastical law CAN- 
ons, allegedly written by the Apostles; they form 
an appendix (8.47) to the ApostoLic CONSTITU- 
TIONS. The regulations, which are generally very 
short and in no particular sequence, concern mainly 
the qualifications and duties of clerics and occa- 
sionally the conduct of laymen; they contain mostly 
threats of punishment. In the 85th canon, the 
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments 
are enumerated with certain peculiarities, such as 
the omission of the Apocalypse of John and men- 
tion of the Apostolic Constitutions. The sources of 
the collection are the Apostolic Constitutions and the 
canons issued in the 4th C., esp. those of the 
councils of GANGRA, ANTIOCH (341), and Laodi- 
keia of Phrygia. The author, given in the 85th 
canon as Clement (I of Rome), is not necessarily 
identical with the compiler of the Apostolic Consti- 
tutions but must have been likewise active in the 
last quarter of the 4th C. in Antioch. The work 
was translated early on into Syriac, Arabic, and 
Ethiopic; ca.50o it was partially rendered in Latin 
{only the first 50 canons) by Dionysius Exicuus. 
Its authenticity (disputed by the Decretum Gela- 
Slanum) was expressly recognized in 691 by the 
Council in TRULLO (canon 2); from then on, the 
Apostolic Canons stood at the head of all canon 
collections. In the 12th C. they were the subject 
of commentaries by Alexios ArisTENos, John 
Zonaras, and Theodore BaLsAMON. 





ED. P.-P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique (IVe—IXe s.) 
1.2 (Grottaferrata 1962) 1-53. 

uit. E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 5 (Berlin 1963) 
214-26. C.H. Turner, “Notes on the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions, H: The Apostolic Canons,” JTASt 16 (1914—15) 523- 
38. ~AS. 


APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (Atatayai rev 
&yiaw “Amogrékev Sa Kdyyevtos), a collection 
of ecclesiastical law and liturgical matters, divided 
into eight books. Books 1—6 represent an ex- 





APOTHEOSIS 141 





panded version of the Didaskalia, an ecclesiastical 
rite that originated in Syria in the grd C. and was 
esp. concerned with penitential discipline. The 
first part of book 7 (chs. 1—32) contains an ex- 
panded version of the Didache, a work of cate- 
chetical and liturgical content composed in the 
2nd C. in Syria; the second part (chs. 33—49) is 
composed of prayer formulas (among them the 
Great DoxoLocy) and baptismal instructions. The 
main source for book 8 (chs. 3—45) is the Apostolic 
Tradition of Hippolytus, a 3rd-C. ecclesiastical rite 
valuable for its exact description of the early lit- 
urgy (the so-called “Clement Liturgy”). The Ar- 
OsTOLic CANoNns are attached to the work as an 
appendix. The compiler, ostensibly authorized by 
the Apostles, was possibly an Arian (according to 
Hagedorn, infra, an otherwise unknown Julian) 
active in Antioch during the last quarter of the 
4th C. The Council in TruLLo of 691 (canon 2) 
condemned the work (with the exception of its 
appendix) as a heretical forgery. Nevertheless, it 
was often copied, although rarely in full. Only 
short excerpts entered the collections of CANON 
LAW. 

ED. M. Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3 vols. (Paris 
1985-87). Eng. tr. The Apostolic Constitutions, ed. J. Donald- 
son [Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 17.2] (Edinburgh 1870). 

Lit. F.X. Funk, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rotten- 
burg 1891; rp. Frankfurt am Main 1970). D. Hagedorn, 


Der Hiobkemmentar des Arianers Julian (Berlm—New York 
1973) xxxvii-lvii. ~AS. 


APOSTOLOS. See PRAXAPOSTOLOS. 


APOTHEOSIS (dzo@éwots). Deification of a 
mortal (a hero or ruler) was an idea broadly 
spread in the Hellenistic world (ALEXANDER THE 
GREAT was granted apotheosis) and came to be 
accepted, under the Latin term consecratio, by Ro- 
man emperors—first as a posthumous ceremony, 
later during their lifetime. Ii was accompanied by 
endowing the emperor with the title divus (divine) 
and developing a system of signs symbolizing his 
ascent to heaven—FAGLE, pyre, chariot. The con- 
cept of deification reached its acme under Diocle- 
tian, whose epithet, Jovius, indicated his direct 
connections with Jupiter; it was retained by Con- 
stantine I the Great and his successors, down to 
Theodosios I, who received the consecratio from 
the pagan senate. Some changes were introduced 
under Christian inflUuence—the cremation rite was 
abolished, and the symbol of the regenerating 


142 APPANAGE 


PHOENIX disappeared; Constantine’s coins minted 
for his consecratio represented only the chariot and 
the hand stretched from the cloud in expectation 
of the divus. This tradition was alien to Christian- 
ity, however, and by ca.400 it fell into disuse, 
leaving only some remnants in court terminology 
(Treitinger, Kaiseridee 155~57). 

The term apotheosis appears in Nestorian polem- 
ics: Nestorios accused his opponents of the con- 
cept of the apotheosis of Christ’s human nature 
(F. Loos, Nestoriana [Halle 1905] 167.1-2, 274.12- 
14), whereas he preferred to use the term “con- 
junction” (synapheia). Metaphorically, apotheosis 
could designate the mystical ascent to God. The 
image of the risen Christ, borne aloft by angels 
at his Ascension, depends upon Late Antique 
images of apotheosis. 

LIT. L. Koep (A. Hermann), RAC 3:276-—94. A. Kaniuth, 


Die Beisetzung Konstantins des Grossen (Breslau 1941). 
—A.K., A.C. 


APPANAGE, a conventional term borrowed from 
the vocabulary of western European FEUDALISM 
and appearing in Byz. historiography with two 
meanings. 

1. In the narrow sense, appanage designates a 
nearly independent territory granted by the em- 
peror to a member of the imperial family, usually 
a younger son, to secure the grantee a source of 
livelihood or to insure a political and administra- 
tive connection between the provincial territory 
and the capital. The grantee characteristically 
maintained his own court, army, fiscal and judicial 
systems, and often conducted an independent for- 
eign policy. His income was derived from the 
exercise of administrative rights over the territory 
and from land he held within the territory, though 
the grant of the appanage itself did not implicitly 
include the right of hereditary transmission. While 
the practice of granting substantial estates to im- 
perial relatives was effected as early as the reign 
of Alexios I, the idea of an actual administrative 
partitioning of the empire between princes of the 
ruling dynasty was first entertained during the 
reign of Michael VIII. The civil wars of the 14th 
C. spurred the creation of appanages. From the 
mid-14th C., at one time or another, almost every 
younger son of an emperor held an appanage 
and most of the areas remaining in the empire 
were held as appanages: Thrace, Thessalonike 





with Macedonia, Thessaly and, most importantly, 
the Morea. 

2. In the broad sense, appanage is conceived as 
any imperial grant, revocable at the will of the 
emperor, of an important region Or DEMESNE jn 
hereditary title to an individual or institution, 
Ahrweiler (Structures, pt.1 [1964], 112-14) con. 
trasts appanages as held by members of the im- 
perial family, by ecclesiastical institutions, and by 
wealthy laymen with the military PRONOIA, 

Lit. Lj. Maksimović, “Geneza i karakter apanaža u Vi- 
zanuji,” ZRVI 14-15 (1973) 103-54. J-W. Barker, “The 
Problem of Appanages in Byzantium during the Palaiolo- 
gan Period,” Byzantina 3 (1971) 103-22. -M.B. 


APPEAL (éxkAnros). The institution of appeal to 
a higher court existed in Roman civil and criminal 
procedure and acquired a coherent character 
through the reforms of Diocletian and Constan- 
tine I the Great. If the defendant was not satisfied 
with the judgment, he could appeal to the em- 
peror or to judges vested with imperial authority; 
in the late Roman Empire these were governors 
and PRAETORIAN PREFECTS, the latter’s judgment 
being final. Later, the EPARCH and the DROUNGA- 
RIOS TES VIGLAS served as appellate judges. The 
notion that their decisions were unappealable was 
rejected in Byz. (Simon, Rechtsfindung 20). The 
patriarch also had the right to consider appeals 
against lower courts. Besides a formal appeal, a 
petition for the emperor’s clemency was permit- 
ted; it had to be addressed to the office of the EPI 
TON DEESEON. 

ur. Buckland, Roman Law 670. Zacharia, Geschichte 356- 


58. D. Simon, “Byzantinische Provinzialjustiz,” BZ 79 (1986) 
340-42. ~A.K. 


APPEARANCES OF CHRIST AFTER THE 
PASSION are variously reported in the Gospels, 
there being 11 different episodes in all. In pre- 
Iconoclastic art, only the Doubting of THomas (Jn 
20:24—29) and the Chairete (Christ's meeting with 
two MYRROPHORO!) were represented. In the for- 
mer scene, Christ stands centrally, framed by the 
door and flanked by 12 (not 11) disciples, includ- 
ing Thomas, who touches Christ’s side (RAVENNA, 
Sant’Apollinare Nuovo). The Chairete scene cor- 
responds best with Matthew 28:9, though some- 
times one of the women is labeled Christ’s mother, 
in accord with hymns of ROMANOS THE MELODE 


that hail the Virgin Mary as the first to see the 
risen Christ. The art of the gth—12th C. continued 
to emphasize these events, the Doubting of Thomas 
often being added to cycles of the GREAT FEASTS. 
In addition, a formal composition of Christ’s Mis- 
SION TO THE APOSTLES was introduced (Tokalı 
Kilise, GÖREME), the 12 Apostles displacing the 
canonical 11 disciples (Mk 16:15-18) to indicate 
the scene’s symbolic significance as Christ’s mis- 
sion to his Church. Only extensive cycles (FRIEZE 
GOSPELS, MONREALE) represent MARY MAGDALENE 
in the garden (Jn 20:14-17) and the episodes at 
Emmaus (Lk 24:13-32), Tiberias (Jn 21:1-14), 
or in the closed room (Jn 20:19-23). Fourteenth- 
century fresco programs in Serbia regularly in- 
clude post-Passion cycles, though they vary in the 
selection of scenes (STARO NAGORIGINO, GRAČAN- 
ICA). 


ur. Colwell-Willoughby, Karahissar 2:415-33. K. Wes- 
sel, RBK 2:971-88. -A.WC. 


APPRENTICE (ya6y77}s). Apprentices are men- 
tioned in the 1oth-C. Book of the Eparch only once— 
the candlemakers were ordered not to send their 
slaves or mathetai to sell their wares in unauthor- 
ized places. M. Sjuzjumov (VizVrem 4 [1951] 29) 
surmised that there was no difference between an 
apprentice and a MISTHIOS. The 1oth-C. vita of 
Elias of Heliopolis (ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kera- 
meus, PPS6 19.3 [1907] 45-48) gives more detail 
about apprenticeship: Elias was 12 years old when 
he was apprenticed to a carpenter; he worked in 
the ergasterion but also waited upon his master 
and was paid a salary (ekmisthoma). 

Several contracts of apprenticeship, called di- 
daskalikai, are preserved in Egyptian papyri. The 
number of late Roman didaskalikai is very limited 
and their content is vague. I. Fikhman (Egipet 80) 
explains the infrequency of late contracts by the 
increasing role of the hereditary artisan who was 
trained at home. Vat. gr. 952 preserves several 
contracts of apprenticeship for 14th-C. Constan- 
tinople. A furrier, a shoemaker, and a smith ap- 
pear as masters in these contracts; the term of 
apprenticeship is 5—10 years, and the master usu- 
ally is obliged to feed and clothe the apprentice 
and to give him (at the end of the training pe- 
riod?) a sum of 5—10 nomismata (G. Ferrari dalle 
Spade, SBN 4 [1935] 264-66). From these con- 
tracts one should distinguish contracts of service, 








APRENOS 143 


some of which, written in Latin, were concluded 
between Italian masters and Greek journeymen 
(e.g., M. Balard, Gênes et l’Outre-Mer, vol. 1 [Paris— 
The Hague 1973] no.741; G. Balbi, S. Raiteri, 
Notai genovesi in oltremare [Genoa 1973] no.68) for 
the term of 1—10 years. 

uit. J. Herrmann, “Vertragsinhalt und Rechtsnatur der 


didaskalikat,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 11-12 (1957758) 
119~39. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires 79f. -A.K 


APRATOS (ğrpa(x)ros, lit. “idle”), term that in 
the TAKTIKA designated a certain kind of digni- 
tary. In the late Roman Empire there were func- 
tionaries who received the cingulum, girdle, as the 
symbol of their duty, but fulfilled no function; 
they were called vacantes (R. Guilland, EEBS 37 
[1969—70] 136-38). The vacantes should be distin- 
guished from the honorati, retired dignitaries. The 
system seems to have been preserved in the gth 
C., but it was confused. The first use of the term 
apratos is in a gth-C. chronicler (Theoph. 375-6) 
who says that Justinian H ordered the empraktoi 
and apratoi to be slaughtered; the meaning of the 
words here is unclear. The mid-gth-C. Taktikon of 
Uspenskij speaks not only of apratei spatharioi, but 
also of tourmarchai and topoteretai (Oikonomides, 
Listes 59.12—14), that is, of officers who had func- 
tions but probably no title. In the Kletorologion of 
PHILOTHEOS apratoi are listed among the titularies 
of lower rank, such as STRATORS OF MANDATORS. 


LIT. Guilland, Institutions 1:155~61. -A.K 


APRENOS (Arpnvós), a family probably origi- 
nating from Apros. The Aprenoi are described 
by Pachymeres as one of the greatest families of 
the mid-13th C., although nothing is known of 
their existence in the previous century. They in- 
termarried with the TARCHANEIOTES and Doukas 
families and sometimes bore the name of Aprenos 
Doukas. Andronikos Apicuus Duukas was proiv- 
strator ca.1266; the protovestiarites Aprenos fell in 
battle against IvajLo in 1280. Manuel Aprenos 
Doukas, ozkeios of the emperor, is mentioned in a 
charter of 1293; he was apparently a wealthy 
landowner in the Smyrna region. The family still 
existed in the early 15th C. when John Aprenos, 
a high functionary in Thessalonike, signed a char- 
ter confirming the privileges of the ESPHIGMENOU 
MONASTERY (14097). 


LIT. Polemis, Doukai 102f. PLP, nos. 1206-11. —A.K. 











sz 











144 | APS 


























Ds 
= 





PSE Conpis, lit. “arch, vault”), a semicylindrical 
space vaulted with a CONCH, or quarter-sphere 
rokopios, Buildings 1.1.32); it may terminate the 
axis of a longitudinal space, normally at its east 
end. Its entrance is marked by a large arch, com- 
monly referred to as a “triumphal arch.” Apses 
of episcopal churches housed a SYNTHRONON and 
a CATHEDRA for the seating of clergy and bishop. 
The exterior may be semicircular, polygonal, or 
immured in the east wall of the structure, while 
the interior face is usually semicircular. Such dis- 
parities are no less true of subsidiary apses, when 
present, in the PASTOPHORIA. 

















a 
"g 


ut, C. Delvoye, “Etudes d'architecture paléochrétienne 
et byzantine. I. L'abside,” Byzantion 32 (1962) 291-310. 
Idem, RBK 1:246—68. —M]. 





APSEUDES, THEODORE, painter who worked 
at the Enkleistra of Neoruyros ENKLEISTOS on 
Cyprus. An inscription in the saint’s cell provides 
the artists name (A s) and the date of the 
decoration, 1182/3. The one typikon confirms 
this date for the fresco of the Deesis in Neophy- 
tos’s cell that includes the saint’s likeness. Mango 
and Hawkins suggested that the saint's protector, 
Basil Kinnamos, bishop of Paphos, brought 
us, where he painted the A 
rescoes in Neophytos’s tom 

those in the bema of t 
s’ attenuated, serpentine fi 
agitated drapery and inten 
so at Lacoupera. D. Winfie 
s Lagoudera [Nicosia, n.d.] 1 
7 Theodore named in an inscri 
tion there was cihe same Apseudes. 

uit. C. Mango, E.J.W. Hawkins, ‘ ‘The Hermitage of St. 
Neophytos and its Wall Paintings,” DOP 20 (1966) 183, 
193-97, 205f. ~AC. 








































APULIA (‘AzovaAia), southeastern part of Italy 
from the region of Monte Gargano down to Terra 
d’Otranto, separated from Lucania by the Bra- 
dano River. Apulia npassed such cities as 

NTO, TARANTO, Lecce, Trani, 
and Gallipoli. The area was plundered during the 
Gothic wars of Justinian I; subsequently the Lom- 
Imost all of Apulia and an- 
ibard duchy of BENEVENTO. 
s contested among the L 
abs; in the 830s and 840s t 



















Arabs occupied Brindisi, Bari, and Taranto and 
established several other settlements in the region, 
In the second half of the gth C. the Carolingian 
king Louis II was unsuccessful in his war ag 
the Arabs, but the Byz. emperor Basil I m; 
to reconquer Apulia; Byz. maintained a hold— 
though never total hegemony—on the region un- 
ul the beginning of the 11th C. 

The relative prosperity of urban communes, 
the large number of smallholders, and the devel- 
opment of wheat and oil production for the mar- 
ket provided the material resources for the Apu- 
lians’ struggle for independence (11th-C. revolts 
of Melo and later of his son Arncyros). The Nor- 
MAN invasion, however, complicated the situation, 
In 1047 the German emperor Henry HI recog- 
nized the Normans and granted their le ade: rt 
title of dux, prompting an anti-Norman a 
of the papacy and Constanti: 2 T 
feat at Civitate in 1053 and the conflict 
the churches of Rome and Constantinople were 
followed by a restructuring of fo around Apu- 
lia. The reconciliation of Pope ! las LE (rong 
61) with Robert Guiscard exp d the No: 
conquest of Apulia, accomplishe d by 1071. 

Byz. had little impact on Apulian society. Town 
administration was in the hands of the Lombard 
smbard personal names out- 
even in coastal cities (Wick- 
lia was an important center 
n in the 13th C.; so-called 
RE was produced there and 
reece and the Levant. 
































































> in 
church of S. en outside Canotia, related in 
design to contemporary Byz. churches and to $- 
Lorenzo in Milan, and gth-C. vault mosaics in $. 
Maria della Croce at Cas 
ciform chapel like the | 
Galla pecs in RAVENNA. l i 




















have been cast up from a 

while being transported fn 

Constantinople (U. Pesch lowi in Studien I 
1:21—33). 

Like these early remains, the most important 

re in the coastal cities where the 

They include S. Pietro at 

hitecturally similar $. Maria 

). The 1ith-C. cathedral at 










































Canosa (S. Sabino) is a T-shaped building with 
five domes, possibly inspired by S. Marco in VEN- 
ice and ultimately by the Hoty AposTLes Church 
in Constantinople. In Bari, medieval sources speak 
of a palacium or curte of the KATEPANO; the argu- 
ments of Schettini (infra) that large parts of this 
building survive in the Norman church of S. Ni- 
cola have been generally rejected. 

The most distinctive Byz. monuments of Apulia 
and Basilicata are the rock-cut churches and set- 
tlements usually inhabited by Basilian monks. The 
caves were mostly used in the 10th—igth C. and, 
as in Cappadocia, the churches were extensively 
painted. The oldest dated paintings are in the 
crypt of SS. Cristina e Marina at CARPIGNANO 
SALENTINO, while the most completely preserved 
decoration is in the grotto of S. Biagio at San Vito 
dei Normanni, west of Brindisi; these paintings 
contain a Greek inscription of 1196. 

LIT. Storia della Puglia, ed. G. Musca, vol. 1 (Bari 1979). 
La Puglia fra Bisanzio e l'Occidente (Milan 1980). P. De Leo, 
LMA 1:820—22. M. Cagiano de Azvedo, “Puglia e Adriatico 
in eta tardoantica,” VeiChr 13 (1976) 129-36. F.M. de 
Robertis, “Prosperita e banditismo nella Puglia e nell'Italia 
Meridionale durante il Basso Impero,” in Studi di storta 
pugliese in onore de G. Chiarelli, vol. 1 (Galatina 1972) 197- 
231. R. Farioli Campanati in 7 Bizantini in Itala, ed. G. 
Cavallo et al. (Milan 1982) 213-94. H. Belting, “Byzantine 
Art among Greeks and Latins in Southern Haly,” DOP 28 
(1974) 1—29. —A.K., R.B.H., D.K. 


AQUEDUCT (éxerés, vipaywyds), essential ele- 
ment of a large city, bringing water for baths, 
nymphaea, and public use. Aqueducts often 
reached far into the countryside and consisted 
largely of underground pipes or open cuttings, 
designed so that the water dropped gradually at 
an angle of less than 1 percent from the source. 
When valleys or swamps had to be crossed, aq- 
ueducts were supported on masonry arches, which 
are the most visible remains but rarely comprised 
10 percent of the total length. Rome was supplied 
by 19 aqueducts; 32 km out of 428 rested on 
arches. Fourteen still functioned when cut by the 
Goths in 537. Constantinople originally drew its 
main water supply from Halkalı, about 15 km 
northwest of the city, through an aqueduct built 
by Hadrian but universally known by the name 
of its restorer Valens. The arches, which carried 
it a distance of g70 m between the third and 
fourth hills, still stand and show much Byz. work. 
In the late 4th C., a network of aqueducts was 





AQUILEIA | 145 











constructed over 100 km west of Constantinople 
to satisfy the needs of the growing population. 
Their exposed location, however, obliged the city 
to depend also on vast cisterns (see under Con- 
STANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF). Aqueducts were 
esp. vulnerable to attack: that of Valens, cut by 
the Avars in 626, was only rebuilt in 758; it was 
restored on several occasions through the 12th C. 
Large provincial towns were also supplied by aq- 
ueducts (H. Hellenkemper, F. Hild, Neue For- 
schungen in Kilikien [Vienna 1986] 123-29). Most 
were destroyed during the troubles of the 7th C., 
after which cisterns became the main source of 
water for their reduced populations. 





ur. K. Dalman, Der Valens-Aqudédukt in Konstantinopel 
(Bamberg 1933) 1-49. C. Mango, Le développement urbain 
de Constantinople (Paris 1985) 20, 40—42. A. Abramea, “ *Hy- 
dragogos kai architekton ton hydaton.’ Apo anekdote Athe- 
naike epigraphe,” Byzantina 13.2 (1985) 1093—99. $. Fro- 
riep, “Ein Wasserweg in Bithynien,” Antike Welt 17, 2. 
Sondernummer (1986) 39—50. -C.F. 


AQUILEIA (Axvania), naval and commercial city; 
capital of the province of Venetia et Istria in the 
4th—5th C. and a center of communications be- 
tween East and West. It served as a residence of 
Diocletian, Maximian, and Constantine I; Con- 
stantine’s sumptuous palace there is described in 
a panegyric (Panegyrict latini 6.6). Aquileia played 
a major role in the rivalries of 4th-C. emperors 
(e.g., Theodosios I defeated the usurpers Maxi- 
mus and Eucenius near there). The city had a 
cosmopolitan population, saw extensive secular 
and ecclesiastical construction, and was described 
by Ausonius as the fourth city of Italy (MGH 
AuctAnt 5.2:100.65). A council condemning ARI- 
ANISM, presided over by St. Ambrose, was held 
there in 381; its bishops became increasingly pow- 
erful, exercising metropolitan jurisdiction over 
most of Venetia by 442. The bishops of Aquileia 
cultivated the tradition that St. Mark had evan- 
gelized the area as the basis of their claims to 
metropolitan jurisdiction in North Italy and to 
the title of patriarch (ranking with Rome, Alex- 
andria, and other apostolic foundations), which 
they assumed sometime between the 5th and 7th 
C. The bishops opposed Justinian’s policy in the 
THREE CHAPTERS affair from ca.553. 

As a strategic center close to the frontier of 
Italy Aquileia was subject to invasion: it was oc- 
cupied by ALaric in 401 and 408 and was sacked 


146 | AQUINAS, THOMAS 


by ATTILA in 452. Its subsequent decline may, 
however, owe more to other factors, such as hy- 
drographic changes and the breakdown of trade 
links with the areas north of the Alps than to 
barbarian attacks. After Aquileia was occupied by 
the Lombard king ALBOIN in 568, its patriarch, 
Paulinus I, transferred his see to GRADO. 

Monuments of Aquileia. In the grd—6th C. 
Aquileia was an influential center of the craft of 
FLOOR MOSAIC. Most important are the pavements 
of the double cathedral, dated by inscriptions of 
Bp. Theodore (308-19). These include donor 
portraits, incidental motifs (wildlife, busts of sea- 
sons) with possible allegorical significance, and a 
large marine scene with the story of Jonan. In 
the gth? and 11th C. the south hall of the cathe- 
dral was rebuilt. Its crypt was painted around 
1200 by a master or masters with access to the 
same cartoons used by mosaic workshops in VEN- 
ICE and TRIESTE. 

uit. S. Tavano, Aquileia Cristiana (Udine 1973). Idem, 
Aquileia e Grado (Trieste 1986). Aquileia e l'Oriente mediter- 
raneo (Udine i977). Aquileia nel IV secolo (Udine 1982). 
Krautheimer, ECBArch 43-45, 179. G.C. Menis, I mosaici 
cristiani di Aquileia (Udine 1965). D. Gioseffi et al., Aquileia: 
Gli affreschi nella cripta della Basilica (Udine 1976). J. Kugler, 
“Byzantinisches und Westliches in den Kryptafresken von 


Aquileia,” Wiener Jahrbuch fir Kunstgeschichte 26 (1979) 
7—31. —T.S.B., D.K. 


AQUINAS, THOMAS, master of theology in the 
Jominican Order; born Roccasecca, Italy, 1224, 
died Fossanova, Italy, 1274. Aquinas’s form of 
SCHOLASTICISM, later known as Thomism, used 
the philosophical methods and principles of Ar- 
istotelian metaphysics, which he studied in Latin 
translation. His major theological works, the Summa 
contra gentiles and Summa theologiae, became known 
in Byz. through the many Dominicans residing 
in the East and esp. through the efforts of the 
Kydones brothers. Demetrios KyDonés translated 
the Summa contra gentiles in 1354, and both he and 
his brother Prochoros translated parts of the Summa 
theologiae before 1363. Demetrios also wrote a 
Defense of Thomas Aquinas (unpub.; Podskalsky, 
infra 195-204), which supports his authority as a 
saint and theologian whose syllogisms and meth- 
ods could be used with validity in Byz. theological 
discussions. Prochoros used Thomist arguments 
in his anti-Palamite treatises, for example, On 
Essence and Energy (PG 151:1192—1241). 

The theologian Neilos Kasasizas resisted the 














influence of Aquinas’s works and used the trans- 
lations of the Kydones brothers in composing his 
anti-Thomist On the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 
Matthew Angelos Panaretos and Kallistos Ange- 
likoudes also wrote polemical treatises against 
Aquinas’s theology in the late 14th C. In the 15th 
C. Thomism found a new supporter in Patr. GEN- 
NADIOS II ScHoLarios, who translated and com- 
mented upon parts of the Summa theologiae. 

tir. H.G. Beck, “Der Kampf um den thomistischen 
Theologiebegriff in Byzanz,” Divus Thomas 13 (Freiburg 
1935) 3-22. F. Kianka, “Demetrius Cydones and Thomas 
Aquinas,” Byzantion 52 (1g82) 264—86. St. G. Papadopulos, 
Hellenikai metaphrasets thomistikon ergon (Athens 1967). Pod- 
skalsky, Theologie, esp. 207, 216, 221f, 225. —F.K, 


ARAB GEOGRAPHERS. Early Arab geogra- 
phers were mainly astronomers, administrative 
officials, or philologists; others were systematic 
geographer-cartographers, travelers, antholo- 
gists, or encyclopedists; many were polymaths. 
They provide valuable information on Byz.-Arab 
relations; on the Thughir (see ‘AwASIM AND 
THUGHOR); and occasionally on internal Byz. mil- 
itary, administrative, economic, and cultural af- 
fairs. Their most original information concerning 
the THEMES and other administrative and strategic 
matters derives from official documents and ac- 
counts of returned prisoners and travelers. IBN 
KHURDADBEH, QuDAMa, and al-Mas‘UpI preserve 
parts of the valuable reports of al-JARMI, in ad- 
dition to other primary documents and oral in- 
formation. Ibn Rusta preserves the account of 
HARON IBN YAHYA, which is to be supplemented 
by al-Marwazi. The anthologist ibn al-Fakih (late 
gth C.) gives isolated details, besides his list of 
Byz. themes as preserved by YAQUT. Al-Magqpisi 
provides descriptions of Byz. naval warfare, routes 
through Asia Minor, and Byz. treatment of Mus- 
lim prisoners of war. 

Inn HawgaL, a native of the frontier and a 
systematic geographer, updates al-IsTAKHRI and 
adds much original information. Both these and 
the great cartographer al-Iprisi highlight the po- 
sition of Constantinople and Anatolian towns on 
their maps. In the 13th and 14th C. the ency- 
clopedist Yaqut, the systematic geographer ibn 
Said of Granada (13th C.), and the travelers al- 
HaRAwi, IBN JUBAYR, and IBN BaTToTa are valu- 
able sources for contemporary economic condi- 
tions and trade relations of Byz., its northern and 





western neighbors, and, in the case of ibn Battita, 
the turkification of Asia Minor. Constantinople, 
also known in Arabic as Buzantiya, “Queen of 
Cities,” Istanbtilin, and the “City of Caesar” (see 
Shboul, Al-Mas‘udi 243f), continued to fascinate 
Arab geographers and visitors. Al-Harawi and ibn 
Batttita wrote esp. vivid descriptions of the Byz. 
capital, Other Arab geographers and cosmogra- 
phers, for example, Ast at-Fipd’ and al-Di- 
mashqi (13th~14th C.), also included Constanti- 
nople and Byz. in their surveys. Krackovskij singled 
out several groups of Arab geographers: travelers 
of the gth C.; authors of the general surveys of 
the gth C. (ibn Khurdadbeh); the classical system- 
atic school of the 10th C. (al-Istakhri, ibn Hawaal, 
al-Maqdisi) whose descriptions were based on de- 
tailed maps of the Islamic world; and the ency- 
clopedists of the 13th-—14th C. (Yāqūt ibn SAb- 
dallah, ibn Battita, et al.). 

ED. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.2:3'77~-43°7. 

LIT. TJu. Kratkovskij, Izbrannye socinenija 4 (Moscow- 
Leningrad 1957). A. Miquel, La géographie humaine du monde 


musulman jusqu'au milieu du rre siècle, vol. 2 (Paris 1975) 
381-481. S. Maqbul Ahmad, EI? 2:575-87. ~A.Sh. 


ARABIA, the Arabian peninsula, homeland of 
the Arass and the Himyarites (see HIMYAR). 
Southern Arabia was famous for its riches, in 
spices, minerals, and fruits, although the rest of 
the peninsula was desolate and sparsely popu- 
lated. Cities were founded largely on the caravan 
trade, developing along the western edge of the 
desert where Christians and Jews settled. Trade 
through Arabia involved not only items from the 
south but also from Axum, INDIA, and CHINA, 
allowing a rich interplay of ideas and cultures. 
Early visitors to Arabia from Byz. included the 
writer Nonnosos, his father Abraham, and 
grandfather Euphrasios, who went on diplomatic 
missions to Kinpa in the 6th C. Byz. imperial and 
ecclesiastical influence penetrated western Arabia 
but failed to convert Mecca, where MUHAMMAD 
appeared ca.610. His mission quickly and funda- 
mentally changed the face of Arabia and its rela- 
tionship with Byz., and Arabia became the base 
of operations against Byz. In the titanic struggle 
after Muhammad died (632), the Arabs wrested 
Oriens, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa from 
Byz. After the original conquests, however, Mus- 
lim operations against Byz. were conducted not 
from Arabia but from Umayyad Damascus in 


ARABIC LITERATURE 147 








Syria, and thus Arabia practically lost its relevance 
to Byz. 

Lit. N. Pigulevskaia, Byzanz auf den Wegen nach Indien 
(Berlin 1969). 1.A. Shahid, “Pre-Islamic Arabia,” CHIsl 
t:3—29. J. Beaucamp, C. Robin, “Le christianisme dans le 
péninsule arabique d’après lépigraphie et l'archéologie,” 
TM 8 (1981) 45-61. ~—L.A.Sh. 


ARABIA, PROVINCE OF. From 105 onward 
Arabia was the name of a Roman province created 
in the northwestern region of the former Naba- 
taean kingdom (east of the Jordan) with its capital 
at Bosrra. In the 4th C. its southern part (NEGEV) 
was separated from Arabia and named Palaestina 
Salutaris (Palaestina II); at the same time some 
northern regions were attached to the province 
of Arabia to create a barrier against independent 
Arab tribes. Arabia accepted the ecclesiastical ju- 
risdiction of Antioch, although from the 5th C. 
onward Jerusalem tried to absorb the region into 
its sphere of authority, but failed; by 518 only its 
southern part (the bishopric of Areopolis) had 
changed its allegiance, but MapaBa remained un- 
der Bostra. During the ecclesiastical disputes of 
the 4th—6th C., the province of Arabia served as 
a place of exile for defeated churchmen, includ- 
ing the partisans of John Chrysostom. After 636 
the territory fell to the Arabs, who were newly 
converted to Islam, but much of the population 
remained Christian and church construction con- 
tinued through at least the 7th C. The Armenian 
Basil of lalimbana preserved the description by 
GEORGE OF Cyprus of the ecclesiastical hierarchy 
of the province. 








tir. R.E. Brinnow, A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia 
Arabia, 3 vols. (Strasbourg 1905—09). M. Sartre, Trois études 
sur l'Arabie romaine et byzantine (Brussels 1982). R. Aigrain, 
DHGE 3 (1924) 1169-89. S. Vailhé, “La province ecclésias- 
tique d'Arabie,” EO 2 (1898—99) 166-79. -A.K. 


ARABIC LITERATURE. In its diverse genres, 
Arabic literature provides information on Arab 
perceptions of Byz. and occasionally on Byz. in- 
ternal affairs. Pre-Islamic poetry (6th C.), the 
Qur’an, and traditions attributed to MUHAMMAD 
allude to Byz. as a powerful neighbor. 
Chronicles (8th-15th C.) need to be supple- 
mented by other writings, such as anecdotal an- 
thologies, regional histories, and biographical 
compilations (e.g., 18N AL-‘ADIM, incorporating 
early material from the frontier region). Both 





148 | ARABIC PAPYRI 


Arab historians (such as al-BALADHURI and al- 
Taspari) and ARAB GEOGRAPHERS are important. 
Works of jurisprudence (8th C. onward) and ser- 
mons from the frontier, such as those by ibn 
Nubata (died 984), provide insights into Byz.- 
Arab relations and reflect realistic attitudes (see 
Shboul [1981] infra). 

Works of adab (belles-lettres, literary antholo- 
gies, and encyclopedias)—for example, by Jahiz 
(died ca.86g), Tanūkhī (died 994), and Qalqa- 
shandi (died 1418)—contain valuable details on 
Byz.-Arab relations, including documents other- 
wise unknown. Poets, particularly those from the 
frontier such as Ast FrrAs and al-MuTANABBI, 
illuminate aspects of the conflict and provide rare 
historical details. 

Popular literature (e.g., proverbs and tales from 
the Thousand and One Nights) echo facets of the 
historical reality. In certain respects, the Arabic 
frontier cycles in prose (e.g., Dhat al-Himma) pro- 
vide parallels with the Byz. Akritic soncs and 
DIGENES AKRITAS. 

Muslim polemics against Byz.—more political 
and cultural than strictly religious—include offi- 
cial epistles sent to Constantinople in the name of 
Arab rulers (e.g., HARON AL-RASHID) and criticism 
of local Christians with allusions to Byz. (e.g., by 
the polymath Jahiz). 

At least two semiofficial manuals (now lost) were 
written on Byz. administration and culture by 
Arab ex-prisoners of war: al-JARMI (gth C.), and 
Ahwazi (10th C.), quoted by al-Birtni (died 1048). 

Unlike works of philosophy and science, few 
literary Greek works were translated into Arabic 
(see Fihrisi [infra] 2:718), while few Arabic books 
(one on dreams) were rendered into Greek. Hel- 
lenistic influences on Arabic literature, directly or 
through Syriac, may be discerned, for example, 
in historiography, geography, literary criticism, 
and romance. 

Arabic literature mirrors Arab attitudes toward 
Byz. as influenced by the vicissitudes of strategic, 
political, and cultural relations between the two 
worlds, and according to the different preoccu- 
pations of Arabic writers. In addition to the stan- 
dard narrative histories and geographies, valuable 
perceptions are contained in biographical litera- 
ture, works of jurisprudence, and other literary 
genres, including poetry and popular literature. 

A distinction should be made between the of- 
ficial level expressed in documents, the learned 


level expressed by Arab scholars and men of let- 
ters, and the popular attitudes reflected in prov- 
erbs and tales, although the three levels cannot 
be mutually exclusive. The image of Byz. in Ar- 
abic literature, like the Arab-Byz. encounter and 
Arab history itself, must not be seen as static. 
Briefly, pre-Islamic poetry reflects Byz. as a pow- 
erful, wealthy, and civilized Christian neighboring 
empire, feared and admired by the Arabs. The 
Qur’an and prophetic traditions are preoccupied 
with Byz. as a perpetual adversary. Official Arabic 
documents, however, such as letters addressed to 
Byz. emperors (e.g., Hartin to Constantine V or 
Ikhshid to Romanos I), accounts of receptions of 
Byz. envoys, as well as works of Muslim jurists, 
generally show a pragmatic understanding of the 
dictates of politics and trade. The Fatimids, who 
at first reflect an unusually intransigent attitude, 
later resorted to political expediency. 

The early image of Byz. as a civilized Christian 
neighbor, the existence in Islamic society of many 
individuals, slaves, and freedmen and women of 
Byz. background, as well as trade and travel be- 
tween the two sides, modified hostile Muslim at- 
titudes somewhat and provided real knowledge 
of Byz. culture. But concern about Byz. as the 
dangerous enemy remained paramount at all lev- 
els. In this context, Arabic literature, particularly 
at the popular level, partakes of the universal 
tendency to stereotype the adversary. Thus while 
Byz. slave girls appear lovely and industrious, the 
Byz. in general were most unattractive in Arab 
eyes. 

LIT. The Fihrist of al-Nadim, tr. B. Dodge, 2 vols. (New 
York 1970). A.F.L. Beeston et al., Arabic Literature to the 
End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge 1983). Vasiliev, Byz 
Arabes 2.2. A. Shboul, “Byzantium and the Arabs: The 
Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature,” 
in E. and M. Jeffreys, A. Moffatt, Byzantine Papers (Can- 
berra 1981} 43-68. Idem, “Arab Attitudes Toward Byzan- 
tium: Official, Learned, Popular,” in Kathegetria: Essays 
Presented to Joan Hussey (Camberley, England, 1988) 111- 
28. S. E]-Attar, “Contemplaciones iniciales sobre el tema 


bizantino en la cultura arabe,” Bizantion/Nea Hellas 8 (1985) 
209-26. Shboul, Al-Masidi 227-83. —A.Sh. 





ARABIC PAPYRI, found in the topmost levels 
of sites and rubbish dumps in Egypt from after 
641. Arabic papyri, both documents and literary 
texts, have been found since 1824; they are scat- 
tered among collections and dealers the world 
over, and no comprehensive list of them exists. 


Their texts include the Qur'an and hadith, history 
and theology, official correspondence, tax rec- 
ords, protocols, poetry, proverbs, grammar, and 
medical and scientific works. Documents of the 
Arab administration are very numerous and com- 
prise examples of every type, such as land-leases 
and sales, tax receipts, requisitions of men and 
supplies (esp. for the Arab fleet’s annual expedi- 
tion against Constantinople), orders, safe-conduct 
passes (sigilla), and financial records. One can 
trace the beginnings of the use of Arabic by the 
Christian population in private letters and even 
marriage contracts. Christian Arabic literary texts 
on papyrus include a disputation text (in Heidel- 
berg) and a polemical work (in Vienna). Papyri 
are of great importance for the history of the 
Arabic language and palaeography, for chronol- 
ogy, law, and economic history, and for every 
aspect of the institutions and culture of Egypt 
after removal from Byz. rule. Arabic papyri have 
also been found at sites outside Egypt (Damascus, 
Samarra, Israel). 

ED. A. Grohmann, Arabic Papyri in the Egyptian Library, 
6 vols. (Cairo 1934—56). C.H. Becker, Papyri Schott-Remhardt 
(Heidelberg 1906). N. Abbott, The Kurrah Papyri from 
Aphrodite in the Oriental Institute (Chicago 1938). N. Abbott, 
Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, 3 vols. (Chicago 1957-72). 

LIT. A. Grohmann, Arabische Papyruskunde (Leiden- 
Cologne 1966). G. Frantz-Murphy, “A Comparison of the 


Arabic and Earlier Egyptian Contract Formularies,” JNES 
40 (1981) 203~25; 44 (1985) 99-114. —LS.B.MacC. 


ARABISSOS (Apafioads), modern Afşin, an- 
cient city in Cappadocia, later one of the cities of 
the Hexapolis in Armenia II, located on the road 
between Cappadocian Caesarea and Melitene. In 
late antiquity, Arabissos was a legionary station 
attested from 381 on as a bishopric (suffragan of 
Melitene). As it was his birthplace, Arabissos was 
embellished by Maurice. It suffered from the 
earthquake of 584/5 and esp. during the wars 
with the Arabs, when it was the center of a KLEI- 
soura. In the 11th C. Arabissos was known as an 
EPISKEPSIS, and in 1108 as a KASTRON. Near Ara- 
bissos is a cave where an unnamed martyr was 
revered; for the Arabs this became a site of the 
legendary Seven SLEEPERS. 

In July 629 Herakleios met SHAHRBARAZ in Ara- 
bissos to arrange terms with Persia. Herakleios 
offered Shahrbaraz and his son the Persian throne. 
They agreed on the Euphrates as the frontier 
between the empires and probably negotiated the 




















ARABS 149 


withdrawal of Persian troops from Syria, Meso- 
potamia, Palestine, and Egypt. Shahrbaraz prom- 
ised to support Christianity and participated in 
the construction of the church named Irene 
(“Peace”). Patr. Nikephoros claims that Shahr- 
baraz agreed to become Herakleios’s subject. Al- 
though Shahrbaraz soon fell to an assassin, the 
terms of the treaty (Reg 1, nos. 200-01) at Ara- 
bissos continued to provide the basis for Byz.- 
Persian relations until the Muslim overthrow of 
the Sasanian Empire. 


uit. TIB 2:144f. Mango, “La Perse Sassanide” 110~12. 
-W.E.K., C.F. 


ARABS, called in the Byz. sources Arabes and 
Sarakenoi as well as Ismaelitat and Hagarenot, mean- 
ing the progeny of the biblical Ishmael and Ha- 
gar. 

Constantine I inherited from Diocletian a stable 
frontier with Arabia. To ward off invasions from 
the Peninsula, Byz. developed the system of FOE- 
DERATI, who together with the soldiers of the limes 
Diocletianus, which extended from the Euphrates 
to the Red Sea, defended Roman Oriens. In the 
course of the late Roman period, the empire dealt 
with a succession of these Arab foederati: the Ta- 
NŪKHIDS of the 4th C., the SALinips of the 5th, 
and the GuassAnips of the 6th. The last were the 
most powerful and represented the maturest 
expression of the federate system. Their kings 
were integrated into the Roman military and ad- 
ministrative hierarchies: the official title of the 
federate chief was PHYLARCH with the rank of 
clarissimus, but the supreme one was both patrikios 
and gloriosissimus. The system of phylarchs and 
foederati was so successful that the STRATEGIKON 
oF Maurice is silent on the Arabs. The reign of 
Maurice witnessed a crisis in imperial-federate 
relations when the emperor had the Ghassanid 
ALAMUNDARUS exiled to Sicily. When the Muslim 
Arabs appeared in the 7th C. it was against a 
considerably weakened federate shield that they 
fought and won. 

Before his death in 632, Muhammad had united 
Arabia. His successors, the three “orthodox” ca- 
liphs, conquered the Byz. lands of Oriens and 
Egypt. The decisive battle was the Arabs’ victory 
at YARMUK in 636. The Umayyaps continued this 
career of conquest from Damascus, the new Arab 
capital: against the Byz. heartland, Anatolia, and 


150 ARABS 





the capital, Constantinople; against the rest of 
provincial North Africa and Spain; and in the 
Mediterranean in order to establish a strong naval 
presence. The thrust against Anatolia and Con- 
stantinople consisted of annual campaigns against 
the former and three sieges of the latter: in 669, 
the Seven Years War of 674-80 (against Constan- 
tine IV), and the final siege of 717/18 (against 
Leo I). These military endeavors against Con- 
stantinople failed. The war in the Mediterranean 
was more successful. MuʻAwirya built a fleet that 
soon became the dominant power in the Mediter- 
ranean. The Arabs took Constantia in Cyprus in 
649 and began to attack the islands of the Aegean. 
In 654 they sacked Rhodes and demolished the 
colossal statue of Hetios; Kos was occupied and 
Crete plundered. The Arabs won a decisive naval 
victory, the battle of the Masts, in 655 off the 
Lycian coast. Then followed the conquest of Chios 
and the region of Kyzikos (670) so that the base 
for an assault on Constantinople was prepared. 
Even though an attack on Constantinople from 
674 to 678 failed, in 688 a condominium of the 
two powers was established on Cyprus and its 
territory was proclaimed neutral and demilitar- 
ized; the Arabs were entrenched in Crete by 
ca.824—827/8. The conquest of the Byz. Occident 
was also successful; Misa ibn-Nusayr carried Mus- 
lim arms to the shores of the Atlantic, while in 
711 Tarik crossed the straits that have carried his 
name ever since, Gibraltar (Jabal Tarik), and de- 
stroyed the kingdom of the VistcoTus. 

The translatio imperii from Umayyad Damascus 
to ‘Abbasid BAGHDab in 750 opened a new phase 
in Arab-Byz. relations. Two energetic ‘ABBASID 
caliphs carried the war into the Byz. heartland. 
HARON at-RasHip reached the Bosporos in 782 
and took HERAKLEIA in 806, while al-Mu‘Tasim 
captured AMORION in 838. These operations, 
however, enhanced the prestige of the caliph as a 
ghaz (holy warrior) of the “infidels” more than 
they benefited the Islamic state. The line of fron- 
tier fortifications (see ‘AWASIM AND THUGHUR) 
separating Anatolia from the realm of Islam be- 
came even more important than in Umayyad times, 
since unlike the Umayyads, the ‘Abbasids after 
the early gth C. had no serious intention of cap- 
turing Constantinople or expanding into Anato- 
lia. 

With the decline in the power of the ‘Abbasid 
caliphs and the central authority, the struggle 





against the Byz. was continued by petty states in 
the east and in the west—the AGHLABrips, the 
HampaAnips, and the FATimips, their military op- 
erations conducted from Kayrawan, Aleppo, and 
Cairo, respectively. During the entire gth C., the 
Aghlabids of Ifrikiya (Tunisia) dominated the 
middle Mediterranean and succeeded in conquer- 
ing Sicily. In the east, the struggle was taken up 
in the gth C. by the Hamdanids of Aleppo. The 
initial successes of Savr aL-DawLa were brought 
to naught, however, by Nikephoros I] Phokas. 
The Fatimids of Egypt battled the Byz. in the 
10th C., but John I Tzimiskes and Basil II con- 
tained their thrusts around Antioch and enlarged 
Byz. gains in northern Syria. The achievements 
of these three Macedonian emperors marked the 
turn of the tide against the Arabs. The destruction 
of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Fa- 
timid al-Hakim (996-1021) was one of the con- 
tributory causes of the Crusades, which were fought 
mainly between Latin Westerners and the Turks, 
while Byz. and the Arabs were spectators. The 
Turks, a new virile Muslim people, took up the 
struggle against Byz. where the Arabs left off in 
the 11th C. 

Economic and Cultural Exchanges between 
Arabs and Byzantines. Within the ‘Abbasid cali- 
phate there were Christian monasteries and lay 
communities, in which Greek literature Hourished 
throughout the 8th C. and probably later. In this 
milieu, or among Palestinian émigrés in Constan- 
tinople, the unrealistic dream that the caliph would 
convert to Christianity was cherished. Scholarly 
contacts developed and the caliphs tried to invite 
Byz. scholars, such as LEO THE MATHEMATICIAN, 
to Baghdad, Greek MSS were collected and trans- 
lated, and PHotios was probably able to work in 
Baghdad during his embassy to the city. Similarly, 
Arab influence penetrated Byz. art and architec- 
ture, and Theophilos is said to have built his 
palace on Arab models (see ISLAMIC INFLUENCE 
ON BYZANTINE ART). ‘Abbasid attempts to support 
Byz. insurgents—from THOMAS THE SLAV to 
Andronikos Douxas—presuppose close contacts 
with certain circles in Byz. 

Arabs visited Constantinople as merchants, and 
one could meet there a Hagarene merchant in a 
black cloak and brick-colored sandals (PG 
111:681 B-C). Some Syrian merchants stayed in 
Constantinople for ten years. They appeared not 
only in TREBIZOND or ARTZE, but probably even 








in faraway Athens, where archaeological evidence 
attests an Arab colony of the 10th—1ith C. (G.C. 
Miles, Hesperia 25 [1956] 329-44). People of dou- 
ble origin (Arab and Greek) were so typical in the 
eastern provinces that one of them became the 
hero of the epic of Dicenes Axritas. Arab fam- 
ilies, such as the Sarakenopouloi, Syropouloi, 
Bempetziotai, and Aplespharai, penetrated the 
ranks of the Byz. aristocracy. 

Representation in Byzantine Art and Litera- 
ture. As major rivals of the Byz. until the 11th C., 
Arabs occupied an important place in Byz. literary 
texts and images. Two clichés predominated: either 
differences of race were ignored (esp. in the pre- 
sentation of Arab saints such as Gourtas, SA- 
MONAS, AND ABIBAS) or Arab stereotypes were 
exaggerated, for example, when they were shown 
as terrifying raiders. Ethnic features were rarely 
displayed: sometimes the turban distinguishes Ar- 
abs, including John of Damascus, sometimes Arab 
invaders wear the three-piece garment (long tunic, 
underskirt, and patterned stockings) that appears 
in some images of the Magi in their ADORATION 
of Christ. When Arabs do appear in works during 
and after the 12th C. (Ohrid, Peribleptos; Venice, 
S. Marco), they are usually portrayed among 
the nations of the PENTECOST or as people taught 
by the aposties. The Madrid Skylitzes (Grabar- 
Manoussacas, Skylzizés, figs. 98, 138, 189, 190, 192) 
presents a dispassionate record of Arab rulers, 
costume, and architecture. Another miniature in 
this MS (fg.58) depicts an Arab horseman dis- 
playing his skill in the Hippodrome. 

LIT. Néldeke, Die Ghassdnischen Fürsten. I. Shahid, Byzan- 
tium and the Semitic Orient before the Rise of Islam (London 
1988). Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes. M. Canard, L'expansion arabo- 
islamique et ses répercussions (London 1974). V. Christides, “Pre- 
Islamic Arabs in Byzantine Illuminations,” Muséon 83 (1970) 
167-81. E. Jeffreys, “The Image of the Arabs in Byzantine 
Literature,” 17 CEB Major Papers (New Rochelle 1986) 
305-23. S. Gero, “Early Contacts hetween Byzantium and 
the Arab Empire,” in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on 
the History of Budd al-Sham (Amman 1987). 

~I.A.Sh., A.K., A.C. 


ARBANTENOS (ApBavrnvés), or Arabantenos, 
a family known from the second half of the 
11th C. The name is probably derived from al- 
Rawandan in northern Syria (Honigmann, Ost- 
grenze 140, n.7). Arbantenoi are first mentioned 
in non-Greek sources: Matthew of Edessa relates 
that Aruantan, the doux of Edessa, was captured 





ARBOGAST 151 





by Turks in 1066/7 (Oikonomides, Dated Seals, no. 
94); Ordericus Vitalis mentions Ravendinos, Al- 
exios I’s protospatharios, to whom the inhabitants 
of Laodikeia surrendered ca.10gg, as well as (an- 
other?) Ravendinos, “a powerful Greek,” a Byz. 
envoy to Antioch in 1118/19 and later to Jerusa- 
lem. The sebastos John Arbantenos was extolled 
by Nicholas KALLIKLES; he married Anna of the 
Komnenoi, and the typikon of the PANTOKRATOR 
MONASTERY in Constantinople calls him the hus- 
band of John II’s niece. Thirty years later, in 
1165, another sebastos John Arbantenos, Manuel 
Is gambros (son-in-law?), was active. Several Ar- 
bantenoi are known only by their seals: one of 
them, Nicholas, was protonotarios of Chaldia, prob- 
ably in the 11th C. (Schlumberger, Sig. 2go); other 
seals, dated to the 11th and iath C., have no 
information about the Arbantenoi’s offices, but 
some bear effigies of military saints that presum- 
ably indicate their military functions. In the 14th 
C. a few Arabantenoi are attested (PLP, nos. 1215— 
17) but they are known only as land and house 
owners. 

ur. P. Gautier, “L’obituaire du typicon du Pantocrator,” 
REB 27 (1969) 260-62. A. Kazhdan, “Some Notes on the 
Byzantine Prosopography of the Ninth through the Twelfth 
Centuries,” ByzF 12 (1987) 73-75- ~ALK. 


ARBOGAST (Ap8oyaorns), Western magister 
militum and power behind the revolt of EUGENIUS; 
died 394. Arbogast was a Frank and subordinate 
of the magister militum Bauto under Gratian and 
Theodosios I. Upon Bauto’s death ca.388, Arbo- 
gast used his popularity with the troops to seize 
the office of magister militum. In 988, after Arbo- 
gast accomplished the final defeat of the usurper 
Maximus, Theodosios left him to manage the 
affairs of the young VALENTINIAN II, who became 
a virtual prisoner. When Valentinian attempted 
to dismiss Arbogast, the general tore up the order, 
implying that he took commands directly from 
Theodosios. In 392 Valentinian was found dead 
and some historical sources implicate Arbogast. 
Arbogast sought to rule the West in his own name, 
but ultimately elevated Eugenius, although con- 
tinuing to seek reconciliation with Constantinople. 
Arbogast was a moderate pagan who supported 
the revival of paganism under Eugenius. He tried 
to ambush the forces of Theodosios at the battle 
of the Frigidus in 394, but was defeated and took 
his own life. 











152 | ARCH 

















LIT. Stein, Histoire 1:207—17. PLRE 1:95~97. O'Flynn, 
Generalissimos 7-13. B. C “Arbogast and the Death of 
Valentinian LI,” Historia 5 (1976) 235-44. -T.E.G. 






ARCH (dis, kaápa), a structural element com- 
posed of wedge-shaped blocks of stone or bricks 
(VOUSSOIRS) spanning an opening, usually semi- 
circular in form. Arches enlarge interior space by 
transferring the heavy loads of superstructures to 
isolated points of support (PIERS, COLUMNS), which 
can be more widely separated than those of tra- 
beated construction. Arches can penetrate walls 
without diminishing their strength, carry BRIDGES 
over rivers, AQUEDUCTS over valleys, terraces over 
cisterns, domes over naoi, or clerestory walls over 
open colonnades. The widest spans achieved by 
Byz. builders are those of the great arches in 
Hagia Sophia—about 31 m (about 108 Byz. feet). 
Immured, they may articulate walls with blind 
arcades or spare large wall areas for groups of 
windows. Blind arcades, used to enliven exterior 
façades, sometimes employ pointed and ogee 
ches in addition to round-headed ones, as at 
the CHORA MONASTERY in Constantinople. Trilobe 
arches are also found in architecture of the 13th 


and 14th C., usually as window openings. 
W.L., MEL. 













































NTAL, a structure consisti 


ses. Provided with a columna 
‘ eesi ng or half-columns supporti 
an architrave), the arch itself carried an attic on 
which were displayed honorific inscriptions and 
sometimes statuary. The only known freestanding 
Byz. monumental arch is that of Theodosios I 
erected in the Fo Tauri, Constantinople, 
ca.3go?; though not y excavated, it has been 
reconstructed as a tr arch approximately 43 
m broad and 23 m wide (Mul ler-Wiener, Bildiext- 
kon, figs. 294-98). A nt, the tetrapylon, con- 
sists of four arches arranged around a square and 
supporting a groin vault or dome, as at the ARCH 
or GaLERIUS in Thessalonike. Such arches were 
often placed at mei intersections of major streets. 
arches were also adapted for other 


















































P 
j 





measured. The tetrapylon was also adapted for 
use in Christian cult buildings, for example, the 
Tetrapylon of the Forty Martyrs in Constantino- 
ple, which stood until ca, 1400 (Majeska, Russian 
Travelers 231). A tetrapylon could also be struc- 
turally integrated into a church, as at Aphrodisias 
(R. Cormack in Classical Tradition 114). 


Lit. H. Kahler, RE 2.R. 7A (1939) 373~493. 
~MJ., W.L. 








ARCHAEOLOGY. Byz. archaeology is a rela- 
tively young field of scholarship. Aspects of the 
discipline have been separately studied as Chris- 
tian and underwater archaeology. In addition, the 
method known as archaeological survey is a no- 
table tradition in Byz. studies. Following an over- 





view of the field, each of these separate disciplines 
will be discussed in turn. 

AN OVERVIEW. Byz. archacology does not really 
exist as a discipline of its own, and-—~although 





h as the ex- 
several im- 


t. Po- 





there are significant exceptions (suc 
cavations of the GREAT PALAC ] 
portant churches in Constantinople [ St. 
LYEUKTOS, KALENDERHANE Camir] and such late 
antique centers as NEA ANCHIA) | 
sites are explored in connection with the i 
onuments. Because most of 
iterranean littoral many im- 
e interior are hardly known; 
components of many were 
ated or completely ignored, 
of some standing buildings 
and city walls). Churches and 
mosaics, frescoes, icons, church 
| vessels, etc.) formed the ae 













































Only recently have ordir 
CERAMICS and other UTENSIL 
ons) found during excavation vet ancie 
gun to be described, collected, and st 
mary attention has been 
Roman cities) such as Cart! 
sarea Maritima, Korykos, Aphrodisias, Perg 
Sardis, Ephesus, Corinth, Athens, Chersc i, and 
cities on the lower Danube; in some of them “post- 
e 7th C. and later have been 


























FAOT, 





































































































city GATES. The Milion (see 
nople, built in the form of 
was the marker from whict 
ds leading to the capital we 












tryside has so far received 
on (mostly in northern Syria, 
imea). Necropolises have been 
laces, with esp. fruitful results 










ARCHAEOLOGY: CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 153 


in the region of barbarian invasions (Pannonia, 
Bulgaria). 

Archaeology is essential for the study of mate- 
rial objects about which there is little information 
in written sources or visual representations 
(household utensils, tools, simple ornaments of 
bone or metal); it can also provide data on regions 
that were normally ignored by medieval writers 
(e.g., the provinces and esp. the frontier zone). 
The history of urban life and of the Germanic 
and Avaro-Slavic penetration into the empire has 
been rewritten in the last decades on the basis of 
archaeological discoveries. Archaeology, however, 
faces various problems: while some materials (e.g., 
ceramics, glass) are preserved in excellent condi- 
tion, others (wood, leather, cloth) disappear en- 
tirely or are severely damaged (iron), thus dis- 
torting the picture of material culture—in only a 
few regions (desert or swampy areas) have organic 
materials been preserved. The excavated artifacts 
must be identified, dated, and located in a histor- 
ical milieu (ethnic, religious, social, etc.). 

Unlike documents and literary texts, archaeo- 
ogical finds are studied not so much as individual 
objects, but as part of a series (e.g., ceramic bowls 
or glass flasks) and of an archaeological complex; 
their location (position in the excavated room and 
in an archaeological layer or stratum) is no less 
significant than their identification as belonging 
to a certain series (type or subtype). The chro- 
nology of an artifact (save for rare specifically 
dated objects) has to be established either on the 
basis of typology (position in a dated series) or 
stratigraphy (position in a dated stratum). For 
establishing a chronology of archaeological finds, 
coins have primary importance; since they can be 
dated, at least within a certain reign but some- 
times even to a narrower period, they often sup- 
ply the scholar with a terminus post quem for the 
whole stratum. After a number of dated finds, 
some objects (esp. ceramics) can themselves be 
dated with relative precision and become the 
yardstick for further (“typological”) dating. 

Establishing the ethnic, religious, and social 
background of the objects (or, rather, of their 
long-dead owners) is very difficult unless we have 
direct indications; ornamented objects (earrings, 
necklaces, bronze BELT FITTINGS, FIBULAE) can be 
helpful, although sometimes problematic—con- 
clusions of this sort are mostly hypothetical. 
Changes in quality and fashion reflected in objects 
allow one to study economic, social, and cultural 








development; archaeology provides us with great 
numbers of objects and therefore permits tenta- 
tive analysis of quantitative changes (increase of 
production, transition from one type of object to 
another, etc.). Discoveries of Byz. artifacts in re- 
mote regions (the Urals, China, Scandinavia) pro- 
vide evidence for the study of trade routes and 
cultural influences. Archaeology reveals many as- 
pects of the past on which written sources remain 
reticent; on the other hand, by dealing with “real” 
material objects archaeology easily creates an il- 
lusion of veracity that it, as a matter of fact, does 
not have: archaeological observations and conclu- 
sions are often extremely hypothetical and should 
be compared with the independent data of written 
texts. 

LIT. J. Russell, “Transformations in Early Byzantine Ur- 
ban Life: The Contribution and Limitations of Archaeo- 
logical Evidence,” 17 CEB, Major Papers (Washington, D.C., 
1986) 137-54. C. Foss, “Archaeology and the ‘Twenty 
Cities’ of Byzantine Asia,” AJA 81 (1977) 469-86. Hendy, 
Economy. G. Astill, “Archaeology, Economics and Early Me- 
dieval Europe,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4 (1985) 215- 
31. J-H. Rosser, “A Research Strategy for Byzantine Ar- 
chaeology,” BS/EB 6 (1979) 152—66. C. Delvoye, “Les progrès 
de l'archéologie et de l’histoire de l'art de l'Empire byzantin 
depuis le Congrès d'Oxford,” 14 CEB, vol. 3 (Bucharest 
1976) 251-62. ~T.E.G., A.K. 


CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY. Archaeology as a 
discipline emerged first to study the remains of 
classical and biblical antiquity, and it was only later 
extended to the remains of the postclassical pe- 
riod, including that of Byz. Originally research 
into this era was restricted almost exclusively to 
churches and objects of liturgical use, hence it 
was defined as Christian archaeology; its purpose 
commonly was to discover objects that shed light 
on the practices and beliefs of the early church, 
and a devotional goal frequently prompted (and 
distorted) investigation. Byz. archaeology origi- 
nated as a branch of Christian archaeology and 
this heritage influenced its development—for ex- 
ample, the relatively late emergence of interest in 
the nonreligious aspects of Byz. society. Christian 
archaeology as defined today does not restrict 
itself to religious topics, and meetings such as the 
International Congress of Christian Archaeology 
and periodicals like Cahiers archéologiques allow for 
presentation of research from all areas of the 
Mediterranean in the early Middle Ages. 

uit. F.W. Deichmann, Einführung in die christliche Ar- 
chäologie (Darmstadt 1983). G. Bovini, Gli studi di archeologia 


cristiana dalle origini alla metà del secolo XIX (Bologna 1968). 
-T.E.G. 





1 


154 | 


UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY. Over the past 
go years technological innovation and the devel- 
opment of effective means of underwater exca- 
vation have made possible the archaeological ex- 
ploration of the sea bed. This investigation has 
focused on two kinds of sites: near-shore sites that 
were once upon land but have sunk beneath the 
sea, usually because of earthquake, and ship- 
wrecks. An important example of the former is 
KENCHREAI, the eastern port of Corinth, whose 
harbor facilities sank in an earthquake in the late 
4th C. Excavated Byz. shipwrecks include the 4th- 
and 7th-C. Yassi Ada wrecks (G.F. Bass, F.H. van 
Doorninck, Jr., AJA 75 [1971] 27-37. Eidem, Yassi 
Ada 1 (College Station, Texas, 1982]), the 11th-C. 
Serce Liman wreck (carrying a large load of glass: 
G.F. Bass, F.H. van Doorninck, Jr., International 
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 7 [1978] 119-32), 
and the i2th-C, Pelagonnesos wreck (with a cargo 
of at least 1,490 ceramic vessels: Ch. Kritzas, P. 
Throckmorton, Athens Annals of Archaeology 4 [1971] 
176-85). A wreck found in 1960 off Marzamemi 
in southeastern Sicily contained unused church 
furnishings—ambo, plaques, parapet slabs, mon- 
olithic columns, 28 column bases, etc. G. Kapitan 
Archaeology 22 [1969] 122-33) identified these as 
Prokonnesian marbles and suggested a date in the 
reign of Justinian I. Shipwrecks are particularly 
rich sources of archaeological material since they 
have not been disturbed by later human activity 
and their destruction took place at a single time 
that can often be fixed quite precisely; some ma- 
terials also are better preserved in water than they 
are in the soil. Wrecks thus offer fixed points for 
the dating of archaeological objects and provide 
important information about trade and the 
economy. -T.E.G., A.C. 














ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, A means of gath- 
ering information about an area through the uti- 
lization of a broad-based archaeological research 
program, normally without excavation, archaeo- 
logical survey relies on an investigation of what 
appears above the surface. Survey allows the study 
of an area much larger than can be covered by 
excavation, normally at a fraction of the cost, but 
it relies on previous stratigraphic excavation for 
the identification and dating of surface finds. Sur- 
vey normally involves systematic investigation by 
teams of people walking across the landscape; 
aerial reconnaissance, geophysical methods, and 
architectural study also play important roles. 


ARCHAEOLOGY: UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY 


Byz. studies have a long tradition of observation 
and recording of archaeological sites and monu- 
ments; W. Ramsay, J. Strzygowski, D. Talbot Rice, 
and others were the pioneers of this archaeolog- 
ical method, and contemporary scholars have con- 
tinued this tradition. In the past 30 years the 
theory and method of archaeological survey have 
developed rapidly and have been used with con- 
siderable success in the eastern Mediterranean. 
Survey can provide information about settlement 
patterns, economy, land use, and other aspects of 
life not available from written or traditional ar- 
chaeological sources. Nevertheless, despite its par- 
ticular applicability to Byz., where frequently rich 
documentary materials can provide a check on 
the archaeological evidence, and despite some no- 
table exceptions (R.M. Harrison, AnatSt 31 [1981] 
198-200, A.W. Dunn, JOB 32.4 [1982] 605-14), 
the results of archaeological survey have rarely 
been used by Byzantinists. Instead, Byz. material 
from large survey projects is frequently analyzed 
by non-Byzantinists who do not always under- 
stand the special problems or questions of the 
period. 

Nevertheless, survey projects, mostly in the Ae- 
gean area, have led to a certain degree of consen- 
sus about the development of the Byz. settlement 
pattern: remarkable prosperity and widespread 
settlement in late antiquity (when the number of 
sites is commonly only slightly less than the peak 
in the classical period) followed by complete col- 
lapse in the late 6th to ioth C., when survey 
generally fails to recognize any settlement what- 
ever, followed by a slow recovery and another 
peak in the 12th~13th C., followed again by de- 
cline. This broad outline may well be correct, but 
it is affected by our lack of knowledge about the 
chronology of many Byz. ceramics and other items. 


uit. T.H. van Andel, C. Runnels, Beyond the Acropolis 
(Stanford 1987). -T.E.G. 


ARCHAISM, or classicism, was a current in high- 
style Byz. literature inherited from the SECOND 
SopHisTIC, where it originated. It encompassed 
both language and style (RHETORICAL FIGURES, etc.) 
and the contents (conscious presentation of con- 
temporary events in the guise of ancient TERMI- 
NOLOGY, Characters, situations, etc.). Obsolete ME- 
TERS such as hexameter or anacreontic tetrameter 
were used. The late antique and early Byz. pro- 
fessors established a canonical list of ancient au- 


thors who provided models: Homer was still the 
Poet, Aristotle the Philosopher, Demosthenes the 
Orator, Galen the supreme authority on medi- 
cine. Archaism was not limited to the literary 
sphere: the Byz. considered themselves as Ro- 
mans (RHOMAION), their capital as “New Rome” or 
“New Jerusalem,” their Bulgarian or generally 
Slavic neighbors as Scythians, Roman law as still 
effective, etc. All values were created in the past: 
“There is nothing of mine,” John of Damascus 
said of his work. The Byz. had only to follow their 
predecessors; accordingly, the idea of novelty or 
INNOVATION bordered on heresy and revolt (P. 
Wirth, OrChr 45 [1961] 127f). Some writers, how- 
ever, became weary of archaism and lamented, 
like Theodore Metochites, that their ancestors 
had accomplished everything, leaving no oppor- 
tunity for their own creativity (H.G. Beck, Theo- 
doros Metochites [Munich 1952] 50—75). 

Archaism was neither a cultural game, nor a 
simple IMITATION (mimesis). Unlike Italian human- 
ists of the 15th C., the Byz. rarely felt a distance 
between past and present. Archaism created an 
illusion of stability and continuity in the shaky 
and unstable world of the Byz. elite. 

uit. Délger, Paraspora 38—45. Gy. Moravcsik, “Klassizis- 
mus in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung,” in Poly- 
chronion 366-77. H. Hunger, “The Classical Tradition in 
Byzantine Literature: The Importance of Rhetoric,” in 
Classical Tradition 35—47. A. Kazhdan, A. Cutler, “Conti- 
nuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine History,” Byzantion 52 
(1982) 464-78. A. Dain, “A propos de l'étude des poètes 
anciens 4 Byzance,” in Studi in onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli 
(Florence 1956) 195-201. -A.K. 


ARCHANGEL (dpxydyyehos, “chief angel”). Al- 
though MICHAEL and GABRIEL appear in both the 
Old and New Testaments, the word archangel is 
not used in the Septuagint and occurs only twice 
in the New Testament. Nonetheless archangels 
came to hold an important place in Jewish legend 
and apocrypha and were revered in Christian 
tradition. Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite ranked 
the archangels in the third and lowest triad of his 
celestial hierarchy, between the “principalities” and 
ANGELS. Only three archangels were recognized 
by the Christian church—MIcHAEL, GABRIEL, and 
Raphael, whereas other Jewish archangels (Uriel, 
Azael, etc.) were rejected by the pope Zacharias 
in 745. Of these three, Michael was held in the 
highest regard, whereas Gabriel and Raphael (who 
appears in the books of Tobit and Enoch) did not 
receive widespread veneration in Byz. A church 





ARCHBISHOP | 155 


was dedicated to Raphael in Alexandria, but the 
Synaxarion of Constantinople does not list a feastday 
for him. Other archangels appear in some apoc- 
rypha (e.g., Testament of Solomon) and in art. 

Archangels were distinguished from regular 
angels as early as ca.,00 (C. Mango, DChAE* 12 
[1984] 4of) by their court or imperial costume 
(chlamys or loros, red shoes) and attributes (such 
as the orb or SPHAIRA). Michael and Gabriel stand 
dressed this way as an honor guard alongside 
Christ and the Virgin; they also head the heavenly 
host in images of the Synaxis ton Asomaton (see 
ASoMATOS). Their various appearances in the Old 
and New Testaments were collected into cycles of 
illustrations; in these narrative contexts the arch- 
angels are clad in the traditional angelic garb of 
tunic, himation, and sandals. Sometimes a large 
number of archangels, including Raphael and 
Uriel, is shown surrounding the figure of Christ 
Pantokrator in the dome, for example, at Palermo 
(Demus, Norman Sicily, pls. 13, 46), but images of 
archangels other than Michael and Gabriel are 
rare. 

Michael was the archangelos par excellence; a 
church of “the archangelos’ was assumed to be 
dedicated to Michael, one of “the erchangeloi” to 
Michael and Gabriel. The image of Michael is 
common on seals, while that of Gabriel is un- 
known. 

uit. E. Lucchesi-Palli, LC 1:674-81. D. Pallas, RBK 


3:43f. D.K. Wright, “Justinian and an Archangel,” in Stu- 
dien Deichmann 3:75—79. -A.K., N.P.Š. 


ARCHBISHOP (&pxytemiokoros, lit. “chief 
bishop”), a title initially used to designate certain 
METROPOLITANS. It was applied to the bishops of 
the most important sees in the empire: Rome, 
Alexandria, and Antioch. Hence its application 
by EpipHANios of Salamis (Panarion, ed. Holl, 
%:141.11) to designate Peter of Alexandria (300— 
311). With the rise of Constantinople and Jeru- 
salem to patriarchal status in the 5th C., the epi- 
thet was used for the five chief bishops of the 
empire. The conciliar documents of this period 
repeatedly employ the term in this sense. Since 
the title was associated with ecclesiastical indepen- 
dence or autonomy, it was understandably also 
applied to AUTOCEPHALOUS ecclesiastics, such as 
the primate of Cyprus (beginning in 431) and to 
the most important bishops (Ephesus, Thessalo- 
nike, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Athens, etc.). This 
distinction was not always maintained, however. 


156 | ARCHERY 


Archbishops not directly dependent on any met- 
ropolitan but on a patriarch (the so-called “auto- 
cephalous archbishops” without suffragans) were 
very numerous; they ranked below the metropol- 
itans and were elected by the ENDEMOUSA SYNODOS 
and the patriarch. 

LIT. E. Konidares, Hat metropoleis kat archiepiskopar tou 
oikoumenikou patriarchetou kai he taxis auton (Athens 1934). 
Ch. Papadopoulos, “Ho titlos archiepiskopou,” Theologia 13 
(1935) 289-95. E. Chrysos, “Zur Entstehung der Institu- 


tion der autokephalen Erzbisttimer,” BZ 62 (1969) 263- 
86. —A.P. 


ARCHERY (roéeta). Encounters with the Avars 
and Hun horse-archers forced the Byz. to emulate 
or recruit their skills. A 6th-C. treatise on archery 
(ed. Dennis, Military Treatises 128-35) names ac- 
curacy, force, and rapidity of shot as the essential 
skills to be mastered either from a standstill or 
while in motion. Two draws were known: the 
Mediterranean release, with two or three fingers 
pulling back the bowstring and the arrow to the 
left of the bowstave; and the Mongolian release, 
using the thumb (sometimes thumb and forefin- 
ger) to pull the string with the arrow to the right 
of the bowstave (S. James, BAR Int.Ser. 336 [1987] 
77—83). Mounted archers were trained to shoot 
in both directions to break up a fleeing enemy or 
to defend themselves when in retreat. Prokopios 
(Wars 1.14-16) attests the versatility and hitting 
power of contemporary archers, citing instances 
where Byz. archery proved superior against the 
Persians (1.18.31—35) and Ostrogoths (5.27.26— 
29; 8.32.6—10). 

Scattered details on archery come from the 10th 
C. Leo VI criticized the decline of archery (Tak- 
TIKA OF Leo VI 6.5) and called for constant prac- 
tice with the bow (11.49) as a useful weapon 
against the Arabs (18.131, 134-35), a point later 
emphasized in the PRAECEPTA MILITARIA (4.27— 
34; 17.13-16). Expeditionary forces sought out 
good archers (De cer. 658.1-2) and took along 
thousands of arrows (De cer. 657.12—13, 17—19). 
The shafts were sometimes furrowed to shatter 
on impact, thus preventing reuse by the enemy. 
Although Byz. archery was effective against the 
Arabs in the 10th C., it was no match for the 
11th-C. Turkish mounted archers, whose supe- 
rior skills the Byz. acknowledged by actively re- 
cruiting them in the 11th—12th C. (See also WEap- 
ONRY.) 


LIT. O. Schissel von Fleschenberg, “Spatantike Anlei- 
tung zum Bogenschiessen,” WS 59 (1941) 110-24; 60 (1942) 
41-70. Bivar, “Cavalry” 281-87. W.E. Kaegi, “The Con- 
tribution of Archery to the Turkish Conquest of Anatolia,” 
Speculum 39 (1964) 96—108. ~E.M, 


ARCHIMANDRITE (dpxtpavépirns, fem. dpxe- 
pavdpitioca, lit. “chief of a sheepfold”), monastic 
term with two principal meanings. 

1, First appearing in 4th-C. Syria, in the early 
period of monasticism (4th—6th C.) the term is a 
common equivalent of HEGOUMENOS, the superior 
of a monastery. G. Dagron (TM 4 [1970] 268f) 
argues that the term archimandrite was used pri- 
marily in Constantinople, esp. for the hegoumenos 
of the monastery of DatMaTou. Under Justinian 
I, the term hegoumenos began to supplant erchi- 
mandrite, although archimandrite remained in use 
until the 1oth C. as the designation for hegoumenot 
of a few major monasteries. 

2. From the 6th C. onward, according to Par- 
goire, archimandrite began to be used for the chief 
of a region or urban federation of monasteries, 
akin to EXARCH or PROTOS. In this sense archiman- 
drite is applied to the protos of holy mountains like 
Athos, Latros, and Olympos, or to the head of a 
group of monasteries in one city, as in Athens. 

uit. P. de Meester, “L’archimandritat dans les églises de 
rite byzantin,” in Miscellanea liturgica in honorem L. Cuniberti 


Mohiberg, vol. 2 (Rome 1949) 115-37. J. Pargoire, DACL 
1.2:2739-61. ~A.M.T. 


ARCHIMEDES, ancient Greek mathematician and 
engineer; born Syracuse ca.287 B.C., died Syra- 
cuse 212 B.C. Archimedes profoundly influenced 
medieval Arabic and Latin science and late me- 
dieval and Renaissance MATHEMATICS but had lit- 
tle impact on Byz. after the 6th C. Archimedes is 
cited directly in the 4th C. by Papros and THEON. 
In the early 6th C. three of his works were com- 
mented on by Euroxios and were probably stud- 
ied by ANTHEMIOS OF TRALLES and ISIDORE OF 
Mietus. In the gth C. Leo the Mathematician 
evidently possessed a MS of Archimedes’ treatises, 
which perhaps represents the unique translitera- 
tion of the main corpus of Archimedes’ works 
from uncial into minuscule (Lemerle, Humanism 
196). Other MSS also survived, however, as is 
evident from the Arabic versions and from the 
ioth-C. Constantinopolitan copy of the On Float- 


ing Bodies and the Method of Mechanical Theorems 
(J.L. Heiberg, Hermes 42 [1907] 235-303). Ar- 
chimedes is mentioned by Psellos in the 11th C. 
(Psellos, Scripta min. 1:26.24, 369.1) and is cited 
frequently by Tzerzes in the 12th C., for ex- 
ample, in his poem 35 “On Archimedes and some 
of his Devices” (Historiae, 47.106—49.159). Two 
MSS of the main corpus of Archimedes’ works 
were available to WILLIAM OF MOERBEKE when he 
made his Latin translation at Viterbo in 126g. 
LIT. M. Chagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, 5 vols. 
(Madison, Wisc,—Philadelphia 1964—84). Wilson, Scholars 
45f, 83, 139, 161. -D.P. 


ARCHITECT. In the late Roman Empire archi- 
tects were usually men of high social status and 
education. Some were trained in geometry, arith- 
metic, astronomy, physics, building construction, 
hydraulics, carpentry, metalwork, and painting. 
They drew plans, elevations, and possibly per- 
spective renderings. Downey (infra) distinguishes 
between the mechanikos, the fully trained architect, 
and the architekton, a “master builder.” Both terms 
seem to have disappeared after the 6th C., though 
the epithet architekion continued to be applied to 
God as creator (e.g, Patr. Germanos I—PG 
98:316D-917A); they were replaced by otkedomos, 
builder (a term also found in Roman inscriptions), 
and, later, protomaistor, chief of a team or guild 
(see MAISTOR). 
Architects known by name include: 








EupHRATAS, a legendary figure 

ANTHEMIOS OF TRALLES 

ISIDORE OF MILETUS 

ISIDORE THE YOUNGER 

Eustathios, a priest from Constantinople, and 
Zenobios, who together designed the martyri- 
on-basilica at the Holy SEPULCHRE, Jerusalem 

Rufinus of Antioch, who built the cathedral at 
Gaza, using a plan sent from Constantinople 

Asaph and Addai, architects of the rebuilt ca- 
thedral at Edessa (K. McVey, DOP 37 [1983] 
98) 

Stephen of Aila, responsible for the basilica at 
the monastery of St. CATHERINE on Mt. Sinai 

Patrikes, a patrikios who built the palace at Bryas 

Petronas KAMATEROS, a spatharokandidatos, ar- 
chitect of the fortress at SARKEL 

Demitras, Eustathios, and Nikon, mentioned as 
otkodomot (Lavra 1, nos. 1.33, 6.17, App.1.13) 








ARCHITECTURE | 157 


Trdat, an Armenian who restored the western 
portion of Hacra Sopuia, Constantinople, 
after 989 

loannikios, otkadomos at TMUTORAKAN, died 1078 
(E. Skrzinskaja, VizVrem 18 [1961] 74—84) 

Nikephoros, who erected the PANTOKRATOR 
MONASTERY in Constantinople 

Rouchas, a monk sent by Michael VIII to Con- 
stantinople to restore Hagia Sophia 

John Peralta, a Catalan from Sicily, and the me- 
gas stratopedarches Astras (PLP, no.1598), who 
repaired the dome of Hagia Sophia after 1346 

George Marmaras, a protomaistor named in doc- 
uments of 1326 and 1327 (A. Kazhdan, 
VizVrem 13 [1958] 307) 

Demetrios Theophilos, another protomaistor 
(Dochetar., no.50.22, 2.1389). 

LIT. G. Downey, “Byzantine Architects,” Byzantion 18 
(1948) 99—118. H.A. Meek, “The Architect and his Profes- 
sion in Byzantium,” Journal of the Royal Institute of British 
Architects 59 (1951—52) 216-20. A. Petronotis, “Der Archi- 
tekt in Byzanz,” in Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike 
(Berlin 1984) 329-43. —M.J., W.L., A.K. 


ARCHITECTURE. Byz. architecture constitutes 
a building tradition generally associated with the 
history of the late Roman and Byz. empires and, 
to an extent, with its wider sphere of influence 
over a period spanning from ca.g00—ca.1450. Byz. 
architecture defies a comprehensive conventional 
definition on either cultural, geographical, chro- 
nological, or stylistic bases. Between the qth C. 
and the 15th C. several more-or-less coherent 
architectural developments and interludes took 
place that can be roughly grouped into seven 
chronological periods, 

First Period (4th to 5th C.). Architecture dur- 
ing this period represents the perpetuation of 
tradition within the cultural framework of the 
Grece-Roman world and the political framework 
of the Roman Empire. This perpetuation of es- 
tablished architectural practice accounts for the 
degree of continuity in the regional traditions of 
planning, structural solutions, building technique, 
and decoration. Two factors play a decisive role 
in the architectural development of the period: 
urban survival and active christianization. Urban 
centers witnessed a slow but steady shift from 
pagan to Christian patronage of public buildings. 
Christian churches—predominantly BASILICAS—- 
derived generically from pagan prototypes, and 

















158 ARCHITECTURE 


their construction was entrusted to established 
workshops that had previously been employed on 
imperial pagan projects. Large-scale building un- 
der imperial auspices was one of the major in- 
dustries in the Roman world, and the movement 
of manpower and technical personnel (architects, 
surveyors, etc.) from one completed building 
project to another was standard practice. This, in 
fact, constituted the essence of what we refer to 
as “workshop practice.” 

Building types such as the MARTYRION, BAPTIS- 
TERY, and MAUSOLEUM were also constructed in 
large numbers. Martyria display a considerable 
variety of plan types, reflecting the particular re- 
quirements of preexisting customs and functions 
accommodated on their sites. Mausoleums, large 
and small, which initially were freestanding and 
independent, increasingly become attached to 
church buildings as christianization proceeded. 

Second Period (6th C.). This was the period of 
greatest architectural productivity in Byz. history. 
Often identified with the policy of reconquest of 
Emp. Justinian I, the vast building program was, 
in fact, begun by his predecessors Anastasios I 
and Justin I and continued by his successor, Justin 
IH. The success of this grand enterprise was facil- 
itated by the survival of the imperial order within 
the framework of the fully christianized, urban 
society. In a comprehensive record of the building 
accomplishments of Justin I and Justinian I, Pro- 
KOPIOS OF CAESAREA provides us with a catalog of 
buildings and relates many details about the re- 
alization of the imperial program. This meticu- 
lous account, which includes descriptions of whole 
new towns, forts, churches, palaces, public build- 
ings, markets, cisterns, aqueducts, and so on, is 
substantially confirmed by preserved buildings and 
archaeological finds. 

Notwithstanding the survival of regional build- 
ing practices, the period was characterized by the 
much more pronounced impact of the capital. 
Certain building types (basilican churches, mau- 
soleums, cisterns) continued to be constructed ac- 
cording to the established norms of a given re- 
gion. At the same time, architecture was now also 
“exported” from Constantinople, the center of 
imperial administration. Whether in the form of 
new CHURCH PLAN TYPES such as the domed ba- 
silica, new structural solutions involving the use 
of vaULTING, standardized building techniques, 
or the nature of architectural decoration, there is 


a strong indication of direct connections of the 
center with regional affairs. The MARBLE TRADE 
and the shipping of building components (COL- 
UMNS, CAPITALS, and church furniture), illustrate 
the degree and the character of the impact of 
Constantinople. This phenomenon is to be under- 
stood in the light of extensive construction in 
frontier regions, often in newly conquered terri- 
tories, with the aim of consolidating recently es- 
tablished borders. 

Third Period (7th to mid-9th C.). In striking 
contrast to the preceding building boom this pe- 
riod is characterized by a virtual absence of con- 
struction. Beleaguered by foreign wars and inter- 
nal crises, the empire experienced profound 
changes. The decline of cities was manifested in 
the physical decay of their fabric. The very mean- 
ing of “construction” during this period was prac- 
tically reduced to preservation, repair, and patch- 
work. New building other than fortifications was 
rare, and large-scale construction exceptional. The 
few surviving examples in the latter category re- 
veal conservative traits and expedient dependence 
on SPOLIA. 

Fourth Period (mid-9th through Lith C.). By 
the middle of the gth C. relative political, reli- 
gious, and cultural stability within the territorially 
shrunken Byz. Empire had been restored. Under 
the auspices of the Macedonian dynasty, building 
began anew, though under very different circum- 
stances. Given new cultural parameters and an 
altered social structure, an architecture emerged 
that showed marked signs of departure from the 
old tradition. PaLaces and palace halls of this 
period reveal a fresh source of influence—Islamic 
art and architecture (see ISLAMIC INFLUENCE ON 
BYZANTINE ART). Aspects of Islamic impact can 
also be seen in the decorative vocabulary of Byz. 
architecture, now significantly expanded beyond 
its traditional, classicizing framework. 

Church architecture also reveals other sources 
of external influence, for example, Armenia. 
Church types proliferated while undergoing con- 
siderable reductions in scale. The latter phenom- 
enon has been viewed as the function of shrunken 
economic means and the reduced demand for 
space of a smaller population. Still, some fairly 
large churches, notably piered basilicas, continued 
to be built during this period. The frequent ap- 
pearance of smaller, centralized, and domed 
churches, on the other hand, involved changes in 











the shape of the tirurcy and altered symbolic 
perceptions of the church building. Seen as a 
miniature version of the cosmos, the church func- 
tioned symbolically regardless of its size. Demands 
for space in churches during this period were 
generally solved not by increasing the volume of 
the naos but by adding lateral spaces and PAREK- 
KLESIA. When built simultaneously with the church 
itself, these parekklesia, unlike the earlier mauso- 
leums, were often carefully integrated aspects of 
a building’s overall form. Thus, for example, the 
multiplication of domes on churches of this pe- 
riod was the direct by-product of multiple chapels 
planned integrally with the main church. 

Fifth Period (12th C.). Notwithstanding the 
military setbacks and the resulting geopolitical 
changes that affected the empire during the last 
third of the 11th C., architectural activity in the 
Komnenian period displayed remarkable vitality, 
with Constantinople playing the role of central 
clearinghouse for ARCHITECTS, ARTISANS, ideas, 
and materials. Formal characteristics, decorative 
features, and even structural techniques are shared 
by a very large number of buildings, many of 
which were built in the provinces and even be- 
yond the frontiers of the empire. This phenom- 
enon, which parallels a similar trend in Byz. paint- 
ing, reflects an increasing mobility in the 
Mediterranean basin. Both can be related to a 
general increase in East-West cultural interaction. 

Sixth Period (13th C.). The period of the Latin 
occupation of Constantinople (1204—61) saw the 
disappearance of the capital’s hitherto preemi- 
nent architectural influence. Instead, architecture 
flourished in several new centers of the splintered 
empire (NICAEA, TREBIZOND, ARTA), each display- 
ing distinctive local architectural characteristics. 
The stylistic coherence of the Komnenian epoch 
gave way to a new diversity. Thus, the political 
decentralization of the empire left its lasting im- 
print on the development of Byz. architecture. 

Seventh Period (14th to 15th C.). Following the 
Byz. recapture of Constantinople in 1261, the city 
once more became the premier center of archi- 
tectural activity. In addition to the remodeling 
and expansion of existing buildings, a fair num- 
ber of new churches, monastic buildings, and pal- 
aces were constructed, particularly during the last 
decade of the 13th C. and during the first two 
decades of the 14th C. Church architecture dur- 
ing this period perpetuated the tradition of small- 




















ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 159 


scale construction. The major stylistic change came 
in the treatment of walls, which lost their tectonic 
qualities in favor of flat surfaces covered by dec- 
orative patterns. The same disregard for spatial- 
structural articulation also permeated interiors. 
Here flat wall surfaces carried several tiers of 
continuous horizontal bands of MONUMENTAL 
PAINTING broken up into numerous small individ- 
ual scenes. 

The civil wars of the 1320s and 1340s brought 
architectural activity in the capital to a virtual end. 
Constantinopolitan architectural style was trans- 
planted elsewhere (e.g., MESEMBRIA, SKOPJE and 
vicinity, Bursa), presumably by migrant work- 
shops, which found themselves employed by Bul- 
garian, Serbian, and Ottoman patrons. A few cen- 
ters, such as THESSALONIKE and Mistra, kept the 
local architectural traditions alive beyond the early 
demise of Byz. architectural production in Con- 
stantinople. (See also CONSTANTINOPLE, MONU- 
MENTS OF.) 

ut. R. Krautheimer, Early Christan and Byzantine 
Architecture* (Harmondsworth 1986). C. Mango, Byzantine 
Architecture? (London 1986). A.L. Jakobson, Zakonomernosti 
v razvilii srednevekove] architektury XI-XV vv. (Leningrad 


1987). H. Buchwald, “Der Stilbegriff in der byzantinischen 
Architektur,” JOB 36 (1986) 303—16. -S.Ć. 


ARCHITRAVE. See EPISTYLE. 


ARCH OF CONSTANTINE, the last major mon- 
ument of ancient Rome, located between the Ro- 
man Forum and the Colosseum. It was probably 
begun in 312, directly after the victory of Con- 
stantine I at the MıLvian BRIDGE, and completed 
by 315. It was dedicated to Constantine I and 
presumably paid for by the senate. A triple arch 
(see ARCH, MONUMENTAL) faced in marble, it has 
engaged columns resting on bases that depict cap- 
tives; in the spandrels are figures of Victory, while 
other personifications include the seasons and 
river gods. Friezes of Constantine’s ADLOCUTIO 
and distribution of LaRGESS appear on the north 
side, his siege of Verona and the battle at the 
Milvian Bridge on the south. SroLria above these 
friezes and elsewhere on the monument are re- 
liefs of the deeds of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus 
Aurelius with their heads recut. Inscriptions on 
either side of the central passage proclaim the 
emperor to be the liberator of the city and the 
source of peace. While this program, like that of 








160 ARCH OF GALERUIS 











other Roman arches, celebrates imperial authority 
and victory, it has been read by Pierce (infra) as 
Constantine’s appropriation of the achievements 
of earlier emperors. No recognizable Christian 
signs appear on the arch. Rather, Constantine and 
his victories are associated with the SOL INVICTUS 
whose image occurs four times. The style and 
iconography of the Constantinian parts of the 
monument are almost universally interpreted as 
harbingers of Byz. art. 

LIT. P. Pierce, “The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda 
and Ideology in Late Roman Art,” Art History 12 (1989) 
387-418, J. Ruysschaert, “Essai d'interprétation synthé- 


tique de l'Arc de Constantin,” RendPontAce 35 (1962-63) 
79—100. B. Berenson, The Arch of Constantine (London 


1954). -A.C. 


ARCH OF GALERIUS. Located in Thessalonike, 
the Arch of Galerius is not a true monumental 
arch, but more properly part of a tetrapylon that 
was expanded into an octopylon through the ad- 
dition of piers for secondary passageways. It was 
located between the Rotunda of St. George to the 
north and the palace of Galerius to the south; 
only the west side of the structure is partially 
preserved. The original monumental complex, 
which was probably domed, spanned an impor- 
tant street running east to west: the central pas- 
sage of the arch crossed the roadway, while the 
two smaller side passages continued what were 
undoubtedly colonnaded walkways. It provided a 
monumental entrance and a point of transition 
between the city and the sacred area of the palace. 
The structure was begun in 299 and construction 
continued at least to 303. It was made of a core 
of irregular stone blocks, faced with marble re- 
vetment in its lower section and with brick above. 
Statues of the emperors presumably looked out 
from the top to east and west. It was of impressive 
size, with the keystone of the surviving central 
archway 12.28 m above the modern pavement; 
its width is 9.70 m., 

The piers are covered with reliefs arranged in 
horizontal zones separated by bands decorated 
with ribbons or garlands. The sculptures depict 
and celebrate Galerius’s victory over the Persians 
in 297. Various historical scenes can be identified, 
such as Galerius and Diocletian sacrificing, Ga- 
lerius speaking to his troops, and the emperor 
victorious in battle; these scenes are not arranged 


in any particular order, however, and are mixed 
with generic scenes of processions and personifi- 
cations of victories. The “arch” is a prime example 
of Tetrarchic art, with figures often outlined rather 
than carved in relief, little concern for scale, and 
a desire to fill every part of the surface with 
decoration. 

LIT. H.P. Laubscher, Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens 
in Thessaloniki (Berlin 1975). Spieser, Thessalonique gg—104. 
M. Rothman, “The Thematic Organization of the Panel 


Reliefs of the Arch of Galerius,” AJA 81 (1977) 427-54. 
-T.E.G. 


ARCHON (àpxøv), a word used in antiquity pri- 
marily to denote a magistrate. In Byz. archontes 
were synonymous with megistanes and dynatoi; the 
term signified any officials who possessed power. 
In the words of Symeon the Theologian, archontes 
were those who had honor (time) and power (arche); 
he further defined the strategoi and archontes as 
the emperor’s servants and friends who—unlike 
the common people—had personal contact with 
the monarch. Some subordinates of high-ranking 
officials (e.g., strategoi) were also called archontes. 

In a technical sense, archon designated first of 
alla governor. The gth-C. TAKTIKON of Uspenskij 
lists archontes of Crete, Dalmatia, Cyprus (a gth- 
C. seal of an archon of Cyprus—Zacos, Seals 2, 
no.852), and so on, whereas seals of the 10th- 
12th C. mention archontes of certain towns, such 
as Krateia and Klaudioupolis, Chrysopolis, Ath- 
ens, Panion, etc.; accordingly the term archontia 
was employed to describe the district adminis- 
tered by an archon. The term could be applied 
also to independent princes, such as the archon of 
Rhosia (A.V. Soloviev, Byzantion 31 [1961] 237- 
44). 


LIT. Ahrweiler, “Administration” 72. Ferluga, Byzantium 
1391—39. Ja. Ferluga, “Archon,” in Tradition als historische 
Kraft (Berlin—New York 1982) 254-66. -A.K. 


ARCHONTES TON ERGODOSION (dpxovres 
Tav èpyoĝoriwv), directors of state ergasteria (see 
FACTORIES, IMPERIAL) that produced primarily silk, 
jewelry, and weapons. Seals of many archontes of 
silk workshops (tou blattiou) are dated to the 7th 
and 8th C. Archontes ton ergodoston were sometimes 
called ergasteriarchai and combined their functions 
with those of the KOMMERKIARIOI. According to 
the Kiletorologion of PHILOTHEOS, archontes, along 


~ 


with the meizoteroi (“foremen”) of workshops, be- 
longed to the staff of the eEmprKon. On seals from 
the gth C. onward they are often called KOURA- 
TORES. A certain Thomas, eskeptor ton blattion, re- 
corded on a 7th-C. seal, was probably not director 
of a single workshop, but of a group of textile 
manufacturers. The office of the archon of the 
chrysochoeton (gold workshop) is also known; his 
relationship to the archon of the CHARAGE is un- 
clear. 


Lit, Laurent, Corpus 2:323—43, 708f. Kazhdan, Derevnja 
i gorod 338—42. -A.K. 


ARCHONTOPOULOS (&pxovrórovios), accord- 
ing to Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 2:108.20), a 
term invented by Alexios I, meaning “a son of an 
archon.” The tagma of archontopouloi was created 
in 1090/1 and consisted of about 2,000 young 
men, the sons of soldiers who had fallen in battle. 
The tagma is not attested in sources after the reign 
of Alexios (Hohlweg, Beiträge 52). The term ar- 
chontopoulos (also, neut. pl. archontopoula; in an act 
of 1478, fem. archontopoulai—MM 3:260.2) was a 
generic designation of the nobility of second rank: 
thus Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, in a chrysobull of 
1346, speaks of his archontes and archontopouloi 
who served as his administrators (Zogr., no.37-49). 
Archontes and archontopouloi are known also in 
Venetian Crete (Jacoby, Recherches, pt.I [1976], 
23f). In 1261 a group of archontopouloi were to 
receive exaleimmata and other properties in the 
Maeander valley with an “appropriate monetary 
posotes” for the sake of their oikonomia; thus, evi- 
dently in the form of a pronoia (Patmou Engrapha 
2, no.66.3—4). Before 1348, archontopoulot in Serres 
seized a monastic metochion with its proskathemenoi 
(Koutloum., no.21.3). Archontopoulot are also at- 
tested in the Morea, Trebizond, and Epiros. 

tir. Angold, Byz. Government 177. N. Oikonomides, “A 


propos des armées des premiers Paléologues et des com- 
pagnes de soldats,” TM 8 (1981) 355. -M.B. 


ARCOSOLIUM (term found only in Christian 
Lat. inscriptions, lit, an arch over a throne or 
urn), an arched niche, usually for a TOMB, carved 
out of or built in front of a wall. Such recesses 
are known as early as the grd C.; in 4th-C. CAT- 
ACOMBS the tympanum beneath the arch often 
received painted decoration. Carved arcosolia were 


ARCULF | 161 


esp. favored in Palaiologan Constantinople (South 
Church of Lips MONASTERY); the most lavish ex- 
amples are the hoods over the tombs in the CHORA 
MONASTERY. 


LIT. J. Kollwitz, RAC 1:643—45. -A.C. 


ARCRUNI, or Artsruni, an Armenian princely 
lineage, some of whose members settled in Byz. 
territory in the early 11th C. A 12th-C. contin- 
uator of the Armenian chronicle by Thomas Arc- 
runi (ca.goo), the History of the House of the Arcruni, 
relates that the resettlement was smooth and 
peaceful: the Arcruni received lands, towns, and 
high titles (Thomas Artsruni: History of the House of 
the Artsrunik’, tr. R. Thomson [Detroit 1985] 370f). 
They retained the Gregorian creed. Senekerim 
(Zevaynpeiz) Arcruni, last king of VASPURAKAN, 
became strategos of Cappadocia in 1021 or 1022 
and lord (>) of Sebasteia and other towns and 
estates (Skyl. 354f). His son David helped sup- 
press the rebellion of Nikephoros Puoxas (1022) 
and was rewarded with Caesarea, Tzamandos, 
and other lands (H. Berberian, Byzantion 8 [1933] 
553); he inherited Sebasteia after his father’s death 
in 1025. David’s successor, his brother Atom (ASot), 
ruled Sebasteia from 1035; in 1079/80 Atom sided 
with Gagik of Kars in a feud against the local 
Greek lords of the Mandales family in a futile 
attempt to rescue Gagik of Ani. 

Other Armenian nobles who moved to Byz. 
simultaneously with Senekerim Arcruni include 
his nephew (?) Derenik and another relative, 
Abelgharib Arcruni. The latter received Sis, Adana, 
and several other towns. Circa 1080 his residence 
was Tarsos, and he apparently adopted the Chal- 
cedonian creed. Probably some Arcrunis entered 
the Byz. ruling elite and took the family name of 
Senacherim: THEOPHYLAKTOs of Ohrid (ep. 77.22— 
23) complained of Senacherim “the Assyrian” who 
originated from Mesopotamia; Alexios I en 
trusted Theodore Senacherim with distributing 
lands among monasteries (Xénoph., no.1.92—93). 
It is unclear whether Senacherim, an early 13th- 
C. general, and (another?) Senacherim, governor 
of Nikopolis (Epiros) in 1204, were related to this 
family. 





Lit. Kazhdan, Arm. 4393—96. -A.K. 


ARCULF. See ADOMNAN. 


162 ARDABOURIOS 





ARDABOURIOS (ApéaBovpios), consul (447); 
magister militum of the East and patrikios under 
Marcian; died Constantinople 471. Oldest son of 
Aspar the Alan, he commanded troops in both 
East and West and reportedly helped his father 
secure the elevation of Leo I. In 459 he sent a 
detachment of Gothic soldiers to guard the corpse 
of St. Symeon the Stylite the Elder. In 466/7, when 
Leo accused Ardabourios of entering into trea- 
sonable correspondence with the Persians, he was 
deprived of his rank (vita of DANIEL THE STYLITE, 
55). After he instigated open revolt in Thrace in 
469/70, he and his father were executed; his 
brothers Patrikios and Ermanaric survived. His 
grandson was AREOBINDUS, consul in 506. 











uT. Bury, LRE 1:316~20. Thompson, Romans and Bar- 
barians 229-26. PLRE 2:135~37. A. Demandi, “Der Kelch 

von Ardabur und Anthusa,” DOP 40 (1986) 113-17. 
~T.E.G. 








AREIA, MONASTERY OF, called Hagia Mone 
or Nea Mone, was founded near NaupLia shortly 
before 1143 by Leo, bishop of Argos and Nauplia 
(ca.1149-ca.1157), who was a nephew of Con- 
stantine Antzas (see ANzas). Leo originally estab- 
lished the monastery, dedicated to the Virgin, at 
Areia (“Apetw) as a convent for 36 nuns. Circa 
1143, however, he was forced by the threat of 
pirate raids to move the nuns farther inland to a 
new convent that he built at Bouze. He then 
installed 36 monks at Areia. In Oct. 1143, Leo 
composed a memorandum (hypomnema) in which 
he guaranteed the monastery’s independent sta- 
tus. He also prepared a typikon, based on that of 
Sroupios, but more lenient in some of its provi- 
sions; for example, he urged the monks to bathe 
weekly and permitted two meals daily during the 
fast days preceding the feast of the Holy Apostles, 
“because the days are longer.” In 1212 the region 
of Nauplia was occupied by the Franks, and in 
138g it came under Venetian control, but the 
monastery remained in the hands of Orthodox 
monks. It retained its independence until 1679, 
when it became a metochion of the Holy Sepulchre. 

The cross-in-square monastic church, dedicated 
to the Zoddochos Pege (Life-giving Source), was 
completed by 1149, the date of a dedicatory plaque 
that names Leo as &tetor. Built of brick on a high 
foundation, it is decorated on the exterior with 
marble crosses and maeander friezes, like Mer- 
baka and other churches in Argos. Of its inte- 











la 











rior ornament little remains save for the elaborate 
composite capitals of the four columns beneath 
the dome. 

uit. G.A. Choras, He “Hagia Mone” Aretas (Athens 1975). 


A. Struck, “Vier byzantinischen Kirchen der Argolis,” MDAI 
AA 34 (1909) 210-34. -A.M.T., A.C. 


ARENGA. See Acts, DOCUMENTARY. 


AREOBINDUS (’Apeofuvdos), more fully Flavius 
Areobindus Dagalaiphus Areobindus; died after 
512. He was the grandson of Arpasourios and 
the son of Dagalaiphus and Godisthea, and thus 
an Alan; in 478/g he married ANICIA JULIANA, 
daughter of the Western emperor Olybrius. De- 
spite the fall of his family in 471, Areobindus had 
a distinguished military career, serving as magister 
militum of the East in 503—04, along with HYPA- 
TIOS and KELER. At this time he withstood a Per- 
sian invasion and devastated Persian Armenia. He 
served as consul in 506. In 512 the opposition to 
Anastasios I sought to make Areobindus em- 
peror, but he had already gone into hiding. Five 
examples of his consular diptychs are preserved. 


LIT. PLRE 2:143f. ~T-.E.G, 


ARETHAS, Arab martyred ca.p20 in NAJRAN; 
saint; feastday 24 Oct. When the judaizing Him- 
yarite king, Ylisuf, came to power ca.420, 
he wanted—according to the sources—to stamp 
out Christianity in South Arabia, esp. at Najran. 
Arethas, the chief of Najran, resisted the over- 
tures of Yusuf to surrender the city, but was 
finally overruled by his counselors. Yusuf violated 
the terms of the capitulation and asked the Chris- 
tians to apostasize. Those who refused were mar- 
tyred, among them Arethas, who was decapitated. 
A hagiographical version of his speech before 
death is preserved. The martyrdom of Arethas 
and his companions had far-reaching conse- 
quences. It convulsed the Christian Orient and 
occasioned a successful Byz.-Ethiopian expedition 
(see AxuM) against South Arabia to avenge the 
martyrs. The Ethiopian king made Arethas’s son 
chief of Najran and built three churches there, 
one of which was dedicated to the “Holy Martyrs 
and the Glorious Arethas.” Arethas and his com- 
panions were moderate Monophysites close to the 
views of SEvERos of Antioch. A possible echo of 


the martyrdoms of Najram may be detected in 
chapter 85 of the Qur’an. 

Representation in Art. Illustrations of ten epi- 
sodes of this story accompany an 11ith-C. MS with 
the passio of Arethas by SYMEON METAPHRASTES 
(Athos, Esphig. 14, fols, 196r—136v; Treasures 2, 
pl.zief): the city of Najran besieged, the Chris- 
tians outside its walls taken into slavery, and the 
city Opening its gates to Yusuf, etc. There are 
occasional representations of just the beheading 
of the elderly bearded nobleman and his compan- 
ions (e.g., MENOLOGION OF Basit II, p.135), but 
Arethas is otherwise rarely represented. 

LIT. I. Shahid, “Byzantium in South Arabia,” DOP 33 
(1979) 23—94. Idem, The Martyrs of Najran. New Documents 
(Brussels 1971). G.L. Huxley, “On the Greek Martyrium 


of the Negranites,” Proceedings of the Royal Trish Academy 8 
(1980) 41455. K.G. Kaster, LCI 5:242f. 9 -LASh., N.P.S. 


ARETHAS (al-Harith), king of the GHassANIDS 
529-69), son of JABALA; not to be confused with 
Arethas, the king of Kinpa. Around 529 Justinian 

put him in command of almost all the Arab 
fOEDERATI in Oriens and thus centralized federate 
power. As supreme PHYLARCH Arethas fought for 
Byz. in all its eastern wars. He participated regu- 
arly in the two Persian Wars of Justinian’s reign, 
fat the battle of KALLINIK 
n of 541 in “Assyria.” He 
adversaries on various occa 
eated ALAMUNDARUS of Hi 
is in 554. He also conduct 
in the Arabian peninsula. 
s 1 Į ite, Arethas contributed sub- 
sta antially to the revival of the Monophysite church 
in Oriens. He was instrumental in the consecra- 
tion of Jacos BarapagEus and Theodore as bishop 
ca.540. He also defended Monophysitism against 
teachings such as the alleged Trirneism of Eu- 
genios and Konon. In recognition of his services 


































































fant 








y 
3 


n 
P 
= 











5 


to the empire, Arethas was made gloriosissimus; he 
was also patrikios. 


uit. I, Kawar, “The Patriciate of Arethas, 
321-43. 


” BZ 52 (1959) 
—1.A.Sh. 


ARETHAS OF GATPAREA, scholar ane politi- 


cian, are 





died after 932 (according to 
not before 944). During the 
‘RAGAMY OF LEo VI, Areth 












first supported NicroLas I Mystixos, ther 
with the emperor. As theologian Arethas 
duced a commentary on the Apocalypse 
primarily on that of Annorew of Caesar 
other exegetical works. Deeply interested in antiq- 
uity, Arethas acquired a large library, commis- 
sioning some MSS, adding scHOLIa to others. Some 
scholia form a polemical dialogue with the author, 
some allude to contemporary affairs: criticism of 
the luxury at Basil P's court, ridicule of Stylianos 
ZAOUTZES, references to the war with Bulgaria, or 
the dispute over the tetragamy. Some of Arethas’s 
letters expressed his views on Leo’s marriage (Jen- 
kins, Studies, pt. VIL [1956], 293—372). In others 
he discussed the books he had read (C. Milova- 
novié, ZbFilozFak 14.1 [Belgrade 1979] 59-67). 
He also wrote homilies and pamphlets. One, esp. 
vitriolic, accused Leo CHOIROSPH of pagan 
beliefs. The attribution of some of his w 
still remains disputable; Jenkins (S$ ; 
[1963], 168) rejected and P. K i 
tion 35 [1965] 455-81) de - 
thorship of the letter to a Saracen emir; J. 
(JOB 25 [1976] 75—80) saw in Arethas the author 
of the CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA. 

Arethas has been severely judg yy Modern 
scholars as “a narrow-minded, bad-hearted man” 
The Imperial Centuries [Lon- 
his style criticized as turgid; 
ed the ideal of plain speech, 
amented his vocabulary “with 
allusions, and poetic lines, 
aic cubes” (Westerink, infra 
aving the way for the revival 








a) and 






















pt at 







Koc le T 


















. rheto 


Pi 


£D. Scripta minora, ed. L. Westerink, 2 vols. (Leipzig 
1968—72). PG 1006:500-785. See list in Tusculum-Lexikon 
75- 

LIT. Lemerle, Humanism 29'7 
saretas Arethas kai to ergon a 
Hayter, Studies, pts. VIT-TX (1964 
dice vallicelliano di Areta (Padua 1972). 











chimi, Tf 


s A 






ARGOLID ('Apyoàis), area of the ne 
PELOPONNESOS divided into two distinct re 
a rich central plain and a mountainous peri 
The main city was Argos, but in late antiqui 

Troizen, and Hermione AW 
nains of that date, both eccle- 
. are attested from these sites 
Krautheimer, ECBArch 118, 


ions: 









164 | ARGOS 


fig.72); the Argolid may have had its own school 
of mosaicists. After devastation by invasions in the 
late 6th and 7th C. the Argolid was partially 
settled by Slavs (Yannopoulos, infra), but the Byz. 
regained control of the area by the gth C. 

The first attested bishop of Argos participated 
in the “Robber” Council of Ephesus in 449; by 
the 10th C. Argos was combined with NaupLia as 
a bishopric. In 1188/g Isaac II promoted the see 
of Nauplia-Argos to the status of metropolis. An- 
other important ecclesiastical center was Troizen, 
mentioned still in 787; by the time of Leo VI the 
see was renamed Damalas and its bishop con- 
sidered the protothronos of the metropolitan of 
Corinth (i.e., above Nauplia-Argos); Damalas is 
found in the episcopal lists to the end of the 
empire. 

In the igth C. the Argolid was particularly 
wealthy, if the number of surviving churches is 
any measure. They are found not only in the 
plain, at Argos, Chonika, Merbaka, Areta, and 
elsewhere, but also in the mountainous east at 
Ligourio (Ch. Bouras, DCAAE* 7 [1973-74] 1- 
30) and Damalas. Most of these churches display 
a similarity of style that suggests a local school of 
architecture. In the late 1ath C. powerful land- 
owners came to the fore, the most important of 
whom was Leo Scouros. After 1205 the Argolid 
fell under the control of the duke of Athens, and 
Frankish forts were built (or rebuilt) at the Larissa 
of Argos, Nauplia, and in the pass at Agionori. 
The Venetians came to dominate the east coast 
and, after a brief restoration of Byz. power, the 
Argolid fell finally to the Ottomans in 1458. 

LIT. H. Megaw, “The Chronology of Some Middle Byz- 
antine Churches,” BSA 32 (1931—32) go—190. B. Konte, 
“Symbole sten historike geographia tou nomou Argolidos,” 
Symmeikia 5 (1983) 169-202. P.A. Yannopoulos, “La péné- 
tration slave en Argolide,” in Etudes argiennes (Paris 1980) 
323-71. Laurent, Corpus 5.1:424—-30. -T.E.G. 





ARGOS. See ARGOLID. 


ARGYROKASTRON (Apyvpdxactporv, mod. 
Gjirokastra in Albania), on the left bank of the 
River Drino, strongly fortified city, known only 
from the 14th to isth C. In 1338-39 Argyrokas- 
tron supported Andronikos ILI but later it was in 
Albanian hands; in 1418 it fell to the Turks under 
Hamza Beg and served as a Turkish stronghold 
against Albanian resistance. The surviving forti- 


fications, much rebuilt in early modern times, are 
Byz., and pottery of the i2th—1i3th C. has been 
found. 


ur. TIB gif -T.E.G. 


ARGYROPOULOS, JOHN, writer and teacher 
in Constantinopole and Italy; born Constantino- 
ple? ca. 1393/4 (Canivet-Oikonomides) or ca.1415? 
(Cammelli), died Rome 26 June 1487. Argyro- 
poulos ( Apyupdzrevies) is first attested as a mem- 
ber of the Byz. delegation to the Council of Fer- 
rara-Florence in 1438/9. From 1441 to 1443 he 
studied at the University of Padua, learning fluent 
Latin and earning a degree in letters and medi- 
cine; at the same time he gave private Greek 
lessons. He returned to Constantinople, and by 
1448 was teaching at the Mouseion of the XENON 
OF THE KRAL; a pro-Unionist, he had converted 
to Catholicism by this time as well. After the fall 
of Constantinople, he emigrated in 1456 to Flor- 
ence, where for 15 years he taught Greek philos- 
ophy, primarily Aristotle and to a lesser extent 
Plato. His students included Lorenzo de’ Medici. 
He is credited with shifting the interests of Flor- 
entine humanists from rhetoric to the metaphys- 
ical philosophy of Plato. In 1471 he moved to 
Rome, where he joined the curia of Pope Sixtus 
IV, then under the leadership of BEssaRIon. With 
the exception of a four-year residence in Florence 
(1477-81), he spent the rest of his life in Rome 
as teacher and translator. 

Argyropoulos made Latin translations of Aris- 
totle (the Nicomachean Ethics), Porphyry, and Basil 
the Great. His own writings, in both Latin and 
Greek, were varied: his rhetorical works include 
a monody for Emp. John VII (Lampros, Pal. kat 
Pel. 3:313—19), three orations to Constantine XI, 
and an introduction to the Progymnasmata of 
APHTHONIOS. In theology, he composed treatises 
on the Holy Spirit and the Council of Florence 
(PG 158:991—1008), and 12 short erotapokriseis. P. 
Canivet and N. Oikonomides (Diptycha 3 [1982- 
83] 5—97) have proposed that Argyropoulos is the 
author of an invective against a certain Katablat- 
tas. 





ED. S.P. Lampros, Argyropouleza (Athens 1910). For com- 
plete list of ed. and tr., see Cammelli, infra 183-87. 

ut. D. Geanakoplos, “The Italian Renaissance and By- 
zantium: The Career of the Greek Humanist-Professor 
John Argyropoulos in Florence and Rome (1415-1487),” 
Conspectus of History 1.1 (1974) 12—28. G. Cammelli, Gio- 


vanni Argiropulo (Florence 1941). V. Brown, “Giovanni 

Argiropulo on the Agent Intellect,” in Essays in Honour of 

A.Ch. Pegis (Toronto 1974) 160-75. PLP, no.1267. 
—-A.M.T. 


ARGYROPRATES (dpyupomparys, lit. “seller of 
silver,” Lat. argentarius), term that in the 6th C. 
primarily designated a moneylender. Argyropratai 
were known in Alexandria and other large cities, 
but the argyropratai of Constantinople were esp. 
rich and influential. Their private activities (lend- 
ing money at 8 percent INTEREST, mediating in 
the sale of precious objects, guaranteeing pay- 
ment of DEBTS) were combined with various state 
functions that enabled some of them to acquire 
significant wealth and exercise political influence. 
Several seals of argyropratai (some of them collec- 
tive, belonging to two men) dated to the 7th—8th 
C. imply that their official activity continued long 
after Justinian 1, who devoted three special laws 
to argyropratai. Some argyroprataz, like JULIANUS 
“ARGENTARIUS,” were wealthy enough to build 
churches. The function of the argyroprates as a 
moneylender is still found in the gth-C. Basilika. 

The term argyroprates also designated a vendor 
of gold and silver. The 10th-C. Book of the Eparch 
(ch.2) describes the guild of the argyropratai as 
primarily concerned with the sale of gold and 
silver objects, of bullion, and of precious stones. 
It is unclear, however, to what extent these 10th- 
C. argyropratai functioned as craftsmen (see Jew- 
ELERS). Although there is one reference in the 
Book of the Eparch to the argyroprates serving as a 
money changer (ch.2.3), most of their financial 
operations seem to have been shifted to the tra- 
pezilai Or BANKERS, who formed a separate guild. 
The term argyroprates virtually disappears after 
the 1oth C. 

LIT, Bk. of Eparch 127-40. Stéckle, Ziinfte 20-23. A. 
Cekalova, “Konstantinopol'skie argiropraty v epochu Jus- 
tiniana,” VizVrem 34 (1973) 15—21. S. Barnish, “The Wealth 


of Iulianus Argentarius,” Byzantion 55 (1985) 5—38. 
—A.K., A.C. 


ARGYROS (‘Apyupés, fem. “Apyvp7), “silver”), or 
Argyropoulos (Apyvpdzrovdos), a noble lineage 
flourishing from the mid-gth to the mid-11th C. 
The family founder, Leo Argyros, came from the 
theme of Charsianon, where the Argyroi pos- 
sessed lands (TheophCont 974.6—12). They func- 
tioned predominantly as strategoi (of Anatolikon, 





ARGYROS | 165 


Sebasteia, Vaspurakan, Italy, etc.); the patrikios 
Marianos was domestikos ton scholon under Nike- 
phoros 11 Phokas, and the patrikios Pothos was 
domestikos ton exkoubiton ca.g58. Romanos IIT Ar- 
eyros, the only known Argyros in civil service 
(eparch and megas oikonomos), became emperor in 
1028. The sons of Romanos’s brother Basil par- 
ticipated in the revolt of Isaac 1 Komnenos of 
1057. Alexios (I) Komnenos planned a marriage 
with a daughter of a certain very wealthy Argyros 
(Bryen. 221.12—17), but the fiancée died. In the 
12th C. the Argyroi lost their high position, but 
the family is attested through the 15th C. The 
Argyropouloi were active in Thessalonike in the 
15th C.: they leased a tenement from IveRoN and 
improved the land (Délger, Schatz., no.102). The 
family produced several intellectuals: the astron- 
omer Isaac Argyros, the humanist John Argyro- 
poulos, the musician Manuel Argyropoulos (see 
Arcyros, Isaac and ArGyropouLos, Jonn). The 
relation of the Byz. Argyroi with the Argyroi of 
Bari (i.e., ARGyROS, son of Melo) is unclear. 

LIT. J.F. Vannier, Familles byzantines; Les Argyrot (IX°— 
XIF siècles) (Paris 1975) and critical notes W. Seibt, JOB 26 
(1977) 323-26, and A. Kazhdan ByzF 12 (1987) Gof. J. 
Ferluga, “Poteci jedne vizantijske aristokratske porodice— 


Argiri,” ZbFilezFak 12.1 (1974) 153-67. PLP, nos. 1249- 
92. ~A.K, 


ARGYROS, son of Melo of Bari; magistros, vestes, 
and doux of Italy, Calabria, Sicily, and Paphla- 
gonia (1051—58); born ca.1000, died after 1058, 
possibly Bari 1068. During Melo’s first revolt, 
Argyros and his mother were sent to Constanti- 
nople. Returning to Italy in 1029, Argyros re- 
peatedly rebelled against the Byz., in 1042 with 
Norman assistance. When his opponent, the ka- 
tepano George MANIAKES, tried to usurp the Byz. 
throne, Argyros went over to the emperor (Sept. 
1042). Summoned to Constantinople in 1045, he 
assisted in deteating Leo ‘oRNIKIOs, but quar- 
reled with Patr. MicHagx I KeRouLarios. In 1051 
he returned to Bari, as its first Lombard governor. 
To halt the Normans, he sought an alliance with 
Pope Leo IX. The alliance materialized, but in 
1053 Argyros and Leo were separately defeated 
and the pope taken prisoner. From captivity, Leo 
sent Cardinal HumsBerr to Keroularios. Hum- 
bert’s embassy (1054) visited Bari, and eventually 
Keroularios claimed Argyros had forged offen- 
sive papal letters and had Argyros’s son and son- 








166 ARGYROS, ISAAC 








in-law arrested. Argyros vainly strove to renew 
the papal-Byz. alliance until relieved of office (mid- 
1058). The praenomen “Argyros” seems uncon- 
nected with the Byz. family of Argyros. 

ut. Falkenhausen, Dominazione 59—62, 97f. J.-F. Van- 
nier, Familles byzantines: Les Argyroi ({X*—XII® siècles) (Paris 
1975) 57E. ~C.M.B. 


ARGYROS, ISAAC, mathematician, astronomer, 
and theologian; born Thrace? between 1300 and 
1310, died ca.1375. A student of Nikephoros GRE- 
Goras, the monk Argyros was the leading Byz. 
champion of Ptolemaic asTRONOMY in the 1360s 
and 1370s. He wrote a Construction of New Tables 
and a Construction of New Tables of Conjunctions and 
Oppositions (of the sun and moon), for both of 
which the epoch is 1 Sept. 1367. In them he 
recomputes for the Roman calendar and the lon- 
gitude of Constantinople the mean motions of the 
sun, moon, and planets, and the syzygies that 
Protemy had tabulated in the Almagest according 
to the Egyptian calendar and the longitude of 
Alexandria. These tables were soon plagiarized 
and criticized by John Apramios (Pingree, “As- 
trological School” 196f). In 1367/8 Argyros wrote 
a treatise on the ASTROLABE (ed. Delatte, AnecdAth 
2:236—53), closely based on the similar treatise of 
Gregoras. In late 1372 he dedicated a work on 
the computus (PG 19:127g—1316) to Andronikos 
Oinaiotes (A. Mentz, Beiträge zur Osterfestberech- 
nung bei den Byzantinern [Königsberg 1906] 27— 
29); in this work he indicates that he was at Ainos 
in Thrace in 1318 (Mercati, Notizie 233-36). He 
also wrote scholia on THEON, but did not write, 
as has been alleged, the anonymous Instructions 
for the Persian Tables. 

Argyros’s mathematical works include one on 
the square roots of nonsquare numbers (A. Al- 
lard, Centaurus 22 [1978] 1-43); a treatise based 
on Heron’s Geometrics concerning the reduction 
of nonright to right triangles and other geomet- 
rical problems, composed in 1367/8; and a Method 
of Geodesy, also based on Heron (J.L. Heiberg, 
Heronis Alexandrini Opera, vol. 5 [Leipzig 1914] 
xcvili—cii). He also wrote scholia to Ptolemy’s Ge- 
ography and edited with scholia his Harmonics (1. 
Düring, Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios 
[Goteborg 1930] xxxii, lxvi). 

Like Gregoras, Argyros supported BARLAAM OF 
CALABRIA in the Palamite controversy. He wrote 
three anti-Palamite treatises, including an attack 


on Theodore Dexios’s concept of the light on Mt. 
Tabor (M. Candal, OrCarP 23 [1957] 80-113). 
Ep. Scholia on Theon—ed. N. Halma, Tables manuelles 
astronomiques, pt.3 (Paris 1825) 59-74; pt4 (Paris 1825) 
67-117. 
LIT. Mercati, Notizie 229-46, 270-82. PLP, no.1285. 
~D.P. 


ARIADNE (‘Apidévn), in Greek mythology 
daughter of Minos and spouse of THESEUS; after 
Theseus had deserted her, she married Dionysos. 
Nonnos OF PANOPOLIS, in the 47th book of his 
Dionystaka, concentratés on the sudden transfor- 
mation of the abandoned and lamenting Ariadne 
into the happy bride of her “heavenly wooer” and 
describes her triumphal wedding; when in the 
battle against Perseus Ariadne was turned into 
stone (petrodes nymphe), Nonnos notes that she was 
happy in her death “because she found one so 
great to slay her” and because she was taken up 
to the heavens. The idea of happiness through 
death was important for the world view of the 
5th C. MaLatas emphasized another aspect of the 
myth of Ariadne: he eliminates the theme of 
Ariadne’s romantic attraction to Theseus, made 
her the wife promised him by the Cretans if he 
destroyed the Minotaur, and finally claimed that 
she retired to “the temple of Zeus” (instead of 
marrying Dionysos). 

The name Ariadne was popular in the late 
Roman period. Leo I’s daughter ARIADNE became 
an empress, and a legend tells of a saint Ariadne, 
a young bond-maid in Phrygia who fled from 
persecutions and found a happy death disappear- 
ing into a rock (petra). 

LIT. Reinert, Myth 552-55. P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, “La 
leggenda di S. Ariadne,” ST 6 (1901) 91—113. ~ALK. 


(i 


ARIADNE, more fully Aelia Ariadne, augusta; 
born before 457, died Constantinople end of 515. 
The elder daughter of Emp. Leo I and VERINA, 
Ariadne married Zeno in 466/7 and Anastasios I 
on 20 May 491. Since Leo had no sons, Ariadne’s 
marriages served to perpetuate the dynasty. Her 
union with Zeno also signified Leo’s alliance with 
the Isaurians against AspaR and marked an im- 
portant point in the growth of anti-Germanic sen- 
timent in Constantinople. Upon the death of Leo 
(474), her son Leo II became emperor but soon 
died, leaving power in Zeno’s hands. Ariadne may 


have been involved in the revolt of Basiliskos 
and sought to soften Zeno’s anger against her 
mother in the aftermath. When Zeno died in 491 
Ariadne dominated the court and chose Anasta- 
sios I to succeed him. 

An unusually large number of portraits of Ari- 
adne survive in marble and ivory, a fact to be 
explained perhaps by her dominance over her 
consorts and repeated status as sole heir to the 
imperial office (Age of Spirit., nos. 24—25). 

LIT. Bury, LRE 1:390-95, 429-32. W. Hahn, “Die 
Mitinzpragung fiir Aelia Ariadne,” in Byzantios 101-06. D. 
Suutzinger, “Das Bronzebildnis einer spatantiken Kaiserin 


aus Balajnac im Museum von Niš,” JbAChr 29 (1986) 146- 
65. -T.E.G., A.C. 


ARIANISM, subordinationist heresy that denied 
the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; 
it was named for its main proponent ARIUS. Ari- 
anism involved a dispute about the relationship 
of members of the TRIniTY: it taught that the Son 
was not coeternal with the Father but was created 
by him from nothing. This preserved the mon- 
archy of the Father and a strict monotheism but 
raised problems concerning SALVATION since the 
sacrifice of a Christ who was less than fully God 
might prevent the genuine deification (THEOSIS) 
of mankind. Arianism arose in Alexandria, where 
it was condemned by the bishop Alexander; it 
gained many adherents, however, throughout the 
East, including Eusrpios OF NIKOMEDEIA. At the 
Council of Nicata in 325 the Orthodox party, led 
by AtHanasios of Alexandria, was successful in 
securing the acceptance of a declaration that Christ 
was HOMOOUSIOS with the Father, which resulted 
in the condemnation of Arianism. Emp. Constan- 
tine I, who at first supported the decisions of 
Nicaea, soon began to waver; the exiled Arians 
were recalled in 328 and many Orthodox bishops, 
including Athanasios, were banished. 
Constantius II openly supported Arianism and 
persecuted the Orthodox; several councils in the 
East attempted to heal the rift through a variety 
of compromises. As a result several forms of Ar- 
ianism developed. Most extreme were the Ano- 
moians, who emphasized the difference between 
the Father and the Son, but the Homoians, the 
Homorousians, and the PNEUMATOMACHOI rep- 
resented other variations; prominent Arian 
spokesmen included AETros and Eunomios. The 
Struggle between Arians and Orthodox also re- 











‘ARIB IBN SA‘D AL-QURTUBI | 167 





flected rivalry among various bishops, esp. those 
of Constantinople and Alexandria; Arianism may 
have been a particularly important urban phe- 
nomenon in the East, esp. in Constantinople, and 
the social orientation of Arian monks may help 
explain the movement’s initial success. 

After the death of Constantius IHI Orthodoxy 
gained ascendancy in the West, although in the 
East the emperor Valens was an Arian. The final 
victory of Orthodoxy came under Theodosios | 
at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (see under 
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF), and the sect slowly 
disappeared from the East. In the West, Arianism 
remained a pressing problem since many Ger- 
manic tribes had been converted by Arian mis- 
sionaries and this religious difference long re- 
mained the line between Romania and Germania. 

Later legends often dwell on the heinous be- 
havior of the Arians. An unknown chronicler 
Ankyrianos (sometimes but groundlessly identi- 
fied as NEILOS OF ANKYRA) was quoted as stating 
that the Arians burned portraits of the 4th-C. 
bishops of Constantinople displayed at the Milion 
(see Mese) together with an image of the Virgin 
and Child (Parastaseis 68.13—70.2); later MS illus- 
trations show them burning Orthodox churches 
(Omont, Miniatures, pl.LH). John of Damascus 
(imag. 3:90.33-43, ed. Kotter, Schriften 3:183), 
reports, referring to THEODORE LECTOR (HE 131f), 
that an emperor (the name, Anastasios, may be 
an insertion of John) commissioned a painting 
showing the death of the Arian Olympios who 
had insulted the Trinity. As late as the THEODORE 
PsaLTER (Der Nersessian, L’idlustration I, fig.176), 
the Arians are depicted as opponents of Orthodox 
beliefs. 


source. H.G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des aria- 
nischen Streites (Berlin 1934). 

ut. E. Boularand, L’Hérésie d’Arius et la ‘Foi’ de Nicée, 2 
vols. (Paris 1972—73). H.M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism? 
(Cambridge 1900). R. Gregg. D. Groh. Early Arianism: A 
View of Salvation (London 1981). M. Simonetti, La crisi 
ariana nel IV secolo (Rome 1975). H.A. Wolfson, “Philo- 
sophical Implications of Arianism and Apollinarianism,” 
DOP 12 (1958) 3—28. G. Telepneff, J. Thornton, “Arian 
Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Atha- 
nasios,” GOrThR 32 (1987) 271-77. ~T.E.G., A.C, 








‘ARIB IBN SAD AL-QURTUBI, Arab historian 
from Cordoba; died g80? He held several posi- 
tions under the Spanish Umayyads, serving as 
governor of Osuna in 943 and as secretary to one 








168 | ARILJE 








ruler, perhaps al-Hakam II (961-76). A practic- 
ing physician, he wrote on various medical sub- 
jects. He was deemed a competent philologist, and 
his astronomical, meteorological, and agricultural 
calendar was incorporated into the so-called Cal- 
endar of Cordoba. 

His best-known work was a history epitomizing 
the annals of al-Tapari and continuing the nar- 
rative into the g6os. Most of this work is appar- 
ently lost, but the MS Gotha 261 has been iden- 
tified as the section for the years go03~—32. This 
text focuses on Iraq, Spain, and North Africa, but 
includes no less than 12 accounts of conflicts with 
Byz. along the Thughtr (see ‘AWAsIM AND 
THUGHOR) as well as a brief report on a maritime 
expedition organized from al-Fustat in 931. It also 
discusses diplomatic negotiations and Byz. embas- 
sies to Baghdad in go7 and g17. 

ED. Sila ta’rikh al-Tabari, ed. M.A.F. [brahim in his Dhu- 
yül ta’rikh al-Tabari (Cairo 1969) 9-184- 

ur. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.2:48-63. C. Pellat, E7? 1:628. 
Sezgin, GAS 1:327. -L.1.C. 


ARILJE, a monastery in the western Serbian town 
of the same name, the seat of the Serbian bishops 
of Moravica. The main church, dedicated to St. 
Achilleios of Larissa, was founded by the NEMAN- 
yip ruler Stefan Dragutin, the elder son of STEFAN 
Uroš I, before 1296. Its essentially Byz. church 
plan has a single nave with short cross arms for 
the choir, a dome on pendentives, a tripartite 
sanctuary, and a narthex. Its façade is decorated 
with a row of shallow arcades under the roof. 
According to a fragmentary inscription preserved 
in the drum of the dome, the frescoes were painted 
in 1296. To the traditional elements of a Byz. 
church program were added depictions of the 
TREE OF Jesse, church councils, the Sacrifice of 
Abraham, the life of St. Nicholas (Sevéenko, Ni- 
cholas 40, 236-40), and the figure of a winged 
John the Baptist as well as portraits of Serbian 
bishops and archbishops (G. Babić in Sava Neman- 
jié 322-24) and members of the Nemanjid dy- 
nasty. The style shows many features typical of 
Palaiologan art (see MONUMENTAL PAINTING), al- 
though certain mistakes in anatomy, the very strong 
contours that delineate both the figures and the 
painted architecture, and the relatively dark col- 
ors distinguish these frescoes from the best Con- 
stantinopolitan achievements of the time. The 
painters of Arilje were probably Greeks from 


Thessalonike: an inscription on a window soffit 
reads “MARPOU,” a Thessalonikan political slo- 
gan referring to Michael VIII (cf. Djuri¢, infra, 
and Pachym., ed. Failler, 1:48 n.2, 49.4). The 
painters’ evident preference for figural relief over 
the color harmonies favored by the previous gen- 
eration (the Constantinopolitan artists working at 
Sopoćani) also suggests a Thessalonikan origin for 
these frescoes. 

ur. M. Canak-Medié, Arilje (Belgrade 1985). Djuri¢, Byz. 
Fresk. 61f. -G.B. 


ARISTAINETOS (Apıoraiveros), fictitious au- 
thor of two books of letters, probably written 
ca.520 (O. Mazal, JOB 26 [1977] 1—5). The subject 
is sexual passion, treated in a variety of ways—as 
miniature romance, dialogue, description, etc. The 
style is rhetorical and full of quotations from 
earlier writers (Aikiphron, Menander, Plato, Lu- 
cian, etc., none later than about the grd C.). These 
are apparently known extensively and at first hand, 
a valuable indication of the literary works current 
in the early 6th C. and of the tastes of the time. 

ED. Epistularum libri HT, ed. O. Mazal (Stuttgart 1971). 
Russ. tr., S. Poljlakova, Vizantijskaja (jubounaja proza (Mos- 
cow-Leningrad 1965) 7—45. 

ur. W.G. Arnott, “Pastiche, Pleasantry, Prudish Eroti- 


cism: the Letters of ‘Aristaenetus, ” YCS 27 (1982) 2gi— 
320. ~E.M.J., MJJ 


ARISTAKES LASTIVERTC'I, iith-C. Arme- 
nian historian. Aristakes came from Lastivert, near 
Erzurum; of his life nothing is known. His History 
of Armenia, describing the period 1000—72, is of 
particular value for Byz. expansion into Armenia, 
the collapse of the BAaGratip dynasty, the inva- 
sions of the Seljuk Turks, and the eventual loss 
of eastern Anatolia. His attitude to Byz. is ambiv- 
alent: he often laments the misfortunes brought 
upon Armenia by foreign nations, but he blames 
the Armenians’ own sins rather than Byz. malice. 
For the collapse of Armenian unity in the face of 
Byz. and Turkish invasions he blames the heresy 
of the TonpRAKITES, a group also attacked by 
GREGORY MAGISTROS. 

ED. Patmut'iwn Hayoc‘, ed. K. Juzbašjan (Erevan 1969). 
Tr. with comm. M. Canard, H. Berbérian, Récit des malheurs 
de la nation arménienne (Brussels 1973). : 

LIT. K. Juzbašjan, “‘Varjagi’ i ‘pronija’ v socinenii Aris- 
takesa Lastivertci,” VizVrem 16 (1959) 14-28. Idem, “Dej- 


lemity v ‘Povestvovanii’ Aristakesa Lastivertci,” PSb 7 (1962) 
146-51. -R.T. 


ARISTEIDES, AILIOS, rhetorician of the Sec- 
OND Sopuistic; born 117 or 129, died ca.18g9. In 
the discussion of the relative values of philosophy 
and rhetoric, Aristeides took a clear stand against 
Paro and asserted the primacy of RHETORIC. 
This probably was one of the causes of his pop- 
ularity in Byz., where his works were copied (one 
of the best MSS was commissioned by ARETHAS 
oF CAESAREA) and provided with scholia. The 
Neoplatonist OLYMPIODOROS OF ALEXANDRIA po- 
lemicized against Aristeides, not only in defend- 
ing Plato but also, in a political context, while 
attacking the idea of democracy (F. Lenz, Opuscula 
selecta [Amsterdam 1972] 129-34). Aristeides was 
esp. often used by late Byz. authors such as Pla- 
noudes, Thomas Magistros, and Chortasmenos; 
Theodora Raoulaina copied a MS of his Oratzons. 
METOCHITES wrote a comparison of DEMOSTHENES 
and Aristeides, arguing that the latter rivaled the 
more ancient orator in his mastery of eloquence 
and was superior to Demosthenes with regard to 
his moral and political attitude. 








LIT. F, Lenz, Aristeidesstudien (Berlin 1964). M. Gigante, 
“Il saggio critico di Teodoro Metochites su Demostene e 
Aristide,” ParPass 20 (1965) 51—92. A. Milazzo, “Una de- 
clamazione perduta di Elio Aristide negli scoliasti Ermo- 
geniani del V secolo,” Sileno g (1983) 55—73- —A.K. 

















ARISTENOS (Apiornvés), a family of civil func- 
tionaries, mostly judicial. In the 12th C. Nikepho- 
ros BASILAKES considered them a well-known lin- 
eage (A. Garzya, ByzF 1 [1966] 100.147~49); 
George Tornikios stated that they were famous 
not for their worldly brilliance but for piety (Dar- 
rouzeés, Tornikés 176f). The Aristenoi are known 
from the mid-11th C. when at least two of them 
corresponded with PsELLos. Gregory Aristenos, a 
judge at the trial of Jonn ITa.os, is probably to 
be identified with his homonym, the proedros of 
1094 (Gautier, “Blachernes” 258). Alexios Aris- 
tenos was an ecclesiastical official and canonist 
(see ARISTENOS, ALEXIOS). Basil served as judge 
in 1196 (MM 4:305.12—13). Several Aristenoi are 
known only by their seals: an eparch (Laurent, 
Corpus 2, no.1036); a judge (no.go1); Michael, the 
logothetes tou dromou (no.439); Basil, the paratha- 
lassites (no.1132). The family did not survive the 
fall of Constantinople in 1204. -A.K. 





ARISTOCRACY 169 





ARISTENOS, ALEXIOS, mid-1eth-C. canonist. 
Under Emp. Jonn H Komnenos, Aristenos wrote 
a commentary on the Nomokanon (A. Pavlov, 
ZMNP 303 [Jan. 1896] 172f) that probably ante- 
dated that of Zonaras. He fulfilled both ecclesi- 
astical (protekdikes, skeuophylax, megas otkonomes) and 
secular (nomophylax, dtkaiodotes, orphanotrophos) 
functions. Since this combination was considered 
an infraction of canon law, the Council at Con- 
stantinople in 1157 required Aristenos to relin- 
quish the position of dikaiodotes (see under Con- 
STANTINOPLE, CounciLs OF). He was still alive at 
the time of Nikephoros, patriarch of Jerusalem 
(ca.1166—71). Nikephoros BaSILAKES wrote a pan- 
egyric of Aristenos. He was also close to Pro- 
DROMOS. 

ED. Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 2—4, or PG 137-38 (to- 
gether with Zonaras and Balsamon). 

LIT. Darrouzés, Tornikés 53-57. M. Krasnozen, “Kom- 
mentarij Alekseja Aristina na kanoni¢eskij Sinopsis,” Viz- 
Vrem 20 (1913) 189-207. -A.K 





ARISTOCRACY, a fluid concept in modern 
scholarship, usually denoting the ruling class, but 
equally applicable to those exerting moral and 
cultural as well as political leadership. The Byz. 
tended to avoid the words aristot and aristokratia 
in favor of eugenes, literally “well-born,” empha- 
sizing the concepts of honorable ancestry and 
high-minded spiritual and moral qualities. The 
Byz. were ambivalent about what it meant to be 
“well-born.” Scholarly debate has reflected this 
uncertainty. At one extreme, P. Bezobrazov (Očer- 
ki vizantijskoj kul’tury [Petrograd 1919] 12) argued 
that Byz. had neither an aristocracy of noble ori- 
gin nor a recognized nobility with strict privileges; 
at the other extreme, R. Guilland (BS g [1948] 
15) claimed that Byz. always made a clear distinc- 
tion between the old hereditary nobility and the 
nobility of rank and title. 

It scems that the aristocracy of the late Roman 
era, an old landowning gentry with large estates 
worked by coroni, disappeared in the East with 
the crises of the 7th C. During the 7th—gth C. 
almost nothing survived that could be called a 
hereditary nobility but, then, from the mid-gth C. 
we see the rise of aristocratic families made up of 
landlords and military magnates, deriving their 
power from the THEME organization, particularly 
in the frontier zones of Asia Minor or the north- 
ern Balkans. These became the DynaTo1 of 10th- 























170 | ARISTON AND DEIPNON 














C. sources. The rise of important families seems 
to be indicated by the introduction of patronymic 
NAMES, Starting in the gth C. and accelerating after 
ca.1ooo. The growing importance of LINEAGE is 
reflected in a passage from the TAKTIKA OF LEO 
VI (ch.2.2—3), which states that strategoi should be 
appointed on the basis of their achievements, not 
their ancestry, and adds that strategoi from non- 
noble families fulfilled their duties better because 
their deeds had to compensate for their humble 
birth. After Basil II crushed rebellions (987-89) 
of the provincial military aristocracy, represented 
by the families of PHokas and SKLEROS, the dynatoi 
began to cooperate with the imperial government 
and slowly gravitated toward Constantinople, where 
they eventually developed an economic base 
founded on rents from land, salaries, and impe- 
rial donations, plus some trade (G. Litavrin in 
VizOé [Moscow 1971] 164-68). 

The death of Basil H heralded a struggle be- 
tween the military aristocracy based on birth 
(Skleros, ARGyros, Doukas) and the civil aristoc- 
racy based on merit. The accession of Alexios I 
was a victory for the military aristocracy. During 
the early 12th C. three aristocracies existed: (1) 
the KomneNno!1 themselves and their “clan,” a mil- 
itary aristocracy that monopolized military com- 
mands and provincial governorships; (2) the old 
families who took refuge in the BUREAUCRACY and 
tended to make it a hereditary civil service; and 
(3) provincial families who dominated the coun- 
tryside. With the death of Manuel I a new struggle 
began among families that ultimately led to the 
structure of the aristocracy in the Palaiologan 
period. In Constantinople, the PALAIOLoGos fam- 
ily, along with a dozen or so other families (in- 
cluding the KANTAKOUZENOS, RAOUL, PETRALI- 
PHAS, Branas, TORNIKIOS, and SyYNADENOS 
families), held the chief positions in the imperial 
government, benefiting from imperial grants, in- 
cluding PRONOIAI and APPANAGES, primarily in 
Macedonia and Thrace, while provincial aristo- 
cratic families maintained local power bases in 
towns. Yet, even in this period, the Byz. aristoc- 
racy did not become a closed caste. 

LIT. The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XHI c., ed. M. Angold 
(Oxford 1984). A. Kazhdan, Social’ny sostav gospodstvujuš- 
čego klassa Vizanin XI-~XH vv. (Moscow 1974), with Fr. 
résumé by I. Sorlin, TM 6 (1976) 367-80. G. Ostrogorsky, 
“Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium,” DOP 25 


(1971) 1-32. A. Laiou, “The Byzantine Aristocracy in the 
Palaeologan Period,” Viator 4 (1973) 131~51. —M.B. 


ARISTON AND DEIPNON, ancient terms des- 
ignating midday and evening meals, respectively. 
The clear distinction between the two was lost in 
Byz., and Psellos reports that he taught his stu- 
dents the meaning of the word ariston (&piorov). 
Eustathios of Thessalonike, in his Commentary on 
Homer, sometimes identifies deipnon (Seimvov) as 
the evening, sometimes as the morning meal; ari- 
ston, he says, had the general meaning of meal. 
Nikephoros Bryennios (Bryen. 191.23—24) used 
ariston and deipnon interchangeably, as synonyms. 
Other sources, including monastic typika, are more 
specific and distinguish ariston as the earlier and 
deipnon as the later meal. Monks ate their ariston 
after the ORTHROS; sometimes it was their only 
meal. Laymen did not eat their first meal until 
midday: John II Komnenos is said to have had 
the ariston after hunting, and Niketas Choniates 
ridicules the emperors who were served an early 
deipnon. Nicholas Mesarites describes ariston as a 
noontime meal that included bread, wine, fish, 
meat, and vegetables (A. Heisenberg, Quellen und 
Studien zur spdtbyzantinischen Geschichte [London 
1973] pt.Il, 3, pp. 41.95-42.2). The austere Ke- 
kaumenos (Kek. 224.21—22) recommended a large 
ariston and no deipnon. The anonymous author of 
On Feod advises eating a full meal at noon and 
only bread and wine for deipnon (PhysMedGr 
2:194.1—195.9). 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:196—41. A. Kazhdan, “Skol’ko eli 
vizantijcy?” Voprosy istorii (1970) no.g, 217. —Ap.K., A.K. 


ARISTOPHANES (Apioto¢éavns), Greek comic 
poet; born Athens ca.445 B.C., died Athens ca.388. 
The oldest MS to transmit Aristophanes’ 11 ex- 
tant plays is of the late 10th C. At the same period, 
his life was recorded in the Souda along with some 
5,000 entries from his text and scholia. Systematic’ 
study of Aristophanes began in the 12th C. with 
the extensive commentaries of John Tzerzes and 
continued in the 14th C. with the annotated edi- 
tions by THOMAS MAGIstTROS and Demetrios TRIK- 
LINIOS. MS evidence shows that the plays selec- 
tively studied were Wealth, The Clouds, and The 
Frogs, with Wealth dominant because of its edify- 
ing message. 

Known as “the Comic” (ho komikos), Aristo- 
phanes was considered the foremost standard for 
the Attic dialect (Gregory Parpos, ed. Schafer, 
6f). The wide range of his language and style as 


well as the historical information in his plays 
undoubtedly caused his popularity with Byz. 
scholars and teachers who, it must be noted, made 
no attempt to expurgate his text. Tzetzes’ judg- 
ment is particularly interesting: he criticizes Ar- 
istophanes’ unfair treatment of Socrates but (Massa 
Positano et al., infra 2:377.1-10) admires Aristo- 
phanes’ opposition to war and approves whole- 
heartedly of his obscenity when it serves to pro- 
mote the noble cause of peace. 

ED. Jo. Tzetzae commentarii in Aristophanem, ed. L. Massa 
Positano, D. Holwerda, W.J.W. Koster, 4 vols. (Groningen- 
Amsterdam 1960—64), Scholia in Aristophanem Pars I, II, ed. 
W.J.W. Koster, 7 vols. (Groningen-Amsterdam 1969-82). 

uit. W.J.W. Koster, “Aristophane dans la tradition byz- 
antine,” REGr 76 (1963) 381-g6. Idem, Autour dun ma- 
nuscrit d’Aristophane écrit par Démétrius Triclintus (Groningen 


1957). Wilson, Scholars 122, 137, 146, 181, 238, 248, 251F. 
—A.C.H. 


ARISTOTLE, ancient Greek philosopher; born 
384 B.C., died 322. Byz. higher education always 
centered on the study of Aristotle. His works have 
been transmitted in over 1,000 MSS dated be- 
tween the gth and 16th C., making him by far the 
most widely copied ancient Greek author; he is 
also the most commented on. In the early period, 
interest in Aristotle was particularly strong at the 
school of Alexandria, where AMMONIOS and 
OLYMPIODOROS OF ALEXANDRIA managed to pre- 
sent PHILOSOPHY in a way that avoided trouble 
with the church. ELIAS OF ALEXANDRIA and Davip 
THE PHILOSOPHER, who succeeded Olympiodoros 
as head of the Alexandrian school, were also com- 
mentators on Aristotle, as was John PHILOPONOS. 
Compared to Prato, Aristotle was safer and of 
greater use to the Orthodox because parts of his 
system could be put directly to the service of 
theological discussion. After the 7th C., attention 
was concentrated on the logical treatises, which 
became the basis of philosophical studies. From 
then on the average educated Byz.’s direct contact 
with Aristotle consisted of learning the main con- 
cepts of the Organon, beginning with the Categories 
and ending with Sophistical Refutations. At the same 
time, interest in the nonlogical works of Aristotle 
was never fully lost, and in the chain of commen- 
tators, which stretches unbroken from PHorios 
in the gth C. to John CHorrasMENos in the 15th, 
several, through exegesis or paraphrase, made 
themselves and their students familiar with other 
parts of the Corpus. Striking examples are PSsEL- 





ARITHMOS 171 








Los, who composed a commentary on the Physics, 
MiCHAEL OF EpHEsuS, who commented on most 
parts of the Corpus including the zoological trea- 
tises, and Theodore METOCHITES, whose contri- 
butions to philosophical studies included para- 
phrases of the Parva naturalia. (See also JOHN 
ITaLos and Eusrratios OF NICAEA.) 

Aristotle and the Church Fathers. While the 
Alexandrian school made a serious study of Ar- 
istotle in the 4th-—6th C., church fathers, esp. 
those of the Latin West, were cautious in their 
approach to Peripatetic philosophy; Jerome em- 
phasized that it was heretics who cited Aristotle. 
In the East, Eusebios of Caesarea refuted various 
points of Aristotelian teaching, but some theolo- 
gians (esp. NEMEsSIOS) drew upon Aristotle; Aris- 
totelian logic became an important vehicle of ar- 
gumentation in the Cappadocian fathers, and John 
of Damascus used Aristotle to build his system of 
Christian doctrine. The major points of Peripa- 
tetic philosophy that Byz. theologians found un- 
acceptable were Aristotle’s rejection of divine 
Providence as a decisive factor directing the uni- 
verse; the concept that the god is physically rep- 
resented in the fifth element, the ether, so that 
the god was reduced to the “soul of the world” 
that moves material things; the idea that visible 
things are coeternal with the god; and the doc- 
trine of the mortality of the human soul, while 
only the nous (mind, intelligence) remained im- 
mortal. 

ED. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 23 vols. (Berlin 
1882—1909). 

LIT. Aristoteles, Werk und Wirkung: Paul Moraux gewidmet, 
vol. 2, ed. J. Wiesner (Berlin~-New York 1987). D. Harlfin- 
ger, “Einige Grundzüge der Aristoteles-Uberlieferung,” in 
Harlfinger, Kodikologie 447-83. K. Oehler, “Aristotle in 
Byzantium,” GRBS 5 (1964) 133-46. H.G. Thümmel, “Zur 
Tradition des aristotelischen Weltbildes in christlicher Zeit,” 
BBA 52 (1985) 73—80. T.S. Lee, Die griechische Tradition der 
aristotelischen Syllogistik in der Spdtantike (Gottingen 1984). S. 
Lilla, DPAC 1:349-63. A.J. Festugiére, L'idéal religieux des 
Grecs et l'Évangile” (Paris 1932) 221-63. ~j.D., AK. 


ARITHMOS (ap:@uos, lit. “number”), or poson, 
in documents from the mid-ioth to mid-ieth C. 
a fiscal term referring to the specific number of 
PAROIKOS (Or DOULOPAROIKOS) families granted by 
the emperor to an individual or an ecclesiastical 
corporation. This number served as a means of 
quantifying a grant and could not be reduced or 
increased without imperial approval. In a chry- 


172 | ARIUS 


sobull of 1148, Manuel I emphatically prohibited 
aposos grants of parotkoi, that is, without indication 
of “number” (Zepos, Jus 1:377.26-—27). Nikepho- 
ros III, in a chrysobull of 1079, emphasized that 
the specific arithmos could be increased or main- 
tained only from the children and grandchildren 
of the douloparoikoi of the monastery that received 
the grant (Lavra 1, no.38.24-26); a similar for- 
mula is found in a charter of Manuel I of 1156— 
the poson of 12 paroikoi was to be preserved, after 
the death of one of them, by drawing from their 
children (L. Petit, IRAIK 6 [1900] 32.19—21). This 
meant that one and only one son (or grandson) 
of a peasant who was included in an arithmos 
would replace his father in that role; the state 
could deprive the landowner of peasants above 
the arithmos. 

The fiscal and economic character of grants of 
an arithmos as well as the status and obligations of 
parotkoi within an arithmos are poorly understood. 
Although Kantakouzenos (Kantak. 2:63.14—-15) 
uses arithmos once to refer to the sizes of PRONOIA 
grants, the concept of arithmos was superseded 
after the 12th C. by that of posores, in which the 
object quantified was not the number of persons 
but the sum of endowed tax (Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 
245). In a charter of 1985 the monastery of St. 
Paul was granted not an arithmos of peasants but 
all the “natural (phystkot) paroiket” of a certain area 
(A. Kazhdan, VizVrem 2 [1949] 321). (For arithmos 
as the term for a military unit, see VIGLA.) 


LIT. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnoSenya 102f. Ostrogorsky, 
Paysannerie 27—31. —M.B. 


ARIUS ("Apesos), theologian, founder of ARIAN- 
isM; born Libya? ca.250, died Constantinople 336. 
A student of Lucran oF ANTIOCH, after ordination 
as a priest he became a popular preacher in Al- 
exandria, and ca.318 his teachings began to excite 
controversy. Because he said that Christ was not 
coeternal with the Father, Alexander, bishop of 
Alexandria, condemned him and he fled to Ni- 
komedeia. The controversy soon spread through- 
out the East, and Arius won the support of many 
influential churchmen such as Eusepios oF Ni- 
KOMEDEIA. Constantine I became involved in the 
controversy and summoned the Council of Nı- 
CAEA in 325; Arius was condemned and exiled to 
Illyria. In 328 Constantine recalled Arius, who 
soon managed to convince the emperor of the 


correctness of his views. ArHanasios of Alexan- 
dria opposed Arius’s teaching, but the latter allied 
with supporters of the first MELETIAN SCHISM; 
Athanasios was exiled, and the council of Tyre 
and Jerusalem rehabilitated Arius in 335, 

“A man of the big city” (Kannengiesser, infra 
208), Arius was an ascetic and a spiritual leader 
to numerous holy women and other disciples, a 
passionate preacher, and commentator on the Bi- 
ble. Of his writings only fragments are left: a 
letter to Eusebios of Nikomedeia and another to 
Alexander of Alexandria as well as the Thalia 
(Banquet), written at least partly in metric form 
(M.L. West, JThSt 33 [1982] g8—105) before 320 
(C. Kannengiesser in Kyriakon 1 [Münster 1970] 
346-51) and presenting his doctrine. Athanasios 
berates “the dissolute tone” and “effeminate tune” 
of the Thalia. According to Philostorgios (HE 2.2, 
p-13.6—8), Arius wrote songs for travelers on sea 
and land and for workers in the mills. 

Athanasios relates that Arius died an ignomin- 
ious death in a latrine. This tale, suspiciously 
resembling the fate of Judas, was developed in 
later legends (A. Leroy-Molinghen, Byzantion 37 
[1967-68] 126-33; 38 [1968] 105-11). 

LIT. Quasten, Patrelogy 3:7-13. C. Kannengiesser, 
“Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius,” in Roots of Egypt. 
Christ. 204-15. G.C. Stead, “The Thalia of Arius and the 


Testimony of Athanasius,” JThSt n.s. 29 (1978) 20-52. 
—T.E.G., A.K. 


ARKADIA (Apxaéia), mountainous central re- 
gion of the Peloponnesos. The name Arkadia ap- 
pears infrequently until the 15th C. (e.g., in pseudo- 
Sphrantzes). During the period of the Roman 
Empire, the area underwent an economic decline 
exacerbated by invasions of the Goths (end of the 
4th C.) and Slavs (7th C.); the latter left substantial 
traces in local toponymy. Old cities (Orchomenos 
[at modern Kalpaki], Mantineia, Megalopolis) dis- 
appeared; the name Arkadia was applied to the 
city of Kyparissia on the west coast of the Pelo- 
ponnesos, suggesting a population movement; in 
Tegea-Nikli archaeological excavations reveal a 
gap between levels of the 6th C. and those of the 
ioth—i2th C. Byz. authority in the region was 
restored after the expedition of STAURAKIOS in 
783 and that of Skleros under Nikephoros I. The 
oldest church in Arkadia after the Byz. reconquest 
is probably St. Christopher in Pallantio of the 10th 
C. (A. Abramea in Geographica byzantina [Paris 


1981] 33-96). Arkadia was placed under the ju- 
risdiction of the bishopric of LAKEDAIMON; in 1082/ 
3 Lakedaimon was transformed into a metropolis 
that included the bishoprics of Nikli, Pisse, and 
Ezerai. The area was conquered by the Crusaders 
by 1209 and divided into four baronies. Various 
monuments of this period survive, in Mouchli (see 
Nikxt) and Leontarion, near ancient Megalopolis 
(P. Velissariou, JOB 32.4 [1982] 625-31). 

ut. B. Konte, “Symbole sten historike geographia tes 
Arkadias,” Symmeikta 6 (1985) 91=124. A. Orlandos, “Pa- 
laiochristianika kai byzantina mnemeia Tegeas-Nikliou,” 


ABME 12 (1973) 3~176. G. Petropoulos-Sagias, Mesatonika 
toponymia potamon Arkadias (Athens 1978). -A.K 


ARKADIOPOLIS (Apkaéiotzro\ts), name of two 
cities, in Asia Minor and in Thrace. 


ARKADIOPOLIS IN IONIA (mod. Arakcilar in 


Turkey), suffragan bishopric of the metropolis of 


Asia (Notitiae CP 1.102). Its bishop attended the 
Council of Ephesus in 431; his successors are 
attested up to the 13th C. (E. Kurtz, VizVrem 12 
[1906] 103.8; J. Nicole, REGr 7 [1894] 80.26). 
Laurent (Corpus 5.1, nos. 292—93) ascribes to this 
see two seals of bishops of the 1oth—11th C., 
arguing that the hierarch of Thracian Arkadi- 
opolis at that time would have been an arch- 
bishop. 

LIT. R. Janin, DHGE 3:1483f. 
ARKADIOPOLIS IN THRACE (mod. Luleburgaz, 
in European Turkey), city on the route from 
ADRIANOPLE to Constantinople, built on the site 
of ancient Bergoule. This ancient name was re- 
tained by late Roman geographers (Tabula Peutin- 
geriana, Cosmographer of Ravenna, Hierokles, etc.) 
but in notitiae it appears already as Arkadi- 
opolis—the see of the autocephalous archbish- 
opric of Europe (Notitiae CP 1.49) and by the late 
12th C. a metropolis. Most historians, from Theo- 
phanes to Kantakouzenos, make Emp. Arkadios 
the founder of the city; Kedrenos (Cedr. 1:568.5- 
7), however, relates that it was Theodosios I who 
built the polis on the site of ancient “Bergoulion” 
and named it in honor of his son (i.e., Arkadios). 

As one of the strongholds (kastron—BeSevliev, 
Inschriften, no.26) protecting Constantinople from 
northern invasions, Arkadiopolis was often sub- 
ject to hostile attack. Attila seized the city in 441 
and Theodoric besieged it in 473; Thomas the 
Slav retreated to Arkadiopolis after his assault on 


~A.K. 








ARKADIOS | 173 


Constantinople had failed; in 97o the Rus’ army 
reached Arkadiopolis but was defeated at its walls 
by Bardas Skleros. The stronghold was an impor- 
tant station on the route of the Third Crusade: 
the HISTORIA DE EXPEDITIONE FRIDERICI describes 
the attack of German soldiers on Archadinopolim 
where they found much wine and other stored 
goods. Near the “polisma built by Arkadios,” writes 
Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 446.67), the gen- 
eral Alexios Gidos was routed by rebellious Bul- 
garians and Vlachs in 1194. After the fall of 
Constantinople in 1204, the civitas Archadtopoli (A 
Carile, StVen 7 [1965] 218.27) was given to Venice, 
but the rights to it were disputed, and the city 
changed hands several times; according to Cho- 
niates, it suffered serious destruction, and Ville- 
hardouin relates that its inhabitants left the city 
and sought refuge in Adrianople. According to 
Kantakouzenos (Kantak. 1:541.17—21), by his time 
Arkadiopolis was an ancient city in ruins; he men- 
tions that in 1340 Andronikos HI planned to 
rebuild it. 

ur. V. Velkov, Gradit v Trakija i Dakija prez kisnata 
antiénost (Sofia 1959) gof. C. Asdracha, “La Thrace orien- 


tale et la Mer Noire,” Byzantine Sorbonensia 7 (1988) 231- 
33. Laurent, Corpus 5.1:206f. -A.K. 


ARKADIOS (Apxdéios), emperor in the East 
(395-408); born Constantinople 377/8, died Con- 
stantinople 1 May 408. The son of THEoposios I 
and Aelia Flaccilla, he became augustus in 383. 
Left as regent in Constantinople in 394 when his 
father departed to fight the usurper EUGENIUS, 
he shared power with his brother Honorius after 
the death of Theodosios the following year. Ap- 
parently weak-willed and averse to action (Zosim. 
5.12.1; Philostorg., HE 11.3), Arkadios was dom- 
inated by others, first by Rurinus (395-96), then 
Eutropios (396-400), his wife Eupoxia (400—- 
04), and finally the praetorian prefect ANTHEMIOS 
(404-08). During Arkadios’s reign ALaRiG rav- 
aged the Balkans, while the Huns broke through 
the Caspian Gates and the Isaurrans disturbed 
eastern Asia Minor. Although Arkadios may not 
have dominated policy, important developments 
marked his reign: the growing movement toward 
the proscription of paganism, the defeat of Gainas 
and the Germanic threat to Constantinople, and 
the deposition of Jonn Curysostom. The court 
of Arkadios encouraged the development of a 
new concept of imperial victory based not on the 


174 ARKARIOS 


military prowess of the emperor but on his piety, 
reflected in new symbols of victory set up in the 
Hippoprome and in the Column of Arkadios 
erected in 400. 

uit. Bury, LRE 1:106-58. Demougeot, Unité 93—410. 
A. Giildenpenning, Geschichte des ostrémischen Reiches unter 


den Kaisern Arcadius und Theodosius 1] (Halle 1885; rp. Am- 
sterdam 1965). Kulakovskij, /storya 1:157-226. = -T.E.G. 


ARKARIOS (d&pxadpios, Lat. arcarius), in the late 
Roman Empire the name of various subordinate 
officials of treasuries—imperial, provincial, mili- 
tary, even private—who were often slaves or 
freedmen (P. Habel, RE 2 [1896] 429-31). In 
Byz. practice the term retained a very restricted 
meaning. In the Kletorologion of PHiLOTHEOS the 
arkarios is a subaltern official of the ORPHANOTRO- 
PHOS. The spatharokandidatos Leo, in the first half 
of the rith C., held the offices of chartoularios, 
arkarios, and imperial “measurer” (metretes) (Zacos, 
Seals 2, no.837), thus suggesting that the arkarios 
was probably involved in fiscal or economic op- 
erations. The NOMOKANON OF FOURTEEN TITLES 
Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 1:1'75.7—11) repeats Jus- 
tinian V's law of 530 (Cod.fust. 1 2.24.16) that 
rdered the orkonomo! of Constantinople to give 
an accounting to the arkariot (of the Great Church— 
omitted in the Nomokanon) every one or two 
nonths. It is unclear whether this rule reflects 
reality or only tradition. In Rome of the 6th—8th 
C., the arcarius, as keeper of the papal treasury, 
was, along with the sacellarius, the most important 
fiscal official. 

ur. Beck, Kirche 100. Bury, Adm. System 105. S. Keller, 


Die sieben römischen Pfalzrichter im byzantinischen Zeitalter 
(Stuttgart 1904) 108-12. -A.K. 














ARKLA (ġpràa, “box”), a kind of treasury, prob- 
ably provincial. The Kletorologion of Philotheos 
mentions the CHARTOULARIOI of the arklai in the 
department of the GENIKON as well as their notar- 
ies; the De ceremontis identifies these chartoulariot 
as “external,” that is, acting outside of Constanti- 
nople (De cer. 694.19). A seal of the 11th or 12th 
C. belonged to a certain Demetrios, chartoularios 
of the arkla (Laurent, Corpus 2, no.383). An 11th- 
C. fiscal document (Ivir. 1, no.30.34) is signed by 
Gregory Chalkoutzes, chartoulartos of the arkla of 
the West, a department of the genikon. 


ut. Bury, Adm. System 87. Dilger, Beiträge 69. —A.K. 


ARK OF THE COVENANT (xifwrdés [Ex 25:22] 
or oKnv} Tov waptupiou [Ex 37:5]). Usually found 
in narrative contexts such as the synagogue at 
Dura Evropos and illustrations to Joshua (chs. 
3-4, 6) (e.g., in the JosHua Ro Li, the OcTa- 
TEUCHS), it occurs rarely and symbolically else- 
where: a fresco in the CHora treats the recovery 
of the Ark from the Philistines as a prefiguration 
of the Virgin (see also Noan’s Ark), while KosMas 
INDIKOPLEUSTES discusses the Ark’s cosmological 
significance. As a vessel threatened but divinely 
protected, the Ark symbolized the church for 
Niketas DaviD PAPHLAGON (Encomium, p.36) and 
other commentators. Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of 
Moses (2.179) glosses the tabernacle as Christ and 
the Ark as his powers. 

uit. P. Bloch, LCI 1:341~43. L. Brubaker, “The Tab- 


ernacle Miniatures of the Byzantine Octateuchs,” 15 CEB, 
vol. 2 (Athens 1976) 85—90. —J.H.L., A.C., C.B.T. 


ARMAMENTON (éppapévrov, from Lat. arma- 
mentum), arms depot or arsenal in Constantinople. 
According to a gth-C. chronicler (Theoph. 274.22— 
24), Emp. Maurice built an armamenton near MaG- 
NAURA in 596 and set up his statue there; later 
sources ascribe both to Emp. Phokas. Guilland 
(Topographie 1:42) surmises that there were two 
different armamenta. There are some data con- 
cerning other arsenals. An enigmatic inscription 
mentions a great arsenales of Theophilos (Guil- 
land, Topographie 2:107), and it is unclear whether 
this evidence can be connected with the mansion 
of Armamentarea (the wife of the chief of the 
arsenal?) allegedly built by Theophilos (Janin, CP 
byz. 455) or transformed by Empress Theodora 
into the monastery of St. Panteleemon (Oiko- 
nomides, Documents, pt.1X [1964], 195). Some anti- 
Iconoclast texts accused Leo II or Constantine V 
of transforming the Church of St. Euphemia into 
an arms depot. Arsenals tn the Blachernai region 
and on the Propontis are known in the 14th C. 
The administration of armamenta presents some 
problems as well. Both the TAKTIKON of Uspenskij 
and the Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS mention the 
archon of the armamenton; Theophanes (297.17) 
speaks of ho epano of the armamenton in the reign 
of Phokas; Oikonomides (Listes 317) denies the 
existence of the katepano of the armamenton, whereas 
Ahrweiler (Mer 424, n.4) doubts his thesis. Seals 
mention the archon, strategos, and chartoularios of 
the imperial armamenton. Questionable, however, 


is the figure of the kourator of Arsanas or Artzanas 
whom Laurent considered a member of the staff 
of the armamenton—it would be more reasonable 
to interpret Arsanas as a local name, not as an 
arsenal. Armamenta possessed pack animals—a 
bronze tablet of the 6th C. indicates that they 
were exempt from ANGAREIAI (Zacos, Seals 2, 
no.i87; cf. N. Orkonomides, Diptycha 4 [1986—87] 
49~52). 

Lit. Bury, Adm. System 118. Oikonomides, Documents, pt. 
IX (1964), 193-96. Laurent, Corpus 2:343—46. —A.K. 


ARMBAND (usually in plural form wed(A)éa, Lat. 
armillae). The term usually refers to a military 
ornament, worn by Germanic soldiers on the up- 
per arm. Elsewhere, it is described as armilla gal- 
lica, a BRACELET inset with gem stones, worn on 
the lower arm. In the Romano-Byz. world the 
term armillae normally refers to military insignia 
in the form of armbands, made of silver and worn 
in pairs, one, or sometimes two, on each arm. 
Examples of armillae, as part of the emperor’s 
largesse, may be seen in the exergues of 4th—7th- 
C. medallions (e.g., DOCat 2, no.2), where they 
are shown as complete rings. Elsewhere, as in 
illustrations in the NotiriaA DIGNITATUM, they are 
shown as incomplete hoops, with the open ends 
forming knobs. The two spectacular enameled 
bracelets found in Thessalonike in 1958 (Splendeur 
de Byz. 190) have also been called armillae. 




















tir. R. MacMullen, “The Emperor’s Largesses,” Latomus 
21 (1962) 159-66. R. Elze, “Baugen-armillae: Zur Geschichte 
der königlichen Armspangen,” MGH Schriften 13.2 (1955) 
538-53. Koukoules, Bios 4:988f. -S.D 


ARMBANDS, AMULETIC, were manufactured 
in Egypt and Syria in the 6th—8th C. Most often 
silver, such JEWELRY is distinguished by recurrent 
inscriptions and images, and by a ribbonlike de- 
sign with incised figural medallions. Typically these 
armbands show at least part of the PALESTINIAN 
CHRISTOLOGICAL CYCLE as well as the beginning 
of the apotropaic goth Psalm. More elaborate 
examples add RING SIGNS, apotropaic ACCLAMA- 
TIONS, the Hory Riper, and some form of 
Cunousis. Because these armbands are closely 
related to Medusa AMULETS, which in addition to 
the above words and images bear various uterine 
incantations, they too were probably made specif- 
ically for women and control of the uterus. 


ARMENIA 175 


“Art, Medicine & Magic” 75-77. M. Picci- 
regione di Betlem,” 
-G.V. 


Lit. Vikan, 
rillo, “Un braccialetto cristiano della 


Lib.ann. 29 (1979) 244-52. 


ARMENIA (Appevia), kingdom and province on 
the northeast frontier of Byz. Much of medieval 
Armenian history remains obscure and problem- 
atic because of the lack of native sources before 
the Armenian alphabet was created (5th C.) and 
the limited point of view of subsequent ecclesias- 
tical historians. They were hostile to Iranian and 
Muslim cultures and Byz. Orthodoxy, which they 
rejected as nestorianizing after the Council of 
CHALCEDON. They focused primarily on northern 
Armenia and often supported the interests of a 
particular noble family. The christianization of 
the country at the beginning of the 4th C. drew 
it toward the Romans and away from its Iranian 
past. Nevertheless, throughout the Middle Ages, 
Armenia remained a buffer zone oscillating be- 
tween the classical world and the East. Conse- 
quently, its own history was conditioned by the 
balance of power beyond its borders, even though 
the native language, culture, and customs were 
stubbornly maintained. Internally, the sharp geo- 
graphical divisions of the Armenian plateau fos- 
tered the centrifugal tendencies of the magnates, 
jealous of their prerogatives and inclined to view 
the ruler merely as primus inter pares. 

Between 987 and 3go the earlier tripartite “Ar- 
menia” (the imperial province of Armenia Minor 
west of the Euphrates, the kingdom of Greater 
Armenia east of the river, and the southern Sa- 
TRAPIES) was transformed by the division of the 
ARSACID realm of Greater Armenia into a smaller 
imperial portion and a much larger Persarmenia 
(comprising some four-fifths of the former king- 
dom) along a north-south line from Karin (THEO- 
DOSIOUPOLIS) on the upper Euphrates to Dara in 
Mesopotamia. The Arsacid dynasty disappeared 
in both portions in ihe carly gti C. Theicafics, 
Persarmenia was governed by a marzpan, often a 
native magnate, residing at Duin, while the im- 
perial portion, Armenia Interior, was first admin- 
istered by a comes Armeniae until Justinian I (nov.31 
in 536) fused it with Armenia Minor, the Satra- 
pies, and parts of Pontos to form regular impe- 
rial provinces known as Armenia I-IV. This pat- 
tern survived almost three centuries when Emp. 
Maurice, by the peace of 591, greatly increased 
the imperial portion by extending the Byz. fron- 
tier eastward almost to Duin and the northwest 


176 | ARMENIA 








corner of Lake Van. Armeno-Byz. relations grew 
increasingly strained during this period as Byz. 
attempts to force Armenia back into communion 
with Constantinople and to impose imperial insti- 
tutions and customs fueled the hostility of the 
powerful native clergy and of the local magnates 
whose prerogatives were threatened. As a result, 
the Arab invasions of the mid-7th C. met com- 
paratively little opposition. 

At first, the Muslim occupation of Armenia was 
relatively mild and taxes remained low because 
the caliphate relied on the Armenian cavalry to 
repel the KHazars raiding through the Caucasian 
passes. Administratively, Armenia was now joined 
with Iberia and Caucasian ALBANIA to form the 
province of Arminiya governed by an ostikan re- 
siding first at Duin and subsequently at Partaw/ 
Bardha‘a in Azerbaijan. Much of the western por- 
tion of Armenia, however, was incorporated into 
a military zone turned against Byz. Conditions in 
Armenia began to change in the 8th C. when the 
Arabs, profiting from the crises distracting Con- 
stantinople, tightened their hold. The turbulence 
of the Armenian nobles stirred up Muslim fanat- 
icism and led to punitive expeditions, massacres, 
and deportations; much of the Armenian nobility 
was annihilated, and numerous Muslim emirates 
were established in the country. 

From the gth C. onward, Byz. eastward expan- 
sion and the simultaneous decline of the ‘Abbasid 
caliphate permitted a native revival. The Bagratid 
dynasty established itself in the north while the 
Arcruni controlled most of VASPURAKAN in the 
south. Armenian autonomy was recreated with 
the coronation of A’or I THE GreaT Bagratuni 
in 884 and that of Gagik Arcruni in go8, and the 
external balance of power was reestablished. This 
second period of independence, though politically 
fragile and increasingly fragmented, lasted almost 
two centuries; the native culture may have reached 
its zenith during this period (see ARMENIAN ART 
AND ARCHITECTURE; ARMENIAN LITERATURE). Ar- 
menia likewise prospered through extensive in- 
ternational trade until Byz. expansion destroyed 
the external equilibrium once again. 

Byz. expansion into Armenia began in the sec- 
ond half of the 10th C., and TarOn became an 
imperial province in 966/7, but in 974 Emp. John 
I Tzimiskes was still collaborating with King AšoT 
HI. Byz. annexation of Armenia accelerated in 
the next century. In successive campaigns, Basil 











II gained much of western Armenia, which be- 
came the theme of IBERIA early in the 11th C. 
The cession of Vaspurakan threatened by the first 
Turkish invasions of the empire led to the crea- 
tion of the Katepanate of Basprakania (VasPu- 
RAKAN) in 1021/2. Byz. imperial pressure finally 
caused GAGIK II to abdicate and surrender ANI 
to Byz. in 1045, after repeated attacks against the 
capital had failed. Imperial armies also failed to 
take Duin from the Muslims, but by the mid-11th 
C. most of Armenia had been converted into 
imperial themes—Tar6n, Iberia, Basprakania, and 
MesopotTaMia—while the native nobility migrated 
to CAPPADOCIA, GEORGIA, or CILICIA. 

As the Seljuks overran the country, the Byz. 
annexation of Armenia proved short-lived and 
ended with the Byz. defeat at MANTZIKERT in 
1071. Thereafter, Muslim dynasties controlled 
Armenia except for a brief revival under the 
ZAK'ARIDS, who ruled the northern portion of the 
country for two generations in the early 13th C. 
This Indian summer ended with the Mongol in- 
vasions of the 1230s; thereafter Armenia, domi- 
nated by various Muslim dynasties from the 14th 
C. onward, passed for centuries out of the orbit 
of the Mediterranean world. 

‘The equivocal nature of Armeno-Byz. relations 
in every period is amply attested. Some collabora- 
tion unquestionably occurred because imperial 
support was indispensable if Armenia was to repel 
Eastern aggressions, and Byz. relied to a large 
extent on its Armenian military contingents. Ar- 
menian nobles repeatedly served the empire and 
settled and prospered in Asia Minor and Con- 
stantinople (see ARMENIANS). Recurring religious 
dissensions marred these contacts, however, and 
Armenia’s traditional social structure (dominated 
by haughty magnates holding hereditary offices 
and domains) was fundamentally irreconcilable 
with the centralized and bureaucratic pattern 
characteristic of Byz., and with its fiscal policies. 
Despite Armenia’s rejection of Byz. language and 
religion, cultural and artistic ties were maintained; 
the Armenian architect Trdat was even sum- 
moned to Constantinople in 98g to restore the 
damaged dome of Hagia Sophia. Similarly, Ar- 
menia profited from the transit trade crossing the 
country—which led to the designation of ARTASAT 
as the only northern imperial customs post in the 
5th—6th C. (Cod.Just. IV 63.4) and to the later 
prosperity of Ani—while Constantinople de- 








ARMENIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE 


pended on the same exchange for Eastern luxury 
goods and some Armenian products such as met- 
als (silver, copper, lead, etc.) and the region’s red- 
dyed and embroidered leathers and textiles. 
Nevertheless, Armenia’s almost total deurbaniza- 
tion from 364 to late Bagratid times ran directly 
counter to the characteristic focus of the Mediter- 
ranean world on the city and hindered the devel- 
opment of Armenia’s internal trade; lacking a 
native currency entirely, Armenia had to rely on 
Byz. or Arab coinage for all commercial transac- 
tions. The basic incompatibilities between Ar- 
menia and Byz. won out over their mutual reli- 
ance and prevented the integration of Armenia 
into the empire until both were overwhelmed by 
the Ottomans in the 15th C. 

tir. C. Toumanoff, CMH 4:593-637. M. Canard, EJ? 
1:634~—50. N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian 
(Lisbon 1970). Manandyan, Trade and Cities. N.G. Garsoian, 
“The Early-Mediaeval Armenian City—An Alien Element,” 
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16—17 (1984—85 
[1988)) 67—83. Eadem, Armenia between Byzantium and the 
Sasanians (London 1985) ili—xii. -N.G.G. 


ARMENIAKON (Appeviaxdv), one of the first 
THEMES of Asia Minor, originated in the command 
of the magister militum for Armenia instituted by 
Justinian I. Although gth-C. sources (Theophanes 
the Confessor and al-Baladhuri) suggest that the 
theme may have existed as early as 629, its strategos 
is first unambiguously attested in 667. The theme 
encompassed eastern Anatolia from Cappadocia 
to the Black Sea and the Euphrates. In the gth C. 
the strategos of Armeniakon commanded 9,000 
troops and drew a salary of go pounds of gold; 
his domain included 17 fortresses. The army fre- 
quently played a role in politics, supporting the 
revolts of Leo III in 715 and Artabasdos (their 
former commander) in 742. They revolted against 
Irene in 790, but supported Michael II against 
Thomas the Slav. The importance of Armeniakon 
derived from its size and strategic location. The 
original area was divided early in the gth C. into 
Armeniakon, CHARSIANON, and CAPPADOCIA, and 
in the ioth C. Cua.pia became separate, leaving 
Armeniakon to comprise the western Pontic coast 
as well as the mountains and valleys to the south. 
Its capital was AMASEIA. 





Lit. A. Pertusi in De them. 117-20. W. Kaegi, “Al- 
Baladhuri and the Armeniak Theme,” Byzantion 38 (1968) 


273-77 —C.F. 











| 477 














ARMENIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE. The 
medieval art of Armenia falls into three main 
periods: that between the establishment of Chris- 
tianity and the Arab invasions (ca.305—750); that 
of the independent Armenian kingdoms (ca.862— 
1021); and that of the pockets of Armenian power 
that survived under Seljuk, Georgian, and Mon- 
gol rule (ca.1 150—1500). 

In architecture, many elements remain con- 
stant: churches are almost always made of a rub- 
ble conglomerate faced with large, finely joined 
tufa blocks. They are vaulted, and, after the 6th 
C., carry masonry domes. The exteriors of most 
Armenian churches barely hint at the spaces within. 
Domes are encased in cones or pyramids, and 
vaults are gabled. Apses are often embedded in 
straight walls. Steep niches indicate the position 
of aisles and apses. 

First Period (ca.305—750). Prior to the 6th C. 
Armenian churches were single-naved or simple 
basilicas (F. Gandolfo, Le basiliche armene IV—VI 
secolo [Rome 1982]). With the notable exception 
of Ereruk (ca.500), they are also small and dark. 

In the 7th C. the ties of Armenia with GEORGIA, 
Syria, and Palestine were strong, and this period 
produced a remarkable variety of centralized 
domed plans. Attempts to fnd examples, that 
surely predate the Justinianic taste for centralized 
churches have not been convincing. 

Among the most popular domed CHURCH PLAN 
TYPES is the cross-domed basilica (e.g., St. Gayané 
at VAVARSAPAT), in which transverse vaults raised 
to the height of the nave interrupt barrel-vaulted 
aisles. At the crossing, freestanding piers support 
a dome on squinches (a plan very similar to the 
Byz. cross-in-square). In the domed hall church 
(e.g., at Pttni, ca.630) these piers abut the walls so 
that three deep niches replace each aisle. Here 
the dome is on pendentives. Small cruciform 
buildings with domes on squinches were also pop- 
ular, as was the domed quatrefoil superimposed 
on a cube (e.g., St. John at Mastara, 7th C.). 

External sculptural decoration is generally re- 
stricted to cornices over windows and doors and 
at the gable-line; internal decoration is limited to 
capitals. Occasional figural elements appear: Old 
and New Testament scenes, or donor portraits. 
Memorial stelae illustrate the same subjects. A 
large relief of the VirGin HODEGETRIA survives, 
now built into the wall of the cathedral of Oyun. 

Vrt‘anes K‘ert‘ol’s 7th-C. treatise in defense of 








178 | ARMENIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE 














images indicates that some church interiors in this 
period contained images of saints and New Tes- 
tament scenes. A few fragments of fresco still 
survive: a theophanic vision in St. Stephen at 
Lmbat, and Christ addressing the Apostles, at 
Talis. 

K‘ert‘ot also described MSS illuminated in the 
Greek style and bound in ivory. The 1oth-C. 
Ejmiacin Gospels (Erevan, Mat. 2374) have 6th- 
C. Byz. ivory covers and include two illuminated 
pages taken from an earlier Gospel. The four 
full-page miniatures on these folia allow a fuller 
appreciation of the style preserved in the frescoes; 
all ha‘ strong ties with 7th-C. Byz. painting such 
as the apse mosaic at Kirti and the icon of Sts. 
Sergios and Bakchos at Kiev (Weitzmann, Sinai 
Icons, pl.12, no.B.g). 

Second Period (ca.862—1021). Armenian kings 
of the gth and roth C. supported a very retro- 
spective architecture. Seventh-century church types 
served as the basis for new dynastic monuments 
at Ani and AŁT'AMAR, and the same phenomenon 
occurs in smaller principalities (the Holy Apostles 
at Kars [937] copies St. John at Mastara) and in 
monasteries. The new versions are often steeper 
in elevation than their models. Sculptural artic- 
ulation, though often based on 7th-C. forms, de- 
veloped in new directions, from the elegant, at- 
tenuated arcading at Ani to the exuberant figural 
reliefs at Att‘amar. Large-scale donor portraits, 
some carved nearly in the round, appear at Ani, 
Alt‘amar, Sanahin, and Hatbat. Islamic influence 
in this period is evident in the use of mugarnas 
(stalactite squinches), polychrome stonework, and 
large expanses of flat, leafy interlace, esp. in fore- 
churches and secular buildings. 

The xač'k'ar (“stone-cross”), a stone slab carved 
with a cross and a variety of other motifs, was 
used from the gth C. onward. Serving a number 
of commemorative purposes, xac‘k‘ars are usually 
freestanding, but were sometimes incorporated 
into the walls of churches and other buildings. 
Especially after the late 13th C., donor portraits 
and Old and New Testament scenes appear on 
xac‘k'ars. 

Extensive fresco cycles survive at Tat'ev 
(ca.g30)—where Stephen Orbelian (died 1304) says 
the painters were “Frankish”—and at Aft‘amar. 

In some MS illumination, Byz. is the predomi- 
nant influence, for example, in the painting style, 
ornament, and imagery (but not the placement of 





the scenes) of the Trebizond Gospels (Venice, San 
Lazzaro 1400, 11th C.) and in the narrative scenes 
in the Gospels of Gagik of Kars (Jerusalem, Arm. 
Patr. 2556, 11th C.). Several Gospels like that 
copied in Melitene in 1057 (Erevan, Mat. 3784) 
include Byz. compositions (e.g., the Entombment 
of Christ) developed only after Iconoclasm. The 
illustrations, however, are placed at right angles 
to the side margins; the erratically drawn figures 
in bright, wash-like colors on bare parchment are 
not Byz. in character. Other MSS preserve pre- 
Iconoclastic imagery, some in a style reminiscent 
of the RagguLa Gospets or Ejmiacin Gospels (the 
Mik'e Gospels, Venice, San Lazzaro 1144, dated 
862), others in a flattened, linear transformation 
(Jerusalem, Arm. Patr. 2555, 11th C.). The influ- 
ence of Islamic court art is clear in the miniature 
of Gagik now bound into his Gospels, showing 
him with his family, dressed in oriental robes, 
seated cross-legged on rich carpets. 

Third Period (ca.1150-1500). After the Seljuk 
invasions, smaller Armenian principalities fos- 
tered their own, often highly individual, art (e.g., 
the MS painting of Armenian Cizicia). Although 
some activity continued in cities (e.g., the patron- 
age of Tigran Honenc’), it was the monasteries 
that became the most important focus for princely 
patronage. 

Although patrons still turned to 7th-C. church 
types, they developed new plans for other build- 
ings. Among the Zak'arip additions at Hafbat is 
the forechurch of the Church of the Holy Sign 
(1208-10), its roof supported by four intersecting 
arches, with a three-story bell tower (1245) with 
chapels on each floor. 

The sculpture of the Progian funerary church 
at Gelard and its forechurch (1285) is typically 
exuberant. Fleshy vegetal motifs and mugarnas 
ornament the dome of the rock-cut church, while 
animals and New Testament figures share the 
surfaces of the forechurch with crosses and inter- 
lace. 

In the 14th C., the Orbelian family had tym- 
pana carved at Amatu with a variety of new sub- 
jects, for example, the Ancient of Days (see CHRIST: 
Types of Christ) with the Crucifixion and Adam. 
This inventiveness also emerges in MS illumina- 
tion of the period. At Glajor, under Orbelian 
protection, T’oros of Tarén and other artists de- 
veloped Old and New Testament imagery reflect- 
ing the anti-Chalcedonian theology of their abbot, 





Esayi Nč'ec'i, including, at the same time, Western 
images, for example, the crowned Virgo lactans. 

LIT. S. Der Nersessian, Armenian Art (London 1978). 
Documenti di architettura armena, ed. A. Manoukian (Milan 
1g68—). T. Mathews, “The Early Armenian Iconographic 
Program of the Ejmiacin Gospel,” in East of Byzantium 199- 
215. T. Mathews, A.K. Sanjian, Armenian Gospel a Se 
(Washington, D.C., 1990). 


ARMENIAN CHURCH. Considering itself au- 
tocephalous, this church traces its origin from the 
preaching of St. GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR at 
the beginning of the 4th C. and also claims to be 
an apostolic foundation through St. Thaddeus. 
This double tradition stems from two evangelizing 
waves: the earlier came from Syria-Palestine and 
reached southern Armenia before the end of the 
and C., the other represented the hellenizing tra- 
dition of Cappadocian Carsarea introduced by 
Gregory into Armenia and continued by his de- 
scendants. This second wave, which predomi- 
nated in the northern part of the country, ulti- 
mately prevailed over the Syrian one, whose 
existence was all but expunged from the sources. 

The Armenian church still recognizes only the 
first three ecumenical councixs. It rejects the 
Council of CHALCEDON as Nesrorian, while si- 
multaneously condemning Monopuysitism, and 
holds to the Christological definition of Cyrit of 
Alexandria: “One is the nature of the Incarnate 
Logos.” Armenian primates ceased to be conse- 
crated at Caesarea after the death of St. Nersés 
I THE GREAT in the ath C., but a break with 
Constantinople came only considerably later, at a 
date that is still debated. 

Despite this breach, adherents of Chalcedon 
remained numerous, esp. in the western prov- 
inces of Armenia, as evidenced by the pro- 
Chalcedonian NARRATIO DE REBUS ARMENIAE (8th 
C.). The Armenian patriarch or KATHOLIKOS re- 
sided from the 5th to the gth C. at Durn on 
Persian territory and was thus free to defy Byz. 
ecclesiastical authority, but western Armenian 
bishops disregarded his injunctions and contin- 
ued to attend Byz. church councils. After the new 
partition of Armenia in 591, the Emp. Maurice 
even succeeded in installing a rival katholikos at 
Awan near Erevan, thus creating a schism that 
lasted some 20 years. Herakleios and his succes- 
sors continued efforts to bring the Armenian 
church back into communion with Constantino- 

















ARMENIAN LITERATURE | 179 


ple, but all compromise formulas failed, and in 
725/6 the Council of MANTZIKERT proclaimed the 
union of the Armenian and Syrian churches, while 
maintaining their rejection of extreme Monophys- 
itism. Some attempts at negotiation continued in 
BAGRATID times. Armenian patriarchs corre- 
sponded with PuHotios and NicHo_as I MYSTIKOS, 
but the Council of Ani in 96g again condemned 
Chalcedonianism and its adherents in Armenia. 
Relations worsened in the 11th C. with polemics 
and forced rebaptisms occurring on both sides. 
Armenian historians denounced Armenian Chal- 
cedonians in the service of Byz.—such as Phila- 
retos BRACHAMIOS—as traitors and “Iberians,” that 
is, no longer Armenian. During the sojourn of 
the katholikot in Cilicia (1051—1444), a final at- 
tempt at union under the katholikos St. Nersés the 
Gracious (1166-73) failed after Emp. Manuel I 
died (1180); negotiations then focused, ultimately 
without success, on the Latin church, although 
relations between Armenia and Byz. were not 
entirely severed. 

Byz. influence can be traced in Armenian eccle- 
siastical practices: Armenian liturgy follows the 
Greek Lirurcy attributed to St. Basil and the 
custom of distinguishing between the black (celi- 
bate, monastic) and white (married, secular) clergy 
follows Byz. usage. Other customs, however, dif- 
fered from those of Byz.: the use of AzyMEs and 
unmixed wine for the Eucharist, for example, as 
well as the early traditions involving hereditary 
patriarchs and clan bishops are purely indige- 
nous. 








uit. M. Ormanian, The Church of Armenia (London 1912). 
K. Sarkissian, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian 
Church (London 1965). V. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, Armjane- 
chalkidonity na vostočnych granicach Vizantijshoy imperii (XI v.) 
(Erevan 1980). Garsoian, Armenia, pLIX (1984), 220—50. 

G.G 


ARMENIAN LITERATURE. Until the year 400 
the Armenians used Greek or Aramaic for their 
inscriptions, coinage, and correspondence. Syriac 
also was known in ecclesiastical circles. Only after 
MeEsrop Mastoc’ invented the native script did a 
vernacular literature develop. 

The pupils of MaStoc’ traveled to centers of 
Christian learning, esp. Eprssa, the Greek cities 
of Asia Minor, and Constantinople, to study Syr- 
iac and Greek and to make translations. A corpus 
of translated literature rapidly developed. At first 
the emphasis was on liturgical, biblical, and gen- 








180 | ARMENIAN LITERATURE 


eral theological writings, but succeeding genera- 
tions of Armenians translated and adapted many 
of the standard texts of late antiquity dealing with 
secular scholarly themes. 

Some of the first translators themselves com- 
posed original works, the earliest being the Life of 
Mastoc’ by his pupil Koriun, and the treatise on 
evil and free will by the latter’s colleague Eznik. 
Though the authors of the earliest major histories 
are unknown, the genre of historical writing de- 
voted to Armenian themes quickly took root: 
AGATHANGELOS described the conversion of Ar- 
menia in hagiographical style; pseudo-P‘awsTos 
Buzanp dealt with the conflict of Christian and 
traditional values in the 4th C.; Evise described 
the struggle of Christian Armenians against Sa- 
sanian domination in the mid-5th C.; the later 
Moses XoreNac'l gave the first account of the 
beginnings of the Armenian nation and of Ar- 
menia’s historical role between the Roman Empire 
and Iran down to the time of Maštoc’. 

Characteristically, historians wrote about a spe- 
cific house or province rather than the country as 
a whole. Pseudo-P’awstos focused on the MAMI- 
KONEAN family, and Lazar OF P‘arPI composed a 
history of 5th-C. Armenia extolling the virtues of 
the same family for his patron, Vahan Mamiko- 
nean, governor of Armenia (485-505). The work 
of Moses Xorenac‘i was primarily concerned with 
the fortunes of the BaGraTip family, and Thomas 
ARcRUNI glorifies the merits of the Arcruni princes 
of southern Armenia in his History. 

Interest in Hellenistic and early Christian liter- 
ature is demonstrated by translations of many 
Greek and Syrian church fathers and of Greek 
texts used in the schools of the eastern Mediter- 
ranean. Among theological works of especial im- 
portance translated from Syriac are the writings 
of APHRAHAT and EPHREM THE SYRIAN, the Lives 
of 4th-C. martyrs in Persia, and the Ecclesiastical 
History of Eusepios OF CAESAREA (his Chronicle was 
translated from the original Greek). From Greek 
were also translated works by ATHANASIOS of Al- 
exandria, BASIL THE GREAT, GREGORY OF NAZIAN- 
zos, and Jonn Curysostom. The Refutation by 
TIMOTHEOS ArILOUROS influenced later polemical 
CATENAE composed by Armenians. In the secular 
field the translation and adaptation for the Ar- 
menian language of the Art of Grammar by Diony- 
sios THRAx led to extensive later commentaries 
on grammar. Works by the 6th-C. Alexandrians, 





Davip THE PHILOSOPHER and Exias, led to an 
interest in logic. Rhetoric was studied through the 
Progymnasmata of THEON and of APHTHONIOS. An 
Armenian Book of Chretai, attributed to Moses 
Xorenac‘i, introduces Christian examples to illus- 
trate traditional Greek themes. Pappos OF ALEX- 
ANDRIA was used as a source for a unique work 
on geography, also attributed to Moses. Numer- 
ous works by PHILO were very influential, and the 
Jewish War by JoserHus was used, at least by 
Moses. The popular ALEXANDER ROMANCE was 
reedited with a Christian interpretation of its 
meaning in the 13th C. Also in the 13th C. the 
Syriac Chronicle by Patr. MICHAEL I THE SYRIAN 
was translated and adapted to Armenian interests. 

The first translations were made in Edessa and 
Constantinople, where Armenians went to study. 
After the 5th C. Jerusalem became a significant 
center for Armenian (and Georgian) scholarly 
activity. Armenians joined Greek, Georgian, Syr- 
ian, and Western Catholic monks on the Won- 
drous Mountain near Antioch at the time of the 
Crusades, but being non-Chalcedonian Arme- 
nians had no monasteries on Mt. ATHOS. Numer- 
ous works, lost in Greek and Syriac, survive in 
Armenian versions: e.g., Irenaeus, Eusebios’s 
Chronicle, some commentaries of John Chryso- 
stom, Timotheos Ailouros’s Refutation, Ephrem’s 
Commentary on the Diatessaron (of which the original 
was discovered only in 1957). Translations from 
Armenian into Greek were rare, though Arme- 
nian was known by many Byz., e.g., the teacher 
of ANANIAS OF ŠIRAK. In addition, when Stephen 
of Siwnik’ worked in Constantinople ca.715, he 
was assisted by a court official. Greek versions 
exist of two recensions of AGATHANGELOS and one 
of the NARRATIO DE REBUS ARMENIAE. 

Many Greek letters sent to Armenian bishops 
(5th-12th C.) are preserved with the Armenian 
responses in the Book of Letters, an official compi- 
lation of correspondence between Armenians, 
Greeks, Georgians, and Syrians. (Tendentious al- 
terations to these documents are not uncommon). 
The compilation of CANON Law begun by John of 
Ojun (katholikos, 717-28) includes the canons of 
many Greek councils. 

Armenian writers evince little interest in later 
Byz. literature, though patristic works continued 
to be popular. Thus in 696/7 the Ecclesiastical 
History of SoxraTes was translated; Stephen of 
Siwnik* translated the corpus attributed to pseudo- 














DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE (ca.715 in Constanti- 
nople), as well as GREGoRY or Nyssa, On the Mak- 
ing of Man, and Nemesios, On the Nature of Man. 
The translation of the 7th-C. Hexaemeron of GEORGE 
oF Pisipta is, however, an unusual foray into later 
Greek literature. 

Armenian attitudes to Byz. were ambivalent: 
interest in, and respect for, Greek learning re- 
mained strong, but they were tempered by fear 
of cultural and esp. religious domination. Not all 
Armenians were staunchly anti-Chalcedonian, but 
a defensive tone permeates much Armenian theo- 
logical writing. Notably pro-Greek were the fa- 
mous religious poet Gregory of Narek (ca.950— 
1010); NERSES SNORHALI, who worked toward a 
reunion of the churches; and Gregory Maci- 
sTros. Notably, the last’s 88 letters reflect Byz. 
attitudes towards learning and scholarship rather 
than a traditional Armenian outlook. 

The historians generally pay little attention to 
Byz. save insofar as Armenian interests are di- 
rectly involved. Thus the History of Herakleios of 
SEBEOS is of prime importance for the Byzantinist 
because it describes Byz.-Persian rivalry, whereas 
the histories of LEwonpb and Joun V KATHOLIKOS 
are less directly useful because they describe Mus- 
lim control of Armenia. Since Armenian histori- 
ans concentrate on events in Armenia, they be- 
come valuable witnesses after the eastward 
expansion of Byz. power. In the late 1oth and 
iith C. Stephen of Tarén (known as Asorix) 
describes events up to the year 1000, while AR- 
ISTAKES LASTIVERTC' details the collapse of Ar- 
menian independence. MATTHEW OF EDESSA is a 
witness to the coming of the Turks, the collapse 
of Byz. control in Armenia and eastern Anatolia, 
and the arrival of the Crusaders. 

Although they attempt both narrative and ex- 
planation, the writers just named lack the sophis- 
tication of the first historians (e.g., Etiše or Moses 
Xorenac‘l). By the 11th C. more creative minds 
had turned to poetry and theology. The Chronicle 
of SAMUEL OF ANI merely notes events year by 
year, and this style became increasingly popular. 
Histories on a grander scale were also produced, 
however, the more important of these dealing 
with eastern Armenia, Georgia, and the Mongols. 
The last comprehensive history dealing at times 
with Byz. is that of VARDAN VaRDAPET, but it is a 
secondhand source, since Vardan’s career was spent 
primarily in Greater Armenia and he had few 




















ARMENIANS 181 


direct contacts with Greeks and none with Con- 
stantinople. 

Loss of Armenian political independence in the 
11th C. did not disrupt cultural life or literary 
production. Especially after the Armenians took 
control of Cilicia, they were receptive to ideas and 
influences from new quarters. Scholars traveled 
even more than in the past, though not so fre- 
quently to Constantinople. LATIN and Arabic as 
well as Greek were increasingly known. Gregory 
Vkayaser (who abandoned his see as katholikos in 
1067 after one year in office) and NERSËS oF 
LAMBRON sought out numerous texts in Greek 
and Latin not yet available in Armenian; at this 
time the Black Mountain with its many monastic 
centers of different nationalities became an im- 
portant source for texts not yet translated into 
Armenian. Medicine, primarily based on Arabic 
sources, was studied. For the first time a secular 
law code was compiled, by Mxit'ar Goš (died 12193). 
SMBAT THE CONSTABLE revised this in light of 
Cilician interaction with the Crusader principality 
of Antioch, but Mxit‘ar’s work remained standard 
in the Armenian diaspora in succeeding centuries. 

Byz. as a source of inspiration was irrelevant to 
Armenian writers after the 12th C. Nonetheless, 
the fall of Constantinople in 1453 did spark a 
literary reaction, and several laments (THRENO}) 
were written, This genre had a long history in 
Armenian, e.g., Nersés Snorhali on the fall of 
Edessa and Grecory Tray on the fall of Jerusa- 
lem. 

uit. H.S. Anasyan, Haykakan Matenagitut’yun, 2 vols. (Er- 
evan 1959, 1976). V. Inglisian, Armenische und Kaukasische 
Sprachen (Leiden 1963). K. Sarkissian, A Brief Introduction 
to Armenian Christian Literature (London 1960). R.W. Thom- 
son, “The Formation of the Armenian Literary Tradition,” 
in East of Byzantium (Washington, D.C., 1982) 195~50. 
Hr.M. Bartikjan, To Byzantion eis tas Armeniakas pegas (Thes- 
salonike 1981). ~R.T. 


ARMENIANS formed an important and influ- 
ential minority in the Byz. Empire. Before the 
Arab invasion they were settled primarily in the 
eastern provinces of the empire (Armenia I—IV) 
and had lively economic and cultural connections 
with the Syro-Palestinian world; certain Arme- 
nians (e.g., Narses in the 6th C., VALENTINOS 
ARSAKUNI in the mid-7th) held important military 
and court positions in Constantinople. One might 
expect that subsequent developments would have 
severed relations between Armenia and the em- 








182 ARMOR 











pire. On the one hand, the decline of the city in 
Armenia and Byz. alike decreased trade and cul- 
tural exchange. On the other hand, the Armenian 
church rejected the decisions of the Council of 
Chalcedon; the radical anti-Orthodox movements 
of the TonpRakires and PAULICIANS attracted 
broad segments of the Armenian population. In 
reality, however, the role of Armenians in the 
empire kept growing, and many Armenians em- 
igrated to Byzantium. The Armenian historian 
LEWOND relates several cases of mass flight from 
the Arabs, for example, that 12,000 Armenian 
nobles with their wives, children, and retinues 
found a home in Byz. ca.7go. Some Armenian 
emigrés settled in Armeniakon and Chaldia, while 
others moved (or were removed by the state) 
westward, to the northern Balkans (Philippopolis 
became one of the most important Armenian 
centers) and even to southern Italy. 

Through the 10th C. Armenians played an im- 
portant role in the Byz. army, producing many 
generals and several emperors: Leo V, Theodora 
Theophilos’s wife), Basil I, Romanos I Leka- 
penos, and John I Tzimiskes. Armenian com- 
manders, such as MELIAS or KOURKOUAS, were 
instrumental in expanding Byz. territories toward 
the Euphrates. These Armenians were predomi- 
nantly Chalcedonian, some of them even holding 
high ecclesiastical positions in the Orthodox 
church; culturally they were hellenized and con- 
tributed much to the development of education 
and knowledge in Byz. Nevertheless, the Byz. 
attitude toward Armenians was often negative, 
and the stereotype of “the cunning and treach- 
erous Armenian” became firmly implanted in 
Greek literature. 

The number of Armenians in the empire in- 
creased drastically in the 11th C. as several Ar- 
menian states were annexed, and their population 
resettled in Cappadocia and neighboring lands. 
These newcomers probably retained their lan- 
guage, religion, and culture, including habits and 
costume. The clashes between semi-independent 
noble Armenians and local Orthodox landowners 
and bishops were sometimes acute; Gacix II per- 
ished in one such conflict. Chalcedonian Arme- 
nian and Armeno-Georgian families (e.g., PA- 
KOURIANOI, TORNIKIOE) continued to hold high 
positions (esp. as governors of frontier themes) 
and probably 10-15 percent of the Byz. aristoc- 
racy was of Armenian stock, but there was no 














Armenian emperor in this period, and few Ar- 
menians were affiliated with the Komnenian dy- 
nasty. From the end of the 11th C. the Armenian 
nobility tended to create independent states in 
Cilicia and nearby; from that time Armenians 
who served in the Byz. army were predominantly 
allies and not subjects of the emperor. 

Frequent attempts to reach a reconciliation with 
the Armenian church produced vast polemical 
literature but no practical results. Enmity toward 
Armenians grew, and Patr. ATHANASIOS I, among 
others, considered contacts with Jews and Arme- 
nians defiling (ep.36.6); Patr. Joseph I Galesiotes 
called the Armenians “a morbid and rebellious 
people” (RegPatr, fasc. 4, no.1400). In the last 
centuries of Byz. history, Armenians lived in Con- 
stantinople as merchants but did not play any 
substantial role in the administration of the em- 
pire. 

LIT. P. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire 
(Lisbon, n.d.). E. Bauer, Die Armenier im byzantinischen Reich 
und thr Einfluss auf Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur (Erevan 
1978). A. Kazhdan, “The Armenians in the Byzantine 
Ruling Class Predominantly in the Ninth through Twelfth 
Centuries,” Medieval Armenian Culture (Chico, Calif., 1983) 
439-51. V.A. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, Armjan2-chalkidonity na 


vostotnych granicach Vizantijskoj imperii (XI v.) (Erevan 1980). 
—A.K, 





ARMOR. The 6th- and ioth-C. STRATEGIKA and 
other literary sources identify several types of 
body protection worn by Byz. soldiers. Body ar- 
mor (thorax) for cavalrymen was made of chain 
mail or lamellar, small plates of horn or iron laced 
together or to a leather backing. These protective 
coats, called zabai, lorikia, or klibania, varied in 
length, reaching the ankles, knees, or waist. To 
guard against concussive as well as penetrative 
blows, heavy cavalrymen or KATAPHRAKTOI wore 
padded, waist-length surcoats (epilorikia, epanokli- 
bania) made of wool, felt, or cotton over their mail 
or lamellar armor. They also wore apronlike cov- 
erings (pteryges, kremasmata) to protect the midsec- 
tion, Armor for horses was made of hide, felt, 
lamellar, or mail, and covered the animal’s face 
and chest; according to a gth-C. chronicler 
(Theoph. 318.25—28), the horse of Herakleios 
survived a battle in 627 by wearing padded armor. 
Felt coverings hung from belts of light cavalrymen 
to protect their legs and part of their horses. 
Infantrymen wore simple body armor such as 
knee-length quilted coats (kabadia) of felt or linen, 


and other homemade types of armor are noted; 
a 12th-C. historian (Nik.Chon. 386.1—7) describes 
a soldier’s linen corslet, stiffened by soakings in 
wine and salt, which was strong enough to resist 
arrows. Gauntlets (manikia) and padded wool or 
cotton arm guards (mantkelia), sometimes overlaid 
with mail, and wooden or iron greaves are pre- 
scribed for both infantrymen and cavalrymen in 
the strategika, The sources attest helmets (kranea, 
kassidia) made of iron, either segmented or cast 
whole, sometimes with flaps of chain mail or felt 
to protect the face and neck; felt caps (kamellau- 
kia), however, were more commonly used by in- 
fantrymen in the 10th C. Many illustrations show 
soldiers wearing caps or helmets with a cloth hung 
over the back of the neck, presumably to protect 
against exposure to the sun. 

Shields of many types and sizes—oval, rectan- 
gular, and kite-shaped—were made of wood and 
often sheathed in leather or iron, and were se- 
cured over the soldier’s neck or shoulder by straps 
to leave both hands free to handle weapons. The 
average infantryman’s shield was fairly large, about 
1.4 m long and 80 cm across, but light infantry- 
and cavalrymen carried smaller shields. After the 
12th C., Western triangular shields appear in il- 
lustrations. 

A warm climate and open, mobile warfare kept 
Byz. armor relatively limited in comparison with 
that of Western knights, but, in spite of the com- 
ments of Liutprand of Cremona that the Byz. 
were lightly armed, they were still better protected 
than their enemies in the later 1oth C. The Arabs 
were amazed by the sight of the heavily armored 
Byz. kataphrakioi, and Skylitzes records that few 
Byz. were killed in a 970 engagement against the 
Rus’, though many were wounded (Skyl. 291.95— 
99); he later cites the effects of heat on the “fully 
armored” Byz. soldiers during a long battle against 
the same enemy (306.44—46). Byz. soldiers were 
obliged to carry their weapons and shields on the 
march and could be severely punished for dis- 
carding their equipment along the way (Leo Diac. 
57-4-58.10). For sake of comfort they did not 
wear armor while marching; instead it was carried 
nearby on pack animals, to be donned quickly in 
case of attack (Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos, 
TM 5 [1973] 292f). 

Practically no archaeological material exists to 
support the evidence of literary sources for Byz. 
armor, but details and changes in armor are re- 


ARMY 183 


corded in art. The lamellar corslet is worn by 
numerous military saints and emperors depicted 
on ivories and in illustrated MSS of the 10th and 
11th C. This garment is supplemented by leather 
straps suspended from the shoulders and waist, 
but Roman “fighting skirts” still appear. By the 
12th C. knee-length coats of mail are shown (Ka- 
lavrezou, Steatite, no.21). The greaves depicted in 
the images of the 1oth and 11th C. were probably 
archaisms by that time, but innovations such as 
the kite-shaped shield, replacing oval and circular 
types, can be traced in representations of David 
and Goliath in PsALTER illustrations. 

uT. T. Kolas, Byzantinische Waffen (Vienna 1988) 37- 
131. P. Schreiner, “Zur Ausrüstung des Kriegers in By- 
zanz,” in Les pays du nord et Byzance (Uppsala 1981) 215~ 
36. P.L. Theocharides, “Hysteroromaika kai protobyzan- 
tina krane,” in Praktika tou A' Diethnous Symposiou. He 


Kathemerine Zoe sto Byzantio (Athens 1989) 477—506. 
—E.M., A.C. 


ARMOURES, SONG OF, a poem or TRAGOUDI 
preserved in 15th- and 16th-C. MSS. It describes 
the exploits of young Armoures-Armouropoulos 
(the son of Armoures) who crossed the Euphrates 
with the help of an angel and annihilated a Sar- 
acen army. Despite the late date of the MSS, H. 
Grégoire hypothesized that the poem was a gth- 
C. work (REGr 46 [1933] 29-69). On the sole 
basis of the resemblance of the name of Armoures 
to the name of the city of Amorion, he affirmed 
that the poem dealt with the Byz. retribution for 
the Arab capture of Amorion in 838 and that 
Armoures was Michael III. Even bolder was G. 
Veloudis’s hypothesis that Armoures should be 
identified with the emir of Melitene, ‘Umar al- 
Aqta‘ (BZ 58 [1965] 313-19). 

ED. H.G. Beck, Byzantinische Volksepik (Munich 1963) 7~ 
13. Fr. tr. by H. Grégoire in Prace Polskiego towarzystwa dla 


badań Europy wschodniej i Bliskiego Wschodu 4 (Krakow 1933/ 
4) 150~61. It. tr. §. Impellizzeri. Il Digenis Akritas (Florence 


1940) 33—38. i 
LIT. Beck, Volksliteratur 53—57. 





— A.K. 


ARMY (ortpaærtós, orparoredov, þpoooĝrov). The 
history of the army in the late Roman and Byz. 
period begins with the military reforms of the 
early 4th C. The legions once massed along the 
frontiers were reorganized into local frontier mil- 
itias (LIMITANEI) and mobile field armies (comMI1- 
TATENSES) garrisoned within the empire. By the 
gth C. five such armies under the command of 





184 ARMY 


MAGISTRI MILITUM defended the empire in the 
East. Two armies (praesentales) were stationed with 
the emperor at Constantinople, two (per Illyricum, 
per Thracias) along the Danube frontier, and one 
(per Orientem) along the Euphrates; a magister mili- 
tum per Armeniam was created in the 6th C. The 
forces consisted of native Roman enlisted men 
equipped by the state, and the FOEDERATI of many 
nationalities who were under Roman command. 
Foreign mercenaries (symmachoi) were sometimes 
hired as separate units under their own com- 
manders (J.L. Teall, Speculum 40 [1965] 294- 
922). 

The STRATEGIKON OF Mavrice illustrates the 
transition during the sth and 6th C. from Roman 
to Byz. methods of warfare, which increasingly 
relied on CAVALRY and ARCHERY in imitation of 
Persian and Avar practices (Bivar, “Cavalry” 271— 
g1). The army’s total manpower in the 4th and 
5th C. is estimated to have been as high as 650,000, 
of which only a minority were well-trained, mobile 
fighting men (R. MacMullen, Klio 62 [1980] 451- 
60). By the 6th C., the period of the great cam- 
paigns of Generals BELISARIOS and NARSES, Jus- 
tinian I’s army had decreased to 150,000 men. 
he continuing decline in the empire’s manpower 
and resources was so acute that an army sent to 
fight the Persians in 578 numbered fewer than 
6,400 men (H. Turtledove, BS/EB 10 [1983] 216- 
22). Internal rebellions and defeats by the Avars 
and Persians made the late 6th and 7th C. a time 
of crisis for the Byz. Although by 628 Herakleios 
was able to reorganize the shattered imperial forces 
into an army capable of defeating Persia, new, 
more aggressive enemies—the Arabs, Bulgars, and 
Lombards—inflicted serious defeats on the im- 
perial armies and overran much of Byz. territory 
during the 7th and 8th C. 

Two fundamental reactions to the 7th-C. mili- 
tary crisis shaped the Byz. army from the late 7th 
to the 11th C. The first step was the stationing of 
army groups (themata) in military districts (THEMES); 
four such armies are mentioned in 687 (R.-J. Lilie, 
JOB 26 [1977] 7-47). The second step was the 
reimposition of hereditary military service (STRA- 
Teta) in exchange for land (Hendy, Economy 619f). 
The thematic armies, recruited and maintained 
locally, were sometimes effective against invaders 
(as at AKROINON in 740) but were slow to mobilize 
and coordinate for campaigns. They often lacked 
discipline and military skill and were prone to 


























rebellion (Kaegi, Unrest). This tendency led Con- 
stantine V to dissolve the OpsIkion army, which 
had represented the imperial field force, and cre- 
ate new imperial units, known as the TAGMATA, 
which were based in or around Constantinople. 
The tagmatic units were better equipped and paid 
than the provincial armies and formed the crack 
regiments of the Byz. army; after the early gth C. 
tagmatic and thematic troops commonly joined 
forces for expeditions. The army was mostly com- 
posed of native recruits through the 7th to 10th 
C., although foreigners were hired (e.g., THEO- 
PHOBOS) or foreign peoples were resettled within 
Byz. territory to provide manpower (Theoph. 
364.11~18). 

The army’s greatest period was in the 10th and 
early 11th C., when the Byz. recaptured much of 
the territory lost to the Arabs and Bulgars. As 
shown by contemporary STRATEGIKA, the army’s 
increased effectiveness was rooted in the efforts 
of such soldier-emperors as Nikephoros II Phokas 
and Basil II to employ more heavily armed men 
(e.g., KATAPHRAKTOE) and to perfect combined 
infantry and cavalry tactics in battle or on cam- 
paign. At the same time, however, the army’s 
composition and structure began to change; com- 
mand was centralized at Constantinople (N. Oi- 
konomides, TM 6 [1976] 141-47), and the grow- 
ing presence of MERCENARIES (Rus’, NORMANS), 
already well attested in the ioth C., became even 
more pronounced during the 11th and 12th C. 
The old tagmatic and thematic units were re- 
placed by new contingents—mainly foreign 
troops—billeted in the provinces (J.-C. Cheynet, 
TM g [1985] 181-94). Especially under Manuel I 
Komnenos, the Byz. eagerly attempted to adopt 
the Western panoply and tactics, but this had 
mixed results (R.P. Lindner, JOB 32.2 [1982] 207— 
13). They also accepted such Western traditions 
as tournaments and the glorification of military 
prowess in literature and art. The size and mul- 
tinational character of 12th-C. Byz. armies aston- 
ished their neighbors, but this and the centrali- 
zation of command made the army unwieldy; the 
fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 
1203—04 demonstrated the superiority of West- 
ern feudal armies over the imperial forces. 

The emperors of Nicaea developed the tradi- 
tions adopted by Manuel I and learned from their 
Western rivals; their armies were small but effec- 
tive. They were composed of Western, Cuman, 





and Turkish mercenaries, supported by pro- 
vincial levies; Theodore II Laskaris later at- 
tempted to convert them into a national army to 
control the number and cost of foreign soldiers. 
The restoration of the empire in 1261 precipi- 
tated attack from various claimants and created a 
burden that Byz. was incapable of bearing. On 
the one hand, acting in the interests of great 
landowners, the emperors abolished the last troops 
of peasant soldiers who guarded the frontiers; on 
the other hand, they were unable to maintain the 
navy and substantial land forces. They tried to 
transfer the obligation of military service to local 
landowners at a time when Byz. faced the growing 
centralized armies of the Ottomans, which were 
primarily composed of professional warriors ( JAN- 
ISSARIES), and the swift fleets and skillful mariners 
of the Italian republics. The Chronicle of the Tocco 
reveals the relative strength of the forces in the 
Balkans in the first half of the is5th C. when it 
calculates the military detachments of local lords 
at between 20 and 100 men, and those of the 
emperor at 500 horsemen, whereas the Turks 
could afford to send 30,000 soldiers to Epiros (A. 
Kazhdan in Bisanzio e [Italia [Milan 1982] 173). 
Nor could the Byz. compete with the Turks in 
military TECHNOLOGY, lacking, for instance, can- 
nons such as those that the Turks used during 
sieges in the 15th C. (see FIREARMS). 





LIT. Jones, LRE 607-86. J. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians 
(Bonn 1984). Ahrweiler, “Administration” 1— 109. Angold, 
Byz. Government 182—201. N. Oikonomides, “A propos des 
armées des premiers Paléologues et des compagnies de 
soldats,” TM 8 (1981) 353-71- —E.M., A.K. 


ARPADS (Apraðñs in De adm. imp. 40.48), a 
dynasty of princes (876—1000) and then kings 
(1000—1301) of Huncary. Constantine VII pre- 
serves a legend (contrary to Arabic sources) that 
Arpad, founder of the dynasty, received his power 
from the khagan of Khazaria and of the “Turks” 
(Hungarians). Circa 894, at the invitation of Emp. 
Leo VI, Arpad attacked SYMEON OF BULGARIA and 
thus began the occupation of Pannonia and 
neighboring lands by the Hungarians. From the 
11th C. onward, the Arpads were in close contact 
with Byz.: according to a 13th-C. legend, Prince 
Imre (Henry), son of Istvan (Stephen) I, married 
ca.1020 the daughter of a Greek emperor, whom 
de Vajay (infra) arbitrarily identifies as Romanos 
HI; ca.1075 Synadene, a relation of Emp. Nike- 


ARRHA SPONSALICIA | 185 


phoros III, was given in marriage either to an 
Arpad (Géza I [r. 1074—77] or LAsz16 I [Ladis- 
las}) or to a Hungarian lord (acc. to A. Kazhdan, 
ActaAntHung 10 [1962} 163-66, but contrary to 
Gy. Moravesik, BZ 55 [1962] 381); Almos, the 
blinded brother of King Kalman (Coloman, 
r.1095—1116), fled to Byz., where he was renamed 
Constantine and granted the town of Constantinia 
in Macedonia (E. Szentpétery, A. Domanovszky, 
Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, vol. 1 [Budapest 
1937] 442f); Piroska (Irene), Laszlé’s daughter, 
married Emp. John H in 1104/5; Istvan, a brother 
of King Géza II (r. 1141—62), fled ca.1155 to Byz., 
where he married Manuel I’s niece, Maria in 
1161; László, another brother of Géza, followed 
Istvan to Constantinople. BéLa III was, for a 
while, heir to the Byz. throne; his daughter Mar- 
garet-Maria married Isaac II. An enigmatic kra- 
laina, Arete Doukaina, who possessed lands in 
Byz. ca.1157/8, was possibly the spouse of Boris 
KaLaMANOvVIC (V. Laurent, BZ 65 [1972] 35-39). 
Circa 1222 Béla IV married Maria, daughter of 
Theodore I; Agnes-Anna of Hungary was the 
first wife of Andronikos l and mother of Michael 
IX. 

uT. G. Györffy, LMA 1:1022-24. Gy. Moravesik in De 
adm. imp., vol. 2 (1962) 146. R. Kerbl, Byzantinische Prinzes- 
sinnen in Ungarn zwischen 1050-1200 und thr Einfluss auf das 
Arpadenkénigreich (Vienna 1979), with rev. Sz. de Vajay in 
Ungarn-Jahrbuch 10 (1979) 15-28. -A.K., J.B. 


ARRHA SPONSALICIA (appaBwv, “engage- 
ment gift”), a payment in money or in kind that 
served as the guarantee of the BETROTHAL prom- 
ise. It fell to the bride if the groom broke off the 
betrothal without good cause; in the reverse sit- 
uation, the bride had to return the arrha sponsalicia 
to the groom and also pay him an equivalent sum. 
Arrha sponsalicia is first mentioned in Byz. law in 
the 4th C. (Cod. Just. V 2.1, a.980). Leo I regulated 
it in greater detail (ibid. V 1.5, a.472) and stipu- 
lated that no pRosTIMON be arranged in addition 
to the arrha. If the arrha was, until Justinian I, an 
optional payment, in the Ecloga (1.1—2) it appears 
as an essential act for the betrothal—as an alter- 
native to the written contract with prostemon. The 
Epanagoge (title 15) and the Procheiron (title 2) 
return, as does the Basilika (28.1—2), to the Justi- 
nianic legal situation, which considers the consent 
of the engaged couple sufficient for valid be- 
trothal, without payment of an arrha. Even so, the 











186 | ARSABER 


securing of a betrothal through arrha or prostimon 
remained common. Leo VI stipulates (nov.18)— 
contrary to Leo I—that this securing should ensue 
through the “more important” prostimon (in con- 
trast to arrha sponsalicia), as this was already taking 
place in custom. 

In the wake of the extensive equalization of 
marriage and betrothal, the arrha sponsalicia sur- 
vives as a payment, bound together with the bless- 
ing of the betrothal (Reg. 2, no.1116). Arrabon or 
arrabonismos become synonymous with betrothal. 
Prostima, on the other hand, are prohibited for 
“genuine” betrothals, since they should be as little 
dissoluble in exchange for a money payment as 
the marriage (Reg. 2, no.1167). According to the 
Peira (17.5, 17.14, 49.2) the betrothal was, on the 
contrary, still dissoluble through payment of the 
prostimon. 

LIT. Zhishman, Eherecht 647-53. P. Koschaker, “Zur 
Geschichte der arrha sponsalicia,” ZSavRom 33 (1912) 383- 
416. E. Volterra, “Studio sulf ‘arrha sponsalicia,’” Rivista 
italiana per le scienze giuridiche n.s. 2 (1927) 581-670; 4 
(1929) 3—33; 5 (1930) 155-245. -M.Th.F. 











ARSABER (ApoaByp, Arm. Aršawir), early gth- 
C. usurper. An Armenian of noble background 
(C. Toumanoff, Traditio 27 [1971] 150), he served 
the Byz. emperor as quaestor and patrikios. In 
Feb. 808 a group of lay and clerical officials op- 
posed to Emp. NIKEPHOROS I, including the syn- 
kellos, sakellarios, and chartophylax of Hagia Sophia, 
proclaimed the “pious and most eloquent” Arsa- 
ber as emperor (Theoph. 483.25—26). When Ni- 
kephoros discovered the plot, Arsaber was beaten, 
tonsured, and exiled to Bithynia, while his sup- 
porters were beaten, stripped of their property, 
and exiled. Arsaber had a daughter, Theodosia, 
who married Leo V (Genes. 16.82—83). 


LIT. Guilland, Titres, pt. IX (1970), 337. Bury, ERE 14. 
—P.A.H. 





ARSACIDS (ApodxiSar, Arm, Argakuni), junior 
branch of the Parthian royal house ruling in Ar- 
MENIA until the beginning of the 5th C. The 
precise date of their establishment in Armenia is 
uncertain, and even in the 4th C. their chronology 
remains confused and highly controversial. Re- 
established on the throne by the Romans after 
the peace of Nisibis of 298, the Arsacids generally 
followed a pro-imperial policy. This orientation, 
deriving from their hostility to the Sasanian 


usurpers of their family’s kingdom in Persia, was 
reinforced by their conversion to Christianity in 
314. Their arianizing policy under Constantius H 
alienated the native clergy as well as the magnates, 
and Armenian sources disagree with the alle- 
giance to the Romans claimed by classical sources. 
Jovian’s abandonment of Armenia to the Sasani- 
ans in 363 led to the Persian occupation of the 
country and to the ultimate downfall of the Ar- 
sacid house. After the partition of Armenia be- 
tween Rome and Persia in ca.387, the Arsacid 
branch on imperial territory died out within a 
decade, while the Iranian branch ended in 428. 
Descendants of the Arsacids maintained an im- 
portant, if primarily military, role at the Byz. 
court: in the 7th C. an Arsacid named VALENTI- 
nos ArSaKUNI made a bid for the Byz. throne; in 
the gth C. an apocryphal pedigree made Emp. 
Basil I one of their descendants. 

LIT. C. Toumanoff, “The Third-Century Armenian Ar- 
sacids: A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary,” 


REArm n.s. 6 (1969) 233-81. Asdourian, Armenien und Rom 
160—377. Garsoian, Epic Histories 354f. -N.G.G. 


ARSAK II/III (Lat. Arsaces), Arsacip king of 
Armenia (338/50-—363/68); his birth and death 
dates are uncertain. According to Ammianus 
Marcellinus (25.7.12-13), ArSak was a “constant 
and faithful friend” of the Romans, who re- 
warded him in 358 with a tax exemption and an 
imperial bride. Probably because of his attempts 
at centralization and his adherence to Constantius 
II’s arianizing policy, however, Armenian aristo- 
cratic and ecclesiastical sources are hostile to Ar- 
šak, portraying him as cruel and vacillating in his 
allegiance. Aršak seems to have supported the 
campaign of Julian the Apostate against the Per- 
sians in 363 (Julian’s threatening Letter to Aršak 
is usually deemed spurious). Abandoned to the 
Sasanians by Jovian’s peace of the same year, 
ArSak was captured by Shapar (Lat. Sapor) II and 
deported to Persia, where he died in the “Castle 
of Oblivion” a few years later. 

Lit. Asdourian, Armenien und Rom 282-300. Garsoian, 
Armenia, pt.lV (1967), 297-320; pt.V (1969) 148-64. 
Fadem, Epic Histories gg2f. -N.G.G. 


ARSAMOSATA (Ar. Shimshat, called “Acpooa- 
rov [Asmosaton] in the 1oth C.; often confused 
with Samosata in Commagene; now Haraba), a 
fortress on the Murad Su (Arsanias River) about 


50 km east of Harput. Arsamosata was annexed 
to the empire by Diocletian in 297. After the 
Arabs captured it in the 640s it became one of 
their major frontier fortresses. Stormed by Theo- 
philos in 837 and Michael III in 856, it was finally 
taken by Romanos I Lekapenos in 939 and be- 
came the center of a theme of the same name 
(Asmosaton) and a metropolitan bishopric. It re- 
mained Byz. until the battle of MANTZIKERT in 
1071. Remains of a substantial fortress survive, 
with undated medieval walls representing the con- 
traction of a sprawling ancient city. 

uT. Honigmann, Ostgrenze 75-78. J. Howard-Johnston, 


“Byzantine Anzitene,” in Armies and Frontiers in Roman and 
Byzantine Anatolia, ed. S. Mitchell (Oxford 1983) 247f. 


ARSENAL. See ARMAMENTON. 


ARSENIOS, metropolitan of Kerkyra (gth-1oth 
C.). According to his akolouthia, Arsenios was born 
in Bethany (Palestine) during the reign of Basil I 
and became a monk at age 12. After being edu- 
cated in Seleukeia (on the Orontes?), he went to 
Constantinople where, under Patr. Tryphon (g28— 
31), he was entrusted with “the care of churches” 
(the post of o1xoNoMos?). He was then elected 
bishop of Kerkyra (ca.g33—56), where he survived 
an invasion of “Scythians.” On the other hand, an 
inscription of 166g states that Arsenios’s relics 
were transferred to the Cathedral of St. James, 
Kerkyra, in 869 (Athenagoras in Ers mnemen Spy- 
ridonos Lamprou [Athens 1935] 436). 

Several enkomia are attributed to Arsenios’s pen: 
on the apostle AnpRew (BHG 105), the martyr 
BaRBARA (BHG 218), and the martyr Therinos 
who died in Epiros (BHG 1799). J. Mateos (Or- 
ChrP 22 [1956] 368-74) ascribes to Arsenios the 
authorship of the kanon on St. Timothy of Prousa. 
Arsenios probably wrote the kanon of euchelaion, 
the sacrament of extreme unction for the sick (M. 
Jugie, EO 26 [1927] 416-19), and several other 
liturgical verses, including an Anacreontic on Easter 
Sunday (Matranga, AnecGr 2:670—75), in which 
he not only underscored the cosmic festivity but 
also employed pagan mythological images to por- 
tray the joy of spring. Arsenios’s identification 
with his homonym, a contemporary of THEODORE 
oF Srouptos and a friend of PHOTIOs, is question- 
able. 


ur. BHG 2044—45. S. Pétridés, C. Emereau, “Saint Ar- 
sène de Corfou,” EO 20 (1921) 431-46. -A.K. 




















ARSENIOS THE GREAT 187 





ARSENIOS AUTOREIANOS, patriarch of Con- 
stantinople (Nov. 1254—Feb./March 1260; May/ 
June? 1261-spring 1265 [cf. V. Laurent, REB 27 
(1969) 139f, 142; A. Failler, REB 38 (1980) 59- 
65, 39 (1981) 155—64]); baptismal name George; 
born Constantinople ca.1200, died Prokonnesos 
30 Sept. 1273. Born to Theodore (or Alexios) 
AUTOREIANOS and Irene Kamatera, Arsenios be- 
gan his career as the monk Gennadios at the 
monastery on Oxeia (Princes’ Islands). He resided 
in several monasteries in Asia Minor until 1254, 
when he became patriarch at Nicaea. Although 
after Theodore II’s death, Arsenios, together with 
George MouzaLon, served as protector of JOHN 
IV Lasxkartis, he crowned the usurper MICHAEL 
VIII PALaioLocos in 1258 or 1259. By 1260 Ar- 
senios realized Michael’s ambition for sole rule 
and, in protest, refused for over a year to serve 
as patriarch. In 1261, however, he was persuaded 
to resume his duties and performed a second 
coronation of Michael in Hagia Sophia in Aug. 
1261. Shortly thereafter, angered by the blinding 
of John IV, Arsenios excommunicated Michael. 
Antagonism between emperor and patriarch con- 
tinued until 1265, when a synod deposed Arsenios 
and banished him to Prokonnesos. Arsenios’s de- 
position led to the rise of the ARSENITES; in 1284, 
as a concession to this faction, Andronikos I] 
permitted the translation of Arsenios’s remains to 
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Perhaps at this 
time his sanctity was recognized; his cult contin- 
ued into the 15th C. 

sources. Testament of Arsenios—PG 140:947—58. P.G. 
Nikolopoulos, “Akolouthia anekdotos eis Arsenion Patri- 
archen Konstantinoupoleos,” EEBS 43 (1977—78) 365-83. 
idem, “Anekdotos logos eis Arsenion Autoreianon Patri- 
archen Konstantinoupoleos,” EEBS 45 (1981-82) 406-61. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 4, nNOS. 1329-1347, 1353-1374. LE. 
Troickij, Arsenij, patriarch Nikejsky i Konstantinopol’skij, i Ar- 
senity (St. Petersburg 1873; rp. London 1973). R. Macrides, 
“Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period,” in 


Byz. Saint 67-87. PLP. no.1694. Angold. Byz. Government 
82-93. ~A.M.T. 


ARSENIOS THE GREAT, saint; born Rome 354, 
died Troia near Memphis in Egypt 445; feastday 
8 May. According to an enkomion by THEODORE 
oF Sroupi0s, Arsenios, who was born to a noble 
and rich family, was invited by Theodosios I to 
Constantinople to educate the emperor's sons. 
Two sources (vita, ed. Phirippides, EkklPhar 34 
[1935] 196.19; enkomion, ed. Nissen, BNJbb 1 [1920] 
257-19) call him pater basileon, while the Synaxarion 
of Constantinople (Synax.CP 666.7) applies to him 





ES 








title of basilepater (see BASILI 
. historian (Zon. 9:231.17- 
deacon of the Roman chu 

the palace, Arsenios fled 
g a voice from heaven, and becar 











or 


a hermitin Sket is, then in Troia, then on an island 







ain in Troia. Theodore 
of Stoudios describ rsenios as a hermit who 
worked with his hands, weaving and sewing, and 
educated his pupils and visitors with shrewd con- 
versations, His short stories are reminiscent of the 
APOPHTHEGMATA PAT , and indeed several sto- 
ries in the Apophthegmata are ascribed to a certain 
Arsenios (PG 65:87~108). Theodore also de- 


near Alexandria, ar 






scribes Arsenios’s physical appearance: a tall, lean 
man, bent with age, his beard reaching to his 
belly, his nee one worn away by excessive weep- 
ing. SYM 


ON METAPHRASTES included Arsenios’s 
The igth-C. Nikephor 
ULOS was the first to mentic 
activity, sO it is questionab 
pieces preserved under 
enios (PG 66:1617-—26) shou 















in Art. Portraits of Arseni 
scription of the venerable de- 
aunt, with an extremely | 
white beard (sometimes four- or five-pointed), 
and wears monastic robes. One menologion of Sy- 
meon Metaphrastes (Moscow, Hist. Mus. gr. 9, 
folir) ignores his ascetic achievements and illus- 
trates only his arrival on horseback from Rome 
and his instruction of the two young princes in 
Constantinople. His burial is included in another 
menologion (Paris, B.N. gr. 1528, fol.gir) and pos- 
sibly on a fragmen icon on Mt. Sinai (M. 
Chatzidakis, Venezia levante, vol. 2 [1974] 97, 
fhg.67). 

sources, T. Nissen, “Das Enkomion des Theodoros Stu- 
dites auf den heiligen Arsenios,” BN/bé 1 (1920) 241~62, 
corr. E. Kurtz, BNJ66 2 (1921) 293-95. Zille iže vo sujatych 
otca nasego Arsenija Velikogo, ed. G. Cereteli (St. Petersburg 
1899). “Bios kai politeia tou hosiou patros hemon Arseniou 
tou Megalou,” ed. N.S. Phirippides, EkAlPhar 34 (1935) 37- 
55, 189—201. 

Lit. BHG 167y—16gc. Mouriki, Nea Mone 15of. 
-A.K., NPS. 





















ARSENITES, followers of ARSENIOS AUTOREI- 
ANOS, who were in schism with the patriarchate 
of Constantinople from 1265. The rift began with 
Arsenios’s deposition from the patriarchal throne 
by MicuaeL VHI PataioLtocos. The Arsenites 





r € Arsenios’s successor, JOSE 
nt patriarchs until NipHon. 
empts by Andronikos II to 
es, Niphon succeeded in ne- 
se; the schism officially ended 
on 14 Sept. 1310 in a dramatic ceremony at Hagia 
Sophia. 

The Arsenite schism t 
not only as an ecclesiastic 
part of the political opposition to 
laiologan dynasty by L $ 
Arsenites, who had ; 
monks and the eens of w J 
territory of the former Laskarid E 
CAEA), supported the revolt of Ale 
THROPENOS in 1295 and the conspiracy 
Drimys in 1305/6. 









































































s grandes crises religieuses à Byz- 
e arsénite,” BSHAcRoum 26 (1945) 
Peri to schisma ton Arseniaton,” 
32; 3 (1930) 15-44. -A.M.T. 














reek term techne had a broad 
including mental dexterity, 
linguistic ability, and trickery as well as the skil 
of rulers and physicians. It therefore impli 
something closer to craft and denied a pr i 
role to the work of art and to its T, Art was 
understood not as completing nature, as 
totle, nor as possessing value independent 
ture, as in the modern view, but as nati 
reproduced reality, including th 
that were normally invisible (John of Di 
ed. Kotter, Schriften 3:12 i 
of theorizing about the relationship of the image 
to its prototype, not until the isth C. (Manuel 
CHRYSOLORAS) was a practical distinction drawn 
between the image and that which it represented. 
Equally, written accounts of works of art rarely 
distinguish the material of which they were made: 
differentiations between the principal genres and 
materials are usually to be found only in INVEN- 
TORIES as they served quite other purposes 
heti ciation or even evaluation as 
to religious faith. But descriptions of MO- 
saic and wall painting (sec MONUMENTAL PAINT- 
ING), the two main types of monumental decora 
tion in Byz., largely ignore the contribution of the 
medium to the work’s final effect, sizing 















in Aris- 




























































emph 


instead the lifelike quality of the image and its 
impact upon the beholder. Where the medium 
can be discerned at all, reports on icons, ecclesi- 
astical SILVER, ENAMELS, and TEXTILES—some of 
the most frequently noted categories of portable 
works—stress function rather than form, message 
rather than materials. 

Literature provides our primary means of ac- 

cess to the Byz. response to that which we call art 
and confirms the view that the purposes of rep- 
resentational art took precedence over its nature 
and materials. The effects of art—the magnifi- 
cence of a building and its decoration, the glitter- 
ing splendor of a piece of metalwork—all but 
efface other considerations. The purpose of AR- 
CHITECTURE is to magnify the builder and often, 
as described in the Vita Basi, to show that he 
has recovered the glory of the past. Such an 
approach links imperial founders, KTETORS of lesser 
rank, and church builders. The significant aspect 
of a structure lies in what it says about its PATRON: 
it shows that an emperor has restored (often “from 
the ground up”) what had crumbled, be it the 
fabric of a building, the reputation of a city, or 
he strength of right belief. 
On the one hand, what was ancient, when it 
survived, was prized for its own sake; on the 
other, its restoration was a Christian’s duty and a 
credit to him. Since an icon was understood to 
function by virtue of perfect correspondence to 
its subject, panels were frequently “made anew” 
(Skyl. 384.21-24) and portraits in mosaics and 
MSS often remade. Lacking autonomous value as 
art, frescoes were overpainted with subjects some- 
times quite different from the originals. Nonethe- 
less, both the means by which pictures were pro- 
duced and their 1conoGRAPHY demonstrate the 
respect for authority and tradition (Mansi 13:252C) 
and the emphasis on orthodoxy of thought and 
behavior, apparent in other aspects of Byz. cul- 
ture. Many works can be shown to have a more 
or less close dependence upon earlier examples, 
due in some cases to direct derivation but more 
often to the employment of a conventional and 
ubiquitous visual vocabulary. This lexicon in- 
cluded individual figures and poses, GESTURES and 
BACKGROUNDS preserved either in model-books 
(see MODELS AND Mopet-Books) or, more likely, 
in the Memory of craftsmen. Such elements were 
used or modified, and their syntactical relation- 
ships adjusted, according to context. 

Thoroughly pragmatic, ARTISTS borrowed es- 


pe 








ART | 189 


tablished forms, much as builders used SPOLIA, 
and usually invented only when an exemplar was 
not at hand. How faithfully older forms were 
transmitted depended upon opportunities for ac- 
cess to models and the purpose, training, and 
native ability of the artist. This approach to artistic 
production was reinforced by socially sanctioned 
notions of decorum, of what was appropriate to 
a particular type of commission. Although there 
were variations in the size of a &tetor’s investment, 
CHURCH PROGRAMS OF DECORATION conformed to 
highly developed ideas of what was fitting. Works 
in other favored media, above all textiles, Book 
ILLUSTRATION, and METALWORK, display similar 
homogeneity. While the same genres character- 
ized Islamic art, the latter exhibited neither the 
Byz. emphasis on sacred decoration nor the re- 
sultant body of canonical subject matter. The 
overriding Byz. concern with an established and 
limited iconographical corpus likewise distin- 
guishes it from the medieval West: most of the 
“profane” subjects—the virtues and vices, the lib- 
eral arts, the representation of trades and crafts— 
are largely missing from Byz. art. 

The exploitation of older models was a phe- 
nomenon common to the visual arts and LITERA- 
TURE. Just as the 1oth-C. historian Leo the Deacon 
was content to use descriptions of battles taken 
from Agathias writing four centuries earlier, so 
the 14th-C. mosaics of the CHORA MONASTERY, for 
example, quote details from the 10th-C. JosHua 
Rout. Such “antiques” were valued both for their 
age and their potential as models. As descriptions 
were interchangeable in texts, so were details of 
physiognomy, clothing, and setting in art: identity 
often depended as much on INSCRIPTIONS as on 
formal variation. The benign and constant can- 
nibalism of earlier work largely undercuts the 
notion of successive RENAISSANCES that have been 
imposed on particular periods. The supposition 
that painters of the 6th, 10th, and early 14th C. 
were more interested in ANTIQUITY than those of 
other times attributes to them an unusual moti- 
vation when, in fact, the use of ancient types was 
a form of economy on their part. The more 
frequent appearance of “classicizing” elements in 
certain eras is merely because of the fact that 
these were periods of cultural revival producing 
more works of high quality. 

While particular instances of copying may re- 
flect an act of choice on the part of a patron, this 
attitude was culturally determined. Overt ex- 





190 ART 


amples of the political supervision of artistic pro- 
duction are few, but social control was compelling 
and depended on the various functions assigned 
to the work of art. Basil the Great (PG 32:22gA) 
regarded images, like the lives of saints, as inspi- 
rations to virtue. More concretely, for Gregory of 
Nyssa (PG 46:737D) they had the value of “silent 
writing.” This didactic role was expanded in the 
8th and gth C. For the patriarch Nikephoros I 
the educative power of icons exceeded that of 
words, while Photios saw representations of mar- 
tyrdom as more vivid than writing (L. Brubaker, 
Word and Image 5 [1989] 23f). Independent of 
such theoretical statements, art provided a vehicle 
for the expression of supplications and gratitude 
to God (Sophronios, PG 87.3:3388C). Icons were 
a means of access to the divine and responsible, 
Psellos’s mother believed (An.Komn. 2:34.8-10), 
for human success. As materially rich creations, 
works of art were considered proper gifts at holy 
sites (PIACENZA PILGRIM) and, as the will of Eu- 
stathios Bortas and the diataxis of Michael ATTA- 
LEIATES make clear, to churches and monasteries. 

Other types of document, notably the Ek- 
purasis, emphasize the presence of Christ, his 
mother, and his saints, in their images. This sort 
of “realism” differs from that which allowed ac- 
tuality to obtrude into representations of agricul- 
ture, navigation, and the like, and to invest biblical 
and hagiographical events with details that the 
artist’s contemporaries could recognize. Since all 
attention was paid to the immediate significance 
of a scene, no attempt was made to present the 
past as such (see History PAINTING). Constantine 
I, for instance, was sometimes given the features 
of the reigning monarch, and incidents of the 
OLD TESTAMENT were employed for their value 
aS PREFIGURATIONS Of current events. 

Despite such constants, developments in both 
STYLE and subject matter are evident over the 
centuries, particularly in monumental painting, 
which, to a much greater extent than in the West, 
was the dominant visual medium, Such changes 
are in part to be explained by church doctrine: 
the Second Council of Nicaea had defined the 
manner of representation as the domain of the 
artist. Before this time, art displayed the icono- 
graphical and formal diversity characteristic of 
late antiquity and its far-flung cities. Lively scenes 
drawing on the everyday world distinguish both 
imperial imagery (BARBERINI Ivory) and Christian 





themes (Rossano GosPELs). A more rigorous def- 
inition of acceptable subject matter and its modes 
of presentation emerged from the search for au- 
thoritative, ancient statements concerning the va- 
lidity of images both before and during Icono- 
cLasM. To a degree this debate was responsible 
for the evolution of an attitude, akin to ENCY- 
CLOPEDISM, toward the artistic heritage that was 
at once selective and prescriptive. In the service 
of dogmatic clarity, art of the 10th and early 11th 
C. exhibits a formal austerity based on the prin- 
ciples of FRONTALITY and SYMMETRY. 

These features have been seen as reducing the 
MONUMENTALITY attributed to the painting of the 
“Macedonian Renaissance” but they are symptoms 
not causes. Rather, the late 11th- and 1eth-C. 
desire to express more complex Christological 
ideas and more affective expressions of EMOTION 
widened the range of art, in the creation of which 
the number of identifiable and named artists in- 
creased greatly. But territorial losses and the fall 
of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204 brought 
to a close four centuries in which the artistic 
hegemony of the capital had been recognized and 
emulated beyond the confines of the empire. Al- 
ready in the 12th C. both Latin and Turkic ele- 
ments can be found in Byz. art; this trickle became 
a spate in and after the late 13th C. Even before 
the Civil War of 1341—47 cut short a brief Palaio- 
logan revival, the sponsorship of works of art had 
passed into the hands of local magnates, both lay 
and ecclesiastical; the final 150 years display a 
range of representational quality and manners at 
odds with the splendor and uniformity that had 
characterized gth—12th-C. production and on 
which the reputation of Byz. art has long been 
based. Only very recently has the appropriateness 
of modern standards such as aesthetic autonomy 
and independence of its ideological well-springs 
been questioned (R. Nelson, Art History 12 [1989] 
144~57). The recovery of and sympathy for the 
context in which this body of production came 
into being is now seen as a more direct route to 
the understanding of Byz. art. 


LIT. V.N. Lazarev, Storia della pittura bizantina (Turin 
1966). A. Grabar, Byzantium from the Death of Theodosius to 
the Rise of Islam (London 1966). R. Cormack, Writing in 
Gold (London 1985). A. Cutler, J.W. Nesbitt, L'arte bizantina 
e il suo pubblico (Turin 1986). C. Mango, The Art of the 
Byzantine Empire 312—1453 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972; 
rp. Toronto 1986). W.F. Volbach, J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, 
Byzanz und der christliche Osten (Berlin 1968). ~AG. 








ARTA (Apra), located at the site of ancient Am- 
brakia, on the river Arachthos, about 13 km north 
of the Gulf of Arta; capital of the state of Epiros 
from 1205 onward. There is no certain informa- 
tion on Arta before the end of the 11th C. In the 
1ath C., however, Arta was an important trade 
center frequented by Venetians and an archbish- 
opric (its archbishop is attested in 1157); an epis- 
kepsis of Arta probably existed within the theme 
of Nikopolis. The city flourished in the 13th C.: 
it was fortified evidently after 1227 (A. Orlandos, 
ABME 2 [1936] 156f), and excavated artifacts 
suggest local ceramic production (A. Vavy- 
lopoulou-Charitonidou, DChAE* 12 [1984] 453- 
72). The CHRONICLE OF THE Tocco describes Arta 
as the center of a fertile agricultural region with 
many water buffaloes, cows, and horses; mer- 
chants from Venice and Dubrovnik competed for 
the market of Arta, which supplied dried meat, 
lard, ham, furs, and indigo. 

Arta was attacked by the empire of Nicaea and 
fell briefly in 1259 to Nicaean troops. The re- 
stored empire continued these assaults: Andro- 
nikos I] attacked Arta unsuccessfully, but in 1338 
Andronikos IH took it. After a rebellion led by 
Nikephoros Basi_akes the city surrendered to 
John Kantakouzenos. Afterwards Arta changed 
hands many times: it was conquered by Stefan 
Uroš IV Dušan, then passed to the Albanians, 
and in 1416 to Carlo I Tocco. It fell to the 
Ottomans in 1449. 

The bishopric of Arta does not appear regularly 
in the notitiae and may have been combined with 
that of nearby Rogoi. In an act of 1367 Arta is 
named the “bishopric of Akarnania” (MM 
1:494.13). 

Monuments of Arta. The fortifications of the 
acropolis have been attributed to Michael I Kom- 
nenos Doukas, but in their present state they are 
largely post-Byz.; the palace has vanished com- 
pletely. 

There are churches in and around Arta that 
date, in part at least, from the gth to ioth C.: 
simple wooden-roofed basilicas, sometimes topped 
by domes with high cylindrical drums (St. De- 
metrios tou Katsoure), or of a free-standing cross 
plan (St. Basil tes Gephyras, early gth C.?). But 
the main building activity in Arta took place in 
the time of the despotate of Epiros, when many 
of these early churches were also renovated. Be- 
cause of the strength of this local tradition, the 


ARTA 191 


penetration of Constantinopolitan and Western 
influences into the region produced in Arta ar- 
chitectural forms of considerable originality that 
are beholden to neither. The 13th-C. structures, 
often still basilical in plan, have lively bands of 
brick and multicolored ceramic decoration, the 
latter even including figural plaques, as in the 
Church of St. Basil (S. Xenopoulos, EEBS 6 [1929] 
387-97), while stone figural sculpture adorns col- 
umn capitals and tombs as well as church facades. 

The most important monument in Arta is the 
large metropolitan Church of the Virgin Pare- 
goretissa, founded by the despotes NIkEPHOROS I 
Komnenos Doukas, his wife, and his son, ca.1290. 
It has a square, blocklike exterior rising three 
stories like a palace; on its horizontal roofline 
appear five domes and a lantern. The interior is 
spacious, being a form of domed octagon like 
Nea Mone on Chios, though the eight piers here 
are divided into three tiers, with reused columns 
serving both as consoles and as vertical supports. 
The walls of the church had marble revetment 
up to the level of the surrounding galleries, and 
the dome itself has a Byz. program in mosaic: a 
huge figure of Christ Pantokrator surrounded by 
seraphim and cherubim, and 12 prophets be- 
tween the windows of the drum. The mosaicists 
were presumably brought in from a Byz. center 
outside Epiros, though it is not known which. 
Western elements are also evident in the carved 
Romanesque monsters and reliefs with biblical 
themes that adorn the interior. 

The Church of the Kato Panagia, built ca.1250— 
70 by the father of Nikephoros I, the despotes 
MICHAEL I] Komnenos Doukas, has a barrel- 
vaulted nave, but a transverse vault rises high 
over the crossing to produce the effect of a dome. 
The plan, very similar to that of the Porta Panagia 
in Thessaly, has affinities also with Peloponnesian 
monuments of the tgth C. The monastery of 
Theodora (previously St. George) has a three- 
aisled basilica of the mid-12th C. The domed 
narthex added by St. THEODORA OF ARTA (ca.1270) 
housed her tomb; a marble slab from her sar- 
cophagus bears her portrait in relief, dressed as 
an empress, and that of a male figure, probably 
her son Nikephoros I. 

Frescoes in the despotate churches of Arta are 
generally Byz. in inspiration (e.g., St. Nicholas tes 
Rhodias), most painted in the style of the early 
decades of the 13th C. The church of the Bla- 























192 ARTABASDOS 








cherna convent preserves a fragmentary fresco 
showing a procession of the icon of the VIRGIN 
Hopecerria through the streets of Constantino- 
ple (M. Acheimastou-Potamianou, DChAE* 13 
[1985-86] 301~—06). The church itself (part of 
which may belong to the early 1oth C.) is a three- 
aisled basilica with a dome over each aisle; frag- 
ments of its marble templon with figures of arch- 
angels flanking the Virgin have also been pre- 
served, as has its marble mosaic floor, and some 
inscribed tomb reliefs that identify the deceased 
as members of the royal family. 

LIT. TIB 3:113-15. A. Ducellier, “Aux frontières de la 
Romanie: Arta et Sainte-Maure à la fin du moyen âge,” 
TM 8 (1981) 113-24. A. Orlandos, “Byzantina mnemeia 
tes Artes,” ABME 2 (1936) 3-216. D. Pallas, “Epiros,” RBK 
2 (1968) 258~89. Idem, He Paregoretissa tes Artas (Athens 
1963). P. Bokotopoulos, He ekklesiasteke architektonike ets ten 
dytiken sterean Hellada kai ten Epeivon (Thessalonike 1975) 
20-28, 45-50, 56—69. Grabar, Sculptures H 144-46. P. 
Vokotopoulos, “Arta,” in Alle Kirchen und Kléster Griechen- 


lands, ed. E. Melas (Schauberg 1972) 135-61. 
-T.E.G., NPS. 





ARTABASDOS (CApratvagéos, `Apráßatos), 
usurper (742-43). An Armenian (Toumanoff, 
“Caucasia” 135), Artabasdos was appointed sfra- 
tegos of the Armeniakon by Anastasios I] (713- 
15). He supported the revolt of Leo II against 
Theodosios II and subsequently received Leo’s 
daughter Anna in marriage, the title kouropalates 
(Guilland, Titres, pt IH [1970], 198f), and the 
position of komes of the Opsikion. The report of 
Eutychios of Alexandria that Artabasdos came 
from Germanikeia, Leo’s birthplace, may explain 
their strong ties. After Leo’s death Artabasdos 
revolted against Constantine V in June of either 
741 or 742, defeated him, and entered Constan- 
tinople, perhaps exploiting a reaction against 
Iconociasm. He ruled with his eldest son Nike- 
phoros as co-emperor and received recognition 
from Pope ZACHARIAS. Artabasdos may also have 
crowned Anna and his youngest son Niketas (Syn- 
opsis chronike, ed. Sathas, MB 7:124.2—3). His most 
notable achievement was the restoration of icons 
(denied by Speck, infra, but reaffirmed by W. 
Treadgold, AHR 88 [1983] g4f). He sent Niketas 
as monostrategos to the Armeniakon, but Constan- 
tine defeated him in the summer of 743 and 
entered Constantinople on 2 Nov. of that year. 
Artabasdos and his sons were blinded in the Hip- 
podrome. 





uit. I. Rochow, “Bemerkungen zur Revolte des Arta- 
basdos aufgrund bisher nicht beachteter Quellen,” Klio 68 
(1986) 191-97. P. Speck, Artabasdos, der rechigliubige Vor- 
kdmpfer der göttlichen Lehren (Bonn 1981). -P.A.H. 


ARTABASDOS, NICHOLAS RHABDAS. See 
RHABDAS, NICHOLAS ARTABASDOS. 


ART AND THE WEST. While the dedication of 
CONSTANTINOPLE as the new Rome symbolized 
imperial and artistic unity and Constantinople was 
patterned after old Rome in its topography and 
monuments, their shared traditions contained the 
seeds of future separation. After the division of 
the empire and the decline of the Western part 
in the 5th C., it was the art of the Eastern part 
that upheld the classical standards of old Rome 
while developing new Christian form and content. 
When Rome gradually lost its position as artistic 
capital after ca.450, Constantinople assumed this 
role; by the 540s its impact on Italian soil was 
evident in the architecture and decoration of the 
Church of S. Vitale in RAVENNA. 

The new Byz. art followed in the path of Jus- 
tinian I’s generals and, where political hegemony 
was Maintained, this art flourished. As the attempt 
to reestablish the empire in the West failed in the 
face of barbarian invasions, however, manifesta- 
tions of Byz. art in Italy became less the product 
of state patronage and, as at S. Maria Antiqua in 
Rome, more the result of individual traveling art- 
ists or workshops commissioned by Italians. Byz. 
rule continued in parts of Italy until the 11th C., 
so Greek artists were readily available, and possi- 
bly so even in areas not under Byz. control (e.g., 
S. Maria di CASTELSEPRIO). ICONOCLASM may also 
have stimulated the flow of artists to the outlying 
provinces and beyond. North of the Alps, how- 
ever, the impact of Byz. art was less pronounced. 
Major works such as Charlemagne’s Palatine 
Chapel at Aachen and the early gth-C. Lorsch 
ivory bookcover were sponsored by the Western 
emperor and other knowledgeable political pa- 
trons who sought to follow imperial Byz. models. 
An itinerant Greek painter may have worked on 
the Schatzkammer Gospels (Vienna) ca.8oo. Far- 
ther afield the strength and frequency of Byz. 
influence were much less. Discrete elements of 
the Lindisfarne Gospels show that the artist had 
indirect contact with Byz. art in the late 7th C. 

















Similarly the full-page Virgin and Child in the 
Book of Kells, ca.800, reflects a ‘THEOTOKOS at 
some distance, probably filtered through inter- 
mediate works. 

In the 10th—11th C., direct Byz. influence on 
artists working for the Western emperor intensi- 
fied with the marriage of Otto I} and THEO- 
PHANO: an ivory (Paris, Cluny Museum) made for 
their coronation depends upon a Greek proto- 
type. Byz. ivories also transmitted to Ottonian 
book-painters iconographic types such as the 
Doraition of the Virgin, and a Greek artist prob- 
ably worked on the face and hands of Christ and 
the Virgin in the Codex Aureus of Henry III (Es- 
corial Vit. 17, 1043—46). By contrast, in the Brit- 
ish Isles much more selective iconographic bor- 
rowings continue to be found, for example, at 
Winchester in the Benedictional of St. Aethelwold 
of 963-84 (London, B.L. Add. 59598). Farther 
south direct Byz. artistic intervention did occur at 
MONTECASSINO, however, to which Emp. Constan- 
tine IX made large donations and where Abbot 
Desiderius employed Greek artists. The impact of 
this project is visible in some of the frescoes of 
SANT ANGELO IN Formis and in numerous 11th— 
izth-C. bronze poors on churches throughout 
Italy. 

At the time of the Crusapes, Byz. artistic influ- 
ence in the West increased. This new and sub- 
stantial phase is represented by and emanated 
from the monuments of the Norman kings of 
Sicily at CEFALU, PALERMO, and MONREALE; at S. 
Marco in VENICE; and nearby at TORCELLO. 
Transmitted from Italy, with Venice as an esp. 
important intermediary, awareness of Byz. art 
spread widely through Europe at various levels of 
impact and understanding (A. Cutler, Mediaevalia 
7 [1981] 41—77): in Spain in the now-destroyed 
chapter house at Sigena; in England in a major 
series of MSS, including the St. Albans Psalter 
and a series of giant Bibles, and frescoes at Can- 
terbury; in France in MS illumination at Cluny 
and the frescoes of the chapel at Berzé-la-Ville 
nearby; and in Austria, Germany, and the Meuse 
valley in the work of goldsmiths such as Nicholas 
of Verdun. 

The nature of the artistic relationship changed 
greatly in the 13th C. as a result of the Latin 
conquest of Constantinople, the Frankish pres- 
ence in Greece during the Latin Empire (1204- 
61), and the strengthened contacts between Byz. 














ART AND THE WEST 193 


and the merchant cities of Venice, Genoa, and 
Pisa. The two cultures interacted in a way that 
affected both Byz. art in the 13th and 14th C. 
and the development of the maniera greca in Due- 
cento Italian panel painting. This maniera, ex- 
pressed early in the Kahn and Mellon Madonnas 
(Washington, D.C., National Gallery), evolved into 
the individual styles of Cimabue and Duccio; the 
prolongation of Byz.-influenced painting in Ger- 
many; the spread of panel painting to northern 
Europe; and even the provision of certain com- 
ponents of the developing Gothic style in France, 
seen, for example, in the Ingeborg Psalter (Chan- 
tilly, Musée Condé 1695, ca.1200). 

The impact of Byz. art on the West in the 14th— 
15th C. is less clear, but one major change is 
apparent. Whereas until the 13th C. Byz. art had 
influenced the West without—except in the 4th- 
5th C.—the reverse being true, instances of West- 
ern artistic influence on Byz. became marked. 
Examples range from Italian-influenced sculpture 
in the Church of the Virgin Paregoritissa at ARTA, 
through Western elements in the iconography of 
frescoes at Boyana, to the dedication pages of two 
14th-C. Hippokrates MSS (Vat. Palat. gr. 199; 
Paris, B.N. gr. 2144), and a MS of the ALEXANDER 
Romance (Nelson, Preface & Miniature 42f, 52f). 
A very late example is the fresco (ca.1450) deco- 
rating Tomb G in the Cuora, “the first painting 
found in Constantinople in which clear-cut and 
precise evidence of direct Renaissance influence 
can be observed” (Underwood, Kariye Djami 1:292— 
95). 

Although the interrelationship of Byz. art and 
medieval art in western Europe is clearly a com- 
plex phenomenon, the asymmetry of artistic flow, 
mainly westward from Constantinople and its em- 
pire, can be explained by a variety of factors. 
These include the strength and stability of the 
Byz. artistic tradition, the authority of imperial 
patronage, the high artistic quality maintained at 
Constantinople and consequent renown of Byz. 
art, the direct or indirect dissemination of objects, 
and the growing familiarity of Westerners with 
Byz. art and artists through travel and specific 
commissions. Only after the Crusades and ex- 
panded exploitation of the Mediterranean trade 
routes brought the West into direct contact with 
Byz. could the former begin to affect the art of 
Byz. Ironically, the very catastrophe that defini- 
tively sundered the Greek and Latin cultures, the 




















194 ARTASAT 























sack of Constantinople in 1204, provided the de- 
cisive turning point when western Europe saw a 
major infusion of Byz. works. This and the im- 
plantation of Franks on Greek soil sowed the 
seeds of artistic interpenetration. The role of the 
Latins in Frankish Greece and the Holy Land, 
and the resultant CRUSADER ART AND ARCHITEC- 
TURE, remain to be fully studied; similarly, the 
means of artistic transmission and interchange 
must be further clarified. Clearly the importance 
of the Crusaders’ intermediary role is one of the 
most significant new contributions to the under- 
standing of artistic relations between Byz. and the 
West. 

uit, O. Demus, Byzantine Art and the West (New York 
1970). E. Kitzinger, The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval 
West (Bloomin gton- -London Pe H. Belting, Das Bild und 


sein Publikum im Mittelalter (Berlin 1981). K. Weitzmann, 
Artin the Medieval West «i contacts with Byzantium (Lon- 

















of Ets 
don 1982). [2 Medio Oriente e ('Occidente nell'arte del XII 
secolo, ed. H. Belting [Atti del XXIV Congresso Interna- 
zionale di Storia dell’Arte 2] (Bologna 1982). ~J.F. 











e 











ARTAŠAT CApráčæraæ), early Armenian capital 
on the north bank of the mid-Araxes River, 
founded by ArtaSés (Artaxias) in the and C. B.C. 
It was also aad capital of the later Armenian AR- 
cavations reveal that it was a 

, but rulers rarely resided th 
ed from its sack by the P 
y Duin replaced it, proba 
the 5th C. The main imp 
apparently lay in its position 
r isit route through Armenia 
was offically:d designated one of the three customs 

posts between Byz. and the Sasanians in the 5th 
C. (Cod. Just. IV 63.4), a position apparently re- 
confirmed at the Peace of 562, even though the 
clause did not specifically mention ArtaSat (ME- 
NANDER PROTECTOR, fr.6, ed. Blockley 7o.g23— 
26). The city slowly ined to the level of a 
village, but was still known to gth-C. Arab sources 
as a center for the production of red dye (Airmiz). 








































































n 





pea 
w 


ine 












ur. Manandyan, Trade and Cities 44—46, 80~g2, 101, 
106f, 110f, 114f, 153. 5. Der Nersessian, The Armenians 
(London 1969) 25, 28f, 64, 67. A. Ter-Ghewondyan, The 
Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenta (Lisbon 1976) 126f, 138. 

—N.G.G. 


pos), saint; died Antios 
> Oct. Born to a noble family, 









Artemios was governor of Egypt in 360. An Arian 
supporter of Constantius HH, Arte ten 


ios persecuted 
(PLAE 
1:112). After Emp. Julian had him executed for 
his Christian beliefs, the deaconess Ariste brought 
his body to Constantinople, where it was later 
deposited in the Church of John Prodromos in 
Oxeia. The healing power of his relics became 
famous: a series of miracles is described in an 
anonymous collection of legends compiled in 660— 
68. Artemios mainly cured diseased testicles by 
means of INCUBATION inside the church. The leg- 
end emphasizes the miraculous nature of Arte- 
mios’s cures: for instance, a certain George had a 
vision in which Artemios appeared as a butcher 
and performed an operation with a butcher's im- 
plements. Artemios’s miracles attracted patients 
from Amastris, Phrygia, Chios, Rhodes, Alexan 
dria, and Africa. It is questionable whether the 
Church of Prodromos was renamed in honor of 
Artemios. 

Puitosrorcios eulogized Artemios’s martyr 
dom, and on this basis a o was produc 


















































Bidez (infra, xliv—Ixviti) asc it to fohn of 
Rhodes (otherwise unknown); Beck ( 8af) 
attributes it to JouN or Damascus, although this 
is unlikely, since the passio is referred to in the 


N METAPHRASTES included 
saints’ Lives. 

Art. The somewhat confused 
reflected in art. In minia- 
gion of Metaphrastes, and in 
TER (fol.75r), Artemios ap- 
martyr with a short dark beard 
like that thrist. In wall-painting, however, his 
military role i is emphasized: he is dressed in armor 
and paired with other MILITARY SAINTS, esp. MER- 
KOURIOS and Niketas the Goth. Scenes of his mar- 
mplon of 




















depicted in the MENOLOGIC 
and there is a Passion cycle of e 
an 11th-C. MS on Mt. Athos (E 
gor-v, Treasures 2:210f). 


ig, fols. 


sources. Miracles—A. Papadopoulos-k 
graeca sacra (St. Petersburg 1gog) 1~’7¢ 
storgits, Kirchengeschichte* i “ed, J- Bidez, F. Winkelma 
lin i 6, with corr- d in of Damascus, Schrif- 




















“Cudesa sv. Artemija,” 
nych potitateljani VI. Lamanskomu, 
) 481-73. A. Kazhdan, “Hagio- 


graphical Notes,” Erytheia Q (1988) 200-05. P. Maas, “Ar- 
temioskult in Konstantinopel,” BNJbb 1 (1ge0) 3977—80. C. 
Mango, “On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion 
of St. Artemios at Constantinople,” Zograf to (1979) 40- 

43. K. Lehmann, “Ein Reliefbild des heiligen Artemios in 
Konstantinopel,” BNJbb ı (1920) 381-84. -A.K., N.P.S. 


ARTEMIS, female deity of pre-Hellenic origin, 
whose cult survived in the late Roman Empire 
until the sth-6th C. Artemis Ephesia, a variant 
who was popular in Asia Minor, was venerated as 
a helper of women in childbirth, as fertility god- 
dess, and as city-protector. Her statues represent 
her with a dozen or more breasts exposed beneath 
a wide brooch and the mural crown. Sixth-C. 
poets also refer to Artemis as protector of women 
in childbirth. Her temple at Ephesus was closed 
only at the beginning of the 5th C. An inscription, 
probably of the 5th C. (M. Guarducci, Epigrafia 
greca, vol. 4 [Rome 1978] goof), records a certain 
Demeas who “tore down the beguiling image of 
the daimon Artemis” and substituted a cross. At 
Sardis her temple wa idoned by the mid-qth 
C., and a small church was built at the eastern 
end. 
The vita of St. pis: OF ROUPHINIANAL Tec- 
ords in the sth C. a festival in the Bithynian 
uplands called the “R ak et” {(kalathos) of Artemis, 
opulation celebrated annual 
w her appear in the form 
. In the 6th C. THEODORE 














ie] 


































and kill seople. In the Byz. polemic against 
Leet Artemis was represented as extremely 
cruel; although she was a chaste virgin, she en- 
joyed bloody sacrifices and killed strangers and 
thus did not fit the ideal of Christian morality. 
Radically transformed from her Antique image 
of athletic huntress, Artemis, represented as a 
kindly, hooded wom resides with OpPIAN over 


the introductory miniature of the 11th-C. Venice 


Kynegetika. 
bhesia: Eine archäologische Un- 


ur. H. Thiersch, Artemis Ep 
tersuchung (Berlin 1935}. C. Foss, Ephesus afier Antiqutty 



























(Cambridge 1979) 32, 34, 86f. Trombley, “Paganism” 328, 
334-36. 


-F.R T., A.C. 














SIEGE MACHINERY. T 
lts (petrobola) and other stone- 
devices (cheiroballistra, cheire 






i 


ARTILLERY AND SIEGE MACHINERY | 195 


mangana) in siege operations. Although torsion 
catapults had been developed in antiquity, the 
Byz. normally used the less complicated and 
easily maintained rope-pulled trebuchets f 
by the Arabs, Avars, and steppe peoples (I 
Hill, Viator 4 [1973] 99—116). A beam was fixe 
unevenly over a crossbar and a stone placed in a 
sling at the end of the longer arm; several men 
then pulled down the rope(s) attached to the 
shorter arm, flinging the longer arm upward and 
propelling the stone. The Miracles of St. Demetrios 
provide an excellent description of rope-pulled 
catapults (Lemerle, Miracles 1:154.9—-22). 

The chetroballistron resembled a crossbow (see 
Weaponry). An arrow or stone was laid in a 
channel along the stock, while the string, fastened 
to the ends of the two arms, was wound back, 
locked, and released to fire the p ctile. These 
weapons, usually mounted on stands, were used 
by defenders and attac Prokopios (Wars 
5.21.14-18) describes Belisarios’s men operati 
this weapon from a siege tor 

Remains of late 4th-C. 
ered on the sites of some L 
Gudea, D. Baatz, Saalburg ; jatii h 
72). P. Brennan (Chiron 10 [1980] 
gests that i1 in the Danubian provinces of Sc ythia, 
, composite detachments of 
d from both legions of each 
ted catapults and other mis- 
y at permanent bridgeheads 
y armies. 
included wooden towers (he- 
next to the wall. They often 
om which to shoot GREEK FIRE 





















































l P 
{as depaedi in the 11th-C, Vat. gr. 1605, fol.185) 
and were covered wih Soaked hides to guar 












used battering rams n ioi 
rams were also suspended fre 
swung back and forth against the 
phoros Ouranos recomme 
all other methods to coll: 
de Foucault, TM 5 [1973] 2 
made hutlike shelters (laisai) ) from b 
vines to protect themselves while unc 
base of the wall, Most artillery ; 
: during sieges instead of being 
s (technitai) accompanied the 
t the necessary equipment 








































196 ARTISAN 


Lit. E.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery, 2 vols. 
(Oxford 1969-71). M.F.A. Brok, “Bombast oder Kunstfer- 
tigkeit? Ammians Beschreibung der ballista (23.4.163),” 
RAM 120 (1977) 331—45- —-E.M. 


ARTISAN. There was no special Byz. term for 
the artisan and, contrary to B. Malich (BBA 51 
[1983] 47—59), there was no clear distinction be- 
tween the artisan and the MERCHANT. Of course, 
there were professional traders not involved in 
production as well as craftsmen who worked for 
an employer (or a prearranged customer) rather 
than for the market; but both Egyptian papyri 
and the Book of the Eparch note various artisans 
(e.g., candlemakers, soapmakers, silk weavers) who 
sold their own goods. The major branches of Byz. 
craftsmanship were metallurgy; production of 
weapons; manufacture of jewelry, pottery, and 
glass; production of textiles and clothing; the 
leather industry; carpentry and masonry; the 
building industry; baking of bread; and produc- 
tion of vegetable oil and other victuals. Late Ro- 
man texts present a diversified pattern of artisan 
professions (H. von Petrikovits, ZPapEpig 43 [1981] 
285-306) that presupposes a very consistent di- 
vision of labor, although the list of names is longer 
than the number of actual professions because 
various terms are used to refer to the same profes- 
sion. The terminology of the Book of the Eparch 
seems to be less varied, and probably only silk 
production and the leather industry reflect any 
significant division of labor. 

Craftsmanship was divided into several catego- 
ries: state fabricae or ergasteria basilika (see Fac- 
TORIES, IMPERIAL), GUILDS, and craftsmen outside 
state or guild organizations. Artisans were con- 
centrated in towns; according to M.Ja. Sjuzjumov 
(VizVrem 11 [1956] 66f), they worked primarily 
in suburban areas—a thesis that is not supported 
by archaeological data. Monasteries (for example, 
the Stoudios) had their own workshops and monk- 
artisans. In praktika, the most frequently named 
rural artisans are smiths, tailors, and shoemak- 
ers. 

Artisans appear more commonly in Late An- 
tique than in Byz. art. An ivory fragment at 
Princeton (Age of Spirit., no.254) shows a carpenter 
planing a board; masons lay up a wall in a fresco 
in the Via Latina catacomb, Rome (ibid., no.253). 
In Byz. their role is as peripheral figures in com- 
positions honoring a KTETOR, as in the Vienna 


Drosxorines (fol.6v; Weitzmann, Late Antique Il, 
pl.15), or as illustrations to biblical scenes such as 
the construction of Noan’s Arx or the tower of 
Babel (see GENESIS). 

Liv. J.-P. Sodini, “L'artisanat urbain à l'époque paléo- 
chrétienne,” Ktema 4 (1979) 71-119. Fikhman, Egipet 11- 
34. B. Malich, “Handwerk und Handwerksvereinigungen 
im Byzanz im Ubergang zum Feudalismus,” Jahrbuch für 
Wirtschafisgeschichte 4 (1977) 179-81. Kazhdan, Derevnja i 
gorod 190—249. E. Kistinger, “Gewerbe im späten Byzanz,” 
in Handwerk und Sachkultur im Spätmittelalter (Vienna 1988) 
103-26. P. Schreiner, “Die Organisation byzantinischer 
Kaufleute und Handwerker,” in Untersuchungen zu Handel 
und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und 
Nordeuropa (Göttingen 1989) 44-61. ~A.K., A.C. 


ARTISTS. No precise equivalent existed in Byz. 
Greek for this generic modern term: practitioners 
of the arts and crafts are variously referred to in 
texts and inscriptions as zographos or historiographos 
(painter), MAISTOR, and ktistes used in the sense of 
an executant of a commissioned work (cf. KTE- 
TOR). No clearly defined social or economic 
boundary separated ARTISANS from artists, some 
of whom achieved eminence. LAZAROS was a 
member of two diplomatic missions to Rome, and 
PANTOLEON was on equal terms with a hegeumenos 
of the Constantinopolitan monastery of the Pana- 
giou. Some artists were rich enough to act as 
ktetores themselves. A 10th-C. goldsmith named 
Gregory paid for the construction of a church at 
Trani; Michael Proeleusis (see list below), an early 
14th-C. painter, rebuilt and restored a monastery 
on land that he had rented near Halmyros. 
Unlike in ancient Rome, the practice of art in 
Byz. was not considered demeaning. Artists might 
be as lowly as the “poor widow woman” in mid- 
6th-C. Syria “who had been taught the art of 
drawing and used to . . . labor at it for her 
necessities” (John of Ephesus—-PO 17.1:15); at 
the other end of the social scale its most celebrated 
exponent was CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGEN- 
NETOS. Icon-painting was by definition an accept- 
able enterprise for a Christian, on the model of 
St. Luke who was supposed to have plied this 
trade. Painters are frequently described in hagio- 
graphic texts as “inspired” or “skilled,” and many 
painters are credited with privileged, supernat- 
ural aid that enabled them to finish their com- 
missions. A great master like EuLatios was cele- 
brated by numerous writers of his time. Amateurs, 
lay and monastic and often of high rank, aspired 


to such talents (N. Oikonomides in AAPA 1:45- 
51). 

Artists were not narrowly specialized, which helps 
to explain consistencies in both style and subject 
matter across different media. While legal docu- 
ments such as the Copex THEODosIANUS (Cod. 
Theod. XIII 4.2) and the BOOK oF THE EPARCH 
distinguish, for administrative purposes, crafts- 
men by their trades, panel painters like Pantoleon 
also illustrated books, and muralists produced 
icons, At sites such as the Chora in Constantino- 
ple, mosaicists were probably also responsible for 
the frescoed decoration. 

Of the training of artists almost nothing is known. 
The above-mentioned Syrian woman used to teach 
pupils for a fee; there is no later evidence for 
such instruction or for art schools in the narrow 
sense of the term. As is made clear in the will of 
the Cretan painter Angelos Akotantos (see list 
below), both skills and equipment, including 
drawings (skiasmata), were transmitted from fa- 
ther to son. The transmission of technical skills 
from one generation to another is already implied 
in Constantine [’s legislation of 334 (Coed. Theed. 
XIH 4.2, repeated in the CODEX JUSTINIANUS— 
Ced_Just. X 66.1). Parents also placed their chil- 
dren as apprentices. One must suppose some sort 
of on-the-job training like that of ALimpy, “given 
by his parents to study icon-painting” and em- 
ployed as an assistant to the Byz. mosaicists at 
work in the monastery of the Caves at Kiev. Train- 
ing would have been particularly necessary in 
MOSAIC, a craft demanding both individual exper- 
tise and a quasi-industrial organization. 

Painters on a smaller scale and other craftsmen 
worked at home or, at least in the 4th—6th C., in 
small ateliers. A law of the emperor Valentinian 
of the year 374 (Cod.Theod. XIII 4.4) mentions 
painters’ studios (pergulae) and workshops in pub- 
lic places. One such may be the room equipped 
with an easel used by a portrait-painter depicted 
in the Vienna Droskoripes. Although it is often 
supposed that monasteries maintained painters’ 
workshops in addition to their SCRIPTORIA, there 
is no documentary proof for such a notion. Most 
tasks would have been farmed out, by monks and 
laymen alike, to professionals. 

In the 5th C. there is unequivocal evidence that 
painters worked directly from life (THEODORET 
OF CyrRHuSs, Histoire des moines de Syrie, ed. 
P. Canivet, A. Leroy-Molinghen {Paris 1979] 


ARTISTS | 197 


2.248.11—16). A legend in the Life of Nikon HO 
“METANOEITE” has it that an artist could not paint 
the saint’s likeness because he had no MODEL. 
Artists probably knew the majority of the themes 
they were called upon to paint and used tech- 
niques that enabled them to work quickly. D.C. 
Winfield (“Painting Methods” 132f) estimated that 
FRESCO painters covered 6—7 sq. m daily. The 
team working with THEOPHANES “THE GREEK” fin- 
ished painting the Annunciation Church in the 
Moscow Kremlin in one season. Yet, while em- 
ploying well-established formulas and perhaps 
model-books, they were not externally controlled. 
There is no reason to suppose them regulated in 
aesthetic matters and almost as great a variety 
obtains in details of iconography as in the areas 
of style and composition. Conventional models 
and schemes of decoration were modified to suit 
the dimensions and layout of a building and, 
presumably, the financial size of a commission. 
Such factors, equally affecting portable artifacts, 
determined the mode of production. 

The exercise of an artist's taste is not an iden- 
ufable characteristic of Byz. art. While artists 
were not limited to biblical subjects—both mon- 
umental painters (as in the patriarchal apartments 
at Hacia SoPHIA, Constantinople) and illumina- 
tors {as in marginal PsaLTer illustration) “com- 
mented” on current and recent events—interven- 
tions of this sort seem to have lain in the domain 
of the PATRON rather than with those hired to 
execute his wishes. Nonetheless, major painters 
could exercise considerable freedom in their choice 
of models: Pantoleon is known to have repro- 
duced a picture he had just painted while, in the 
second half of the 14th C., Gastreas (see list below) 
traveled in Arkadia seeking “ancient icons” to 
copy. 

With the exception of the team that decorated 
the MeNoLogion oF Basi II, artists’ “signatures” 
do not appear in any numbers before the 1 2th C. 
The rare self-portrait of the scribe and/or painter 
THEOPHANES in a MS of ca.1100 coincides with 
other individualistic trends in monumental paint- 
ing of the period. By the 14th C., artists such as 
KALLIERGES were legends in their own time; oth- 
ers, like PANSELINOS, may be no more than leg- 
ends. Artists’ inscriptions are usually laconic; where 
longer, they constitute proof of literacy. 

Proud boasts claiming the presence of Byz. art- 
ists abound in Latin and Slavic literature. While 




















198 ARTISTS 





Byz. artists had long been active abroad—a dias- 
pora to Rome during Iconoclasm is often asserted, 
but Damascus, MONTECASSINO, and DUBROVNIK 
offer better-documented examples—named indi- 
viduals are not found before the 13th C. Rather 
than venturing overseas alone, artists seem to 
have gone abroad in clusters. A succession of 
Greeks painted churches in Macedonia and Serbia 
after the fall of Constantinople in 1204; in the 
early 14th C. Byz. wall-painters were active in 
Venice, Sicily, Genoa, and Russia. A second spate 
returned or was summoned to Russia and Georgia 
in the 1970s. Preserved monuments show that 
they adapted themselves quickly to the local con- 
cerns and requirements of their new hosts. 

Wall-painters and mosaicists such as Eulalios are 
more widely celebrated in chronicles than ILLU- 
MINATORS and other craftsmen, a fame reflecting 
quite literally the size of their achievement; ha- 
giography more often yields the names of icon- 
painters. Generally, artists appear in literature for 
achievements other than their artistry. This fact, 
the absence of documentation regarding patrons’ 
wishes, and the impersonal nature of much Byz. 
craftsmanship make it hard to define artistic per- 
sonality. Yet the notion that art was always an 
anonymous activity is contradicted by the follow- 
g selection of documented names. Many crafts- 
men, esp. painters, gem-cutters, and goldsmiths 
of the 4th—7th C., are known only by their names 
on funerary and other inscriptions. They have 
been collected by Mentzou (infra) and are not 
included here. 








ro o 





[A]etios, monk, signed a wall-painting in the 
Church of the Forty Martyrs at Suves (Cap- 
padocia) in 1216/17 (Jerphanion, Églises ru- 
pestres 2.1:156—74). 

Akotantos, Angelos, icon-painter and proto- 
psaltes in Chandax 1407-13. His will (M. Ma- 
noussakas, DChAE* 2 [1960—61] 146—48) was 
drawn up in 1436 before he sailed for Con- 
stantinople. Recently, several icons, signed by 
or attributed to Akotantos, have come to light 
(M. Vasilake-Maurakake, Thesaurismata 18 
[1981] 2go—98; PLP, no.19318; cf. 19319, 
13320). 

{Ana]stasios, priest and painter of the Church 
of St. George at Apodoulos, Crete, 14th/15th 
C. (Kalokyris, Crete 39; PLP, no.goo88). 

Andrea[s], sculptor named in an inscription on 


the upper cornice of Hagia Sophia, Constan- 
tinople (unpublished; notice courtesy of L.E. 
Butler). 

Apokaukos, Alexios, painter on Crete, fl. 1402— 
1421, executor of the will of Joseph BRYEN- 
Nios (PLP, no.1194). 

APSEUDES, THEODORE. 

Argyros, John, painted a series of miniatures of 
the labors of the MONTHS in the typikon of the 
monastery of St. Eugenios, Trebizond (a.13.46) 
(A. Bryer, ArchPont 35 [1978] 392f). 

Arsenios, monk and painter who, together with 
his son Theophylaktos, decorated a chapel of 
St. Michael in the Hasan Dag in the reign of 
Constantine VIII (?) (N. Thierry, JSav [1968] 
45-61). 

ASBESTAS, GREGORY. 

Atzemos, Basil, also called Berges, 11th-C. (?) 
painter who signed a supplication to Symeon 
the Stylite beside the saint’s image in a Chi- 
cago MS, Univ. Lib. 947, fol.151v (Spatha- 
rakis, Corpus, no.919). 

Bardas, Ioannitzes, painter, second founder of 
the “white church” at Selas in Chalkidike, and 
in 1285, hieromonk of the Great Lavra on 
Mt. Athos (PLP, no.2205). 

Barlaam, early 1 4th-C. wall-painter whose name 
appears, together with the date 6827 (= 1319/ 
20), over the door of a room in the western 
part of the church at Gračanica (P. Mijović, 
Studia slavico-byzantina et mediaevalia europen- 
sia, vol. 1 [Sofia 1989] 1949-54). 

BASILIUS PICTOR. 

Byzagios, Andronikos, wall-painter who worked 
in the chapel of St. George in the Athonite 
monastery of St. Paul, 1423 (PLP, no.3266). 

Chartoularis and Chenaros, painters otherwise 
unknown, associated with EuLatios by Theo- 
dore Prodromos (A. Maiuri, BZ 23 [1920] 
399)- 

Constantine and his son, John, named in in- 
scriptions at Hagia Sophia, Ohrid, ca.1350 
(G. Subotić, Zograf 5 [1974] 44—47; PLP, nos. 
8593, 14166). 

Daniel, painter of the cave church of S. Biagio 
at S. Vito dei Normanni (Apulia), named in 
an inscription of 1197 (Medea, Cripte 1:95). 

Demetrios of Monemvasia, painter named in an 
inscription of 1095 or 1100 in the Church of 
St. Demetrios near Pourko on Kythera (Ska- 
wran, Development 162, no.28). 


Elpidios, 5th-C. mosaicist known from an in- 
scription in the basilica of the Virgin at Pa- 
laiopolis on Kerkyra (M. Guarducci, Epigrafia 
greca 4 [Rome 1978] 348f). 

EPHRAIM. 

EULALIOS. 

EUGENIKOS, MANUEL. 

Eustathios, wall-painter named in an inscription 
of March 1020 in the Chapel of Sts. Marina 
e Cristina at Carpignano, Apulia (Medea, Cripte 
1:114). 

Euticius (Eutychios) of Naissos, mid-4th-C. 
silversmith. His name appears on a silver plate 
found at Augst (Kaiseraugst, no.60). 

Flavius Nicanus, early 4th-C. silversmith whose 
name is inscribed on ingots found at Sabac, 
south of Sirmium, and on two plates from 
Cervenbreg (Bulgaria) prepared for the de- 
cennalia of Licinius (F. Baratte, JSav [1975] 
198). 

Gabriel, monk and painter in 1322, addressed 
in a letter by Michael Gabras for whom he 
painted an icon of the Virgin (PLP, no.3408). 

Gastreas, icon-painter ca.13929—6o0 (R.-J. Loe- 
nertz, EEBS 26 [1956] 162; PLP, no.9575). 

George mastora, stone-carver (marmaras) named 
in an inscription of 1995 in the Church of 
the Phaneromene in the Mani (N.B. Dran- 
dakes, ArchEph [1967] 139-41). 

George, painter and monk who witnessed the 
typikon of John I Tzimiskes (972); founder of 
the ZOGRAPHOU MONASTERY (Docheiar. gg, n.1; 
Prot., no.'7.167). 

“Georgius Grecus,” painter mentioned in the 
archives of Dubrovnik between 6 Aug. 1377 
and 2 Apr. 1386 (Kreki¢, Dubrovnik, nos. 326, 
373> 384). 

Gerontios, wood-carver of the second quarter 
of the 5th C., recommended to the sophist 
Isokasios by THEODORET OF CyRRHUS (ep.38, 
ed. Y. Azéma, 1:102.22—103.2). 

“Hemanuel Grecus,” painter who became a cit- 
izen of Dubrovnik on 28 June 1367 (Krekic, 
Dubrovnik, no.268). 

Isaias, monk and painter, fl. 1295/6, acquain- 
tance of Melchizedek Akropolites and Ma- 
nuel Planoudes (D. Pallas, Hellenika 12 [1952] 
94-96). 

Isaias “the Greek,” wall-painter commissioned 
on 4 May 1338 to paint the Church of the 
Entry into Jerusalem in Novgorod (Novgorod- 


ARTISTS | 199 


skaja pervaja letopis’, ed. A.N. Nasonov [Moscow- 
Leningrad 1950] 348). 

Iveropoulos, John, identified in a Greek inscrip- 
tion in the crypt at PeTrirzos (Bačkovo) as 
the painter of the upper and lower stories of 
the church (E. Bakalova, Bačkovskata kostnica 
[Sofia 1977] 133). 

John, a monk and disciple of St. Symeon the 
Stylite the Younger who, according to the 
latter’s vita (ed. van den Ven, 88f), even though 
untrained, carved the columns and capitals 
of a church at Sykeon. 

John, deacon and founder in 1266 of the Mon- 
astery of St. George at Struga, near Ohrid, 
to which he gave an icon of the saint which 
he had painted. John supervised the decora- 
tion of the Church of St. Nicholas at Manastir 
in Macedonia in 1270/1 (Djurić, Byz. Fresken 
20—22). 

John, wall-painter who signed his name in Greek 
in the apse of the Church of St. Demetrios at 
Peć (V.R. Petković in Mél. Diehi 2:133—36; 
PLP, no.8591). 

John of Athens, wall-painter named in an in 
scription of 1244 in the Church of the Trinity 
at Kranidi, Argolis, and, a year later, in the 
Church of St. John Kalybites at Psachra, Et 
boea (S. Kalopissi-Verti, Die Kirche der Hagia 
Triada bei Kranidi in der Argolis (1244) [Munic 
1975] 2, 4). 

Karkinelos, 8th-C. (?) silversmith mentioned in 
a fanciful tale in the Patria of Constantinople 
(Parastasets 100.5—6). 

LAZAROS. 

Leontios, deacon and painter on Cyprus, 1333. 
Leontios worked at Asinou and LaGouDERA 
(D.C. Winfield, C. Mango, DOP 23-24 [1969— 
70] 378f; PLP, no.14708). 

Leontios, marmorarios from Antioch, said iu ithe 
vita of St. THEKLA (ed. Dagron, 334-37) to 
have decorated the saint’s church with both 
murals and an opus sectile pavement. 

Libanios and Prokopios, mosaicists named in a 
pavement in a 5th-C. church at Heit, Syria 
(P. Mouterde, Syria 6 [1925] 360f, no.41). 

Makarios, early 14th-C. painter, named by 
Manuel Philes (Carmina, ed. Miller, 1:131) as 
creator of an icon of Christ (PLP, no.16249). 

Manasses, Constantine, wall-painter, decorated 
the Church of the Monastery of Paliopanagia, 
near Sparta, 1304/5 (PLP, no.16599). 


t 


t 





vod 














200 | ARTISTS 


Maria, 14th—1i4th-C. painter, working in Geor- 
gia, who made an image of the Virgin (PLP, 
no. 16894). 

Marianos, mosaicist who, with his son Aninas, 
worked at the synagogue of Beth-Alpha (C. 
Balmelle, J.-P. Darmon in AAPA 1:244). 

Mark (“ego magister Marchus Grecus pintor qui 
fui de Constantinopoli”) named in a Genoese 
notarial document of g Feb. 1313. 

Markos, 7th-C. (?) silversmith, who prepared a 
cross for the doux Neanias (Papadopoulos- 
Kerameus, Analekta 5:5f). 

Maximus, early 4th-C. vascularius whose name 
appears on two silver ingots found near Phi- 
lippopolis. F. Baratte (JSav [1975] 198) sug- 
gested that Maximus’s workshop was possibly 
responsible for six silver plates inscribed for 
the decennalia of Licinius and found at the 
same site. 

Methodios, monk and painter said by Theo- 
phanes Continuatus (TheophCont 164.3) to have 
painted a Last Judgment that caused the con- 
version of Boris I. 

MICHAEL (ASTRAPAS) AND EuTYCHIOS. 

Modestos, painter in the Monastery of Magou- 
lion in Constantinople, 1265/6 (PLP, no. 
19202). 

Morphopoulos, Theodore, painter, hegoumenos 
of the monastery of St. Lawrence in Thessa- 
lonike in 1405/6 (PLP, no.19333). 

Moses, a monk and painter on Mt. Athos in 
1344. A Bogomil, he was anathematized by a 
synod at Karyes and expelled (PLP, no.19926). 

Myron, 11th-C. painter addressed as a contem- 
porary in a poem by CHRISTOPHER OF MyTI- 
LENE (ed. Kurtz, no.112), possibly responsible 
for a portrait of the emperor Michael [V. 

Naouma, Kyriakos, and Thomas, mosaicists 
whose names are recorded in a 6th-C. pave- 
ment at Mt. Neso (C. Balmelle, J.-P. Darmon 
in AAPA 1:238, n.20). 

Nicholas, anagnostes and painter in 1290/1 of 
the Church of St. George at Sklavopoula, 
near Selinos in western Crete (Kalokyris, Crete 
31; PLP, no.20482). 

Nicholas, a painter and parorkos of the Great 
Lavra ca.1300 (Lavra 2, no.gt.122). 

Nicholas the droungarios who, with his brothers, 
according to an inscription of 1074/5 in St. 
Merkourios on Kerkyra, built and decorated 
the church (P.L. Vocotopoulos, CahArch 21 


[1971] 152f). 


Nicholas, who signed the collar of St. Stephen’s 
sticharion and, together with a certain John, 
painted the frescoes of the Monastery of the 
Holy Apostles at Neromana in Aitolia in 1372/ 
3 (S.K. Kissas, EESM 3 [1971-72] 48, 52). 

Nicholas and his spiritual son Daniel, who in 
941 decorated a MS of the homilies of Gre- 
gory of Nazianzos (Patm, gr. 33) in Reggio di 
Calabria (D. Mouriki, N.P. Sevčenko in Pat- 
mos, Treasures of the Monastery [Athens 1988] 
280). 

Nikephoros, mid-1oth-C. (?) painter named in 
an inscription at Tokalı Kilise, GOREME (A.W, 
Epstein, Tokalı Kilise [Washington, D.C., 1986] 
33t, but cf. N. Thierry in Proceedings of the 
Second International Byzantine Conference [Ath- 
ens 1989] 229). 

Niketas, stone-carver (marmaras) named in an 
inscription of 1075 in the Church of St. Theo- 
dore at Balaka and three other churches in 
the Mani (N.B. Drandakes, Dodone 1 [1972] 
21—24). 

Nikodemos, painter and hieromonk known by 
an inscription of 1310/11 at the Monastery of 
St. George at Karditsa in Boeotia (PLP, 
no.20353). 

Pagomenos, John, wall-painter named in in- 
scriptions of 1313—47 in eight churches in 
the districts of Apokoronos and Selinos, Crete 
(Kalokyris, Crete 311; cf. PLP, no.8363). 

PANSELINOS. 

PANTOLEON. 

Paul, painter of the second half of the 12th C. 
who, according to Antony of Novgorod (ed. 
Loparev, PPSb 51 [1899] 17.3-11) was re- 
sponsible for the fresco of the Baptism of 
Christ in the baptistery of Hagia Sophia, Con- 
stantinople. 

Paul of Otranto, painter named in an epigram 
of the first third of the 13th C. by Nektarios, 
hegoumenos of St. Nicholas at Casole, Apulia 
(Poeti bizantini di terra d'Otranto nel secolo XII, 
ed. M. Gigante [Galatina 1985} no.10). 

Pausylypos of Thessalonike, silversmith, who 
signed the Achilles plate (Kaiseraugst, no.63) 
buried at Augst before 353. 

Peter, early igth-C. painter whose name ap- 
pears on two icons at Mt. Sinai and to whom 
D. Mouriki (in Studenica et l'art byzantin autour 
de l'année 1200, ed. V. Korać [Belgrade 1988] 
329-47) attributes two other panels. 

Petrovič “the Greek,” who painted the interior 





of the Church of “the Holy Mother of God 
at the Gate,” Novgorod, in 1196/7 (Novgorod- 
skaja pervaja letopis’, ed. A.N. Nasonov [Mos- 
cow-Leningrad 1950] 42). 

Phokas, Manuel and John, fl. 1436—ca.1453, 
wall-painters who decorated three churches 
in eastern Crete (Th. Gouma-Peterson, Gesta 
22 [1983] 159-70). 

Phrangopoulos, Kyriakos, wall painter, f. 
ca.1300. His name appears in a dedicatory 
inscription in the apse of the Church of St. 
Nicholas at Agoriane, Lakonia (M. Emman- 
ouel, DChAE* 14 [1987-88] 110). His con- 
nection, if any, with the PHRANGOPOULOS 
family is unknown. 

Proeleusis, Michael, painter mentioned in a deed 
of 1304 (Chil., no.21.8; G. Babić, Zograf 12 
[1981] 59-61). 

Riz(z)o (Ritzos), family of 15th-C. Cretan paint- 
ers. Francesco Rizzo is first mentioned in a 
notarial document of 13 Feb. 1420, Nicholas 
Rizzo in the same year, and Andreas Rizzo in 
1450 (M. Cattapan, Thesaurismaia 10 [1973] 
238-82). 

Romulus, Flavius, early-5th-C. engraver whose 
name appears on a sardonyx in Leningrad 
carved with a scene of imperial investiture 
(Delbrück, Spdtant. Kaiserport. 211-14). 

Sava, painter, signed in Slavonic and dated (Dec. 
1209) frescoes in the drum of the Church of 
the Virgin at Studenica, Serbia (D. Tasi¢ in 
M. Kašanin et al., Studenica [Belgrade 1968] 
71f). 

Sclopulus, Muscolcus, goldsmith of Chandax 
mentioned in deeds of 1366 and 1377 (Krekié, 
Dubrovnik, nos. 256, 266). 

Soelos, Kaioumos, and Elias, identified as mo- 
saicists in an inscription of 531 at Mt. Nebo 
(M. Piccirillo, Lib.ann. 26 [1976] 314f). 

Staurakios of Esbous, and his colleague Eure- 
mios, Hoor mosaicists named in a pavement 
in the Church of St. Stephen at Um er-Rasas 
(Jordan) in an inscription of March 756 (M. 
Piccirillo, Lib.ann. 37 [1987] 180-82). 

Stephen, icon-painter of the late 12th C., who 
signed two large icons at the Monastery of St. 
Catherine, Sinai (Soteriou, Ezkones, nos. 74—- 
75) 

Stephen, son (?) of Therianos, painted an early 
14th-C. icon of St. Mark in the Church of al- 
Muʻallaqa in Cairo (L.-A. Hunt, Varta 2 [1987] 
41). 





ARTISTS | 201 


Theodore, mid-6th C., formerly a kastrensis (see 
KasTRESIOS) who gave up his position to be a 
carpenter, builder, and carver (John of Ephe- 
sus, tr. and ed. E.W. Brooks in PO 1g:200f). 

Theodore, mid-11th-C. painter whose house is 
mentioned among the possessions of a mon- 
astery at Neokastron near Reggio-Calabria 
(A. Guillou, Le brébion de la métropole byzantine 
de Région [Vatican 1974] 201.535). 

Theodore, painter of the 11th-12th C., named 
in an inscription on the Deesis in the cave 
chapel of Hagia Sophia on Kythera (Skawran, 
Development 163, no.30). 

Theoktistos, 13th-C. painter who made a min- 
iature of John Chrysostom and wrote the 
accompanying verses (PLP, no.’74Q1). 

‘THEOPHANES “THE GREEK.” 

Theophylaktos, wall-painter, who signed an im- 
age of Christ in the Chapel of Sts. Marina 
and Cristina at Carpignano, Apulia (Medea, 
Cripte 1:115). 

Theorianos, John, fresco- and possibly icon- 
painter, fl. 1346-50. His Greek signature ap- 
pears on the sword of the Archangel Michael 
in the exonarthex of St. Sophia at Ohrid 
(Diurié, Byz. Fresken 98). 

Thomas, 7th or 8th C., monk and painter of 
Damascus known from an entry in the psal- 
ter, Leningrad, Pub. Lib. gr. 216, fol.g4qv 
(Iskusstvo Vizantij 2, no.479). A. Frolow (BEO 
11 [1945-46] 121-30) hypothesized that 
Thomas was a mosaicist who had worked in 
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusa- 
lem. 

Tzykandeles, Manuel, mid-14th C. scribe, illu- 
minator (and fresco painter?), who decorated 
a commentary on Job, Paris, B.N. gr. 135 
(Byzance et la France médiévale [Paris 1958] 
no.87). 

Veneris, Daniel, who, with his nephew Michael, 
painted the Church of Christ at Meskia (Ry- 
donia), Crete, in 1303. In 1318 Michael painted 
the Church of the Virgin in the province of 
Rethymnon (Kalokyris, Crete 32f; M. Catta- 
pan, Thesaurismata g [1972] 203; cf. PLP, 
nos. 2601, 5151, 91999). 

LIT. T. Velmans, “Aspects du conditionnement de l'ar- 
tiste byzantin: les commanditaires, les modèles, les doc- 
trines,” in AAPA 2:79-97. V. Djurić, A. Tsitouridou, Na- 
mentragende Inschriften auf Fresken und Mosaiken auf der 
Balkanhalbinsel vom 7. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart 


1986). Ph. Piompinos, Hellenes hagiographoi mechri to 1821 
(Athens 1984). Mentzou, Symébulai. ~AC. 





























202 ARTSRUNI 








ARTSRUNI. See ARCRUNI. 


ARTUKIDS, Turkoman dynasty, 11th—15th C. 
Artuk (Aprovx) (died ca.1091) appears in 1074/5, 
aiding MicuaEL VII against Rousse, DE BAIL- 
LEUL, whom Artuk captured and subsequently 
released for ransom. In 1086 Artuk became gov- 
ernor of JERUSALEM; his descendants succeeded 
him there until expelled by the FArimips in 1098. 
Thereafter, the family secured possession of 
Amida, Mardin, Martyropolis, and even, briefly, 
Aleppo. Artuk’s son Sukman fought the First 
Crusade at ANTIOCH; his brother Ilghazi was tem- 
porarily allied (1115) with Roger, prince of An- 
tioch, but subsequently defeated and killed him 
(1119). In 1120 Ilghazi’s cousin Balak aided GHAzi 
against Constantine Gagras of Trebizond. Ini- 
tially rivals of ZANGI, the Artukids became follow- 
ers of Ntr at-Din and joined his display of force 
against MANUEL I in 1159. The dynasty continued 
to serve successive rulers of northern Syria. Ar- 
tukid copper coins imitated early Byz. coinage. 


LIT. C. Cahen, EI? 1:662-67. —C.M.B. 











ARTZE (Apte), trade settlement (komopolts) near 
THEODOSIOUPOLIS. According to an 11th-C. his- 
torian (Skyl. 451.28—30) it was rich and densely 
populated, attracting many local, Syrian, Arme- 
nian, and other merchants. In 1049 the Seljuks 
captured and burned the town. Skylitzes’ state- 
ment that 150,000 inhabitants were killed by the 
flames and arrows is evidently an exaggeration. 











The name survived in the Turkish toponym for 
Theodosioupolis, Erze-rum (Erzurum). -A.K. 


ASAN (Acávns, fem. Araviva), or Asen, Bul- 
garian royal dynasty founded by AseEN I in 1186. 
The evidence about the Asans’ ethnic origin is 
vague; theories have been advanced of the fami. 
ly’s Vlach, Cuman, or even Rus’ origin, none of 
which has proved valid. The family produced 
several Bulgarian tsars (up to John III, r.1279- 
80; died as despotes before 1302); IVAN ALEXANDER 
may have been related to the Asans. Some prin- 
cesses of the house were married to Byz. emperors 
(Helene to Theodore II, Keratsa to Andronikos 
IV) or other rulers of the region (Maria to Henry 
of Hainault, emperor of Constantinople). The 
descendants of John III and Irene Palaiologina 
were active at the Byz. court and as generals and 
governors in the 14th C., but less in the 15th C.; 
these included, for example, Paul Asan, governor 
of Constantinople (1438—40), and Demetrios Asan, 
governor of Corinth (1444) and Nauplion (1448- 
53). (See genealogical table.) 

LIT. I. Božilov, Familijata na Asenevci {1 186—1460) (Soha 
1985) and Fr. résumé BHR g (1981) nos. 1—2, 195-56. E. 
Trapp, “Beiträge zur Genealogie der Asanen in Byzanz,” 
JOB 25 (1976) 163-77. B. Krekić, “Contribution à l'étude 
des Asanés à Byzance,” TM 5 (1973) 347-55. PLP, nos. 
1472—1535- ~A.K. 


ASBESTAS, GREGORY, archbishop of Syracuse. 
An ally of Patr. Meruopros I, Asbestas 
(AaBearas) was deposed in 853 by IGNATIOS. 


GENEALOGY OF THE ASAN FAMILY IN BYZANTIUM 
IN THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 


John Asen III, m. 


Irene Palaiologina 


tsar of Bulgaria 


Andronikos, Constantine 
governor of 


Morea, Thrace 


Michael 





John, Manuel, Helena Irene 
despotes despotes m. JOHN VI 
m. daughter of m. Anna Komnene KANTAKOUZENOS 
Alexios Doukaina 
APOKAUKOS 
John Theodora Andronikos, 


sebastokratar 


Manuel 


Michael 


Maria 
m. ROGER DE FLOR 


Isaac, Theodora 
megas doux m. Manuel Tagaris 


Andronikos, Michael Andrew Irene 


megas primikerios 


Based on E., Trapp, “Beiträge zur Genealogie der Asanen in Byzanz,” JOB 25 (1976) 177. 


























His appeal to Pope Leo IV (847-55) gave the 
latter a pretext to intervene in the internal strug- 
le of the Byz. church. In 858 Ignatios was de- 

osed and Asbestas consecrated Photios as patri- 
arch; the Council of 861 formally rehabilitated 
Asbestas and his supporters while condemning 
Ignatios. Asbestas’s political leanings shaped his 
literary and artistic activity: he wrote a vita of his 
patron Methodios (J. Gouillard, Byzantion 31 [1961] 
374-80) and created (or ordered?) a series of 
CARICATURES ridiculing Ignatios; both are lost. 
Asbestas’s miniatures are described by NIKETAS 
Davip PAPHLAGON as depicting Ignatios scourged, 
chained, banished, and perhaps executed, while 
captions identified the patriarch as the Devil, the 
Antichrist, and Simon Magus (PG 105:540D- 
541A). In disgrace during Ignatios’s second pa- 
triarchate, Photios wrote to Asbestas, urging him 
to continue to erect churches with figural deco- 
ration (ep.1i2, ed. Westerink, 1:150f). 


ut. P. Karlin-Hayter in Iconoclasm 141-45. 
—A.C., A.K. 


ASCENSION (avadyins), feast of Jesus’ ascent 
into heaven (Lk 24:50-53, Acts 1:9-12), cele- 
brated on the Thursday that comes 4o days after 
Easter. Originally celebrated together with PEN- 
recost, the Ascension was first assigned its own 
feastday in the qth C., a usage begun in the 
environs of Antioch ca.380. The evidence for 
Jerusalem provided by Eceria remains problem- 
atic (P. Devos, AB 86 [1968] 87—108), though the 
gth-C. Armenian LECTIONARY Of Jerusalem al- 
ready puts Ascension on the goth day (A. Renoux, 
PO 35:72f). 

The Ascension was one of the dominical GREAT 
Feasts; it had a week-long afterfeast, but no fore- 
feast. A series of 13 receptions took place in 
Constantinople on this day, during which the em- 
peror was honored by the factions; he celebrated 
the feast in the Church of the Virgin at PEGE, 
where he took communion and dined (Philotheos, 
Kletor. 213.1-10; De cer., bk.1, chs. 8, 18). 

Representation in Art. Initially shown in a form 
derived from imperial APOTHEOSIS scenes, with 
Christ striding upward grasping the Hand or Gop 
(Milan ivory: Volbach, Early Christian Art, pl.g3), 
the Ascension assumed in the 6th C. the form 
that characterized it thereafter (Monza and Bob- 
bio AMPULLAE): Christ, bearded and enthroned in 
4 MANDORLA surrounded by angels, rises over the 














ASCETICISM | 203 


12 APOSTLES with Mary at their center. The pres- 
ence of Mary, the inclusion of PauL, and the use 
of 12 apostles rather than the 11 disciples of 
Scripture are references to the Church, showing 
the Ascension as a major event in its history. In 
the Rasputa GosreLs (fol.13v) elements from 
Ezekiel’s prophetic Vision are added to underline 
the scene’s eschatological connotations (cf. Lk 1:11). 
In the gth C., the Ascension was represented in 
the domes of the Nea Exk.esra (Constantinople) 
and Hacia Sopuia (Thessalonike), a situation so 
apt in form and in significance that it was repeated 
in all periods. By the 11th C. (St. Sophia, OnRID), 
the Ascension was also standard in bema vaults, 
reflecting its eucharistic significance as the apoth- 
eosis of Christ’s sacrificed Hesh. The Ascension 
appears on icons, in mural cycles, in evangelia and 
Gospel books at Mark 16:19, and occasionally 
before Acts (CopEX EBNERIANUS, fol.231v). 

Lit. J. Daniélou, “Grégoire de Nysse et Vorigine de la 
fête de l'Ascension,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, 
vol. 2 (Münster 1970) 663-66. Talley, Liturgical Year 66— 
70. Grabar, Martyrium, 2:185, 197, 221, 233, 294. E.T. 
Dewald, “The Iconography of the Ascension,” AJA ig 
(1915) 277-319. -R.F.T., A.W.C. 


ASCETICISM (doxnors, “exercise, training”), the 
practice of austerity and self-discipline; an ideal 
for all Christians, but esp. associated with monks 
and hermits. Askesis was sometimes used as a syn- 
onym for monastic life; asketerion for a monastery 
or hermitage; and asketes for a monk, nun (aske- 
tria), or solitary. Asceticism was a characteristic of 
monasticism from the earliest hermits in the 
Egyptian desert (e.g., ANTONY THE GREAT) to the 
hesychasts and kelliotai of the last centuries of Byz. 
All monks were expected to follow an ascetic 
regime, but the degree of severity varied. It was 
practiced in a most extreme form by HERMITS, 
ENKLEISTOI, STYLITES, and holy roots, but a num- 
ber of celebrated ascetics lived in cenobitic mon- 
asteries. Although there were some noted female 
ascetics in the earlier centuries, rigorous mortifi- 
cation of the body was not expected of the aris- 
tocratic nuns of the late Byz. period (V. Laurent, 
REB 8 [1950] 78f). The chief forms of this disci- 
pline were celibacy, fasting, standing vigils, and 
sleeping on the floor; ascetics went barefoot, wore 
only a single tunic, even in bitter cold, mortified 
the flesh with hair shirts or chains and fetters, 
prayed continuously, and often lived in isolation. 
Basil the Great urged moderation so that monks 





204 | ASEKRETIS 





would not become arrogant on account of their 
ascetic achievements. He stressed, rather, obedi- 
ence to the Aegoumenos, requiring that a monk 
receive permission from his superior before em- 
barking on an extraordinary fast. 

An ascetic monk sought to gain control over his 
body and attain apatheta or impassibility. Through 
such rigor a monk might be granted miraculous 
or prophetic powers; an ascetic way of life became 
a prerequisite for sanctity, replacing the martyr- 
dom of the early Christian period. In the 12th C. 
some intellectuals criticized or even ridiculed ex- 
cessive asceticism; Eustathios of Thessalonike sug- 
gested that one etymology for asceticism was askos, 
“wineskin,” and the vita of Cyrit PuiLeores by 
Nicholas Kataskepenos rejected the immoderate 
practice of asceticism (A. Kazhdan, GOrThR 30 
[1985] 482-86). 

tit. M. Viller, K. Rahner, Aszese und Mystik in der Vaterzett 
(Freiburg im Breisgau 1939). K.S. Frank, Askese und Mönch- 
tum in der alten Kirche (Darmstadt 1975). J. Hirschberger, 


Seele und Leib in der Spdtantike (Wiesbaden 1969). P.R.L. 
Brown, The Body and Society (New York 1989). ~A.M.T. 


ASERRETIS (@onxp7yris, an invariable form, from 
Lat. a secretis), in full “asekretis of the court,” im- 
perial secretary. The term seems to have ap- 
peared in the 6th C.; Prokopios found it necessary 
to explain its meaning (SH 14.4; Wars 2.7.15). 
Many scholars believe that the term originated in 
the 4th C., since Beronikianos, an AGENS IN REBUS, 











is called asekretis in the acts of the Council of 


Chalcedon; this term only appears, however, in 
the 6th-C. translation of Vigilius (A. Kraus, RQ 
55 [1960] 45). The asekretis replaced the REFER- 
ENDARII and formed the upper echelon of impe- 
rial secretaries positioned higher than imperial 
NOTARIES. Some asekretis were officials of the PRAE- 
TORIAN PREFECT. The seals of asekretis are known 
from the 6th/7th C. (Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. 9 
13). The offices of the asekretis were located in the 
KatuHisMA of the Hippodrome (Guilland, Topo- 
graphie 1:185). At the Third Council of Constan- 
tinople (680-81), a functionary called asekretis held 
the title of GLORIOSUS, suggesting that he was 
probably head of the college of asekretis—the of- 
fice later known as PROTASEKRETIS. Asekretis dis- 
appear from the sources after the 12th C., the 
term being replaced by GRAMMATIKOS. 


tir. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 59—65. 
-A.K. 


ASEN I (Ac&v), otherwise called Belgun (S. 
Mladenov, Spisanie na BAN 45 [1933] 49—66), co- 
founder (with his older brother PETER or BuL- 
GARIA) of the Second Bulgarian Empire; died 
Tărnovo 1196. Both his names are Turkic; his 
ethnic affiliation has been much discussed. Byz. 
and Crusader sources call the brothers Vlachs, 
but Bulgarian, Cuman, and Rus’ origins have 
been suggested (N.S. Tanaşoca, Revista de istorie 
34 [1981] 1297—1312). As G. Litavrin (VizVrem 41 
[1980] 102) declares, the brothers were closely 
connected with local elements in Paristrion. When, 
ca.1185—86, according to Niketas Choniates, Pe- 
ter and Asen requested entry into Byz. military 
service and a village as reward, they were refused. 
Exploiting discontent over taxation, they raised a 
rebellion. Isaac II (ca.1187) drove them beyond 
the Danube, where Asen recruited Cumans. With 
their aid, the brothers reoccupied Bulgaria and 
ravaged Thessaly; in 1190 they severely defeated 
Isaac. When (ca.1192/3) Peter allied himself with 
the Byz., Asen became the leader of the new state. 
He conquered Sofia, Melnik, and other strong- 
holds. After a victory at Serres in 1196, Asen was 
murdered by IVANKO. 

uit. Zlatarski, Ist. 2:410—83, 3:59-108. Ph. Malingoudis, 
“Die Nachrichten des Niketas Choniates über die Entsteh- 
ung der zweiten bulgarischen Staates,” Byzantina 10 (1980) 
73-88. Wolff, Latin Empire, pt.11] (1949), 180-84. I. Bož- 


ilov, Familyaia na Asenevet (1186—1460): Genealogija i pro- 
sopografija (Sofia 1985). -C.M.B., A.K. 














ASHLAR, cut stone masonry. Used throughout 
the Byz. period, ashlar was esp. characteristic of 
the architecture of Syria-Palestine, much of Asia 
Minor, Armenia, and Georgia. In Constantinople, 
this type of masonry was used particularly for 
foundations and piers that carried heavy loads, 
such as those supporting the dome of Hagia So- 
phia. Bands of ashlar alternate with bands of 
BRICK in the city walls of Constantinople, a tech- 
nique found occasionally in later buildings such 
as the parekklesion of the CHorA MONASTERY. In 
cloisonné technique (see BRICKWORK TECHNIQUES 
AND PATTERNS), individual ashlar blocks are framed 
with bricks on all four sides. 

LIT. J.B. Ward-Perkins in Great Palace, 2nd Report 52—- 
104. E. Reusche, “Polychromes Sichtmauerwerk byzantin- 


ischer und von Byzanz beeinflusster Bauten Siidosteuro- 
pas” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Cologne, 1971) 7-64. -MJ. 


ASHMUNEIN. See HERMOPOLIS MAGNA. 


ASHOT., See ASor. 


ASIA MINOR, or Anatolia, the peninsula that 
forms the westernmost extension of Asia. It 
stretches from the Aegean to the Euphrates River 
and Antitaurus Mountains, a maximum distance 
of about 1,200 km, and from the Black Sea to the 
Mediterranean, about 600 km. Its topography is 
determined by its mountain ranges. In the east 
they rise in sheer peaks. In the center they occupy 
the north and south regions of the peninsula, 
surrounding the relatively arid central plateau, 
and in the west break up into parallel chains 
separated by the broad and fertile plains of the 
Aegean region. The configuration of mountains 
and plains has influenced patterns of settlement 
and communication. Wealth and population have 
historically been concentrated in the western coastal 
plains, which support extensive agriculture of the 
Mediterranean type and are well connected by 
natural LAND ROUTES that also lead into the inte- 
rior; the region has many good harbors. 

The broken country between the Aegean and 
the plateau contained many sites strategically lo- 
cated on roads, while habitation on the plateau 
was scattered along the routes that followed the 
edges of the central steppe. The adjacent parts of 
CAPPADOCIA contained several populous valleys, 
but settlement diminished in the mountainous 
country to the east, where arable land is confined 
to narrow and often isolated valleys. The rela- 
tively unpopulated mountainous regions, which 
occupy much of the country, were valuable for 
their pastures and mineral deposits, as well as for 
defense of the routes that passed through them. 

Asia Minor prospered in late antiquity, when it 
was divided into two dioceses and 24 provinces. 
Urban life flourished in the coastal regions and 
along the roads leading to the frontier; villages 
enjoyed the benefits of a long period of peace. 
The population was largely Christian by the 4th 
C. and thoroughly hellenized by the 6th C. Asia 
Minor was, however, the home of numerous HER- 
ESIES. Peace was rarely interrupted: the revolts of 
Proxopios and TrisiciLp in the 4th C., like the 
irruptions of the Huns in the 5th—6th C., passed 
rapidly; the revolts of IsauriANs in the 5th C. 
were a more persistent source of trouble. The 
reign of Justinian I brought extensive construc- 
tion of buildings and roads, but the financial de- 


ASIA MINOR 





205 


mands of his wars drained local resources. Large 
areas, from Pisipia to Pontos, were afflicted by 
endemic brigandage and revolt, provoking ad- 
ministrative reforms whose failure was usually 
due to corruption. The PLAGUE of 542 reduced 
the population, but some cities and the southern 
coastal region continued to prosper. 

The 7th C. brought fundamental change ag- 
gravated by Persian attacks that devastated the 
country, provoking the ruin of the network of 
cities upon which social and economic life had 
been based (C.Foss, EHR go [1975] 721-47). The 
Persians were immediately followed by the Arabs, 
who failed to achieve any permanent conquest of 
the peninsula but, through their incessant attacks 
over two centuries, precluded any possibility of 
recovery. The loss of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt 
to the Arabs meant that Asia Minor became the 
heartland of the medieval empire and its main 
bulwark against threats from the east. In order to 
survive, therefore, it received an extensive net- 
work of FORTIFICATIONS and its administration 
was militarized in the system of THEMES. Arab 
raids nevertheless struck through the country, 
culminating in the sieges of Constantinople from 
674 to 678 and 716/17 and the capture of Amo- 
RION in 838. 

During the 8th C., Asia Minor was a center of 
Iconoclasm and became ethnically diverse as Slavs 
were brought in to settle regions devastated by 
the Arabs or recurrence of the plague. At this 
time, the army dominated the country; in the gth 
C., the themes of Asia Minor had a total force of 
about 70,000. Strategot and their subordinates ruled 
provinces and cities; cities were often under the 
joint administration of a strategos and a bishop. 
Most large ancient cities had disappeared, re- 
placed by smaller fortified towns and castles; 
eventually, new cities rose to prominence on ac- 
count of their strategic locations. Most of the 
population lived in villages, with a fortress for 
refuge nearby. Some commerce still continued, 
esp. to serve the need of capital and army; re- 
gional Fairs, often celebrated on the feast day of 
a saint, provided local stimulus. 

Byz. moved on the offensive in the mid-gth C., 
gradually pushing back the frontier and establish- 
ing a peace and security that prevailed to the mid- 
1ith C. Expansion eastward brought significant 
ethnic and economic change as immigrants from 
Syria and Armenia settled previously desolate re- 


906 


26° 30° 32° 34° 36° wid mtt 

























B 
T h Tace ege Bosporos 
Constantinople 
SEA OF Nikomedeia 
MARMARA 
3 Malagingo 
EE 4, fs 
Pega? Sigg Qw 
rdanelles Kyzikos feLopadion Nicaea 
40s Abydos . 






Prousa 









HieronpeMitetos. Aphrodi 
rae wz, re as S 
x lasos C i Q: : Fat 


Bs > 


P 7 ae 5 i 
à $ a Holy 
9 4 08) 
. ok Rhodos Xanthos E 
3 Myra 







Korykos 
Seleukeia 


Fite VÑ CITIES AND 
‘Anemourion | REGIONS OF 


$ E ee MEDITERRANEAN SEA ASIA MINOR. 











200 
100 200 300 km Cyprus 

















gions and as magnates, whose families played an 
ever-increasing role in politics, took over exten- 
sive tracts of land. Civil wars precipitated by their 
rivalries caused widespread disturbance in the late 
roth C. 

The Turks, whose raids began striking into 
Anatolia in the mid-11th C., brought the next 
fundamental change, in which the region, previ- 
ously united, was divided between two or more 
powers. After the battle of MANTZIKERT in 1071, 
the Byz. permanently lost control of the east and 
center; thereafter they were precariously confined 
to the coastal region, where their position was 
seriously threatened by the SeLjuk Turks. Al- 
though the First Crusade pushed the Turks back 
onto the plateau and allowed Alexios I to mark 
further gains, no part of the country was free 
from attack during his reign. John lH frequently 
fought in Asia Minor, consolidating Byz. control 
by building strategic fortresses and establishing a 
foothold on the edge of the plateau. Under Man- 
uel I, who restored security to many regions, the 
frontier was threatened by the immigration of 
TURKOMAN nomads. In an effort to solve the 
problem by striking directly at the Seljuks, Manuel 
met disaster at MYRIOKEPHALON in 1176. In the 
1180s and gos, major frontier forts fell and the 
Turks advanced westward, helped by the troubles 
attendant upon the Fourth Crusade. 

After the fall of Constantinople in 1204 the 
Laskarids of the empire of Nicaea established an 
equilibrium with the Seljuks and secured their 
territories (the Aegean region and Bithynia) by 
extensive fortification. The prosperity they brought 
is reflected in their restoration of towns and foun- 
dation of monasteries. The Byz. recapture of Con- 
stanuinople in 1261 was a disaster for Asia Minor: 
imperial attention shifted to the west and frontier 
defenses were neglected just as the weakening of 
the Seljuk state before Mongol attack left the 
Turkomans free to move westward. The Byz. 
position in Asia Minor crumbled rapidly; the 
southwestern coastal region was lost by 1270, the 
Meander valley by 1284, and most of the interior 
by the end of the century. In 1300 Byz. controlled 
only the northwestern coasts and a few fortresses 
that were islands surrounded by the Turkomans, 
who by now were establishing their own indepen- 
dent principalities of AYDIN, MENTESHE, SARUHAN, 
and Karasi. Despite major campaigns, the Ae- 
gean region was lost by 1915, and Bithynia fell to 


ASINOU | 207 


the Orromans by 1337. Subsequently, Byz. main- 
tained only a few ports until 1360, and afterward 
only the virtually independent enclave of PHILA- 
DELPHIA, whose fall in 1390 marked the end of 
Byz. Asia Minor. 


tir. Vryonis, Decline 1-68. Hendy, Economy 21—154. Foss, 
“Twenty Cities.” -C.F. 


ASIDENOS, SABAS, sometimes Sabbas, local ruler 
in Anatolia (fl.1204—14). Of unknown origin, Asi- 
denos (‘Acténrds) assumed power at Sampson 
(ancient Priene) and the lower Meander River 
valley when the Fourth Crusade conquered Con- 
stantinople. Possibly as early as 1205 his territory 
was added to the Nicene state by THEODORE I 
Laskaris. He remained locally powerful, and in 
1214 Theodore addressed him as sympentheros (rel- 
ative-in-law) and SEBASTOKRATOR (N. Wilson, J. 
Darrouzés, REB 26 [1968] 14f). 

ut. P. Orgels, “Sabas Asidénos dynaste de Samps6n,” 


Byzantion 10 (1935) 67—80. Savvides, Byz. in the Near East 
80. -C.M.B. 


ASINOU, located in the foothills of the Troodos 
mountains, Cyprus, site of the Church of the 
Panagia Phorbiotissa, founded 1105/6, according 
to dedicatory inscriptions by Nikephoros the ma- 
gistros (died 1115). This small, single-naved church 
of three barrel-vaulted bays is built of mortared 
rubble. The plastered exterior was incised in im- 
itation of ashlar and painted with red zigzags. 
The laterally apsed narthex, partly of ashlar, was 
added later in the 12th C. Scenes from the Passion 
in the west end of the nave are well preserved; 
Christ’s Infancy cycle and the donor’s portrait in 
the central bay were repainted in the post-Byz. 
period. The votive images in the narthex date 
from the end of the 12th C. and later. The style 
of the paintings of the first phase of decoration 
is related to the more refined frescucs uf the 
parekklesion of Hagios Chrysostomos near Kout- 
sovendis, donated by Eumathios PHILOKALES. 
Paintings by the Asinou workshop are also found 
in Panagia Theotokos at Trikomo, Sts. Ioakeim 
and Anna at Kaliana, and the Panagia Amasgou 
at Monagri. Also associated stylistically with the 
frescoes at Asinou are several icons at the mon- 
astery of St. CATHERINE at Sinai (K. Weitzmann 
in Studies in Memory of D.T. Rice [Edinburgh 1975] 


47-63). 





208 | ASIQPASAZADE 


LIT. A.Sacopouio, Asinou en 1106, et sa contribution à 
Viconographie (Brussels 1966). D. Winfield, E.J.W. Hawkins, 
“The Church of Our Lady at Asinou, Cyprus,” DOP 21 
(1967) 261-66. D. Winfield, “Hagios Chrysostomos, Tri- 
komo, Asinou: Byzantine Painters at Work,” Praktika tou 
protou diethnous Kyprologikou synedriou, Leukosia, 1969 (Nic- 
osia 1972) 285-91. -A.J].W. 


AŞIQPAŞAZADE, great-grandson of the poet Aşiq 
Pasha (died 1333), dervish, ghazi warrior, and 
author of a Tevarih-i al-i Osman, a history of the 
Orroman dynasty from its origins to 1485; born 
in Elvan Çelebi (near Amasya) 1400, died Istan- 
bul? after 1484. Aşiqpaşazade’s Tevarih is a fun- 
damental source for early Ottoman history. For 
events prior to 1420, Aşiqpaşazade depended 
chiefly on a collection of stories and legends about 
the Osmanoğulları (now lost, but used in the ear- 
liest anonymous TEVARIH-I AL-F Osman, and Uruc 
Beg), and materials derived from Yahşi Fakih. 
The subsequent account embodies more of 
Asiqpasazade’s experiences and research among 
contemporaries. Intending his work for a wide 
audience, Asiqpasazade wrote in simple and lively 
Turkish. In form his Teverih varies from straight- 
forward narrative to poetry to extended dialogue. 
hroughout his work Asiqpasazade treats Byz. 
themes as an aspect of the wider Ottoman struggle 
with the unbelievers. His information about Con- 
stantinople, and even major Byz. figures and events, 
tends to be generalized. 

ED. Die Altosmanische Chronik des Asikpasazade, ed. F. Giese 
(Leipzig 1929). Vom Hirtenzelt zur Hohen Pforte, partial Germ. 
tr. R.F. Kreutel (Graz 1959). 

tir. Bombaci, Lett. turca 347-51. V. Ménage, “The Be- 
ginnings of Ottoman Historiography,” in Lewis-Holt, His- 
torians 174f. H. Inalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiog- 
raphy,” in ibid. 152-59. —S.W.R. 























ASKALON (AoxdAwr), on the southern coast of 
Palestine, was one of the most significant cities of 
the region, according to Ammianus Marcellinus 
(Amm.Marc. 14.8.11). The MADABA MOSAIC MAP 
shows the city plan, but no religious buildings; 
the remains of a 7th/8th-C. church, fragments of 
a synagogue, and the city wall are known, how- 
ever, as well as a late 6th-C. mosaic. Pilgrims were 
attracted to Askalon by remarkable wells allegedly 
dug by Abraham and by the tomb of Kosmas AND 
Damianos. One of the last Palestinian cities to fall 
to the Arabs (in 640), Askalon remained in the 
hands of the Fatimids after the Seljuk occupation 


of Palestine. In 1099 the Crusaders won a battle 
over the Egyptians at Askalon but were unable to 
take the city until 22 Aug. 1153. Although Saladin 
took Askalon briefly in 1187, the Crusaders re- 
gained control from 1191 to 1247. 

uit. R. Hartmann, B. Lewis, Ef? 1:710f. Wilkinson, Pil- 


grims 150. Ovadiah, Corpus 21f. EAEHL 1:121—-24, 129. 
~G.V., A.K., ZUM. 


ASKIDAS, THEODORE, theologian; died Con- 
stantinople, Jan. 588. Askidas (’AoKidés) was he- 
goumenos of the New Lavra in Palestine and from 
537 onward metropolitan of Caesarea in Cappa- 
docia. A supporter of the tenets of ORIGEN, As- 
kidas belonged to the sect of so-called Isochristoi 
who taught that in the final apokatastasis (restora- 
tion) the faithful will attain a complete union with 
Christ. He was also suspected of supporting Mon- 
ophysitism. In 543, however, he was forced to 
sign a condemnation of Origen; he also signed a 
condemnation of the THREE CHAPTERS. Pope Vi- 
GILIUS anathematized him in 551, but in the fol- 
lowing year Askidas made peace with the pope. 
Of his works only a fragment is preserved (in 
EVAGRIOS SCHOLASTIKOS). 


uT. Beck, Kirche 384. G. Ladosci, DPAC 2:3376. 


ASKLEPIOS, regarded as the son of ApoLLo; the 
major god of healing in ancient Greece. His cult 
was widespread in the Greek-speaking world; of 
his numerous healing shrines the most famous 
were Epidaurus and Cos in Hellenistic times and 
Pergamon under the Roman Empire. Christianity 
adopted a belligerent stance toward Asklepios and 
deliberately promoted the figure of Christ the 
Physician in opposition to Asklepios the Savior; 
some temples of Asklepios (e.g., at Epidaurus and 
Athens) were converted to Christian use. In the 
4th C. Julian the Apostate strongly supported the 
cult of Asklepios and attempted to place it at the 
center of paganism. Well into the 5th C. the god 
was actively worshiped by individual Neoplaton- 
ists such as PROKLOS, who believed that as a young 
man he had been healed by Asklepios (Marinos, 
Vita Procli in I Manuali, tr. C. Faraggiana di Sar- 
zana [Milan 1985] 314f). Thereafter, when the 
name of Asklepios had practically been forgotten, 
the influence of his cult lived on in those Christian 
shrines where INCUBATION was practiced. Miracle 


accounts such as those of Sts. Kosmas AND DAM- 
IANOS, KYROS AND JOHN, and ARTEMIOS all give 
evidence of elements that could be called “Asclep- 
ian.” The name asklepiadai continued to be applied 

to Byz. physicians. 
uit. E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 
1951) 110~-16. P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellen- 
ism (Oxford 1981) 166-68. T. Gregory, “The Survival of 
Paganism in Christian Greece,” AJPA 107 (1986) 229-42. 
~j.D. 


ASMATIKE AKOLOUTHIA (dxodov0ia dopa- 
tK, lit. “sung office”), the cathedral Hours of 
the rite of Constantinople, found in fully devel- 
oped and unadulterated form in 8th—12th-C. MSS 
of the EUCHOLOGION (Arranz, “Asmatikos Hes- 
perinos” 10g~16). The rite was at first distinct 
from, but gradually mingled with and was ulti- 
mately replaced by, that of the monasteries of 
Constantinople (see Sasartic Typika). In Thes- 
salonike, the asmatike akolouthia was still in use as 
late as the 15th C. (Symeon of Thessalonike, PG 
155:553D, 624D—625B). 

According to the TYPIKON OF THE GREAT 
CHURCH, which contains the rules for the asmatike 
akolouthia, the office comprised only the hours of 
ORTHROS and vESPERS, with the occasional addi- 
tion of a pannychts or a paramone (see VIGIL), and 
a combined terce-sext in Lent. But MSS of the 
euchologion include the Little Hours as well. 

The asmatike akolouthia had no separate book of 
hours—the HOROLOGION being originally a Pales- 
tinian monastic book—but was celebrated from 
the euchologion (for prayers and DIAKONIKA), the 
antiphonarton or Constantinople psalter (for 
PSALMODY and refrains), and the PROPHETOLOGION 
(for Old Testament lections). Despite its name, 
this office had very little hymnody. 





uir. Taft, “Bibl. of Hours” 358-70. -R.F.T. 


ASMATIKON (&oparıkóv), a music book con- 
taining the special CHANTS and refrains for the 
liturgy and the Hours, sung by the small group 
of psaltai (SINGERS) at Hagia Sophia in Constanti- 
nople. [ts repertory is set in a moderately ornate 
style. Eleven Greek and three Slavic Asmatika sur- 
vive; each varies and none dates from before the 
12th C., but there are substantial reasons for 
supposing that the Asmatikon was first compiled at 
Constantinople during the 11th C. or perhaps 


ASOMATOS 209 


earlier. Nine of the MSS belonged to southern 
Italian religious houses of the Greek rite; the 
musical tradition they have adopted dates from 
1225, at the latest. The remaining two Byz. MSS 
represent different, though not wholly dissimilar, 
melodic traditions. (For the solo items, see PsAL- 
TIKON.) 
uT. K. Levy, “A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week,” 


Journal of the American Musicological Society 16 (1963) 131— 
54. Conomos, Communion 2—66. -D.E.C. 


ASOŁIK (“singer”) or Stephen (Step‘anos) of 
Tarōn, Armenian historian. Nothing is known of 
the life of Stephen, save that he came from the 
province of TarRON and was appointed by the 
katholikos Sargis (992—1019) to supervise monas- 
teries and churches. Sargis also commissioned 
Asolik to write a Universal History at the beginning 
of the 11th C. Although book 1 contains lists of 
biblical kings and rulers of ancient empires, and 
book 2 names Sasanian, Muslim, and Byz. rulers 
(down to Basil I), Asolik’s interest is primarily 
Armenia, esp. religious matters and Byz.-Armenian 
relations. Book 3 is thus a valuable source for the 
1oth-C. Byz. eastward expansion (from the estab- 
lishment of the BAGRATID dynasty in 885, until 
1003). 





ED. Patmuf‘iwn tiezerakan, ed. §. Malxasean (St. Peters- 
burg 1885). Fr. u.—books 1—2, E. Dulaurier, Etienne Agogh‘ig 
de Daron (Paris 1883); book 3, F. Macler, Etienne Asotik de 
Taron (Paris 1917). 

uit. M. de Durand, “Citations patristiques chez Etienne 
de Taron,” in Armeniaca: Mélanges d'études arméniennes (Ven- 
ice 196g) 116-24. -R.T. 


ASOMATOS (do@paros), incorporeal, term 
characterizing the intelligible world as opposed to 
the sensible one. In the strict sense the word could 
be applied only to God: according to John of 
Damascus (Exp.fid. 26.5, ed. Kotter, Schriften 2:75), 
“only the godhead (theron) is reaity incorporeal 
and immaterial.” John, however, distinguished two 
types of incorporeality: that of substance or na- 
ture, possessed by God only, and that of grace, 
possessed by ANGELS, DEMONS, and souLs (ibid. 
26.53-57, ed. Kotter, 2:77). In contrast, Gregory 
of Nyssa (PG 44:1165B) classified angels among 
incorporeal beings: “All rational creatures are di- 
vided into incorporeal and corporeal; the angelic 
[category] is asomatos, the other category is man- 
kind.” 














210 | ASOT I THE GREAT 


The Synaxis ton Asomaton, the feast honoring 
the incorporeal beings, was celebrated 8 Nov. and 
illustrated from the 11th C. onward (S. Gabeli¢, 
Zograf 7 [1977] 58-64). The homilies and litur- 
gical poetry accompanying this feast were impor- 
tant sources for illustrated cycles of the angels 
and ARCHANGELS. ~A.K., N.P.Š. 


ASOT I THE GREAT (‘Acwrvos), founder of the 
Bacratip kingdom of Armenia; died 8go. Suc- 
ceeding his father as commander-in-chief (spara- 
pet) of Armenia after the devastating Muslim pu- 
nitive expeditions of the mid-gth C., Ašot 
consolidated the position of his house by expand- 
ing his domains at the expense of other feudal 
families and by dynastic marriages with the prin- 
cipalities of Siwnik’ and Vaspurakan. In 858, his 
continuation of the generally pro-Arab policy of 
the earlier Bagratid house earned him the title of 
Prince of Princes (batrig al-batdriga) and the suze- 
rainty of the Arab emirates in Armenia. To main- 
tain equilibrium on Armenia’s borders, Ašot as- 
sured Byz. of his continuing loyalty and encouraged 
the Armenian katholikos Zacharias to correspond 
with Puorios, although the Council of Sirakawan 
(ca.862) failed to achieve a reunion with the Byz. 
church. By 884 (rather than 886 as formerly be- 
lieved), ASot felt powerful enough to have himself 
crowned king with a crown sent by the Arab 
governor in Azerbaijan; recognition by Byz. fol- 
lowed, endowing him with the title of archon ton 
archonton. Although Ašot was the master and ar- 
biter of Armenia and Georgia, where he had his 
kinsman Adernarse crowned in 888, he continued 
to pay tribute to the Arabs. His authority over the 
Armenian magnates derived more from the power 
of his personality than from any formal base. 

















uit, V. Hakobian, “La date de l'avènement d’Ašot, pre- 
mier roi bagratide,” REArm n.s. 2 (1965) 273-82. H. Thop- 
dschian, Die inneren Zustände von Armenien unter ASot I (Ber- 
lin-Halle 1904). A. Ter-Ghewondyan, The Arab Emirates in 
Bagratid Armenia (Lisbon 1976) 53—60. -N.G.G. 


ASOT II ERKAT (Iron King), grandson of AšoT 
I rae Great; third Bacratip king of Armenia 
(g14/15~928/g). ASot reestablished Bagratid con- 
trol over northern Armenia after the defeat and 
martyrdom of his father, Smbat I. His early suc- 
cess resulted in part from his recognition of Con- 
stantinople, where he was invited in 914 (not g21) 


and granted the customary title of archon ton ar- 
chonton as well as military support. Patr. NICHOLAS 
I MysmTik0s initiated at this time a correspondence 
with the Armenian katholikos, John the Historian. 
These friendly relations were later compromised 
by ASot’s increasingly autonomous policy, esp. 
after the Muslims recognized him as Sahansah 
(“King of Kings”). As a result, Byz. directed a 
campaign commanded by John KourKouas against 
Armenia in g22 and apparently transferred the 
title of archon ton archonton to the rival southern 
Armenian kingdom of VaspurRAKAN, but was not 
able to check Bagratid consolidation at this time. 


LIT. Adontz, Etudes 265-83. -N.G.G, 


ASOT III OLORMAC' (Merciful), son of Abas I: 
last Bacratip king of Armenia to rule over a 
united kingdom (953-77). His generally prosper- 
ous reign was marked by the complete exemption 
of Armenia from the payment of tribute to the 
caliphate, by the transfer of the capital to Anı, by 
close collaboration with the Armenian church 
(which he supported against Chalcedonian sym- 
pathizers and local separatists), and by the asser- 
tion of royal authority over the magnates. Ašot 
was successful in his war against the Caucasian 
mountaineers and the HAMDANID emirs. More- 
over, supported by his vassals, he checked the 
advance of Emp. John I Tzimiskes at the Arme- 
nian border (974), whereupon the emperor de- 
clared him his ally and spiritual son (MATTHEW 
oF Epessa, ed. Dulaurier 16-24). ASot’s reign saw 
a great expansion of monasticism with the estab- 
lishment of the future intellectual centers of San- 
ahin (966) and Hatbat (976); his extensive philan- 
thropic foundations earned him the epithet 
“Merciful.” Nevertheless, his grant of Kars (Van- 
and) to his brother MuSel and of Lofi (Tašir, 
Joraget) to his son Gurgén divided the realm and 
ultimately weakened Bagratid control of Ar- 
menia. 

LIT. Grousset, Arménie 478-88, 494-500. A. Ter- 


Ghewondyan, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia (Lisbon 
1976) 93, 95—100, 105f, 130, 136, 142f. -N.G.G. 


ASPAR ("“Ao7ap), more fully Flavius Ardaburius 
Aspar, an Alan; consul (434), patrikios, and ma- 
gisler milttum; died Constantinople 471. Together 
with his father Ardabourios, Aspar suppressed 
the rebel Ioannes in 425 and secured the throne 


for Valentinian IHI. Aspar led a fleet against the 
Vandals in 431, fought against the Huns in 441, 
constructed a large cistern in Constantinople (see 
under CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF) in 459, 
and led the inhabitants of the capital in combat- 
ting a fire in 465. Representing the power of the 
Germanic soldiery, he dominated the Eastern court 
and, after the death of Marcian, secured the 
elevation of Leo I in 457; as an Arian, however, 
he could not hope to gain the throne for himself. 
Aspar had his son Patrikios crowned as caesar in 
469/70, but his influence was undercut by Leo’s 
alliance with Zeno and the Isaurians. Aspar sup- 
ported the campaign of BasiLiskos against the 
Vandals, perhaps hoping to see it fail, and by 469 
there was open rupture between Aspar and Zeno 
(A. Kozlov, ADSV 20 [1983] 30f). Aspar may have 
sought the support of Ricimer, but he and his 
son ARDABOURIOS were captured and executed. 
Together with other members of Aspar’s family, 
they are represented on a missorium in Florence 
Delbriick, Consulardiptychen, no.35). 

LIT. Bury, LRE 1:222-25, 314-20. O. Seeck, RE 2 (1896) 
607-10. G. Vernadsky, “Flavius Ardabur Aspar,” SüdostF 


6 (1941) 38-73. L. Scott, “Aspar and the Burden of Bar- 
barian Heritage,” BS/EB 3.2 (1976) 59-69. -T.E.G., AC. 





aa, 


ASPARUCH (Aovapovy), Bulgar khan (ca.650—- 
ca.700); third son of KuvraT. Around 660 As- 
paruch led a Buicar horde westward, crossing 
the Dnieper and Dniester before ultimately estab- 
lishing a fortified camp in the northern part of 
the Danube delta; its precise location is much 
disputed (N. Banescu, Byzantion 28 [1958] 433- 
40). From here the Bulgars raided Byz. territory 
across the Danube, perhaps exploiting Byz. preoc- 
cupation with Arab attacks in the 670s. Constan- 
tine IV responded by campaigning personally in 
680/1, with disastrous results: the army was routed 
and the Bulgars crossed the Danube in pursuit, 
reaching Varna. Renewed attacks on Byz. towns 
compelled Constantine to recognize the Bulgars’ 
occupation of Byz. land (apparently ScyrH1a Mi- 
nor and Moesia Inferior) and to pay them annual 
tribute (PAKTON), an agreement likely concluded 
in 681 but broken in 687/8 by Justinian II. As- 
paruch also subjected the local Slavic tribes to 
tribute payments and even resettlements, proba- 
bly using them as bulwarks against the Avars to 
the west and the Byz. to the south. Nothing else 
is known of Asparuch’s rule. A dubious tradition 














ASPIETES | 211 


credits him with founding Priska. An 11th-C. 
Bulgarian source records a legend of his death in 
battle with the Khazars (I. Dujéev, BZ 53 [1960] 
207). 


uv. Zlatarski, fst. 1.1:123~62. Stratos, Byzantium 4:99~- 
113. BeSevliev, Geschichte 173-82. V. Gjuzelev, Forschungen 
zur Geschichte Bulgariens im Mittelalter (Vienna 1986) 3-24. 
~P.A.H. 


ASPER (déo7pov) was a Latin word meaning ba- 
sically “rough” but by extension “fresh” and (of 
silver) “white,” a sense it had already acquired in 
early Roman imperial times. It first came into 
common use for a coin in the 12th C., mainly as 
a qualification of the billon TRACHY (76 vóu ua 
Tpaxv dompov “the rough, white nomisma”), which 
to us is a dirty gray in color but was no doubt 
issued in a blanched state. It was sometimes also 
applied to the electrum trachy. In the 14th—1i5th 
C. the term was used of various nonconcave silver 
coins, mainly the small ones also known as Dou- 
KATOPOULO! and their Turkish counterparts (akçes, 
also from a word meaning “white”) but occasion- 
ally, as at Trebizond, for large silver coins also. 
There are many contemporary Western parallels 
to the use of such a name for coins: blanc, witten, 
albus, etc. 


Lit. Hendy, Coinage 18, 20f, 31. —Ph.G. 


ASPIETES (Aomérns, fem. ‘Aomweriva, Aonig- 
tooa), an Armenian lineage in Byz. service from 
at least the late 11th C. (etym. Arm. aspet, “rider, 
knight”). Prokopios (Wars 2.3.12) mentions the 
“great and numerous lineage of the so-called As- 
petianoi,” but no evidence connects the Byz. As- 
pietai and 6th-C. Aspetianoi. The first known 
Aspietes, Alexios I’s general, boasted of his royal 
origin from the Arsacids (An.Komn. 3:58.28—29); 
he served as governor of Tarsos ca.1107/8 and 
stratopedarches of the Orient. There is no reason 
to identify Aspietes with Ošin, son of Chetum, 
prince of Lambron (see correctly J. Laurent in 
Mélanges offerts à m. Gustave Schlumberger, vol. 1 
[Paris 1924] 164f). Several Aspietianoi (Michael, 
Constantine, etc.) were military commanders un- 
der Manuel [; (another?) Constantine Aspietes 
commanded a troop in 1190; Alexios Aspietes, 
commander in Serres shortly after 1195, was cap- 
tured by the Bulgarians and proclaimed emperor 
in Philippopolis after 1204 but was soon seized 




















212 | ASPROKASTRON 














and executed by KaLoyan. The chronicle of Mag- 
nus Presbyter (MGH SS 17:512), under the year 
1189, mentions a Byz. embassy to Saladin, whose 
members were “Sovestat, Aspion, and old Con- 
stantine, a translator from Arabic”; the envoy may 
have been the sebastos Aspietes. The cultural role 
of the Aspietai is unknown: a monk John Aspiotes 


corresponded with Michael Giykas. Aspietai of 


the 14th and 15th C. were landowners intermar- 
ried with sundry noble families, including Palaio- 
logoi (PLP, nos. 1567~79), but did not occupy 
high positions; Maria Choumnaina Aspietissa was 
the wife of a megas papias in 1324. 


LIT. Kazhdan, Arm. 43-46. —A.K, 


ASPROKASTRON (Aozpéxaotpov, or Mauro- 
kastron; Ital. Moncastro; Turk. Akkerman; Rum. 
Cetatea Alba; Russ. Belgorod Dnestrovskij—four 
of its names mean “White Fort”, Maurokastron 
and the corrupted form Moncastro mean “Black 
Fort’), city and port situated at the mouth of the 
Iniester, close to the site of ancient Tyras. It was 
probably a late Roman or early Byz. fortress but 
passed out of imperial control in the 7th—gth C. 
The information on “Maurokastron” in the 1oth 
C. given by the ToparcHa GoTHICUS is entirely 
fictitious. In the 13th C. Asprokastron belonged 
to the Polovzian khanate (see Cumans). From 
ca.1290 Asprokastron was frequented by Genoese 
ships that loaded grain and wax. For some years 
in the early 14th C. it was in Bulgarian hands, 
but by midcentury it had become a Genoese col- 
ony. From 1410 Asprokastron was subject to the 
princes of Moldavia, and in 1437 Venice opened 
commercial relations with the city. In the 15th C. 
it was a regular point of embarkation for travelers 
between Constantinople and central Europe, in- 
cluding Emp. Jonn VIII Pataro.ocos. After 1453 
MEHMED II brought colonists from Asprokastron 
to settle in Constantinople. For a time after 1457 
Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldavia, resided 
there, but in 1485 Sultan Bayezid I] captured 
Asprokastron and CHILIA. 

Lir. N. lorga, Studi istorice asupra Chiliei și Cetății-Albe 
(Bucharest 1899) 1-137. G.1. Brătianu, Recherches sur Vicina 
et Cetatea Albă (Bucharest 1935) 99—126. Balard, Romanie 


génoise 1:1493—50. N. Banescu, “Maurocastrum—Moncas- 
tro—Cetatea-Alba,” BSHAcRoum 21 (1999) 20-31. —R.B. 














ASSARION (&oo&pov, from early Lat. assarius), 
used in the New Testament for the smallest coin 


in circulation (Mt 10:29: “Are not two sparrows 
sold for an assarion?”). It is used by Nicholas 
Raaspas (in P. Tannery, Mémoires scientifiques 4 
[Toulouse-Paris 1920] 158) in formulating a 
mathematical problem that has a contemporary 
setting—the author was writing in 1341—and it 
had apparently been revived as the name of the 
flat copper coin of approximately 2 g introduced 
under Andronikos II (1282—1328). Assaria were 
struck in great quantities during the first half of 
the 14th C. 


LIT. Grierson, Byz. Coins 278. ~Ph.G. 


ASSEMBLIES. In addition to the SENATE, Byz. 
was familiar with other forms of assemblies with 
claims to political power. The most organized 
were the church councics (H. Gelzer, Ausgewählte 
kleine Schriften [Leipzig 1907] 142-55). Provincial 
assemblies of the late Roman Empire consisted of 
honorati (former imperial officials) and CURIALES; 
in contrast to the members of ancient assemblies, 
these were not elected and there was no represen- 
tation in proportion to population (J. Larsen, 
CiPhil 29 [1934] 209-20). Despite Leo VI’s abo- 
ition of municipal boulai, they continued to exist 
in provincial towns from the 11th to the 15th C., 
although they tended to be assemblages of local 
nobles rather than regular representations of con- 
stituencies. 

Throughout the centuries Constantinople wit- 
nessed two kinds of assemblies: those convoked 
by usurpers or demagogues in protest against 
unpopular measures (which had no legal basis or 
regular organization) and those convened by the 
state in cases of emergency (for confiscation of 
church property in 1094, to raise funds to meet 
the demands of Henry VI in 1197, to discuss the 
imperial response to the Bulgarian tsar in 1341, 
etc.). Assemblies were esp. active during the CrviL 
War OF 1341-47 (Weiss, Kantakuzenos 74—76). 
The assemblies were called ekklestai, syllogot, or 
syneleuseis; even though they were not represen- 
tative of the electorate, they could include people 
outside the bureaucratic and ecclesiastical nobility. 
The assemblies or parliaments that functioned in 
the Crusader states (J. Colson, REB 12 [1954] 
114-27) may have influenced Byz. assemblies. 





ur. C.N. Tsirpanlis, “Byzantine Parliaments and Rep- 
resentative Assemblies from 1081 to 1351,” Byzantion 43 
(1973—74) 432-81. C.P. Kyrris, “Representative Assemblies 


and Taxation in the Byzantine Empire between 1204 and 
1941,” Xile Congrès International des sciences historiques 31 
(Paris 1966) 43-54. ~-ALK. 


ASSES. See BEASTS oF BURDEN. 


ASTERIOS OF AMASEIA, Cappadocian church- 
man and writer, overshadowed by his more fa- 
mous contemporaries, the CAPPADOCIAN FA- 
THERS; born between 330 and 335, died between 
420 and 425 (according to Datema, infra [1970] 
xxiv). Asterios ("Aoréptos) was perhaps a lawyer 
before his appointment to the see of Amaseia in 
Pontos, sometime between 380 and 390. Of his 
oeuvre 16 homilies survive, and Photios (Bibl., 
cod. 271) lists four more. Some of these speeches 
have survived in Latin, Georgian, and Church 
Slavonic translations. Two homilies are of partic- 
ular interest to modern scholars, the fourth (de- 
livered 1 Jan. 400), which systematically refutes 
Lrsantos’s defense of the pagan New Year feast, 
and the eleventh, which contains an ekphrasis of a 
painting of some scenes from the vita of St. Eu- 
PHEMIA OF CHALCEDON (W. Speyer, /bAChr 14 
[1971] 39-47). The latter oration is a landmark 
of Byz. art criticism and is also informative about 
Asterios’s tastes in classical literature, notably for 
the writings of Demosthenes. The eleventh hom- 
ily was translated into Latin by ANasrasius Bip- 
LIOTHECARIUS and was cited in tete during the 
Second Council of Nicaea, 787, to justify the ven- 
eration of icons. 

ED. Homilies I-XIV, ed. C. Datema (Leiden 1970). C. 
Datema, “Les homélies XV et XVI d’Astérius d’Amasée,” 
Sacris erudiri 23 (1978-79) 63—93. Eng. tr. of Hom. 11— 
Mango, Art 37—39. 

ut. M. Bauer, Asterios, Bischof von Amaseia: Sein Leben 
und seine Werke (Würzburg 1911). W. Speyer, RAC supp. 4 
(1986) 626-39. V. Vasey, “The Social Ideas of Asterius of 
Amasea,” Auguslinianum 26 (1986) 413-36. —B.B. 


ASTERIOS SOPHISTES, rhetorician; died after 
341. He was a pupil of Lucian oF ANTIOCH and 
a supporter of Arianism. Photios (Quaest. Amph. 
312, ed. L. Westerink, 6.1 [1987] 112f) distin- 
guishes him from the Orthodox ASTERIOS OF 
AMasEIa. He wrote the Syntagmatarion (ed. Bardy, 
infra), an exposé of Arian views (preserved in 
fragmentary quotations in ATHANASIOS of Alex- 
andria), and homilies on Psalms and on Easter 
that have survived in CATENAE often under the 


ASTROLABE | 213 





names of Asterios of Amaseia or John Chrysos- 
tom. Asterios was probably a Jew who had con- 
verted to Christianity, and his works show some 
knowledge of Rabbinic teaching. His homilies are 
important as a source for the study of Jewish- 
Christian relations in the early 4th C.: Asterios 
views the Jews as an incarnation of evil and warns 
Christians against Jewish penetration into the 
church. 

ED. G. Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son 
école (Paris 1936) 341~57. M. Richard, Asterii Saphistae com- 
mentariorum in Psalmos quae supersunt (Oslo 1956). 

uit. E. Skard, Index Asterianus (Oslo 1962). H. Auf der 
Maur, Die Osterhomilien des Asterios Sophistes (Trier 1967). G. 
Gelsi, Kirche, Synagoge und Taufe in den Psalmenhomilien des 
Asterios Sophistes (Vienna 1978). ~A.K, 


ASTERISKOS. See PATEN AND ASTERISKOS. 


ASTRAMPSYCHOS, a Persian magus of the 4th 
C. B.C. (Diogenes Laertius, 1.2). Various works of 
the Byz. era were ascribed to him, the most im- 
portant being a dream book written in accentual 
trimeters, datable between the 6th and gth C. 
(S.M. Oberhelman, Byzantion 50 [1980] 489). This 
treatise formed the basis for later dream books 
falsely ascribed to Patr. Nikephoros I, Patr. Ger- 
manos I or I (the attribution is unclear), Gregory 
of Nazianzos, and Athanasios of Alexandria (the 
last two are replicas of the Nikephorean dream 
book). Other works assigned to Astrampsychos 
deal with oracles (A.J. Hoogendijk, W. Clarysse, 
Kleio 11 [1981] 54—97; G.M. Browne, The Papyri 
of the Sortes Astrampsycht [Meisenheim am Glan 
1974]); geomancy (P. Tannery, REGr 11 [1898] 
96-105); love charms (P. Lond. I 122); healing 
of asses (Soupa, s.v. Astrampsychos); and astron- 
omy (E. Riess, RE 2 [1896] 1796f). 

ED. Sortes Astrampsychi, vol. 1, ed. G.M. Browne (Leipzig 
1983). 


uT. G.M. Browne, “The Origins and Daic of the Sortes 


Astrampsychi,” ICS 1 (1976) 53-58. —5.M.O. 








ASTRAPAS, JOHN. See MICHAEL (ASTRAPAS) AND 
EUTYCHIOS. 


ASTROLABE (åorpoà&ßos), an astronomical in- 
strument used to measure altitudes of the stars 
and to tell time. ProLemy described the principles 
of the astrolabe in his Projection of the Surface of a 





214 | ASTROLOGY 


Sphere, a work known in Constantinople only in 
the early Byz. period. Other Greek treatises on 
the astrolabe include works by THEON and John 
PHiLoponos, and the description by Synestos of 
his gift of a pseudo-astrolabe to Paionios. In the 
12th C. John KamarTeros described its uses in 
ASTROLOGY (Introduction 2153-2281). In the Pa- 
laiologan period there was particular interest in 
the astrolabe, as evidenced by the translation by 
Gregory CHIONIADES of a Persian treatise, two 
works by Nikephoros Grecoras, and finally a 
section (1.11—21) of the Three Books of Theodore 
MELITENIOTES. There exist as well several anony- 
mous treatises on the construction and/or use of 
astrolabes, one of which may be by BARLAAM OF 
CALABRIA. At an unknown date Leontios the Me- 
chanic wrote a treatise on constructing a celestial 
globe. 

The only surviving Byz. astrolabe is one made 
in 1062 for the protospatharios and hypatos Sergios, 
“of the race of the Persians” (Splendeur de Byz. 
176), whose 14 stars are all found among the 19 
in a list of stars for the rete of an astrolabe whose 
right ascensions are computed for go8 (Florence, 
Laur. 38, 34, fols. 143v-144r). The large number 
of treatises on the construction and use of astro- 
labes written in the Palaiologan period and the 
several references to observations made with them 
indicate that many more Byz. astrolabes must 
once have existed. (See also ASTRONOMY.) 





LIT. D.J. Price in A History of Technology, ed. C. Singer 
et al., vol. g (Oxford 1957) 582-619. O.M. Dalton, “The 
Byzantine Astrolabe at Brescia,” ProcBrAc 12 (1926) 133- 
46. —D.P. 


ASTROLOGY, a “science” of making predictions 
concerning the future or interpretation of the 
past based on the positions of the planets relative 
to each other, to the signs of the zodiac and their 
subdivisions, and to the 12 astrological places, and 
on the positions of the zodiacal signs relative to 
those places. The basic forms of astrology are: (1) 
genethlialogy, in which the positions at the mo- 
ment of a person’s birth or of his computed con- 
ception are the determining factors, dependent 
on which are various forms of continuous horos- 
copy including transits, prorogations, and anni- 
versary HOROSCOPES (these permit updatings of 
the predictions made from the base horoscope); 
(2) catarchic astrology, in which the most favor- 
able moment for commencing an enterprise is 


chosen in accordance with astrological rules, the 
main subordinate parts of which are iatromathe- 
matics (the application of astrology to medicine) 
and military astrology; (3) interrogational astrol- 
ogy, in which the horoscope of the moment at 
which a query is put to the astrologer is inter- 
preted to provide its answer; and (4) political 
astrology, in which predictions of the future events 
within a nation or among several, or reconstruc- 
tions of their histories, are based on various cycles 
as well as on horoscopes cast for significant times. 

In antiquity only the first three types appear in 
texts; political astrology was developed in Sasan- 
ian Iran and early Islam and transmitted to Byz. 
between 800 and 1000 with other Arabic works. 
Byz. astrological literature, then, falls into three 
periods: summaries and compendia of classical 
astrology in the 4th—7th C., the translations from 
the Arabic in the 10th—11th C. (some translations 
were made later), and the compilation of vast 
compendia and the editing of earlier texts in the 
1ith—1i4th C. f 

The earliest known Byz. astrological authors 
were Pancharios, whose iatromathematical Epi- 
tome Concerning Bed-Ilinesses was probably com- 
posed in the early 4th C., and Maximos, who 
wrote a poem on catarchic astrology, On Begin- 
nings, in the 4th or 5th C. The second edition of 
the Introduction of PAUL OF ALEXANDRIA was ap- 
parently issued in 378. It is a work on genethli- 
alogy in the tradition of Antiochos of Athens (fl. 
before 300) and Porpuyry. Part of a work by 
Paul’s contemporary, the so-called “Anonymous 
of 379,” is preserved in the late 14th-C. compen- 
dium ascribed falsely to a certain Palchos (al- 
Balkhi). 

in ca.415 HEPHAISTION OF THEBES wrote an 
Astrological Effects based on ProLemy and Doro- 
theos of Sidon (ist/2nd C.) for its genethlialogy 
and primarily on Dorotheos for its catarchic as- 
trology. Also in the 5th C. the Anthologies of Vet- 
tius Valens (2nd C.), another text on genethlial- 
ogy, was edited and expanded, while probably in 
the same century was written the Treatment of 
Ptolemy’s Astrological Effects attributed to Proklos. 
Circa 500 Julian of Laodikeia wrote a work on 
catarchic (including military) astrology, of which 
several chapters are preserved in RHETORIOS OF 
Ecypt, who also includes in his collection a large 
number of 5th- and early 6th-C. horoscopes. Both’ 
the On Omens and On the Months of Jonn Lypos 














contain some astrological material. The only other 
extant 6th-C. work on astrology is the commen- 
tary of O1ymprioporos on Paul of Alexandria, 
based on a course of lectures given at Alexandria 
in 564. 

In the early 7th C. Rhetorios of Egypt compiled 
the richest surviving collection of classical and 
early Byz. astrological texts. It is primarily de- 
voted to genethlialogy but contains some material 
on catarchic astrology. After Rhetorios there was 
a gap in the astrological tradition in Byz. until the 
end of the 8th C., although in Arab-controlled 
Syria THEOPHILOS OF EpEssa wrote in Greek on 
genethlialogy, catarchic and interrogational as- 
trology, and astrological history; he used not only 
such sources as Petosiris, Ptolemy, Hephaistion, 
and Rhetorios, but also Islamic and Indian ma- 
terial. In 775 an astrologer pretending to be STE- 
PHEN OF ALEXANDRIA wrote a “prediction” of the 
course of history of the caliphs based on the 
horoscope of the beginning of the year (1 Sept. 
621) of the Hijra. The author is probably Stephen 
the Philosopher, who studied in Persia and wrote 
a defense of astrology, On the Mathematical Art, in 
the late 8th or early gth C. 

In the gth C. LEO THE MATHEMATICIAN wrote a 
few trivial pieces on genethlialogy, and from the 
1oth C. survive a number of horoscopes cast by 
astrologers such as Demophilos. These astrolo- 
gers, and probably others, were responsible for 
the first minuscule MSS of the older astrological 
literature, of which the surviving examples are 
the gth-C, Florence, Laur. 28, 27, and the 1oth- 
C. Laur. 28, 34 and Vat. gr. 1453. Demophilos 
was also the editor and compiler of astrological 
collections; he evidently made substantial revi- 
sions in the texts of Porphyry’s Introduction and 
of Rhetorios. 

Shortly before the year 1000 began the exten- 
sive Greek translations of Arabic astrological works 
by such authors as Aba Ma‘shar and his pupil 
Shadhan; the Kitdb al-Thamara (Karpos or Fruit) 
ascribed to Ptolemy with its commentary by Ah- 
mad ibn Yusuf; and an enormous compendium 
ascribed to Ahmad the Persian and entitled Intro- 
duction to and Foundation of Astrology. Excerpts from 
most of these translations begin to appear in 1 1th- 
and 12th-C. compendia preserved in MSS such as 
Paris, B.N. gr. 2506; Vat. gr. 1056; and Vienna, 
ONB phil. gr. 115. Some translations served as 
the basis of translations into Latin in the 13th C. 


ASTROLOGY 215 


The Byz. church took a firm stance against 
astrology. The astrological concept that human 
fate is determined by the position of stars at man’s 
birth contradicts the idea of FREE WILL and intro- 
duces necessity—ananke or hetmarmene—in place 
of Providence. The decisive role of stars in human 
life and in the forecast of political events appeared 
to the church fathers (including JOHN oF DAMAS- 
cus) as a reminder of the pagan identification of 
gods with celestial bodies. The church fathers, 
however, had to face an exegetic problem, since 
Holy Scripture itself dealt with celestial phenom- 
ena in their capacity to influence or predict earthly 
events of great importance, e.g., the appearance 
of a star (interpreted sometimes as a comet) to 
the Magi. Astrology seems to have been rejected 
by the patristic authorities, but in the 12th C, the 
discussion was revived and often acquired a polit- 
ical significance. 

Manuel I was a promoter of astrological inter- 
ests, and it was in the court milieu of the 12th C. 
that the astrological poetry of John KAMATEROS 
and Theodore Propromos originated. In the 1180s 
Byz. astrologers were involved in active corre- 
spondence with their Arab and Western col- 
leagues predicting disaster on the basis of the 
impending conjunction of planets on 16 Sept. 
1186. Niketas CHoniares ridiculed the extraor- 
dinary efforts designed to preserve the palace 
during the expected calamity. Manuel’s pro-astro- 
logical position prompted both disguised and overt 
criticism: while earlier in the century Anna Kom- 
nene restricted herself to a general disapproval 
of astrological views, Michael Grykas directly at- 
tacked Manuel and was subsequently thrown into 
prison and blinded. 

During the Latin occupation of Constantinople 
(1204—61) little of an astrological nature seems to 
have been composed in Greek, except for the 
translation made by Alexios of Constantinople in 
1245 of an Arabic version of the Apocalypse of 
Daniel, a work on celestial omens. In the Palaio- 
logan period, however, the study of astrology 
revived with vigor. A dialogue entitled Hermippos, 
which offers a Christian defense of astrology, was 
composed in the early 14th C., probably by John 
Katrones (PLP, no.11551). But the most impor- 
tant Palaiologan astrologers were John ABRAMIOS 
and his pupil Eleutherios Zebelenos, also called 
Elias. Between 1370 and 1400 they revised many 
of the major classical and early Byz. astrological 








216 | ASTRONOMY 





treatises—Ptolemy, Hephaistion, Olympiodoros, 
and the beginning of Rhetorios—and the Greek 
translations of Shadhan and of Ahmad the Per- 
sian. Eleutherios was apparently responsible for 
the vast compilation of Greek and Arabic astrol- 
ogy which he falsely attributed to Palchos. The 
labors of these scholars have served to obscure 
and pervert the true history of ancient and Byz. 
astrology, although they did preserve many frag- 
ments that would have otherwise been lost. Their 
work was to some extent carried on in the 15th 
C. by men like John CHORTASMENOS and ISIDORE 
oF KIEV. 

ED. Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, 12 vols. in 
20 pts. (Brussels 1898-1936). 

LIT. D. Pingree, The Yavanajdtaka of Sphujidhvaja, vol. 2 
(Cambridge, Mass.-London 1978) 421-45. U. Riedinger, 
Die Heilige Schrift im Kampf der griechischen Kirche gegen die 
Astrologie (Innsbruck 1956). H.G. Beck, Vorsehung und Vor- 
herbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzantiner (Rome 
1937) 65-84. —D.P., A.K. 








ASTRONOMY in Byz. began with commentaries 
on Provemy. In the 11th C. this activity was sup- 
plemented by an infusion of short texts based on 
Arabic astronomy. Finally, in the Palaiclogan pe- 
riod, two contrasting schools developed, one based 
on the Ptolemaic tradition and the other on Is- 
lamic astronomy presented in translations either 
from Persian and Arabic or from Latin. 

From the 4th to the early 7th C. were produced 
the commentaries on the Almagest by Parros and 
TuHeon, the summary of that work in the Outline 
of ProkLos, and the introduction to it by Euro- 
Kios; the two commentaries of the Handy Tables 
by Theon and that by STEPHEN OF ALEXANDRIA; 
and a large number of scholia connected with 
both of these works of Ptolemy. There was also 
collected together, perhaps already in the 4th C., 
a group of early treatises on spherics by Autoly- 
kos, EucLID, and Theodosios, which formed a sort 
of corpus throughout the Byz. period. Other signs 
of astronomical activity in this period include the 
observations made by Heliodoros and Ammonios 
between 475 and 510; perhaps the planetary ta- 
bles based on Babylonian goal-year periods that 
al-Zarqālī in the late 11th C. associated with Am- 
monios’s name; and some papyrus fragments of 
ephemerides (tables of true longitudes of the sun, 
moon, and planets) based on the Handy Tables. In 
this early period elementary astronomical knowl- 














edge was necessary for the church—both for its 
practical needs such as establishing the CALENDAR, 
esp. the date of Easter, and for outlining the 
image and the history of the cosmos. GEORGE OF 
PisipIA in his Hexaemeron was able to draw upon 
a good astronomical textbook (G. Bianchi, Aevum 
40 [1966] 35-42). 

The study of astronomy lapsed in Byz. after 
Stephen’s commentary on the Handy Tables of 
ca.620 but continued to flourish outside the em- 
pire in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia. Its restoration 
in Constantinople in the gth C. is attested to by 
the brief discussion of Greek and Islamic tables 
given by Stephen the Philosopher, probably in 
ca.800, and by the career of LEO THE MATHEMA- 
TICIAN. Further witness to the revival of interest 
in astronomy is the production of a number of 
deluxe MSS with astronomical contents during 
the 8th—gth C.; Vat. gr. 1291, which has a sun- 
table accurate only for 826-35, was dated by I. 
Spatharakis (BZ 71 [1978] 41—47) to the reign of 
Theophilos, but redated by D. Wright (BZ 78 
[1985] 355-62) to ca.753, on a palaeographical 
basis. It was brought up to date until 866 and was 
in use possibly as late as the 12th C. A primitive 
text on computing the longitudes of the planets 
based on Vettius Valens (I 18) was written in go6 
and was still being studied in the Palaiologan 
period (Vettz Valentis Antiocheni Anthologiarum libri 
novem, ed. D. Pingree [Leipzig 1986] 398—406). 
In addition an elementary Quadrivium with in- 
structions and examples for using the Handy Ta- 
bles was produced in 1007/8. 

In the 11th C. Islamic astronomy began to be 
familiar to the Byz., as can be seen from some 
translations of Arabic star catalogs; from the writ- 
ings of Symeon Seru (which may include the 
scholium of 1032 to the Prolegomena to the Alma- 
gest); and from an anonymous astronomical trea- 
tise written between 1072 and 1088 (A. Jones, An 
Eleventh-Century Manual of Arabo-Byzantine Astron- 
omy {Amsterdam 198%7]). From the 12th C., how- 
ever, nothing survives. From the 13th C. survive 
mainly uninspired texts by Nikephoros BLEM- 
MYDES, George AKROPOLITES, George PACHY- 
MERES, and John PEepIAsiMos. 

In the early Palaiologan period, however, a 
knowledge of Ptolemaic astronomy was restored 
by Manuel Bryennios, Theodore METOCHITES, 
and Nikephoros Grecoras and was continued 
into the later 14th C. by Nicholas Kasasitas and 


Isaac ARGyros, and into the 15th by John CHor- 
TASMENOS and Bessarion. The interpenetration 
of theology, celestial mechanics, geography, and 
harmony is clear in the early 14th-C. miniatures 
inserted into Venice, Bib. Marc. gr. 516. Furlan 
(Marciana 4:40-48) related many of these dia- 
grams to the thought of Manuel Bryennios and 
Pachymeres. Followers of the so-called Islamic 
school included Gregory CHIONIADES, who by 1300 
had translated into Greek a number of Persian 
and Arabic astronomical tables; this tradition was 
followed by George CHRYSOKOKKES and several 
anonymous treatises of the later 14th C. One work 
that encompasses both Ptolemaic and Islamic as- 
tronomy is the Three Books written by Theodore 
MELITENIOTES in ca.1361; also drawing upon both 
traditions were the pupils of John Apramios. Other 
Byz. discussions of Persian astronomy were com- 
posed on Cyprus in ca.1347 and on Rhodes in 
€a.13Q3. 

The Latin texts translated into Greek include 
the Toledan Tables prepared on Cyprus in the 
13308, perhaps by George LAPITHES, and again 
by Demetrios CHrysoLoras with an epoch of 1377; 
and the tables of Jacob ben David Yom-tob by 
Mark Eucenrgxos in 1444. Immanuel ben Jacob 
Bonfhils’s Seven Wings was translated from Hebrew 
by Michael Chrysokokkes in 1435. 

Classical Greek astronomical texts mention a 
number of observational instruments: meridional 
and equinoctial armillaries, a plinth, an armillary 
sphere, a parallactic instrument, and a diopter are 
all described in the Almagest of Ptolemy. The Byz. 
also knew about the construction of these instru- 
ments through commentaries on the Almagest by 
Pappos and Theon, and through the summary of 
it in Proklos’s Outline. Ptolemy also described the 
principles of the two main time-keeping devices, 
the ASTROLABE and the SUNDIAL, in other treatises. 

ED. Corpus des astronomes byzantins, ed. A. Tihon (Am- 
sterdam 1983—). 


ut. A. Tihon, “L’astronomie byzantine (du Ve au XVe 
siécle),” Byzantion 51 (1981) 603-24. —D.P., A.C. 


ASYLUM (doviia), the refuge given by the church 
to all Orthodox Christians seeking protection from 
the threat of imprisonment or physical harm. 
Sources refer to asylum as the “privilege” of the 
church; it was evidently established by custom. 
The earliest mention, in canon 7 of Serdica (a.342/ 
3) (Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 3:248—52), takes it for 


ATHANASIOS | 217 


granted, and there are no ecclesiastical laws estab- 
lishing it, only civil legislation from the late 4th 
C. onward, acknowledging and regulating it. In 
431 (Cod.Theod. IX 45.4) the boundaries of eccle- 
siastical sanctuary were extended from the nave 
and ALTAR to include the entire precinct of the 
church building and severe sanctions were intro- 
duced against the transgressors of the rights of 
refugees (J. Herrmann in Bettrdége zur Rechts- 
geschichte, Gedachtnisschnift für Hermann Conrad 
[Paderborn 1979] 271—82). In many cases, never- 
theless, fugitives (e.g., political) were forcefully 
dragged from the church. The church punished 
such violations by the imposition of epiTimia and 
even EXCOMMUNICATION (cf. vita of Tarasios, ed. 
Heikel, 407.11-37, 408.1—18). 

Although Justinian I excluded from asylum the 
perpetrators of the crimes of RAPE, ROBBERY, 
ADULTERY, and MURDER (novs. 17.7 and 37), a 
significant change occurred in the ioth C. with 
the novel of ConsTANTINE VII, which allowed 
murderers the protection of asylum. By the 12th 
C. Hacia Sopuia in Constantinople had become 
famous as a place of asylum, esp. for killers 
(Nik.Chon. 342.9—15). It had a tribunal for such 
cases, headed by the PROTEKDIKOS, and certain 
parts of the church were known as the “Refuge” 
(R.J. Macrides, Speculum 63 [1988] 509-38). The 
right of asylum for murderers was again abolished 
by Manuel I (R.J. Macrides, “Justice” 190—204). 
In 1343 John V prescribed that those who sought 
protection in Hagia Sophia should head for a 
special room without disturbing the divine service 
(Reg 5, no.2886). Although there is less evidence 
for it, Hagia Sophia appears also to have offered 
protection to insolvent debtors (MM 2:448f, 
a.1400). 

uit. E. Herman, “Zum Asylrecht im byzantinischen 
Reich,” OrChrP 1 (1935) 204-38. P.T.D. de Martin, Le drou 
d'asile (Paris 1939). G. Crifó, Libertà e ugualienza in Roma 
anlica (Rome 1984) 71—8y. —A.P., RJM. 


ATALANTA. See MELEAGER. 


ATHANASIOS, archbishop of Alexandria, theo- 
logian, philosopher, and saint; born Alexandria 
295, died Alexandria 2 May 373; feastdays 18 
Jan., 2 May. After a fierce struggle (L. Barnard, 
OrChrP 41 [1975] 344-52), Athanasios was elected 
archbishop of Alexandria on 8 June 328. He 


218 | ATHANASIOS I 





succeeded ALEXANDER, whom he had served as 
secretary and accompanied to the Council of Ni- 
caea in 325. Continuing Arian influence at the 
imperial court caused Athanasios to be deposed 
and exiled five times (335, 339, 356, 362, 365); 
his removal in 362 was due to his refusal to be 
maneuvered by Emp. JULIAN into fomenting 
Christian infighting. Two early tracts (ca.318), 
Against the Hellenes and the Incarnation of the Logos, 
attack pagan mythology and defend the Christian 
faith against Jewish and pagan criticism, respec- 
tively. His major work was the refutation of ARI- 
ANISM in four books: the authenticity of the final 
volume has long been suspect, and recently C. 
Kannengiesser (Athanase d’Alexandrie évéque et écri- 
vain [Paris 1983]) tried to attribute the third book 
to APOLLINARIS. 

The focal point of Athanasian theology is the 
concept of salvation, which Athanasios under- 
stood as the deification of man: “All are named 
sons and gods both on earth and in heaven.” This 
deification is possible because the incarnate Logos 
who assumed human flesh was—in contradiction 
to Arian dogma—the genuine God, of the same 
nature as the Father. “He was not a man who 
later became God, but Ged who later became man 
in order to deify us” (PG 26:g2C—g3A). Athanasios 
explains the mystery of the generation of the Son- 
Logos by the Father by using the metaphor of the 
sun, which is constantly emitting its rays. Athana- 
sios, however, did not elaborate a refined termi- 
nology to describe the Trinity, nor did he draw 
a strict line between nature and hypostasis, nor 
between HOMOOUSIOS and plain “likeness” (hom- 
oios). Athanasios acknowledged the consubstan- 
tiality of the Holy Spirit. 

The fragments of his biblical exegesis show some 
allegorizing tendencies. His 39th Festal Letter (367) 
contains an important list of Old and New Tes- 
tament books, with distinctions between genuine 
and apocryphal works. His Life of St. ANTONY 
THE GREAT, a landmark in Christian literature and 
model for later hagiography, is a valuable source 
for early monasticism as well as for Egyptian social 
history and popular beliefs, esp. demonology. 

Representation in Art. Athanasios was included 
in almost every painted group of CHURCH FATHERS 
as a balding white-haired bishop with a somewhat 
squared beard. His funeral is mentioned in the 
Homilies of GREGORY OF Nazianzos, and there are 
numerous representations of this scene in illus- 
trated MSS of these Homilies; the scene takes the 


form of a funeral around the bier, attended by 
bishops and other clergy (Galavaris, Liturgical 
Homilies 49f). He is often paired with his fellow 
citizen CYRIL of Alexandria, whose feast is cele- 
brated the same day. 

ED. PG 25-28. Athanasius Werke, ed. H.G. Opitz, W, 
Schneemelcher, M. Tetz, 3 vols. (Berlin 1934-38). Athan- 
asius: The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus, tr. R.C. 
Gregg (New York—Ramsey—Toronto 1980). Athanasius: 
Contra gentes and De incarnatione, ed. R. Thomson (Oxford 
1971), with Eng. tr. 

LIT. F.L. Cross, The Study of St. Athanasius (Oxford 1945). 
Politique et théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, ed. C. Kan- 
nengiesser (Paris 1974). M. Tetz, “Zur Biographie des 
Athanasios von Alexandrien,” ZKirch go (1979) 304-38. 
H.A. Drake, “Athanasius’ First Exile,” GRBS 27 (1986) 
193—204. J. Myslivec, LCI 5:268—72. -—B.B., A.K., N.P.S. 


ATHANASIOS I, patriarch of Constantinople 
(Oct. 128g—Oct. 1293; June 1303—Sept. 1309) 
and saint; born Adrianople ca.1235, died Con- 
stantinople ca.1315; feastday 28 Oct. From his 
youth Athanasios was an ascetic monk who moved 
frequently from one monastery to another: he 
resided in turn on the holy mountains of Athos, 
Auxentios, Latros, Galesios, and Ganos, and made 
a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Soon after 1282 
Andronikos II installed him in a monastery on 
the Xerolophos hill in Constantinople and even- 
tually made him patriarch. Athanasios was de- 
posed from his first patriarchate because of his 
unpopular insistence on strict monastic discipline 
and the requirement that bishops reside in their 
sees. After ten years in retirement, he returned 
to the patriarchal throne but was again deposed 
to bring an end to the ARSENITE schism. 

His letters and sermons reveal a rigid and fer- 
vently pious individual who hoped to check the 
Turkish advance by urging repentance on em- 
peror and people alike. Under his guidance the 
synod issued a new law (neara) in 1304 (RegPatr, 
fasc. 4, no.1607), confirmed by the emperor in 
1306 (Reg 4, no.2295), which was designed to 
rectify injustices and raise moral standards; it 
covered such topics as inheritance, opening hours 
of taverns and bath houses, prostitution, and 
adultery. Athanasios sought to alleviate the suf- 
ferings of the poor and personally supervised 
distributions of food and clothing. He also orga- 
nized a commission to control the supply and 
price of grain in Constantinople. At times he had 
considerable influence on the emperor; nonethe- 
less his petitions were frequently ignored. After 


his death his popularity led to the development 
of a local cult at his tomb where numerous mir- 
acles were attested. His sanctity was recognized 
sometime before 1368. Two vitae are preserved, 
both by Palamite authors, Joseph KALOTHETOS 
and THEOKTISTOS THE SroubITE (BHG 194, 1940). 

ep. The Correspondence of Athanasius I, ed. A.-M.M. Tal- 
bot (Washington, D.C., 1975), with Eng. tr, 

uit. RegPatr, fasc. 4, nos. 1549-60, 1589—1780, App. 
1-12. J. Boojamra, Church Reform in the Late Byzantine 


Empire (Thessalonike 1982). A.-M.M. Talbot, Faith Healing 
in Late Byzantium (Brookline, Mass., 1983). —A.M.T. 


ATHANASIOS II, Melkite patriarch of Alexan- 
dria (ca.1275—ca.1315). He was a former Sinaite 
monk who, because of the Mamluk occupation of 
Egypt, spent most of his tenure in exile. In 1275 
or 1276 Athanasios went to Constantinople, where 
Michael VIII and his son Andronikos (II) granted 
him monasteries, to provide him with both a res- 
idence and income. He rapidly became involved 
in ecclesiastical controversies and found himself 
in Opposition to his contemporary patriarchs of 
Constantinople, GREGORY II and esp. ATHANASIOS 
I, who confiscated Athanasios’s monasteries and 
forced him into exile on Rhodes ca.128g. Atha- 
nasios returned to Constantinople during the in- 
terval between the two patriarchates of Athanasios 
I (1293-1309). In 1294 he was entrusted with an 
embassy to Cilician Armenia that was aborted 
when pirates attacked his ship. Athanasios op- 
posed the reinstatement of Athanasios I and by 
1305 was again compelled to leave the capital. 
After a series of narrow escapes in Greece, he 
presumably made his way to the metochion of Sinai 
on Crete. The place and date of his death are 
unknown. 

Athanasios was bilingual in Greek and Arabic 
and a cultured bibliophile who acquired several 
MSS in Constantinople for the see of Alexandria. 
His most notable acquisition was the 5th-C. Codex 
Alexandrinus (London, B.L. Royal 1.D.v—viii). 














ut. A. Failler, “Le séjour d’Athanase II d’Alexandrie a 
Constantinople,” REB 35 (1977) 43-71. PLP, no.413. T.C. 
Skeat, The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Atexandrinus (Lon- 
don 1955; rp. 1963) 31-33. -A.M.T. 


ATHANASIOS OF ATHOS, founder of the Great 
Lavra; saint; born Trebizond between g25 and 
930, died Mt. Athos 5 July ca.1001. Baptized 
Abraamios, he began a career as a teacher in 
Constantinople but resigned and left the capital 


ATHANASIOS OF METEORA 219 


for the Bithynian monastery of Kyminas, in which 
he lived ca.g52—58 together with Michael Ma- 
LEINOS. He then moved to Mt. Arnos, where in 
962/3, with the support of Emp. Nikephoros IH 
Phokas, he founded the Lavra. Athanasios was 
closely connected with aristocratic families and 
was Nikephoros’s private counselor. He effected 
a radical change in Athonite MONASTICISM, from 
scattered hermitages to large monasteries. With 
imperial support (the Lavra was granted SOLEM- 
Nia and lands), Athanasios initiated large-scale 
construction; he even died while supervising the 
construction of a church. He also introduced new 
time-saving devices (e.g., a mechane driven by oxen 
to prepare dough) and composed Rules for the 
monks (typikon, diatyposis, and hypotyposis). 

Two Lives of Athanasios were written soon after 
his death: one by a certain Athanasios of the 
monastery of Panagios in Constantinople, another 
on Athos; the problem of their interdependence 
is not yet solved (A. Kazhdan, Byzantion 53 [1983] 
538-44). The theme of both Lives is Athanasios’s 
thwarted desire to escape earthly glory; he was 
unable to conceal his educated background under 
the disguise of illiterate simplicity, nor was his 
flight from growing popularity successful. The 
Constantinopolitan Life of Athanasios contains 
important evidence concerning the painter Pan- 
TOLEON. 

Representation in Art. Portraits of the saint are 
found primarily in works associated with Athos: 
in manuscripts of the saint’s vita and in churches 
under the influence of the Holy Mountain. He is 
depicted as an elderly man in monastic habit with 
balding head and a long white two-pointed beard. 

sources. Vitae duae antiquae Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, 
ed. J. Noret (Turnhout 1982). 

LIT. BHG 187-88. P. Lemerle in Lavra 1:13-48. D. 
Papachryssanthou in Prot. 69-102. J. Noret, “La vie la plus 
ancienne d’Athanase I’Athonite confrontée a d'autres vies 
de saints,” AB 103 (1988) 249-52. G. Galavaris, “The 


Portraits of St. Athanasius of Athos,” BS/EB 5 (1978) 96- 
124. U. Knoben, LCI 5:267f. —A.K., N.P.S. 


ATHANASIOS OF METEORA, saint; baptismal 
name Andronikos; born Neopatras 1305, died 
Meteora 20 Apr. 1383. Born to a noble family, 
Athanasios was orphaned at an early age and 
entrusted to the care of his paternal uncle. He 
eagerly pursued both secular and religious studies 
in Thessalonike and Constantinople, where he 
met GREGORY Sinaires, [sipore (1) BoUCHEIRAS, 


220 | ATHANATOI 





and Gregory Akinpynos. After a period on Crete 
as a hesychast, he became a monk on Mt. ATHOS 
in 1938 and took the name Antony (later changed 
to Athanasios). After a Turkish attack on Athos, 
Athanasios left the Holy Mountain ca.1340 with 
his spiritual master, a hesychast named Gregory. 
The two sought refuge and tranquillity among 
the rocky spires of the MeTEora in Thessaly. For 
years Athanasios lived in solitude; eventually he 
settled on a pinnacle called Platylithos (“broad 
rock”), which he named Meteoron (“suspended 
in midair”). Here he established a cenobitic com- 
munity of 14 monks for whom he drafted a short 
rule (vita, 251f) and built a church dedicated to 
the Theotokos (later reconstructed and rededi- 
cated to the Metamorphosis). His anonymous Life 
(BHG 195) was written sometime after 1388 by a 
monk who had lived on Athos and had known 
Athanasios briefly at Meteora. 

source. N.A. Bees, “Symbole eis ten historian ton monon 
ton Meteoron,” Byzanits 1 (1909) 237-70. 

LIT. PLP, no.g59. Nicol, Meteora 73—76, 88-105. D.M. 
Nicol, “A Layman’s Ministry in the Byzantine Church: The 


Life of Athanasios of the Great Meteoron,” SCAH 26 (1989) 
141-54. —-A.M.T. 


ATHANATOI (é6averot, “immortals”), a TAGMA 
of noble youth. Created by John I Tzimiskes in 
970 (Leo Diac. 107.11—12), they were armed and 
preceded the emperor on campaign (132.17—18). 
hey camped, together with the HETAIREIA, next 
to the emperor’s tent (Dennis, Military Treatises 
250.100). The 1oth-C. TAKTIKON of Escurial first 
mentions the domestikos of the athanatot. John I’s 
athanatoi probably did not endure; they are not 
mentioned again until the end of the 11th C. 
when, according to Nikephoros Bryennios (Bryen. 
265-67), NIKEPHORITZES revived the corps of 
athanatoi and supplied them with armor, shields, 
helmets, and spears. Some chrysobulls of the end 
of the 11th C. (e.g., Lavra 1, no.48.28) place the 
athanatoi together with the ethnic contingents, but 
S. Kyriakides (Makedontka 2 [1953] 722-24) strongly 
insists on their autochthonous origin. There is no 
evidence that the athanatoi survived the 12th C. 

















ur. Ahrweiler, “Administration” 27f. Oikonomides, 
“Evolution” 143. —A.K. 


ATHENA, in Greek mythology, daughter of Zeus, 
virgin goddess of wisdom, and eponymous patron 
of Athens. Myths about Athena, drawn from the 


standard classical curriculum of Byz. education, 
continued to furnish literary material down to the 
time of Tzetzes, who reproduced them in his 
Histories. The Iliad passage (5.837-39) describing 
Athena’s chariot creaking under her weight was 
often discussed by Christian apologists, who were 
concerned to reject the old embodiment of virgin- 
ity and its power in Athena in favor of the new 
figure of the Virgin Mary. They ridiculed Homer’s 
description: a weightless deity could not have 
caused that phenomenon (Eust. Comm. Il. 2:213.5— 
7). A 12th-C. historian (Nik.Chon. 158.70—72) 
used the same Homeric image to describe Manuel 
I's bringing of an icon of the Virgin into Con- 
stantinople on a chariot: in the triumphal proces- 
sion, the vehicle did not creak under the true 
Virgin. In Gnosticism, on the other hand, the 
figure of Athena was used positively to represent 
the divine Sopuia. 

An antique bronze statue of Athena, 30 feet 
high, stood in the Forum of Constantine in Con- 
stantinople until just before 1204, when the mob, 
interpreting the hand’s gesture as inviting the 
Latin army, tore it down (Nik.Chon. 558f). In 
Byz. art Athena appears in depictions of the Judg- 
ment of Paris (J. Trilling, The Roman Heritage 
{Washington, D.C., 1982] 46, no.25; H. Zaloscer, 
Die Kunst im christlichen Agypten [Vienna 1974] pl. 
48). Clad as a Byz. empress, she is shown born 
from Zeus’s head in illustrations of the scholia of 
pseudo-Nonnos oF PANoPOoLis on the homilies of 
GREGORY OF Nazianzos. George Gemistos PLE- 
THON addressed a hymn to Athena in his Laws, 
hailing her as the power presiding over form 
(eidos) and impelled movement (kinesis gignomene), 
who rejects the superfluous (Alexandre, Pléthon 
210). 

The Byz. TzeTzes (Historiae, 1.176~77, 5.671— 
72) and Kosmas the Hymnographer (PG 38: 
487.27—28) were also acquainted with the ancient 
myth that Athena, though a virgin, had borne to 
Hephaistos a son called Erichthonios: how the 
perpetuation of this legend is related to the con- 
trast between Athena and the Virgin Mary is 
unclear. 


tir. W. Kraus, RAC 1:880f. Weitazmann, Gr. Myth. 50- 
52. —L.S.B.MacC,, A.C. 


ATHENAIS-EUDOKIA, wife of Theodosios IT, 
augusta (from 2 Jan. 423); born Athens ca.400, 
died Jerusalem 20 Oct. 460. The daughter of 


Leontios, a pagan philosopher in Athens, Athe- 
nais ( A@nvais) came to Constantinople where she 
was baptized, taking the Christian name Eudokia. 
She soon attracted the attention of powers at 
court, possibly those in opposition to PULCHERIA, 
the emperor’s sister. Athenais married Theodo- 
sios on 7 June 421 and bore him three children. 
The oldest, Licinia Eudoxia (born 422), was to 
become the wife of VALENTINIAN III. In these 
years Athenais enjoyed considerable power and 
may have been the center of a faction of “tradi- 
tionalists’—~men such as her uncle Asklepiodotos 
and the prefect Kyros—who urged policies of 
religious moderation and supported classical cul- 
ture. Athenais was, however, gradually eclipsed 
by Pulcheria, who gained increasing control over 
her brother. In 438 Athenais departed with ME- 
LANIA THE YOUNGER for the Holy Land, where 
she encountered Cyril of Alexandria and Bar- 
sauma. She returned to Constantinople the next 
year and reached the height of her power. By 
443, however, she again fell from favor as a result 
of allegations of adultery. She went to Jerusalem 
in voluntary exile, but apparently retained her 
imperial title. She sided with anti-Chalcedonian 
nonks in Jerusalem in 452. Although she was 
ltimately reconciled to Chalcedon, she was none- 
neless revered in Monophysite tradition (H. Drake, 
GRBS 20 [1979] 381-92). Athenais was highly 
educated and obviously independent-minded; 
some fragments of her poetry survive. Her story 
was romantically enhanced by later Byz. tradition. 























re 


ED. Eudociae Augustae, Procli Lycii, Claudiani carminum 
graecorum reliquiae, ed. A. Ludwich (Leipzig 1897) 11-79. 

Lit. Holum, Theodosian Empresses 112—224. Al. Cam- 
eron, “The Empress and the Poet; Paganism and Politics 
at the Court of Theodosius H,” YCS 27 (1982) 217-89. F. 
Gregorovius, Athenais, Geschichte einer byzantinischen Kaiserin? 
(Leipzig 1892). A. Pignani, “Il modello omerico e la fonte 
biblica nel centone di Eudocia imperatrice,” Koinonia 9 
(1985) 95-41. -T.EG. 


ATHENS (Avar), city in central Greece, in late 
antiquity part of the province of Achaia, listed by 
Hierokles as the “metropolis of Arrica.” Sacked 
by the Heruli in 267 and Avaric in 396, the city 
lost much of its ancient splendor and was sur- 
rounded by a fortification embracing only a frac- 
tion of its former area: at the end of the 4th C. 
Synesios of Cyrene described Athens in dispar- 
aging terms, as a place famous only for its pro- 
duction of honey. From the 4th to early 6th C., 


ATHENS 221 





however, Athens maintained its place as an aca- 
demic center and home of NEOPLATONISM, cen- 
tered in the revived ACADEMY OF ATHENS and 
independent philosophical schools; among the 
students there were BASIL THE GREAT of Caesarea, 
GREGORY OF Nazianzos, and the future emperor 
Jurian. Paganism apparently remained strong in 
Athens in the late Roman period, and Christian 
symbols did not become common on lamps until 
the early 5th C. (A. Frantz, DOP 19 [1965] 187— 
205). The empress ATHENAIS-EUDOKIA, an Ath- 
enian, was noted for her learning. The effect of 
Justinian I’s closing of the Schools of Athens in 
529 remains controversial (Al. Cameron, Litera- 
ture, pt.XIII [1965], 7—29). 

The city was apparently sacked by the Slavs in 
582 but remained in Byz. hands; in the 7th C. 
there was some political recovery, highlighted by 
the visit of Constans II in 662/3. From the late 
7th C. Athens was part of the theme of HELLAS. 
The city was threatened by Arab pirates but more 
peaceful relations are suggested by the probable 
existence of an Arab mosque (G. Miles, Hesperia 
25 [1956] 329-44). It is usually assumed that 
during the Iconoclast crisis Athens supported icon 
worship; at any rate, Empress Irene, born in Ath- 
ens, played a decisive role in the restoration of 
the cult of icons. In the early gth C. another 
woman from Athens, Theophano, a relative of 
Irene, married the future emperor Staurakios 
(Theoph. 483.18). In 1018 Basil II visited Athens 
and gave thanks in the Church of the Virgin in 
the Parthenon for his victory over the Bulgarians. 
The letters of Michael CHONIATES, who was met- 
ropolitan of Athens 1182—1204, complain of the 
poverty of the city, the ignorance of the inhabi- 
tants, and the rapacity of imperial officials (J. 
Herrin, DOP 29 [1976] 253-84). 

In 1204 the city withstood a siege by Leo Scou- 
ros, but by the end of the year it fell to Boniface 
of Montferrat, who appointed Guy de la Roche 
as the first duke of Athens. The duchy of Athens 
controlled all of central Greece and had interests 
in the Peloponnesos and as far north as Bouno- 
NITZA; the dukes, however, had their primary 
residence at THEBES. In 1311 the city came under 
the control of the CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, who 
surrendered it to Nerio I AcciaJUOLI in 1385 
(K.M. Setton, The Catalan Domination of Athens 
1311-1388" [London 1975]). In 1394 it passed 
briefly to Venice and then to Antonio Acciajuoli 








222 ATHENS 











after 1403. In 1446 the future Constantine XI 
took Athens for Byz. but in 1456 it fell to the 
Turks. 

The bishop of Athens was under the authority 
of the bishop of Thessalonike; he was raised to 
metropolitan status, probably in the gth C. (V. 
Laurent, REB 1 [1943] 58-72); his suffragans 
included the bishops of Eusora, central Greece, 
and the nearby islands (Notitiae CP 7.496—506, 
etc.). A Latin archbishop, who replaced the Or- 
thodox bishop after 1204, played an important 
role in the papacy’s plan to control the Greek 
church (J. Koder, JOB 26 [1977] 129-41). Under 
the Acciajuoli the Orthodox bishopric was re- 
established. 

Monuments of Athens. Athens preserves many 
standing Byz. monuments and more have been 
brought to light by excavation, esp. in the Agora. 
In the courtyard of the Library of Hadrian a large 
quatrefoil structure of the 5th C. has been uncov- 
ered, probably a church rather than a lecture hall 
or audience hall as previously believed. On the 
slopes of the Areopagos and the south side of the 
Acropolis have been found houses associated with 
the philosophical schools. Basilican churches (e.g., 
the so-called Ilissos Basilica) were constructed on 

















the periphery, but most of the pagan temples 
were not converted to Christian use until the late 
6th C. or even later. From the 5th C. onward 
small-scale industrial activity was introduced into 
the former city center, as the ancient urban pat- 
tern was abandoned. The extensive ancient en- 
ceinte, repaired by Justinian I, was soon there- 
after allowed to fall into decay; coin finds after 
the mid-7th C. are infrequent (F. Kleiner, Medie- 
val and Modern Coins in the Athenian Agora [Prince- 
ton 1978] 12), and certain areas—the region of 
the Odeion (H.A. Thompson, Hesperia 19 [1950] 
137) and the Pnyx (H.A. Thompson, R.L. Scran- 
ton, Hesperia 12 [1943] 376)—-were deserted. Re- 
covery began in the gth C. and reached its peak 
in the 11th—-12th C. This period of prosperity 
ended, as far as the archaeological evidence shows, 
ca.1180 (Ch. Bouras, JOB 31.2 [1981] 626f). 
Beginning ca.g75 with the katholikon of Mone 
Petrake, there is an unbroken string of surviving 
churches, nearly all of the Constantinopolitan cross- 
in-square type; many have pseudo-Kufic decora- 
tion. The Church of the Holy Apostles in the 
Agora is a domed quatrefoil of considerable so- 
phistication (A. Frantz, The Church of the Holy 
Apostles [The Athenian Agora 20] [Princeton 1971)); 





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































the Church of Sts. Theodore is dated by an in- 
scription to 1065, while the Kapnikarea (1060— 
70) has an exonarthex, as well as a parekklesion 
perhaps added during the Frankish period. The 
Panagia Gorgoepikoos/St. Eleutherios (Little Me- 
tropolis) is made entirely of marble, mostly reused 
blocks, many of them sculptured; it dates proba- 
bly to the period shortly after 1200. Most of the 
Athenian churches are small and are grouped in 
the area immediately to the north of the Acropo- 
lis. The poorly restored Panagia Lykodemou (11th 
C.) was a large domed octagon, presumably rep- 
resenting influence from the capital. None of these 
churches retains its original painted decoration. 
Fresco programs have survived, however, in sev- 
eral churches on the outskirts of Athens, notably 
the cave chapels on Mt. Pentele of the early 13th 
C., similar in style to that of the late Komnenian 
period, which preserve a haloed portrait of Mi- 
chael Choniates (D. Mouriki, DChAE* 7 [1974] 
79-119), and the Omorphe Ekklesia of the late 
igth C. which already reflects the latest stylistic 
developments in the contemporary painting of 
Macedonia (A. Basilake-Karakatsane, Hoi toicho- 
graphies tes Omorphes Ekklesias sten Athena [Athens 
1971]. The Parthenon was the cathedral church 
and the other buildings of the Acropolis were 
used as churches, while the Propylaia was con- 
verted by the Frankish dukes into a palace with a 
large tower. 

tir. TIB 1:126—29. K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages 
(London 1975). I. Traulos, Poleodomike exelixis ton Athenon 
(Athens 1960). Idem, RBK 1:349-89. A. Frantz, Late An- 
tiquity [= The Athenian Agora 24] (Princeton 1988). Idem, 
“From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens,” 
DOP 1g (1965) 187—205. T. Leslie Shear, Jr., “The Ath- 
enian Agora,” Hesperia 53 (1984) 1-57. Janin, Eglises centres 
298-340. —T.E.G., N.P.S. 


ATHINGANOIL (A@tyyavo, lit. “Untoucha- 
bles”), judaizing heretics in Phrygia and Lykaonia 
first mentioned as favored by Emp. Nikephoros 
I, who, according to the hostile report of Theo- 
phanes the Confessor, invited them in 810 to 
sacrifice a bull to quell a revolt. Emp. Michael I 
condemned them to death and massacred many 
but later relented. Theophanes Continuatus de- 
fined them as Sabbath observers who were bap- 
tized and followed the laws of Moses except for 
circumcision, while each Athinganos was under 
the spiritual and material influence of a Jew. Con- 
stantine VII apparently disputed with them. An 


ATHOS, ACTS OF | 223 


1ith-C. (?) abjuration formula accused them of 
practicing magic, astrology, and a ritual purity 
characterized by Levitical ablutions. The name 
was later attached to other groups, e.g., Adsinca- 
noi (GYPSIES). 

ur. J. Starr, “An Eastern Christian Sect: The Athin- 
ganoi,” HThR 2g (1936) 93—106. P. Alexander, “Religious 
Persecution and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the 
Eighth and Ninth Centuries,” Speculum 52 (1977) 239, 245- 
I. Rochow, “Die Haresie der Athinganer im 8. und g. 
Jahrhundert und die Frage ihres Fortlebens,” BBA #1 
(1983) 163-78. ~S.B.B. 


ATHOS, ACTS OF. The monasteries of Mt. Athos 
possess numerous charters of the Byz. (and post- 
Byz.) period, both in original and in copies. In its 
totality the collection is by far the richest Byz. 
archive of documentary material, providing abun- 
dant data on political, economic, and ecclesiastical 
history, the history of institutions and law, ethnic 
composition, literacy, etc. The oldest extant doc- 
uments date to the late gth C. The richest collec- 
tions belong to the Lavra, Iveron, HILANDAR, 
and Varoprepi monasteries; in addition are pre- 
served the acts of Dionysiou, DOCHEIARIOU, Es- 
PHIGMENOU, KASTAMONITOU, KOUTLOUMOUSIOU, 
PANTOKRATOR, St. Paul, PANTELEEMON, PHILO- 
THEOU, XENOPHONTOS, XEROPOTAMOU, and Zo- 
GRAPHOU, as well as those of the ProraTon and 
of several minor archives (Karakalou and Simo- 
petra). 

Attempts at systematization of the archives were 
begun at the end of the 18th C. by the monks 
themselves: Cyril of Lavra compiled a list of acts 
in his monastery’s archive (A. Guillou, BCH 82 
[1958] 610-34). In the igth C. some travelers to 
Athos copied and later photographed selected 
charters; an important collection of photographs 
was assembled by P.I. Sevast’janov (E. Granstrem, 
I. Medvedev, REB 33 [1975] 277-93). Russian 
scholars began the systematic publication of the 
acts of Athos—tirst ot Panteleemon (Kiev 1873), 
then Vatopedi (St. Petersburg 1898), then in ap- 
pendices to Vizantijski) Vremennik—while Greek 
scholars published individual acts in various pe- 
riodicals. A systematic survey, started by G. Millet 
and continued by P. Lemerle, has resulted in the 
publication of many Athonite documents in Paris 
(now in progress); V. Mošin and F. Délger also 
made important contributions. The Acts contain 
some of the most important surviving INVENTO- 
RIES of icons and liturgical equipment. 











224 | ATHOS, MOUNT 


ep. Archives de l’Athos, ed. P. Lemerle, N. Oikonomides, 
J. Lefort et al. (Paris 1937—). (See entries on individual 
monasteries for editions of specific volumes.) 
LIT. M. Manoussakas, “Hellenika cheirographa kai en- 
grapha tou Hagiou Orous,” EEBS 32 (1963) 391-419. 
~A.K., A.C. 


ATHOS, MOUNT, also called the Hoty Moun- 
TAIN (Hagion Oros), from the late 10th C. the most 
important center of Eastern Orthodox MoN- 
asticism. Athos ("Afws) is the name given to the 
northernmost projection of the CHALKIDIKE 
peninsula, 45 km long, 5—10 km wide, as well as 
to the peak (2,033 m) that dominates this rocky 
finger of land. It is linked to the mainland by a 
narrow isthmus 2 km in width. The peninsula has 
forests, meadows for pasturage, and small plots 
of land suitable for vineyards, orchards, olive 
groves, and gardens. 

Athos was virtually deserted when monks first 
began to settle there, probably in the late 8th or 
early gth C.; according to the 1oth-C. historian 
Genesios (58.22), in 843 Athos was already a 
major monastic community, but his evidence must 
be treated with caution. The theories that the 
earliest monks of Athos were refugees from the 
Arab conquests of the eastern provinces of Byz., 
or Iconodules fleeing the persecutions of the 
Iconoclast emperors, have now lost favor. The 
first arrivals seem to have come from nearby re- 
gions, and to have been attracted by the unsullied 
solitude of the peninsula. Monasticism developed 
slowly on the Holy Mountain, however, because 
of its isolation, its rugged terrain, and the danger 
from Arab pirates. The early monks lived as sol- 
itary hermits or in small groups; the pioneers on 
Athos included Peter the Athonite (D. Papachrys- 
santhou, AB g2 [1974] 19-61)—a semilegendary 
figure—and EurHyMIOS THE YOUNGER, who ar- 
rived in 859. The first cenobitic monastery in the 
vicinity of Athos was Ko.Losou, founded near 
Hterissos sometime before 883. A fragmentary 
sigillion of Basil I (Prot., no.1, a.883) is the earliest 
preserved imperial act concerning the Holy 
Mountain; it protected the Athonite monks from 
the intrusion of local shepherds. 

The date of the first appearance of cenobitic 
monasticism on Athos proper is impossible to 
ascertain, but by the mid-1oth C. some koinobia 
(e.g., XEROPOTAMOU) are attested. In 963 ATHA- 
NASIOS OF ATHOS, with the support of Nikephoros 


II Phokas, founded the Great Lavra, which would 
soon hold first place in the Athonite hierarchy, a 
position it would maintain in perpetuity. By the 
end of the 1oth C. many of the most important 
Athonite monasteries (e.g., IVERON, HILANDAR, 
ESPHIGMENOU, PANTELEEMON, VATOPEDI, XENO- 
PHONTOS, and possibly ZoGRaPHoU) had been 
founded; by 1001 46 monasteries were in exis- 
tence (Papachryssanthou in Prot. 86—93). 

Monks from non-Greek lands began to come to 
the Holy Mountain in the 10th C.: the Georgian 
monastery of Iveron was established in 979/80, 
soon followed by the Italian monastery of the 
Amalfitans (see AMALFI). Orthodox Armenians 
(Chalcedonians) were numerous at Esphigmenou. 
In the 12th C. the peninsula began to attract more 
Slavic monks: Panteleemon was taken over by 
monks from Rus’, and Hilandar was restored as 
a Serbian monastery. In the 13th C. Zographou 
came to be inhabited primarily by Bulgarian monks. 

The organization of Athos in the 1oth C. was 
relatively simple: the monks attended three an- 
nual assemblies at the Proraron in Karyes and 
elected a proros who represented the community 
in its relations with ecclesiastical and secular au- 
thorities. By the end of the ioth C. (?) this assem- 





























MONASTERI] 
MT. AT 
































Bay of 


Hierissos 


\ 
YHlierissos 
hon 
ae A i 


y 


SINGITIC Xenophontst 


GULF Panteieemon 


C. Nymphaion 





bly was replaced by an irregular “council” that 
attracted on the average 15 participants, but oc- 
casionally as many as 40. The larger monasteries 
became independent of the Protaton, with the 
hegoumenos of the Great Lavra acquiring a more 
prestigious position in the local hierarchy than 
the protos. 

In the 10th and 11th C. Athos attracted consid- 
erable imperial attention. Romanos I Lekapenos 
initiated an annual stipend (roga) for the Athonite 
monks and ordered the demarcation of a frontier 
boundary, probably in g41/2 (D. Papachryssan- 
thou in Prot, 55). The rapid growth of the Lavra 
under the patronage of Nikephoros Phokas 
prompted the resentment of many Athonite 
monks, esp. the anchorites who feared for their 
way of life. John I Tzimiskes’ issuance of a typikon 
for Athos, the Tracos, between 970 and 972, 
attempted a compromise, recognizing the rights 
of hegoumenoi, kelliotat (the spiritual leaders of 
anachoretic groups), and solitary hermits to at- 
tend the assemblies at Karyes. Both Nikephoros 
If and John I envisaged Athos as a stronghold of 
“poor monasticism,” but under Basil II some 
monasteries began to acquire lands beyond the 
boundaries of the Holy Mountain and were grad- 
ually transformed into great landowners. Ceno- 
bitism became predominant, to the detriment of 
nermitages. In the 11th—12th C. new monasteries 
continued to be founded (KasramMonitrou, Do- 
CHEIARIOU, KOUTLOUMOUSIOU), and the older ones 
expanded their possessions. Economic activities 
on Athos increased, such as the sale of wood from 
Athonite forests and surplus agricultural products 
(fruits, vegetables, wine) cultivated on monastic 
estates. Many monasteries owned boats for the 
transport of these goods and the importation of 
necessary provisions; these boats often were 
granted exemptions from customs duties. Despite 
John I’s prohibition of the presence of eunuchs, 
beardless youths, women, and even female ani- 
mals on the peninsula, in the 11th C. substantial 
groups of Vrac shepherds settled with their 
families on Athos and supplied the monks with 
dairy products. The “Vlach question” caused such 
a scandal that ca.1100 Alexios I was forced to 
expel the herdsmen from Athos. 

Constantine IX Monomachos’s chrysobull of 
1045 sheds light on the administrative develop- 
ment of Athos. The independence of individual 























ATHOS, MOUNT | 225 


koinobia increased; Lavra, Vatopedi, and Iveron 
were the top-ranking monasteries, taking prece- 
dence over the central administration of the protos. 
The growth of landownership incited conflicts 
among monasteries over estates as well as clashes 
with local landowners, esp. in Hierissos; with the 
Cumans who had settled in southern Macedonia; 
and with imperial functionaries. On the other 
hand, the patriarchate tried to establish its juris- 
diction (at least partial) over Athos, which had 
been considered as subordinate only to the em- 
peror. 

The fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Cru- 
sade in 1204 and the establishment of the Latin 
Empire led to a period of difficulty for Athos, as 
Macedonia was troubled by the Latin occupation, 
the rising power of the Bulgarians, and rivalry 
between the empire of Nicaea and Epiros. Athos 
came under the rule of the Frankish Kingdom of 
Thessalonike from 1204 to 1224, and the mon- 
asteries lost some of their properties outside the 
peninsula, which they sought to recover after the 
Greek reconquest of Constantinople in 1261. The 
reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos was, however, 
extremely unpopular on Athos, because of the 
persecution of monks who refused to accept the 
Union of Lyons of 1274 (G. Rouillard, REB 1 
[1943] 73-84; J. Koder, JOB 18 [1969] 79-88). 

In the early 14th C. Athos suffered from the 
raids of the CaTALAN GRAND Company, but then 
enjoyed a period of prosperity during which sev- 
eral new monasteries were founded (Gregoriou, 
Dionysiou, PANTOKRATOR, Simopetra). Docu- 
ments recording various privileges conferred by 
the emperors on Athonite monasteries (a practice 
which goes back to the gth C.) are esp. copious 
from the first half of the 14th C. Whereas the 
privileges granted by the government in the 1oth 
C. were primarily soLEMNIA (stipends from the 
state treasury) and the chrysobulls of the 11th C. 
mostly established monastic exkousseza (immunity 
from taxes), the documents of the 14th C. were 
first of all donations of lands and parotkot. 

The properties of Athos took the form of fields, 
vineyards, pastures, mills, fishponds, entire vil- 
lages, urban rental properties, and workshops. 
These possessions were concentrated in Mace- 
donia (including Thessalonike), esp. on the Chalki- 
dike peninsula and in the Strymon valley, but 
extended to Thrace, Thasos, Lemnos, Serbia, and 

















226 ATHOS, MOUNT 


Wallachia. The bulk of the acts of Athos (see 
ATHOS, ACTS OF) concern these estates, and in- 
clude praktika, charters of sale, exchange, and 
donation, in addition to imperial chrysobulls con- 
firming the monasteries’ titles to their property 
and guaranteeing fiscal immunity. All ranks of 
people, from humble peasant to emperor, were 
anxious to make pious donations to Athonite 
monasteries; in addition to the emperors at Con- 
stantinople, the benefactors of Athos included the 
Grand Komnenoi of Trebizond, the rulers of Ser- 
bia and Bulgaria, and vervedes of Wallachia. 

In the 14th C. IDIORRHYTHMIC MONASTICISM 
developed on Athos, and the koinobion declined. 
By mid-century Turkish pirates were attacking 
the peninsula, forcing some of the monks to flee 
to Paroria or to Meteora. The Ottoman threat 
led to government restriction on the growth of 
monastic properties and the confiscation of some 
Athonite estates in the second half of the 14th C.; 
thus, after the Turkish victory at Marica in 1371 
half of the metochia belonging to Athos were trans- 
formed into pronoia: and transferred to soldiers. 
This policy was continued in the 15th C. (Ostro- 
gorsky, Féodalité 161-76). After briefly occupying 
Athos in 1387 and from 1393 to 1403, the Otto- 
mans established permanent control over the Holy 
Mountain in 1430. The Turks recognized the 
autonomy of Athos in return for the payment of 
annual tribute, but the monasteries lost their im- 
munities and their estates in Thrace and Mace- 
donia. 

Attitudes toward the intellectual life were var- 
ied. Kelliotai and hermits, who placed an emphasis 
on spirituality and asceticism, had little use for 
books. As N. Oikonomides (DOP 42 [1988] 167—- 
78) has shown, many of the Athonite monks came 
from a rustic background and were illiterate. 
Nonetheless in the koinobia, founded on the 
Stoudite model, there was more emphasis on in- 
tellectual pursuits, esp. from the 13th C. onward. 
The monasteries amassed important collections of 
MSS (B. Fonkić, PSb 17 [80] [1967] 167~—75), some 
produced in their own scriptoria (e.g., at Philo- 
theou, Hilandar, and Iveron). Among Athonite 
monks could be found composers (John Kou- 
KOUZELES), hagiographers (Joseph KaLoTHETos), 
theologians (Gregory PALaMAS), and ecclesiastical 
writers (THEOLEPTOS of Philadelphia). With its 
international assemblage of monks, cultural inter- 
change was inevitable: Hilandar, Zographou, Pan- 























teleemon, and Iveron became centers for the 
transmission of Byz. religious literature to Serbia, 
Bulgaria, Russia, and Georgia, respectively. 

As the Holy Mountain par excellence from the 
ioth C. onward, Athos attracted Byz. monks for 
six centuries. Many holy men, whose custom it 
was to wander from one monastery or HOLY 
MOUNTAIN to another, spent time on Athos before 
moving on, thus reducing the cultural isolation of 
the Athonite monasteries. Because of its geo- 
graphical proximity, Thessalonike, rather than 
Constantinople, had the closest links with the Holy 
Mountain. For some monks, like Palamas, a he- 
goumenate on Athos was the springboard to a 
bishopric; for others it might lead to the patriar- 
chate of Constantinople as it did for NipHon, 
KaLuisTos, and PHILOTHEOS KoKKINOoS (R. Guil- 
land, EEBS 32 [1963] 50-59). 

It was one of the wandering holy men, GREGORY 
Sinaltes, who introduced to Athos in the 14th C. 
the “Jesus prayer,” which was adopted by a small 
number of monks. From this new method of 
prayer developed a form of mystical spirituality, 
a renewed emphasis on HESYCHASM that was 
championed by Palamas (J. Meyendorff, DOP 42 
[1988] 157-65). After many vicissitudes PALA- 
MISM spread all over the Byz. world and was 
eventually declared Orthodox by the local council 
of Constantinople of 1351 (see under CONSTAN- 
TINOPLE, COUNCILS OF). 

LIT. Prot. 3-164. Le millénaire du Mont Athos 963-1963, 
2 vols. (Chevetogne 1963—64). C. Cavarnos, The Holy Moun- 
tain (Belmont, Mass. 1979). 1.P. Mamalakes, To hagion Oros 
(Athos) dia mesou ton aionon (Thessalonike 1971) 1~222. S. 


Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, 
2 vols. (Cambridge 1895—1900). —A.M.T., A.K. 


Art and Architecture of Athos. Little survives 
of the 10th—12th-C. architecture of the Holy 
Mountain except for the principal churches of a 
few monasteries and portions of the perimeter 
walls. The earliest Athonite churches generally 
had an inscribed-cross plan with a central dome, 
triconch apse, a double narthex, and lateral chapels 
to the west (P.M. Mylonas, Thesaurismata 2 [1963] 
supp., 18—48). Instituted at the Lavra, this scheme 
was adopted at Iveron and Vatopedi and re- 
mained essentially unchanged until the double 
narthex was replaced by a unified rectangular 
space (sometimes called a lite) for singers at Hi- 
landar. This scheme, in turn, was widely adopted, 
for example, at Koutloumousiou ca.1400. The 


14th C. saw an expansion of the older monaster- 
ies, the addition of towers (pyrRGot) and other 
fortifications, and the creation of new institutions 
that tended to follow the established “Athonite 
type.” Most of the chapels and living and service 
quarters now to be seen on Athos date from the 
15th C. or later. 

In the churches mosaic decoration survives only 
at Vatopedi and Xenophontos (now detached and 
kept in the “new katholikon”). The oldest preserved 
frescoes are at the kellion of Rhabdouchou (P. 
Mylonas in 14 CEB, vol. 2B [Bucharest 1971] 
552-54); frescoes of 1312 survive at Vatopedi but 
are much overpainted. The well-preserved pro- 
gram at the Protaton is of similar date. There- 
after, however, with the exception of fragments 
in the monastery of St. Paul, almost no wall paint- 
ing survives from the period between the mid- 
14th and the early 16th C. 

From the 10th C. onward, Athonite monasteries 
received gifts of liturgical silver, crosses, textiles, 
sometimes richly covered books, and esp. icons 
(of which the Lavra has 3,000, mostly post-Byz.), 
which form the nuclei of their treasures today. A 
few objects are the donations of generous rulers 
and other patrons from the period before 1453 
but, like the physical fabric of the monasteries, 
the vast majority of the treasures date well after 
the foundation of the institutions that now house 
them. Despite the arguments of V.N. Lazarev 
(DChAE?* 4 [1964] 117-43), there is little evidence 
for resident ateliers of mural painters on Athos 
in the Byz. period; A. Xyngopoulos (CorsiRav 11 
[1964] 419-30) suggested that at least in the 14th 
C. fresco painters came from Thessalonike and 
possibly Constantinople. The name or epithet zo- 
graphos of a 10th-C. monk (see ZOGRAPHOU) sug- 
gests, however, that some artists took up resi- 
dence; a 14th-C. workshop that made ICON FRAMES 
has also been hypothesized. Certainly masons were 
called in from the outside world in the 10th C. 
(Prot., no.'7.141—42). Many of the illuminated MSS 
in the monasteries’ libraries reached Athos long 
after their creation elsewhere, just as many books 
with Athonite provenances are today to be found 
in libraries and museums outside the Holy Moun- 
tain. 


ut. M. Restle, RBK 1:489~421. G. Millet, Monuments de 
PAthos. 1. Les peintures (Paris 1927). S.N. Pelekanides et al., 
The Treasures of Mount Athos. Illuminated Manuscripts, 3 vols. 
(Athens 1973—79). K. Weitzmann, Aus den Bibliotheken des 


ATRIKLINES 227 





Athos (Hamburg 1963). E. Voordeckers, “L'art au Mont- 
Athos,” in Splendeur de Byz. 262-74. ~AC. 


ATRAMYTTION ( Arpapir(r)iov, Andremite of 
the Crusaders, now Edremit), city on the north- 
west coast of Asia Minor. Although obscure in 
late antiquity, Atramyttion was an important naval 
base when the Opsikian fleet stopped there dur- 
ing its revolt in 714, seized Theodosios (III), a 
native tax collector of Atramyttion, and made him 
emperor. Atramyttion was the northernmost city 
of the THRAKESION theme; in the 10th C., it was 
a tourma of Samos. The Turkish pirate TzacHas 
completely destroyed Atramyttion ca.10g0; Eu- 
mathios PHILOKALES rebuilt and repopulated it in 
110g. It became a base for defense against Italian 
and Turkish attacks. Manuel I made it a center 
of NEOKASTRA; by 1185 it was the headquarters 
of a separate theme (D. Zakythenos, EEBS 19 
[1949] 8). Plundered by the Genoese in 1197, it 
was briefly seized by the Latins in 1205 and ruled 
by them in 1213—24. In 1268, the Venetians had 
a concession in Atramyttion, but dangers from 
the Turks made the Genoese of Phokaia take 
contro] of it in 1304. It fell tothe Turks of Karas: 
before 1334. Atramyttion was a suffragan bish- 
opric of Ephesos; its site contains no significant 
remains. 


uit. Ahrweiler, Mer 223f, 289f, 349. -C.F. 


ATRIKLINES (datpixdtvys), courtier in charge of 
imperial banquets. The term is of Latin origin, 
from triclinium, dining hall, but it has often been 
distorted as artoklines, from Greek artos, bread. In 
his Kletorologion, PHILOTHEOS, who was himself 
atriklines, describes his function as maintaining 
order at banquets by positioning dignitaries ac- 
cording to their titles and offices (Oikonomides, 
Listes 83.15~—24). This presupposed a clear knowl- 
edge of titulature. Although Philotheos was titled 
protospatharios, the atriklines held a relatively mod- 
est place in the hierarchy. The aértklines was men- 
tioned in the mid-gth-C. TAKTIKON of Uspenskij; 
the seal of the imperial atriklines Smaragdos (Za- 
cos, Seals 1, no.1606B) is dated in the 8th C. Some 
seals of atriklinai belong to the 11th C.; thereafter 
the fate of this functionary is unknown. 


LIT. Oikonomides, Listes 27—29. Seibt, Bleisiegel 145-47, 
183. ~ALK. 


228 | ATRIUM 





ATRIUM (aban, ai@psov) an open court directly 
preceding a church, usually enclosed by four co- 
lonnaded porticoes (a quadriporticus) or, in churches 
possessing a narthex, by the narthex and three 
porticoes. Occasionally, as in Constantine I’s church 
at Mamre, simple wall enclosures replaced the 
porticoes. The form of the atrium was probably 
derived from that of the peristyle courtyards that 
often preceded Roman buildings. The conven- 
tional term atrium was apparently derived from 
the Greek aithrion, meaning an area under the 
open sky, rather than from the Latin atrium, the 
main room of an Italic house. The open court is 
also called a louter, a term derived from the ritual 
ablutions of hands and feet at the kantharos, or 
fountain, located therein. The atrium was not a 
requisite feature of church architecture in any 
period, though it was common in many regions 
in the 4th—6th C. When present, atriums served 
not only as places for washing but also for the 
separation of catechumens and for starting en- 
trance ceremonies, as local customs dictated. 
Churches with atriums are extremely rare after 
the 6th C., perhaps because of changes in the 
entrance rite. The atrium reappears in the gth C. 
in two notable examples in Constantinople, the 
Pharos (?) in the Grear PaLace and the NEA 
EKKLESIA as well as in the 11th-C, Church of St. 
George of MANGANA. 





ir, C. Delvoye, “Etudes d'architecture paléochrétienne 
et byzantine,” Byzantion 32 (1962) 261—g1. Idem, RBK 
1:421-40. D. Pallas, “Archaiologika-leitourgika,” EEBS 20 
(1950) 279-89. C. Strube, Die westliche Eingangsseite der 
Kirchen von Konstantinopel in justinianischer Zeit (Wiesbaden 


1973). —M.]. 


ATROA (‘Atpoc), a plain at the foot of the An- 
atolian Mt. OLympos, 7 km southwest of Prousa, 
where several monastic communities existed in 
the oth and 1oth C. Its most famous monastery 
was St. Zacharias, founded ca.800 by the hermit 
Paul and his disciple, Peter of Atroa. It served as 
the mother house for several smaller nearby mon- 
asteries. Paul was the first hegoumenos of St. Za- 
charias; upon his death in 805 he was succeeded 
by Peter. During the Iconoclastic persecution of 
Leo V and Theophilos the monks temporarily 
disbanded, to live in scattered hermitages on Mt. 
Olympos. In 821, when Peter was criticized by a 
group of bishops and superiors, he was defended 


by THEODORE oF Stoupios, then in exile from 
Constantinople. After Peter’s death on 1 Jan. 837, 
he was succeeded by his brother Paul and then 
his nephew James. Paul transferred Peter’s re- 
mains from a chapel of St. Nicholas to a cave near 
St. Zacharias; many miracles reportedly occurred 
at this tomb. The monastery survived until at least 
the 10th C. when the future St. Loukas THE 
STYLITE spent three years there. 

sources. V. Laurent, La vie merveilleuse de Saint Pierre 
d’Atroa (d. 837) (Brussels 1956). Idem, La Vita Retractata et 
les miracles posthumes de Saint Pierre d’Atroa (Brussels 1958). 

LIT. B. Menthon, Une terre de légendes: L’Olympe de Bithy- 
nie (Paris 1935) 49f, 88—122. Janin, Églises centres 195f, he 
151, 184. ~A.M.T. 


ATTALEIA (ArrddAeta, mod. Antalya), city and 
bishopric of Pamphylia. Although inscriptions and 
remains indicate some prosperity in late antiquity, 
Attaleia became most important in the gth—11th 
C. as a naval and military center. A special force 
of MarpaiTes under a katepano attested in the 
ioth C. may have been installed in Attaleia as 
early as 689. Attaleia was apparently capital of 
the KisyRRHAIOTAI theme; it was certainly a main 
base of the Byz. navy and a major entrepôt for 
trade with Cyprus and the Levant. According to 
Inn Haw@at (10th C.), Attaleia was the center for 
collecting taxes on goods brought by trade or 
piracy from Muslim lands; the revenue from this 
amounted to 300 pounds of gold. He also states 
that the city was directly subject to the emperor 
and paid no taxes. Attaleia was a base of the 
imperial post that connected it with Constantino- 
ple in eight days by land and 15 by sea (Vasiliev, 
Byz. Arabes 2.2:414—-19). Powerful Roman walls, 
rebuilt and extended by Leo VI, kept Attaleia 
from capture by the Arabs; it maintained its an- 
cient size throughout the Byz. period. By the 11th 
C., Attaleia had a substantial Jewish community. 
Attaleia survived the turmoil after the battle of 
Mantzikert in 1071, remaining a center of impe- 
rial and Venetian trade, but by 1148 it was a Byz. 
island in territory overrun by the Turks. It was 
taken by the Italian Aldobrandini family ca.1204 
and by the Seljuks in 1207. Attaleia, a suffragan 
bishopric of Perge, was elevated to a metropolis 
by Alexios I. Attaleia preserves the circuit of its 
walls, much of them Byz., and a large Justinianic 
cruciform church with a central tower, later trans- 
formed into a basilica. 


tir. K. Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, 
vol. 1 (Vienna 1890) 7—32. M. Ballance, “Cumanın Cam‘ 
at Antalya,” BSR 23 (1955) 99—114. Ahrweiler, Mer 82f, 
108, 187. —C.F. 


ATTALEIATES, MICHAEL, historian; born 
Constantinople or Attaleia between ca.1020 and 
1030, died after 1085 (according to Gautier, after 
1079). A man of modest origins, Attaleiates 
(Arradevarns) had a brilliant career: a senator 
and judge, he had the title of proedros; he also 
acquired properties both in Constantinople and 
Rhaidestos which he described in his Diataxis of 
1077. Lemerle (infra 111) estimates Attaleiates’ 
properties at approximately 150 LITRAE. In the 
Diataxis Attaleiates incorporated the history of his 
acquisitions into his autobiography, established 
rules for the monastery of Christ Panoiktirmon 
in Constantinople and the XENODOCHEION (in 
Rhaidestos), which he founded, and listed icons 
and liturgical objects belonging to the monastery. 
In 1079/4 Attaleiates issued a legal textbook, in- 
troduced by a survey of the development of Ro- 
man law from the Republic to the BASILIKA. 

His major work is the History, encompassing the 
period 1034~79/80. Written primarily on the ba- 
sis of firsthand observations, the book is less per- 
sonal than the contemporary Chronography of 
PseLLos, although in some cases Attaleiates de- 
scribes his own role in events. The History is a 
rhetorical panegyric of NikepHoros lI: Atta- 
leiates not only ascribed to him conventional im- 
perial virtues, but emphasized his noble origin 
and military prowess—qualities absent from ear- 
lier Mirrors OF Princes. At the same time Atta- 
leiates demonstrated an unusual interest in the 
fate of cities and in urban movements and stressed 
the links between his hero and urban populations. 
According to E.Th. Tsolakis (Byzantina 2 [1970] 
258), the final version of the History was completed 
after Nikephoros’s deposition in 1081, and thus 
is not the work of a sycophant, but a sincere 
expression of political views. Less talented than 
Psellos in exposing the clash of human passions, 
Attaleiates sought the causes of events. Also an 
acute observer of nature, he described the ELE- 
PHANT and giraffe with naturalistic details. 




















ED. Historia, eds. W. Brunet de Presle, I. Bekker (Bonn 
1853). Fr. tr. of chs. 1-34 by H. Grégoire, Byzantion 28 
(1958) 325-62. P. Gautier, “La Diataxis de Michel Atta- 


ATTICISM | 229 


liate,” REB 39 (1981) 5-143, with Fr. tr. Zepos, Jus 7:409- 


97- 
tir. Hunger, Lit. 1:382~-8g, 2:465. Kazhdan-Franklin, 


Studies 23—86. Lemerle, Cing études 65—112. E.Th. Tsolakis, 
“Aus dem Leben des Michael Attaleiates (seine Heimat- 
stadt, sein Geburts- und Todesjahr),” BZ 58 (1965) 3-10. 

~ALK. 


ATTICA (Arrexy), the territory of ATHENS. In 
late antiquity there is evidence of considerable 
prosperity, and settlements existed at many places: 
early Christian basilicas have been discovered at 
Brauron, Glyphada, Anabyssos, Koubaras, and 
Kalamos, among other sites. The silver mines at 
Laurion and Thorikos were apparently worked 
again and caves, such as that at Bari, were inhab- 
ited. G. Fowden (JHS 108 [1988] 48-59) suggests 
that increased production of silver was only partly 
responsible for this phenomenon, since pagans 
may have fled to more remote areas, and moun- 
tain passes were utilized in response to the bar- 
barian danger. Along with the rest of the empire, 
Attica suffered from barbarian invasions in the 
late 6th through the 8th C.; although Attica cer- 
tainly remained in Byz. hands, most of the settle- 
ments seem to have been abandoned: none of the 
Early Christian basilicas survived into later times. 

Prosperity returned beginning in the oth C., 
and many churches date to the 11th through igth 
C.; most of these are simple cross-in-square struc- 
tures, such as the katholikon at KAISARIANE. Several 
fresco programs of the 13th C. survive (e.g., N. 
Coumbaraki-Pansélinou, Saint-Pierre de Kalyvia- 
Kouvara et la chapelle de la Vierge à Mérenta [Thes- 
salonike 1976]); the former has a portrait of Mi- 
chael CHoniaTes. Porto Raphti on the east coast 
seems to have developed as a major port. After 
the Fourth Crusade a series of towers was con- 
structed, linking Athens with the hinterland of 
Attica and the east coast. The soil of Attica is 
rather poor and, as in antiquiiy, ihe area special- 
ized in the production of honey, olives, and wine. 

ur. Ch. Bouras, A. Kaloyeropoulou, R. Andreadi, 
Churches of Attica? (Athens 1970). D. Pallas, “He Palaio- 


christianike Notioanatolike Attike,” in Praktika B’ Epistemo- 
nikes Synanteses ND Attikes (Kalyvia 1986) 43-80. -T.E.G. 


ATTICISM, the use in literature of an archaizing 
and artificial form of Greek, based on imitation 
of the language of Athenian writers of the 5th— 








IKOS 








230 AT 


4th C. B.c. Perpetuated by teachers of rhetoric 
and codified in Lexika and textbooks, Atticism 
dominated the literature of the Roman Empire. 
Addressing an educated pagan public, Christian 
apologists such as CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA nat- 
urally used the Atticizing literary Greek their 
readers knew and accepted. As Christianity spread 
among the urban upper classes, Atticizing Greek, 
rather than New Testament Korne, became the 
normal ecclesiastical language esp. of the 4th- and 
5th-C. church fathers. For the Byz., the works of 
these church fathers became models of language 
and style no less worthy of imitation than those 
of the writers of classical Athens. Every Byz. re- 
vival of education and culture was accompanied 
by a reassertion of Atticism, often marked more 
by the avoidance of features of the spoken lan- 
guage than by imitation of ancient models; Homer, 
Gregory of Nazianzos, and George of Pisidia were 
as “Attic” as Demosthenes. Throughout the Byz. 
period EDUCATION perpetuated and institutional- 
ized a distinction between spoken and literary 
Greek, which later widened and hindered the 
development of an expressive VERNACULAR liter- 
ature. Thus PHotios praised the simplicity of 
New Testament language but did not practice it 
himself. SYMEON METAPHRASTES rewrote in in- 
flated language and style some early saints’ Lives 
composed in a relatively popular language. Ni- 
kephoros CHoumnos declared that literary excel- 
lence required the imitation of classical and pa- 
tristic models, While rhetoric, history, and theology 
were the domain of Atticism, technical writing, 
ascetic writing, and chronicles such as those of 
John MaLaLas and THEOPHANES THE CONFESSOR 
were often couched in simpler language. 





LIT. W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, 5 vols. (Stuttgart 1887- 
89). E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. 
Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (Leipzig-Berlin 1915; rp. 
Stuttgart 1958) 251-99, 392-407, 512-72. Browning, 
“Language.” G. Bohlig, “Das Verhältnis von Volkssprache 
und Reinsprache im griechischen Mittelalter,” in Aus der 
byzantinistischen Arbeit der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 
ed. J. Irmscher (Berlin 1957) 1:1-13. Eadem, Untersuchun- 
gen zum rhetorischen Sprachgebrauch der Byzantiner (Berlin 
1956). C.A. Trypanis, Ho Attthismos kai to glossiko mas zetema 
(Athens 1984). —R.B. 


ATTIKOS, bishop of Constantinople (Mar. 406- 
10 Oct. 425); born Sebasteia in Armenia, died 
Constantinople. After taking the monastic habit 
at an early age, Attikos joined the PNEUMATOMA- 


cHOI; he recanted their teaching when he moved 
to Constantinople and became priest there. Poorly 
educated, he was not popular as a preacher (So- 
zom. HE 8.27.5—6). This was probably one of the 
reasons for his hatred of JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: At- 
tikos was Chrysostom’s major accuser at the Synod 
of the Oak (403), and even after Chrysostom’s 
death Attikos was slow and reluctant to restore 
his name to the diptychs. More politician than 
theologian, Attikos left little in writing (Barden- 
hewer, Lieratur 3:361f), but he did much to 
strengthen the position of the bishop of the cap- 
ital: Attikos was on good terms with the court, 
dedicated to Empress Putcuerta and her sisters 
a now-lost tract entitled On Faith and Virginity, and 
received from Theodosios II a personal privilege 
prohibiting the election of a bishop in the neigh- 
boring area without notifying the bishop of Con- 
stantinople (Sokr. HE 7:28). Attikos was active in 
fighting heresies (e.g., MESSALIANISM and PELA- 
GIANISM) and gained the support of Pope Celes- 
tine and approval of Pope Leo I. Cyril of Alex- 
andria was more cautious but found in Attikos an 
ally in his anti-Nestorianism (PG 77:97B). The 
traditional assertion, however, that Cyril quoted 
Attikos as using the term theotokes in a homily (PG 
76:1213BC) is wrong; the term appears in the 
next quotation, from a certain bishop Antiochos. 
ED. M. Brière, “Une homélie inédite d’Atticus, patri- 
arche de Constantinople (406-425), ROC 29 (1933-34) 
160-86. M. Geerard, A. Van Roey, “Les fragments grecs 
et syriaques de la lettre ‘Ad Eupsychium’ d’Atticus de 
Constantinople (406-—425)},” in Corona gratiarum. Miscellanea 
Eligio Dekkers, vol. 1 (Bruges—The Hague 1975) 69-81. 


LIT. RegPair, fasc. 1, nos. 35—48. C. Verschaffel, DTC 
1.2 (1937) 2220f. A. Bigelmair, LTRK 1:1016f. -A.K. 


ATTILA ('Arriàas), ruler (dominus in Jordanes) 
of the Huns (434-53). He was the son of Mun- 
diuch and successor of his uncle Rua (Rugila). At 
first he ruled with his older brother Bleda, but 
assassinated him in 445. The center of his realm 
was in the basin of the Tissa and Timoš rivers, 
tributaries of the Danube; various peoples such 
as the Gepids, Goths, and Alans were under his 
power. Attila led several attacks against the north- 
ern Balkans, urging the emperors in Constanti- 
nople to sign peace treaties. In 434/5 (B. Croke, 
GRBS 18 [1977] 355-58) or after Feb. 438, he 
concluded a favorable treaty at Horreum Margi 
calling for an annual tribute of 350 (or 700?) 
pounds of gold. In 442 he reached Thrace; the 


embassy of Nomos achieved a peace that lasted to 
447 (B. Croke, BS 42 [1981] 159-70). In 447 the 
Huns advanced as far as the Chersonese and 
Thermopylae; when peace was arranged the trib- 
ute was increased to 6,000 pounds of gold. When 
Attila seized the territory from Pannonia to No- 
vae, an embassy led by Anatolios and Nomos 
demanded and achieved the withdrawal of the 
Huns from this area. In 450 Marcian refused to 
pay tribute; surprisingly, however, Attila turned 
his attention westward, demanding marriage with 
Justa Grata Honoria (Valentinian III’s sister) and 
a substantial portion of the Western Empire. His 
invasion of Gaul ended in defeat at the CaTaLau- 
NIAN FIELDS in 451. The following year Attila 
attacked Italy, capturing Aquileia, Milan, and other 
cities. He retreated after negotiations with Pope 
Leo I, probably fearing an attack of the Eastern 
army. He died of a hemorrhage in his camp on 
the night of his wedding with a Gothic woman 
named Ildico. 

Jordanes describes Attila as a short man, broad- 
chested, with a large head, small eyes, and sparse 
beard. It has been debated whether Attila was 
only a cruel plunderer (O. Maenchen-Helfen, BZ 
61 [1968] 270-76) or the founder of a new bar- 
barian imperium, a forerunner of medieval steppe- 
states (G. Wirth, BZ 60 [1967] 41—69). 

uir. O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns (Berke- 
ley 1973). E-A. Thompson, A History of Attila and the Huns 


(Oxford 1948). Idem, “The Foreign Policies of Theodosius 
If and Marcian,” Hermathena 76 (1950) 58—75. = -T-.E.G. 


ATUMANDO, SIMON, Greek humanist and Cath- 
olic prelate; born Constantinople early 14th C., 
died between 1383 and 1387. Born to an Ortho- 
dox Greek mother and Turkish father, his name, 
Atumano ('Arovuávos), is probably derived from 
“Ottoman.” He became a monk at the Stoudios 
monastery and in 1348 was named as successor 
to BarLaAM in the see of Gerace (Calabria). He 
converted to Catholicism and was Latin arch- 
bishop of Thebes from 1366 until his death. He 
made periodic trips to the West and taught Greek 
at the papal court in Avignon. After the conquest 
of Thebes by the NAVARRESE COMPANY in 1379, 
Atumano retired to Rome, where he taught Greek, 
Latin, and Hebrew. 

His knowledge of Hebrew, unusual at the time, 
enabled him to prepare a trilingual version of the 
Old Testament dedicated to Pope Urban VI (1378- 














AUDIENCE | 231 








8g). He also translated into Latin Plutarch’s On 
the Control of Anger, composed a poem on JOHN 
VI KANTAKOUZENOS, and wrote scholia on Euri- 
pides. 

tir. G. Fedalto, Simone Atumano monaco di Studio, arctves- 
covo latino di Tebe, secolo XIV (Brescia 1968). G. Mercati, Se 
la versione dall ebraico del Codice veneto greco VII sia di Simone 
Alumano, arcivescovo di Tebe (Rome 1916). K-M. Setton, “The 
Archbishop Simon Atumano and the Fall of Thebes to the 
Navarrese in 1379,” BNJbb 18 (1945-9/60) 105-22. PLP, 
no.1648. -A.M.T. 


AUDIENCE (doy, mpoéňevois, éčiuov), a cer- 
emonial encounter between the EMPEROR and oth- 
ers. Its staging and locale varied over time and 
according to participants, but always used splen- 
did setting and ceremony to maximize the impact 
of the emperor’s self-manifestation. De ceremoniis 
suggests three main kinds of public audiences: 
relatively low-key daily or Sunday audiences (De 
cer., bk.2, chs. 1—2, ed. Reiske 518—25); an audi- 
ence of the factions (De cer., bk.1., chs. 62—64, 66, 
ed. Vogt 2:88—101, 1905—09); and, the most gran- 
diose, audiences of foreign ambassadors (e.g., De 
cer., bk.1, ch.8g; bk.2, ch.15, ed. Reiske 404.1— 
408.4, 566-98). Typically, the emperor sat on a 
raised throne that was surmounted by a baldachin 
(kiborion, kamelaukion) and separated from the rest 
of the room by a curtain (velum, velon, kortinaz); 
porphyry disks (emphaloz) in the floor might guide 
participants’ movements. Silence reigned during 
the audience and an official often spoke for the 
emperor. Participants were admitted in series, 
called vela, according to precedence, and per- 
formed PROSKYNESIS as they approached the em- 
peror through the midst of AUTOMATA and ranks 
of guards and officials chanting acclamations; their 
hands were covered to prevent profanation of the 
emperor. 

Despite rigid etiquette, the audience ceremonial 
was sometimes disturbed (e.g., Vita Euthym. 107.22— 
26), sometimes modified as an imperiali favor (e.g., 
XII panegyrici 3 (11) 28.1-4, ed. R.A.B. Mynors 
[Oxford 1964] 141.9-22). Suppliants sought pri- 
vate audiences, esp. with the empress. The audi- 
ence served as a framework for other ceremonies, 
such as promotions (e.g., De cer., bk.1, chs. 43— 
59, ed. Vogt 2:26-83) or reconciliation with de- 
fectors (De cer., bk.2, ch.37, ed. Reiske, 634f). 
Audiences granted by Byz. officials and elite fol- 
lowed a similar but less splendid pattern; they 
presumably explain the numerous audience rooms 





232 | AUGOUSTALIOS 


identified by archaeologists in elite residences of 
the qth—6th C. 

LIT. D.F. Beljaev, “EZednevnye i voskresnye priemy vi- 
zantijskich carej i prazdničnye vychody ich v chram sv. Sofii 
v IX-X v.,” Byzantina 2 (St. Petersburg 1893) 1-308. Trei- 
tinger, Kaiseridee 52—101. -M.McC. 


AUGOUSTALIOS (qœùbyovoráħos, Lat. augus- 
talis), from the end half of the 4th C. the title of 
the prefect of Egypt (K.J. Neumann, RE 2 [1896] 
2361). The term reappears at the end of the 10th 
C. but its meaning is unclear; in the TAKTIKON of 
Escurial (of 971-75) the title is placed between 
the epi ton deeseon and thesmophylax. A letter of 
Nikephoros Ouranos is addressed “To the proto- 
spatharios Pothos, the former augoustalios” (Dar- 
rouzés, Epistoliers 222, no.11). A late 12th-C. (?) 
text is directed to a certain Katasampas as “diktator 
and archistrategos of our school of fish and of other 
sea animals, the doux and augoustalios” (S. Lam- 
pros, NE 7 [1910] 356.25-27), although the use 
of the term here may be ironic. Oikonomides 
suggests that the Latin augustalis-augoustalios could 
be translated into Greek as SEBASTOPHOROS. 


ur. Oikonomides, Listes 309. Ahrweiler, “Administra- 
tion” 52, n.6. -A.K. 


AUGUSTA. See EMPRESS. 


AUGUSTAION, enclosed open space in Constan- 
tinople, situated south of Hacia Sopuia. Probably 
carved out of a preexisting agora called the TE- 
TRASTOON, the Augustaion is ascribed to Constan- 
tine I, who is said to have placed in it a statue of 
his mother Helena on a column (Hesychius in 
Preger, Scriptores 17). Remodeled in 459 (Chron. 
Pasch. 593.4) and again by Justinian I, the Au- 
gustaion served not as a public forum but as a 
courtyard of restricted access. It survived as an 
open space until the end of the empire. 

Monuments. Several sculptural and architec- 
tural monuments were prominent features of the 
Augustaion. 

1. Justinian’s column was surmounted by his 
equestrian statue. The shaft of the column was of 
brick, reveted with brass plaques. The bronze 
statue appears to have been remodeled from one 
of Theodosios I or IH. It represented the emperor 
wearing a TOUPHA, raising his right arm and hold- 
ing an orb in his left hand (Prokopios, Buildings 


1:2.11-12). The statue, delineated in a isth-C. 
drawing emanating from the circle of Cyriacus 
or ANCONA and now at the University Library, 
Budapest, was removed by Mehmed II. P. Gyllius 
(1544-50) saw and measured parts of it in the 
grounds of the Seraglio before they were melted 
down (De tepographia Constantinopoleos [Lyons 1561; 
rp. Athens 1967] bk.2, ch.17). The column itself 
was toppled ca.1515. 

2. Statues of three barbarian kings offering trib- 
ute stood in front of Justinian’s column and prob- 
ably formed part of the same triumphal ensemble. 
These are known only from the accounts of Rus- 
sian pilgrims (Majeska, Russian Travelers 134-37, 
184f, 240). 

3. The Senate House was situated on the east 
side of the Augustaion. Built by either Constan- 
tine I or Julian, damaged by fire in 404, and 
burnt down in 532, it was rebuilt by Justinian I 
with a porch of six huge marble columns (Pro- 
kopios, Buildings 1:10.6—9). (See SENATE House.) 

uit. Guilland, Topographie 2:40-54. Mango, Brazen House 
42-47, 56-60, 174-79. P.W. Lehmann, “Theodosius or 


Justinian?” ArtB 41 (1959) 39-57, rev. C. Mango, ibid., 
351-58. ~C.M. 


AUGUSTINE, more fully Aurelius Augustinus, 
Latin theologian, bishop of Hippo Regius in Af- 
rica (from ca.396), and saint; born Tagaste, Nu- 
midia, 13 Nov. 354, died Hippo 28 Aug. 430. The 
son of a Christian mother and a pagan father, 
Augustine experienced a remarkable spiritual od- 
yssey before converting to Christianity in 387. His 
major works were the Confesstons, a sort of auto- 
biography, and the City of God (De ctvitate Det), 
contemplations on human conditions and goals, 
written after the sack of Rome by ALARIC in 410. 
The desire for SALVATION is at the center of Au- 
gustine’s theology. Even though he wrote on sub- 
jects important in Byz. theology (MANICHAEANISM, 
ARIANISM), his major concerns were in other di- 
rections: for him the ideas of SIN, FREE WILL (in 
his polemics against PELAGIANISM), and REDEMP- 
TION stood in the forefront, while the Eastern 
church was involved in the Trinitarian and Chris- 
tological controversies. Augustine’s command of 
Greek was shaky, but he probably knew some 
works of contemporary Greek theologians, for 
example, Theodore of Mopsuestia (J. McWilliam 
Dewart, Augustinian Studies 10 [1979] 113-32): 
His anti-Pelagian stand was known in the East, 


but in 415 Palestinian bishops (at the synods of 
Jerusalem and Diospolis) disapproved of his views. 

Certain of Augustine’s statements were in- 
cluded in Byz. FLORILEGIA, and it is possible that 
Maximos the Confessor used him, without, how- 
ever, mentioning his name (G.C. Berthold, SiP 
17.1 [1982] 14~17). Photios refers to Augustine, 
but the patriarch’s knowledge of him was vague. 
Only in the 13th—14th C. did interest in Augus- 
tine arise, when Maximos PLANouDES, the Ky- 
pONES brothers, and Manuel KaLekas translated 
and studied his authentic and spurious works. 

ep, H. Hunger, Prochoros Kydones, Übersetzung von acht 
Briefen des Hl. Augustinus (Vienna 1984). 

uit. P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley 1967). M. 
Rackl, “Die griechische Augustinus-Ubersetzungen,” in 
Miscellania F. Ehrle, vol. 1 (Rome 1924) 1-38. B. Altaner, 
“Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Photius,” 
Hist/o 71 (1952) 37-76. D.Z. Niketas, “He parousia tou 
Augoustinou sten Anatolike Ekklesia,” Kleronomia 14 (1982) 
4-26. E. Pagels, “The Politics of Paradise: Augustine’s 
Exegesis of Genesis 1—3 versus that of John Chrysostom,” 
HTAR 78 (1985) 67—99. V. Laurent, “Une effigie inédite 
de Saint Augustin sur le sceau du duc byzantin de Numidie 
Pierre,” Cahiers de Byrsa 2 (1952) 87-93. —A.K., T.E.G, 


AURELIUS VICTOR, SEXTUS, Latin historian; 
born Africa ca.g20, died after 389. By his own 
account Aurelius was a man of poor rural stock 
who advanced by his literary skill. He was suffi- 
ciently in the public eye (perhaps a lawyer or civil 
servant) to catch the attention of JULIAN when 
that emperor captured Sirmium in 361, and Ju- 
lian appointed him governor of Pannonia Se- 
cunda. Perhaps briefly in eclipse after Julian’s 
death, he came back as iudex sacrarum cognitionum 
under Theodosios I, who made him urban prefect 
of Rome in 389. AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, per- 
haps a friend, commends (21.10.6) his sobriety 
(more political than alcoholic). 

Aurelius wrote a Breviary of Roman history from 
Augustus to the year 360, generally known as the 
Caesares or Liber de Caesaribus. Biographical in 
approach, it is conventional in opinions, moraliz- 
ing in tone, and stylistically an uneasy amalgam 
of Saltustian brevity and the bureaucratese of his 
own age. Apparently a pagan, he was sensibly 
reticent on contemporary religious issues. His book 
may have enjoyed some currency into the 6th C., 
being mentioned by Jonn Lypos (De magistratibus 
3.7), albeit the latter’s reference to it as a history 
of the civil wars suggests no deep knowledge. 





AUSTRIA 233 


Aurelius’s work is to be distinguished from the 
Epitome de Caesaribus, which ends in 395. 

ep. Liber de Caesaribus, ed. F. Pichimayr, R. Gruendel 
(Leipzig 1966). Livre des Césars, ed. P. Dufraigne (Paris 
1975), with Fr. tr. 

LIT. H.W. Bird, Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical 
Study (Liverpool 1984). Den Boer, Historians 19-113. R.J. 
Penella, “A Lowly Born Historian of the Late Roman 
Empire: Some Observations on Aurelius Victor and his De 
Caesaribus,” Thought 55 (1980) 122-31. C.G. Starr, “Aure- 
lius Victor: Historian of Empire,” AHR 61 (1955—56) Lia 
86. 


AUSTRIA, from 976 an eastern borderland, or 
Ostmark, of the German kingdom. In 1148, as part 
of an effort to maintain alliance with Conran III, 
Manuel I married his niece Theodora to Henry 
II of Babenberg (1141—77), Conrad’s half-brother 
and the first duke of Austria. Walter von der 
Vogelweide praised her wedding. Theodora died 
in Vienna on 3 Jan. 1183. Two more Austrian 
dukes took Byz. princesses as their wives: Leopold 
VI (1198—1230) married Theodora, granddaugh- 
ter of Alexios II] Angelos, and the last Baben- 
berg, Frederick II (1230-46), married Sophia, 
daughter of Theodore I Laskaris. 

Rudolf IV of Habsburg was the first Austrian 
duke to be crowned Roman emperor (as Rudolf 
I, in 1273), but it was only later, with Frederick 
V Habsburg (as Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick 
II, 1443—93), that imperial ideology was clearly 
linked with Austria (Austriae est imperare orbi unt- 
verso), a Claim enhanced by the fall of Constanti- 
nople in 1453, making Frederick the sole em- 
peror. The Austrian Habsburgs’ claim to the Byz. 
imperial legacy was manifest in Frederick’s wife, 
Eleanor, who offered to change her name to He- 
len and tried unsuccessfully to have her son Max- 
imilian I named Constantine. The search for im- 
perial legitimacy continued into the 15th C. with 
the emergence of legends linking the Habsburgs 
with the family of Julius Caesar and later with the 
Merovingians and ancient Trojans. The latter the- 
ory of descent contributed to an interest in Greek 
antiquity and ultimately to the cultural and polit- 
ical inheritance of Byz. 

ur. K.J. Heilig, “Byzantinische Einflüsse auf Österreich 
im XII. und XIII. Jahrhundert,” Reichspost (Vienna), no.g11, 
11 Nov. 1935, 17f. Idem, “Ostrom und das Deutsche Reich 
um die Mitte des 12. Jahrhundert,” in T. Meyer, Kazsertum 
und Herzogsgewalt im Zeilalter Friedrich I. (Leipzig 1944; new 


ed. 1973) 1-272. P. Enepekides, “Byzantinische Prinzessin- 
nen im Hause der Babenberger und die byzantinischen 


234 | AUTHOR 


Einflüsse in den österreichischen Ländern des 12. und 13. 
Jahrhunderts,” g CEB, vol. 2 (Thessalonike 1956) 368-74. 
A. Wandruszka, The House of Hapsburg (London 1964) 14- 
24. ~R.B.H. 


AUTHOR. The self-perception of the Byz. au- 
thor ranged from cloaking himself in complete 
anonymity to devoting profound attention to his 
own personality, the difference being determined 
by both genre and epoch. The author does not 
appear at all in such genres as rhetorical exercises, 
romance, and epic, whereas historiography, epis- 
tolography, poetry, epideictic oratory, and even 
sermons permitted more opportunity for overt 
self-expression. In hagiography, the author some- 
times presents himself through the topos of Mop- 
ESTY; at other times he appears as the hero’s 
relative or disciple. The author-disciple assumes 
an esp. elaborate role in the vita of BASIL THE 
YOUNGER; in some saints’ lives, however, like that 
of ANDREW THE FooL, the author-disciple is a 
fictitious figure introduced to give the impression 
of a truthful and authoritative account. 

In the late Roman period the author often 
revealed himself, at least in the PROOIMION, or in 
autobiographical pieces (cf. GREGORY OF NAZIAN- 
zos), but in the 7th—gth C. the trend toward 
anonymity prevailed. In the 11th-15th C. the 
individuality of the author became more appar- 
ent: epistolography flourished, and certain his- 
torical works (Psellos, Niketas Choniates, John 
Kantakouzenos) came close to the genre of 
AUTOBIOGRAPHY; in poetry, personal references 
are evident in Prodromos and Tzetzes, and some 
centuries later in Sachlikes. In poetry, as in ha- 
giography, real personality is often mixed with 
cLicnks: thus the topos of the author’s impris- 
onment (e.g., Glykas, Della Porta) or poverty is 
frequent. The “ego” of the verses of Ptochopro- 
dromos (a young monk, a henpecked husband) is 
obviously different from that of the actual author. 
The author’s self-expression takes various forms, 
from direct defense of his views (as in Gregoras) 
to a clever apology disguised as objectivity and 
sincerity (Kantakouzenos). 

uit. A. Kazhdan, “Der Mensch in der byzantinischen 
Literatur,” JOB 28 (197g) 11-13. Sevéenko, Soc. & Intell., 
pt-I (1961), 169-86. I. Čičurov, “K probleme avtorskogo 
samosoznanija vizantyskich istorikov IV-IX vy.,” Antiénost’ 
i Vizantija (Moscow 1975) 203-17. -A.K. 

















AUTOBIOGRAPHY as a genre reached its peak 
in the 4th and 5th C. Its representatives both 
secular (LiBanios, SyNnEsIos) and ecclesiastical 
(GREGORY oF Nazianzos) combined conventional 
rhetoric and playful exercises with a trend toward 
revelation of the psyche of the AUTHOR, his suf- 
ferings, and his search for the righteous path; the 
latter tendency toward sincere confession found 
an extreme expression in AUGUSTINE. Autobiog- 
raphy could be used (e.g., by NesTorios) for the 
purpose of self-defense. After this early peak, 
autobiography disappeared for a long period. It 
was revived in the 11th C. in the guise of histo- 
riography or even of extraliterary writing: Chris- 
todoulos of Patmos and Attaleiates prefaced their 
typika with autobiographical introductions. Atta- 
leiates also dedicated some passages of his History 
to his own role; PseLtos was even more self- 
oriented and made himself play a Jeading role in 
the history of his time as described in his memoirs. 
As a separate genre autobiography was produced 
by Nikephoros BasiLaxes and further developed 
in the 13th and 14th C. by Nikephoros BLEM- 
MYDES, GREGORY lI or Cyprus, Theodore METO- 
CHITES, Demetrios Kypones, etc. (I. Ševčenko in 
La civiltà bizantina del XI al XV secolo [Rome 1982] 
116). MicHareL VIII Patarotocos prefaced a ty- 
pikon with his autobiography. The most sophisti- 
cated Byz. memoirs, verging on autobiography, 
were those of JOHN VI KANTAKOUZENOs: written 
in the third person, they are an apology for his 
political failure, cloaked in the disguise of objec- 
tivity and sincerity. Even though autobiographies 
may include some hagiographical elements (e.g., 
in Blemmydes), they have a different function, 
emphasizing not the modesty of the author-hero, 
but his talent, knowledge, and political signifi- 
cance at the court. 





uit. Hunger, Lit. 1:165—70. G. Misch, Geschichte der Bio- 
graphie, vol. 1.2 (Bern 1950) 551-704; 3.2 (Frankfurt am 
Main 1962) 749-903. J. Irmscher, “Autobiographien in 
der byzantinischen Literatur,” Studia byzantina 2 (Berlin 
1973) 3-11. N. Austin, “Autobiography and History: Some 
Later Roman Historians and their Veracity,” in Croke- 
Emmett, Historians 54—65. -A.K. 


AUTOCEPHALOUS (aùrokéġaħos), the term 
used in Byz. canon law and in the NOTITIAE 
EPISCOPATUUM to designate each diocese possess- 
ing the right to elect its own primate or kephale, 


“head.” These dioceses were completely self-gov- 
erning, that 1s, independent of the five ancient 
PATRIARCHATES. The practice and the term itself 
were already established by the 6th C. (cf. THEO- 
DORE LECTOR 121.21). As BALSAMON emphasizes, 
before the patriarchal centralization of the 4th C. 
all provincial primates Or METROPOLITANS were, 
in fact, autocephalous and were ordained by their 
own synods (PG 137:317D). Autocephaly was de- 
termined either by an ecumenical council (431, 
Cyprus), imperial decision (10th C., Bulgaria) or, 
as in the case of Georgia, by a disposition of the 
mother-church in the 8th C. (Balsamon, PG 
137:320A). The autocephalic churches of Cyprus 
and Bulgaria followed the five patriarchates in 
order of rank (cf. Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae 
Graecae Episcopatuum. Accedunt Nili Doxapatrit No- 
titia Patriarchatuum et Locorum Nomina Immutata, 
ed. G. Parthey [Berlin 1866] 284-86). The pri- 
mate usually carried the title of metropolitan, 
ARCHBISHOP, or, occasionally, patriarch. 

Apart from its primary meaning, the term was 
also used to define a distinct group of bishops 
without suffragans (“autocephalous archbishops”) 
whose immediate superior was the patriarch (Lau- 
rent, Corpus 5.1, nos. 817—70). These bishops were 
not subject to any metropolitan, although in terms 
of precedence they followed the metropolitans. 

tit. A.D. Kyriakos, “Das System der autokephalen, 
selbständigen orthodoxen Kirchen,” Revue internationale de 
théologie 10 (1902) gg—115, 273-86. F. Heiler, Urkirche und 


Osthirche (Munich 1937) 153-78. Laurent, Corpus 5.2, nos. 
1478—1510. —A.P. 


AUTOKRATOR (aùrokpárwp), official Greek 
translation of imperator, or emperor, until 629; 
used alongside BasiLeus and other titles there- 
after. The Greek term autokrator lacked the Latin’s 
military connotations, emphasizing rather auton- 
omous power and monarchy. Christians had used 
the Roman monarchy to argue monotheism’s su- 
periority over polytheism, but after Constantine 
Is conversion monotheism buttressed the legiti- 
macy of monarchy, which was already advocated 
by Hellenistic political philosophy and justified by 
analogies with the animal kingdom, for example, 
the “king” bee (F. Dvornik, Early Christian and 
Byzantine Political Philosophy, vol. 2 [Washington 
1966] 611—723). The title autokrator appears on 
coins from 912, in CHRYSOBULLS from the 11th 


AUTOREIANOS | 235 


C., and in contemporary legends to miniature 
paintings depicting emperors. Outside of intitu- 
lationes and ACCLAMATIONS, the term developed a 
specialized meaning no later than the early gth C. 
that, like megas basileus (cf. P. Schreiner, Byzantina 
3 [1971] 173-92), distinguished the main em- 
peror from co-emperors. Thus, autokratoria re- 
ferred to the anniversary ceremonies of an em- 
peror’s assumption of actual power as opposed to 
his CORONATION (e.g., Oikonomides, Listes 225.10— 
11; De cer., bk.2, ch.33, ed. Reiske 632.4—11). The 
Palaiologoi extended the use of the title to mark 
one of several co-emperors as designated heir (cf. 
pseudo-Kod. 252.24—253.3). 


Lit. Délger, Diplomatik 102-51. ~M.McC, 


AUTOMATA, devices powered by compressed 
air from bellows or by water, were displayed in 
the Macnaura and testified to in the 10th C. by 
Constantine VII and Liutprand of Cremona. Their 
existence in the gth C. is surrounded with leg- 
ends: they are said to have been constructed dur- 
ing the reign of Theophilos (Glykas names Leo 
THE MATHEMATICIAN as their engineer) and then 
destroyed by Michael II, who was in need of 
money (presumably they were melted down to 
extract their precious metals). The Magnaura au- 
tomata included the throne of Solomon, which 
could be lifted high in the air; mechanical singing 
birds, perched in a gold tree, that fluttered their 
wings; and roaring golden lions. Writers in CHINA 
report on a gold human figure that marked the 
hours by striking BELLS. Mechanical singing birds 
are also mentioned in romances (e.g., the Achil- 
leis). The origin of the automata is unclear: Gra- 
bar (Fin Ant. 1:286) argued that the machines at 
Theophilos’s court were imported from Baghdad, 
but related contrivances, such as ORGANS and GREEK 
FIRE, suggest that automata may have been native 
inventions based ultimately on the work of Heron 
of Alexandria. 





tir. R. Hammerstein, Macht und Klang (Bern 1986) 43- 
58. G. Brett, “The Automata in the Byzantine “Throne of 
Solomon, ” Speculum 29 (1954) 477-87- -A.C., A.K. 


AUTOREIANOS (Avrwpsiavós, fem. “Avra- 
pevavn), a family of state and church officials. 
The etymology of the name is unclear; it may be 
of Western origin. Autoreianoi are known from 


236 AUTOURGION 


the 1080s onward as judges (Michael in 1094 and 
perhaps 1082—see Gautier, “Blachernes” 258; John 
in 1196—~see Lavra 1, nos. 67.2, 68.2) and notaries 
(Theodosios in 1088—Patmou Engrapha 1, no. 
48A.205). One family member became patriarch 
as MICHAEL IV, another as ARSENIOS. Circa 1302— 
o7 Phokas Autoreianos, grammatikos, served as doux 
of Thrakesion (Ahrweiler, “Smyrne” 151-54). 
They were apparently a family of intellectuals: 
Theodosios Autoreianos (mid-12th C.) corre- 
sponded with John Tzerzes; the future patriarch 
Michael was a friend of EusraTHios OF THESSA- 
LONIKE and Michael CHonrates; and some Auto- 
reianoi were among the correspondents of Nike- 
phoros CHoumnos and Maximos PLANOUDES. 


LIT. PLP, nos. 1691—96. —A.K. 


AUTOURGION (avrovpyvor, lit. “operated with- 
out assistance”), a property producing maximum 
revenue, euprosodon (Zonaras in Rhailes-Potles, 
Syntagma 2:593.19—20). Balsamon (ibid. 595.4—-7) 
includes in this category salt pans, olive groves, 
vineyards, meadowland, water mills, brickyards, 
etc. The term is infrequent in later acts, in which 
it also refers to vineyards, vivaria, aulakia (canals? 
cf. Lavra 2, no.104.177-79), and water mills 
(no.112.24). Autourgia are usually contrasted with 
peasants’ allotments and juxtaposed with such items 
of income as fairs, taxes, tolls, etc. (Zepos, Jus 
1:382.22—25). Such capital-intensive assets could 
be exploited as DEMESNE property and thus did 
not need to be rented out to peasants; they were 
conceived as the most valuable part of the estate. 
The term autourgion was also applied to any prop- 
erty that earned a profit. 

















LIT. N. Svoronos, “Les privilèges de église a époque 
des Comnénes,” TM 1 (1965) 329, n.22. Dölger, Beiträge 
151, F.I. Uspenskij, “Mnenija i postanovlenija konstanti- 
nopoľskich pomestnych soborov,” IRAIK 5 (1900) 42—45. 
N.B. Tomadakes, “Byzantine engeios horologia,” Athena 75 


(1974—75) 69—72. —M.B. 


AUXENTIOS (Aùgévros), saint; born Syria ca.420, 
died Bithynia 14 Feb. ca.470. He came to Con- 
stantinople during the reign of Theodosios 11 and 
served as a soldier of the fourth schola. Circa 442 
he resigned and left for Mt. Oxeia to live in 
solitude. His Life states that Emp. Marcian invited 
Auxentios to the Council of Chalcedon in 451, 
but the council acts do not mention him. During 
his second stay in Constantinople, Auxentios was 


closely connected with the RouPHINIANAI monas- 
tery. Suspected of disagreeing with the decisions 
of the Council of Chalcedon, he cleared himself 
before Marcian. He left Constantinople again, for 
a cave on Mt. Skopa in Bithynia, where he lived 
as a hermit. A monastery that took the Saint's 
name was later founded on this mountain (see 
AUXENTIOS, Mount). A noble lady Eleuthera (Ste- 
phanis in Psellos), the chambermaid of Empress 
PULCHERIA, urged Auxentios to support the foun- 
dation of a nunnery in a nearby proasteion, Gyreta; 
Auxentios was buried in its chapel. Auxentios ts 
said to have compiled “pleasant and useful tro- 
paria of two or three stanzas with plain and artless 
melody” (PG 114:1416A). His Life is known from 
the collection of SYMEON METAPHRASTES; this late 
version was reworked by PsELLos, who empha- 
sized Auxentios’s role as imperial councilor and 
courageous market reformer and noted that he 
suffered from depression; Psellos also ascribed to 
Auxentios some features of his own biography (A. 
Kazhdan, Byzantion 53 [1983] 546-56). 

Representation in Art. In the MENOLOGION OF 
Basix I (p.399), Auxentios appears as an orant 
monk; in the THEODORE PsaLTER (fols. 38v, g6v) 
he appears once as a bishop bearing witness be- 
fore Christ to the defeat of two armed men by an 
angel and once as a monk bearing witness to the 
defeat of two demons. 

SOURCES. PG 114:1977-1436. P.-P. Joannou, Démonolo- 
gie populaire—démonologie critique au XI* siecle (Wiesbaden 
1971) 64-192. Vie de st. Auxence, ed. L. Clugnet [= BHO 


6] (Paris 1904) 3-14. 


LIT. BHG 199-203¢. -A.K.-, N.P.Š. 


AUXENTIOS, MOUNT, a HOLY MOUNTAIN dot- 
ted with hermitages and monasteries, present-day 
Kayışdağ, located near Constantinople, 12 km 
southeast of Chalcedon. Called Skopa or Skopos 
in antiquity, the mountain took its name from the 
5th-C. Syrian St. AuxENtTiIos, who spent the last 
20 years of his life in a cave near the summit. 
Both men and women flocked to the mountain to 
live as solitaries under Auxentios’s spiritual lead- 
ership. Circa 460 a certain Eleuthera built the 
convent of Trichinarea (sometimes called Trichi- 
naraiai) at the base of the mountain for 70 of 
these pious women. It survived until at least the 
end of the 12th C. 

No male monastery was built until the 8th C., 
when STEPHEN THE YOUNGER constructed a com- 


plex for about 20 monks. Shortly thereafter he 
and his companions were exiled and the monas- 
tery destroyed during the Iconoclastic persecution 
of Constantine V. Sources of the 11th—1gth C. 
report a number of monasteries under different 
names, including St. Stephen, Holy Apostles, the 
Archangel Michael, and the Holy Five (five Ar- 
menian martyrs of the early 4th C. ), where Max- 
imos PLANOUDES was hegoumenos. Some of these 
names may refer to the same institution, restored 
with a new dedication. The monastery of the 
Archangel Michael was renovated by Michael VIII, 
who composed a typikon limiting the number of 
monks to 40. 

source. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie 1:769-94. 

LIT. L. Clugnet, J. Pargoire, Vie de saint Auxence: Mont 


Saint-Auxence (Paris 1904). Janin, Eglises centres 43—50. Beck, 
Kirche 208, 687, 692, 696. ~A.M.T. 


AUXILIARY DISCIPLINES (from Lat. auxilium, 
“help, assistance”), designation of certain branches 
of knowledge that apply general and concrete 
approaches (methodology and technique) to the 
analysis (primarily the external analysis) of histor- 
ical sources. Traditionally, auxiliary disciplines in- 
clude PALAEOGRAPHY, EPIGRAPHY, PAPYROLOGY, 
DIPLOMATICS, NUMISMATICS, SIGILLOGRAPHY, ME- 
TROLOGY, PROSOPOGRAPHY, CHRONOLOGY, geneal- 
ogy, historical geography, TOPONYMICS, and her- 
aldry. Source analysis (Germ. Quellenkunde} can 
also be described as an auxiliary discipline. The 
analysis of archaeological objects, elaborated in 
recent decades, requires the application of various 
scientific disciplines, such as geology, palaeobo- 
tany and palaecozoology, archaeometry, aerial 
photography, dendrochronology, physics, etc. 
Statistics employed for analysis of mass data has 
emerged as an auxiliary discipline as well. All of 
these disciplines have methods of their own, but 
their common goal is to provide the scholar with 
means of control and categorization of source 
material, of discarding false “information,” of 
placing historical events within the framework of 
space and time. From the use of auxiliary disci- 
plines we must distinguish the application of in- 
terdisciplinary methodology, for example, the uti- 
lization of literary and archaeological evidence to 
resolve common problems. 

LIT. L.F. Genicot, Introduction aux sciences auxiliaires tra- 


ditionnelles de l'histoire de lart (Louvain-la-Neuve 1984). 
-T.E.G., A.K. 


AVARS | 237 


AVARS ("ABapot), a nomadic people that ap- 
peared in the mid-6th C. in the steppe north of 
the Black Sea. Their previous history can be es- 
tablished only hypothetically, on the basis of iden- 
tifications in Chinese and Byz. sources. Their lan- 
guage is thought to be Altaic. 

The first Avar embassy appeared in Constanti- 
nople in 558. Justinian I concluded an alliance 
with the Avars and used them to alleviate the 
pressure of Pontic barbarians on the Byz. frontier. 
The Avars were able to control both COTRIGURS 
and AnNTAF, but they then invaded ScyTHta MI- 
NOR and occupied Pannonia after having de- 
stroyed the Geprps. The growth of Avar power 
created frictions in their relations with Byz.; un- 
der the command of Baran, the Avars, acting in 
alliance with the Slavs, conquered a part of the 
northern Balkans, including Sirmrum (582). The 
emperor Maurice’s attempts to stop the Avars 
were unsuccessful; in 626 their offensive reached 
its peak when, together with the Persians, they 
besieged Constantinople. Thereafter, the first signs 
of disintegration of the Avar confederation (kha- 
ganate) became visible: the Croatians and Serbs 
joined Emp. Herakleios in his struggle against the 
Avars and ca.635 Kuvrat acquired independence 
from the Avars. We know nothing about the Avars 
from 680 to 780. At the end of the 8th C., they 
reappeared in the West but were defeated by 
Charlemagne. In 805 Krum subjugated a group 
of Avars; survivors of the group were mentioned 
for the last time ca.g5o. 

The Avars were mounted warriors and used 
the iron STIRRUP, saber, long lance, and reflex- 
bow that gave them tactical advantages in battle. 
Excavated Avar hoards contain luxurious objects 
of Byz. origin as well as Avar arms and complex 
belt sets that must have indicated the social status 
of their owners. Familiarity of the Avars with the 
forms of Byz. metalwork and jewelry is suggested 
by the objects in the MALAjA PERESCEPINA and 
other treasures. By the end of the 7th C. wealthy 
tombs disappear; luxurious booty is replaced by 
ordinary bronze and bone objects. The Avars 
became more sedentary, but they remained pa- 
gan. 


LIT. S. Szadeczky-Kardoss, Avarica (Szeged 1986). A. 
Kollautz, H. Miyakawa, Geschichte und Kultur eines välker- 
wanderungszeitlichen Nomadenvotkes, vols. 1—2 (Klagenfurt 
1970). A. Avenarius, Die Awaren in Europa (Bratislava 1974). 
Idem, “Die Konsolidierung des Awarenkhaganates und 


238 | AVLON 


Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert,” Byzantina 13.2 (1985-86) 101g- 
32. F. Daim, “The Avars,” Archaeology 37.2 (1984) 33-99. 
. Pohl, Die Awaren (Munich 1988). -A.K., A.C. 


AVLON (Aùwnv, lit. “a hollow between hills,” Ital. 
Valona), a harbor in Epiros mentioned in the 
Tabula Peutingeriana and the Cosmographer of 
Ravenna. It was known during the late Roman 
period as a “polts on the Ionian gulf” (Prokopios, 
Wars 5.4.21) connected with Italy and as a bish- 
opric (first mentioned in 458). It played an im- 
portant role during the wars against the Normans 
in the 1080s, and at the end of the 11th C. the 
Venetians obtained trading privileges there, prob- 
ably as a reward for their assistance in the anti- 
Norman war. It was assigned to the Venetians 
after 1204 but recovered by Michael I Komnenos 
Doukas of Epiros. In 1259 Michael II of Epiros 
surrendered Avion to Manfred of Sicily who ap- 
pointed Philip Chinardo to administer the area; 
in 1273 the Angevins established their power in 
Valona, but after 1284 the Byz. managed to oc- 
cupy it. Valona, called civitas imperatoris Graecorum 
in Latin documents, served as a center of trade 
with Dubrovnik and Venice. The Angevins claimed 
Avlon until ca.1332, when the Albanians attacked 
it; in 1945/6 it fell to Stefan Uroš IV Dušan. After 
his death it formed a part of the dominions of 
the Serbian family of Balša; by 21 July 1418 it 
was in Turkish hands. Avion should be distin- 
guished from other centers of the same name, 
such as a suffragan bishopric of Athens (TIB 
1:130f) or a valley in Palestine. 


tir. W. Miller, “Valona,” JHS 37 (1917) 184-94. W. 
Tomaschek, RE 2 (1896) 241 4f. —A.K. 


AVRAAMIJ OF SMOLENSK, saint; fl. early 13th 
C.; feastday 21 Aug. Avraamij was a popular and 
controversial preacher and painter of icons on 
eschatological themes. The vita by his pupil Efrem 
presents Avraamij as a learned and ascetic monk— 
physically “a likeness of St. Basil”—who attracted 
a large lay following and aroused the hostility of 
the SMOLENSK clergy. Accused of heresy, of using 
secret or forbidden books (g(o)lubinnyja knigy), of 
prophesy, and of taking others’ (spiritual?) chil- 
dren, he was acquitted by the secular authorities 
and eventually made peace with his bishop. 
Avraamij’s rhetoric and images, as reported by 
Efrem, as well as an extant sermon titled On the 
Celestial Powers sometimes attributed to Avraamij, 


concentrate on two topics: the fate of the soul 
after death, esp. its passage through the “customs 
houses” (mytarstva, teloniaz) as described in the Life 
of BASIL THE YOUNGER, and the Last Judgment, 
for whose depiction Avraamij was inspired by 
EPHREM THE SYRIAN. Historians have tried, with 
little success, to specify Avraamij’s alleged “heret- 
ical” interests, linking his enigmatic and perhaps 
imaginary gto)lubinnyja knigy with both the Bo- 
GoMILS (G. Fedotov, Praveslavnaja mysl’ 2 [1930] 
127-47) and the 14th-C, strigol’niki (B. Rybakov, 
SovArch [1964] no.2, 179-87). 

D. “Slovo o nebesnych silach,” ed. S.P. Sevyrev, Izvestija 
Imperatorskoj AN po otdeleniju russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 9.9 
(1860) 182-92. 

SOURCE. Žitja prepodobnago Avraamija Smolenskago, ed. 
S.P. Rozanov (St. Petersburg 1912; rp. Munich 1970). 

tit. Fedotov, Mind 1:158—75. Podskalsky, Rus’ 101-03, 
139-42, 238-40. ~S.C.F, 


‘AWASIM AND THUGHUR, the Muslim re- 
gions and their defenses and fortifications along 
the Syrian-Anatolian border of Byz. from the time 
of ‘Umar to the late ioth C. The ‘Awdsim were 
the inner regions of the frontier zone; the outer 
ones were the Thughūr. They included towns 
located at entrances to the Taurus Mountains or 
intersections of roads. The ‘Awadsim became a 
distinct entity after caliph Hārūn al-Rashid sepa- 
rated the area in 786 from the jund (‘military 
district”) of Qinnasrīn (Chalkis) as the jund al- 
‘Awasim. Hieropolis and Antioch were the major 
centers of the ‘Awadsim. The Thughar were di- 
vided into Syrian and Mesopotamian sections. The 
former included passes between Syria and Cilicia 
and such towns as Adana, Tarsos, Mopsuestia, 
and Germanikeia (Maras). East of it lay the Mes- 
opotamian portion, of which Melitene was the 
most important town. 

These districts witnessed heavy fighting since 
they were bases for Muslim raids into Byz. As the 
‘ABBASID CALIPHATE weakened, the ‘Awasim and 
Thughar had to rely more on themselves and 
nearby Muslim leaders in their unsuccessful strug- 
gle against Byz. 


uit. M. Canard, El? 1:761f. Honigmann, Ostgrenze 42, 
72. —W.E.K. 


AXIOMATIKOS (d&twparixds), a term that in 
the late Roman Empire had a vague meaning of 
military officer, as opposed to a recruit (Makarios 
of Egypt, PG 34:832B). According to the Chroni- 


con Paschale (Chron.Pasch. 579.1), Empress Ath- 
enais-Eudokia promoted her brothers to the rank 
of axiomatikos. Malalas (Malal. 382.17) employs the 
word in a more specific sense when he speaks of 
an axiomatikos of Caesarea. In the gth C. the word 
reappears in the Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS where 
it designates some subaltern officers of the po- 
MESTIKOS TON SCHOLON. The De ceremoniis employs 
this term in its general sense—a person having an 
axioma, a post or title. 


LIT. Guilland, Institutions 1:161. -A.K. 


AXIOPOLIS (’Aégiovu mós; in Prokopios, Axiopa; 
mod. Cernavodă in Rumania), a Roman port on 
the Danube and a fortress. A stone wall approxi- 
mately 50 km long connected Axiopolis with Tomis 
on the Black Sea. The fortress and wall were 
reconstructed under Constantine I. In addition 
to fortifications, Christian inscriptions of the late 
grd—6th C. in Greek and Latin, naming some 
officials (e.g., dux and comes), as well as ceramics 
through the late 6th C. have been found in ex- 
cavations at Axiopolis. The city then disappears. 
In the 10th C. a new fort was built, south of the 
Roman stronghold; among the remains are ordi- 
nary ceramics of the 10th—11th C. and an inscrip- 
tion (ca.gth—1oth C.) with the Slavic name Vojis- 
lav, possibly of Kriusa. The last mention of the 
fort seems to be in al-Idrisi. 





LIT. |. Barnea, “Date noi despre Axiopolis,” SCIV 11 
(1960) 69-80. G. Tocilescu, “Fouilles d’Axiopolis,” in 
Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechzigsten Geburtstage (Berlin 
1903) 354-59. Popescu, InscrGrec 203-10. -A.K. 


AXOUCH (‘Afovy, “Agotxos), a Byz. noble family 
of “Persian” (Turkish?) origin. The founder of 
the family, John Axouch, a captive of the Crusad- 
ers in 1097, became a servant at the court of 
Alexios I Komnenos and a playmate of John (II), 
the heir apparent. John II gave Axouch the title 
of sebastos and appointed him megas domestikos (or 
domestikos of the West and East); he died ca.1150 
and was eulogized by Nikephoros BASILAKES. 
Axouch’s daughter Eudokia married Stephen 
Komnenos; his son Alexios took as his wife Maria, 
daughter of Alexios Komnenos, the oldest son of 
John If. Alexios Axouch, a protostrator, com- 
manded several military expeditions—to Italy in 
1158, Cilicia in 1165, and perhaps Hungary in 
1166. One of the wealthiest magnates, he lost the 
favor of Manuel I ca.1167 and was confined in a 





AYDIN | 239 


monastery. Alexios was criticized by contempo- 
raries (Kinn. 267.13-16) for decorating one of 
his suburban houses with pictures of the cam- 
paigns of Kilic Arslan H, sultan of Konya, rather 
than those of the emperor as was customary (see 
History PaintinG). Alexios left two sons, one of 
whom, John Komnenos or John the Fat, fo- 
mented a riot against Alexios III on 31 July 1200 
but was murdered in the struggle. The Axouch 
family is not attested in the Palaiologan period. 
LIT. K.M. Mekios, Ho megas domestikos tou Byzantiou loannes 


Axouchos kai protostrator hyios autou Alexios (Athens 1932). 
~A.K., A.C. 


AXUM or Aksum ("“Agpis), the kingdom that 
takes its name from its capital city located in the 
northern highlands of modern Eruiopta. Al- 
though Byz. considered Axum part of its sphere 
of influence, the Axumite rulers viewed them- 
selves the equals of the Byz. emperors and main- 
tained their independence. Its chief port, ADULIS 
on the Red Sea, served as both a way station on 
the trade route to India and a conduit for goods 
from the east African interior. The kingdom of- 
ficially converted to Christianity in the mid-4th C. 
and was a suffragan of the archbishop of Alex- 
andria. Aramaic-speaking monks were instrumen- 
tal in the spread of a distinctively Semitic Chris- 
tianity. Axum’s ties with Byz. were closest during 
the Himyarite Wars in South Arabia (517-37), 
esp. in 525 when Emp. Kālēb ’Ella ’Asbeha (ELes- 
BOAM) conquered South Arabia at the behest of 
Justin I, who supplied ships but not troops. Jus- 
tin’s desire to block Persian designs on South 
Arabia was ultimately thwarted when the Persians 
occupied the region in 599. Following the Arab 
conquests, Axum was cut off from Byz. and even- 
tually lost its ports on the Red Sea to the Arabs. 
By the 8th C., Axum was in decline. 

tir. Y.M. Kobishchanov, Axum (University Park, Pa., 
1979). F. Autray, “The Civilization ot Aksum trom the first 
to the seventh Century,” and T. Mekouria, “Christian Ak- 


sum,” in UNESCO General History of Africa, vol. 2 (Berkeley 
1981), 362-80, 4o1—22. ~D.W.J. 


AYDIN (‘Aidivys), a Turkish emirate in Anatolia 
that emerged in the late 13th C. from the break- 
up of the SELJUK sultanate of Rom. It was most 
probably named after its founder, Aydin, about 
whom very little is known. It occupied the terri- 
tories around the river Kaystros; its main ports 
were Epuesus (Theologos) and Smyrna, its capital 





240 AYYUBIDS 


being Pyrgion. The emirate became powerful 
during the time of Umur Bec (died 1348). His 
fleet repeatedly raided the Aegean islands, the 
Morea, Negroponte, and the littoral from Thes- 
saly up to Constantinople, finally reducing the 
lords of these territories to the status of tribute- 
paying vassals. Umur provoked two Crusades or- 
ganized against Aydin in 1334 and in 1344, the 
latter known as the Crusade of Smyrna. He was 
a devoted ally of John VI Kantakouzenos during 
the Byz. Civit War OF 1341~47. Western mer- 
chants frequented the territories of Aydin and 
purchased large quantities of agricultural pro- 
duce (mainly cereals), livestock and related items 
from the nomads (cattle, horses, skins, cheese, 
etc.), and slaves. Consuls from Venice, Genoa, 
Rhodes, and Cyprus were established in Theolo- 
gos. Aydin was annexed to the Ottoman state 
temporarily from 1990 to 1402 and permanently 
after Murad II defeated the rebel lord of Smyrna, 
Junayd (1424). 

ur. H. Akin, Aydin oğulları tarihi hakkında bir araştırma? 
(Ankara 1968). P. Lemerle, L'émirat d’Aydin, Byzance et 
l'Occident (Paris 1957). Idem, “Philadelphie et lémirat 
d’Aydin,” in Philadelphie et autres études (Paris 1984) 55—67- 
Zachariadou, Menteshe & Aydin. K.A. Zukov, Egejskie emiraty 
v XIV-XV vv. (Moscow 1988). —E.A.Z. 


AYYUBIDS, a Muslim dynasty that dominated 
Egypt, Syria and Palestine, Upper Mesopotamia, 
and the Yemen from the late 12th to the mid- 
igth C. They originated from a Kurdish tribe 
that lived near Duin in Armenia. Two brothers, 
Ayytib and Shīrkūh, served Zanci and Nor AL- 
Din as governors and generals. After Shirkth 
conquered Egypt, he was proclaimed the vizier in 
116g but died almost immediately. He was suc- 
ceeded by Ayyŭb’s son SaLapin, the actual foun- 
der of the dynasty, who defeated the Crusaders 
in 1187 and recovered Jerusalem for the Muslims. 
He engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the 
Byz. rulers Andronikos I Komnenos and Isaac II 
Angelos. 

After Saladin’s death in 1193, his vast domain 
was divided between his three sons, brothers, and 
other relations; nonetheless his immediate succes- 
sors al-‘Adil (died 1218) and the latter’s eldest son 
al-Kamil (died 1238) were able to maintain the 
family unity that was required to withstand con- 
stant warfare with the Crusader states: in 1218— 
ig the Franks besieged Damietta and in 1227 





FREDERICK II disembarked at Acre leading a new 
Crusade. During the week of 11—18 Feb. 1229 al- 
Kamil was forced to sign a treaty with Frederick 
yielding to the Franks the control of Jerusalem, 
on condition that its fortifications would not be 
rebuilt and freedom of religion would be pre- 
served in the city. Ayyūbid relations with the 
SeLjuk rulers of Asia Minor were hostile: the 
expedition of united Ayydbid forces against them 
in 1233 turned into a disaster, and in 1241 the 
Seljuks took Amida from the successors of al- 
Kamil. The subsequent decentralization of power, 
the Turkish and Mongol pressure on the north- 
east border, and the new Crusade of Louis IX 
(his flotilla captured Damietta in 1249) weakened 
Ayyūbid Egypt, and in 1250 MamMLox rule was 
established there. The northern Ayyiibids re- 
mained in power longer, but in 1258 the Mamltiks 
took Baghdad and in 1260 they conquered Aleppo 
(Berroia) and Damascus. 

The Ayyabids supported commercial relations 
with the cities of Italy, southern France, and Ca- 
talonia; Egypt sold to Europe products imported 
from India but prevented the Westerners from 
entering the Red Sea. Regular trade connections 
with the Franks contributed to the penetration of 
Christian motifs in Ayyūbid minor arts. 








uit. C. Cahen, £I? 1:796-807. R.S. Humphreys, From 
Saladin to the Mongols (Albany 1977). H.L. Gottschalk, AL 
Malik al-Kamil von Egypten und seine Zeit (Wiesbaden 1958). 
E. Baer, Ayyubid Metalwork with Christian Images (Leiden 
1988). ~A.K. 


AZDI, AL-, more fully, Aba Isma‘il Muhammad 
ibn ‘Abd Allah, al-Azdi, Arab historian; fl. ca.800— 
10. On al-Azdi’s life, our only source is his history, 
The Conquest of Syria. Clearly he was a narrator of 
Azdite and other Yemenite tribal accounts, gath- 
ering his information primarily from northern 
Syria, esp. Hims. His floruit can be ascertained 
from the archaism of his narratives and the death 
dates of the later authorities transmitting his work. 

The Conquest of Syria is the earliest extant ac- 
count of the Arab conquest. Proceeding from the 
summons to the tribes by Abt Bakr until the siege 
of Caesarea Maritima, it views these events as 
divinely ordained to reward Arab faith and pun- 
ish Greek polytheism and misrule. Beneath this 
overarching doctrinal theme, the work is extraor- 
dinarily informative. Azdi reveals a sophisticated 
knowledge of developments on the Byz. side and 


esp. of the activities and attitudes of the Christian 
and pagan populations in Syria. He deals with 
townsmen, peasants, and Bedouins as distinct 
groups; his account is unique for its detail on the 
shifting loyalties and complex maneuvering that 
characterized the conquest period. 

ep. The Fotooh al-Shám, Being an Account of the Moslim 
Conquests in Syria, ed. W.N. Lees (Calcutta 1854), with Eng. 
summary. 

LIT. Caetani, Islam 2:1209—11; 3:54f, 67—70, 205-10, 
312, 404f, 439f, 578-83, 599f. A.D. al-“Umari, Dirāsāt 
ta’rikhiyya (Medina 1983) 67—79. L.l. Conrad, “Al-Azdi’s 
History of the Arab Conquests in Bilad al-Sham,” Proceed- 
ings of the Second Symposium on the History of Bilad al-Sham, 
ed. M.SA. Bakhit, vol. 1 (Amman 1987) 28—62. ~L.LC. 


AZOV SEA (Mau@res), an extension of the north- 
eastern part of the Brack Sea, reached via the 
straits of the Cimmerian Bosroros. Trade routes 
went from the Sea of Azov north to Rus’ via the 
Don (Tanais) River and eastward to China. The 
Azov Sea was located in an area important for its 
salt and naphtha, and associated in Byz. conven- 
tion with Cimmerians, SARMATIANS, and Tauro- 
scythians (see, e.g., TzeTzes, Hist. 12:835—36). 
Proxopios (Wars 8:4.7~7.12) asserts that the peo- 
ples of the Azov region were a continual threat 
to the borders of the empire. The northern Azov 
region was controlled in the 7th C. by Great 
Bulgaria (Theoph. 356.20—357.11) and in the 8th- 
ioth C. by the Krazars (who built there the 
fortress of SaRKEL). The peoples of the area (in- 
cluding Zicura) in the 1oth C. are described by 
Constantine VII (De adm. imp. 42, 53). The pos- 
session of TMUTOROKAN by the Rus’ lasted at least 
until the end of the 11th C., though both a Rus’ 
and a Byz. administrative presence in the Azov 
region (e.g., in RHosta) is postulated even for the 
late 12th C. From the mid-1g3th C. the Monco xs 
dominated the area, while the trade routes be- 
tween the Azov Sea and Constantinople came 
under the control of the Genoese from their set- 
tlement at Tana. IGnaTyy OF SMOLENSK describes 





AZYMES | 241 


the route in detail, while Nikephoros Gregoras 
(Greg. 3:199.11—12) confirms its use for travel to 
and from Moscow. ~S.C.F. 


AZYMES (a&¢upa “without yeast, leaven”), unleav- 
ened BREAD used by the Armenian and Latin 
churches in the eucharistic sacrifice based on the 
tradition that such bread was used at the Last 
Supper, at which Jesus instituted the EUCHARIST. 
The Byz. used leavened bread. Controversy on 
the issue occurred first between Greeks and Mon- 
ophysite Armenians. Invited in 591 by Emp. 
Maurice to participate in a council of union, the 
Armenian kathelikos Moses II uttered a famous 
rebuttal: “I shall not cross the Azat River to eat 
the baked bread of the Greeks” (Narratio de rebus 
Armeniae, ed. G. Garitte [Louvain 1952] 226f). 
Between Greeks and Latins, controversy began 
on this subject only in the 11th C. Responding to 
Greek criticism of the Latin practice, in 1054 
Cardinal HuMBERT excommunicated Patr. Mi- 
chael I Keroularios and his followers as “prozym- 
ite heretics.” The Greek theologian Niketas 
STETHATOS responded. 

Arguments used in the abundant Byz. polemical 
literature on the subject refer to the New Testa- 
ment accounts of the Last Supper, which all de- 
scribe the bread used by Jesus as avtos—the stan- 
dard Greek term for leavened bread—and not 
azymen. This historical argument, however, was 
less popular among the Greeks than references 
to the symbolic meaning of “leaven” (“The King- 
dom of God is like unto leaven,” Mt 13:33), and 
also to a Christological argument: leaven gives 
“life” to bread, just as the soul gives life to the 
body. Consequently, Armenians and Latins were 
seen as denying the existence in Christ of a human 
soul, and therefore, shared the heresy of APoL- 
LINARIS of Laodikeia. 

uit. J.H. Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened: Some 
Theological Implications of the Schism of 1054,” SVThQ 
14 (1970) 155-76. M.H. Smith HI, And Taking Bread. . . 


Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Paris 1978). 
—J.M. 


seas ye Ay apui 


B 





BAALBEK. See HELIOPOLIS. 


BABYLAS (BaBvAas), saint; died Antioch ca.250; 
feastday 4 Sept. Eusebios of Caesarea (Eusebios, 
HE 6.39.4) mentions in passing that Babylas died 
under Decius (249~51) in a prison in Antioch. 
The story was subsequently developed; Leontios 
of Antioch (died 357/8) says that Decius murdered 
Babylas because he forbade Emp. Philip the Arab 
(244-49) to enter the church; John Chrysostom 
‘(PG 50:533—72), in two polemical sermons against 
Julian, praises Babylas’s resistance to an emperor, 
but his information about Babylas is vague. Unlike 
Eusebios, Chrysostom stresses that Babylas was 
murdered. Hagiographical texts transfer Baby- 
las’s martyrdom to the reign of Numerianus (283— 
84) and sometimes provide Babylas with compan- 
ions in martyrdom: a Greek text associates three 
children with him, while a Georgian legend de- 
scribes a certain Basil of Epiphaneia, who was 
executed for his support of Babylas. Another stage 
in the development of the legend was the creation 
of St. Babylas of Nikomedeia, who was venerated 
on the same day. 

Representation in Art. Miniatures illustrating 
the vita of Babylas written by Symeon META- 
PHRASTES depict the saint as an elderly bishop, 
and often show him being beheaded along with 
his little disciples. One of these MSS includes a 
cycle of four scenes showing him sitting in prison 
with his disciples, and being interrogated, scourged, 





























and beheaded (London, B.L. Add. 11870, fol.5er). 


SOURCES. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ed., PPSd 19.3 
(1907) 75-84. PG 114:967-82. 
LIT. BHG 2054-208, 2053-54. P. Peeters, “La passion 
de §. Basile d’Epiphanie,” AB 48 (1930) 302-23. 
~A.K., N.P.S. 


BACKGROUND, the farthest surface of an im- 
age, behind its chief objects of contemplation, was 
sometimes enlivened with architectural construc- 
tions and/or LANDSCAPE. These elements are, how- 
ever, usually uninhabited and treated ever more 
frequently as independent elements and conven- 


tional tokens of cities, mountains, etc., inserted 
behind figures. Buildings read as backcloths 
dropped behind a scene rather than as enclosures 
for the event depicted: in the MENOLOGION OF 
Basi. II, for example, such sets often open out 
in inverse PERSPECTIVE. Likewise, portions of 
structures facing different directions are placed 
in the same plane. While this remains generally 
true, in 10th- and early 14th-C. art attempts were 
made, sometimes with success, to integrate figures 
into the setting so that the factitious distinction 
between the protagonists’ zone of operation and 
their background tends to disappear. Progres- 
sively from the 6th C. onward, settings are re- 
placed with a blue or shimmering gold screen that 
denies space and depth, supernaturally focusing 
all attention on the main figures. ~AL. 


BACKOVO. See Perrirzos MONASTERY. 


BADOER, GIACOMO, Venetian merchant who 
operated in Constantinople in 1436—40. His ac- 
count books, kept in double-entry form, are one 
of the few sources to describe Constantinopolitan 
commerce in this period. Badoer’s books show 
that this merchant, whose activities were of me- 
dium size, had an annual turnover of merchan- 
dise valued at approximately 126,000 hyperpyra. 
They reveal Constantinople as an active trade 
center functioning primarily as an entrepôt. They 
illuminate the flow of merchandise (raw materials, 
wax to the West, silk cloth from the West), the 
activities of Byz. bankers, and the participation of 
Byz. merchants in trade, This was large in terms 
of the number of merchants and sea captains, but 
small in terms of capital engaged; it is seen also 
to have been a deficit trade with Western mer- 
chants. The account books show that the Byz. 
who traded with Badoer were engaged primarily 
in retail trade and were only tangentially con- 
cerned with foreign trade. The source has also 
been used to extrapolate the value of total Vene- 
tian trade in Constantinople, the importance of 


243 




















244 | BAGHDAD 


Genoese merchants (seen as paramount), and the 
types of ships used to transport merchandise. 

ep. U. Dorini, T. Bertelé, /] Libro dei Conti di Giacomo 
Badoer (Venice 1956). 

tir. M.M. Sitikov, “Konstantinopol’ i venecianskaja tor- 
govlja v pervoj polovine XV v. po dannym knigi ščetov 
Džakomo Badoera,” VizVrem 30 (1969) 48—62. T. Bertelè, 
“Il giro d'affari di Giacomo Badoer: precisazioni e dedu- 
zioni,” 11 CEB (Munich 1960) 48-57. -A.L. 


BAGHDAD (Baya, Eipnvóroňs), capital of the 
caliphate for most of the ‘Agsāsıb dynasty. The 
name Baghdad was Persian; officially it was called 
Dar al-Salam (“City of Peace”). Caliph al-Mansir 
founded Baghdad as a circular city on a modestly 
inhabited site. He intended it as a camp for his 
troops from Khurasan, using ruins from the nearby 
abandoned Sasanian capital of Ctesiphon. Bagh- 
dad's great prosperity lasted from 775 to 833. 
The ‘Abbasid court briefly transferred its resi- 
dence to Samarra from 836 to 8g2, when Caliph 
al-Mu‘tamid returned to Baghdad. It remained 
the capital until the Mongols terminated the dy- 
nasty there in 1258. 

The replacement of Damascus by Baghdad as 
the capital benefited Byz. by moving the center 
of Islamic power further from the borders of the 
Byz. Empire. The same move also made the Is- 
lamic capital more secure. Byz. embassies to ‘Ab- 
basid caliphs visited Baghdad and became means 
for cultural influences and some goods to cross 
otherwise closed frontiers. Such embassies to the 
Islamic capital were esp. notable in the gth and 
roth C. 

LIT. J. Lassner, The Topography of Baghdad in the Early 


Middle Ages (Detroit 1970). A.A. Duri, EF? 1:894—go08. 
—W.E.K. 





BAGRATIDS (laxparovyns; Arm. Bagratuni; 
Georg. Bagrationi), Armenian feudal family that 
gave royal dynasties to ARMENIA, GEORGIA, and 
Caucasian ALBANIA. The origin of the Bagratids 
was probably Iranian, but a late tradition, known 
even to Constantine VII (De adm. imp. 45.1-8), 
traces them back to the Old Testament King David 
and to the Virgin Mary. The original Bagratid 
domain lay in Sper in northwestern Armenia. 
Their hereditary office was that of “coronant” 
(agadir) of the Arsacip kings and perhaps of 
commander-of-the-cavalry (aspet), although the 
latter may be a family name rather than a title, 


since Prokopios (Wars 2.3.12—18) refers to them 
as Aspetianot. 

The power of the Bagratids grew in the 7th— 
8th C. when they served Byz., the Persians, and 
esp. the caliphate. Benefiting from the elimination 
of rival houses, the Bagratids extended their 
domains into central and southern Armenia 
(TaROn) and acquired the hereditary title Prince 
of Princes by the gth C. In 884, ASoT I THE GREAT 
was crowned king with the agreement of both the 
caliphate and Byz. The Bagratids ruled over Ar- 
menia until 1045, a senior branch residing at Arı, 
where the ruler styled himself King of Kings, and 
junior ones at Kars (Vanand) from 961 onward 
and at Lori (Tašir, Joraget) from g72(?) onward. 
Nevertheless they did not hold the Arsacid capital 
of Duin and their control of Armenia was chal- 
lenged by the establishment of a separate king- 
dom of VaspuRAKAN in go8. By the mid-11th C., 
Bagratid power had dwindled so far that Byz. 
annexed their kingdoms, except for Loti, which 
survived into the 13th C. 

Secondary branches of the Bagratid house set- 
tled in Iberia and Tayx‘/Tao early in the gth C. 
Ašot the Great (813-30) was named Prince of 
Iberia by the caliph and kourepalates by Byz., and 
in 888 Adarnarse IV was crowned king. The 
Georgian branch prospered as that in Armenia 
declined. Tayk* reached its apogee under Davip 
oF TayK/Tao at the end of the ioth C. In 1008, 
Bagrat III united Ascuasia and Georgia to form 
a single kingdom, which reached its zenith under 
Davip LI/ITV THE RESTORER and Queen T‘AMARA, 
who supported the empire of TRreB1zonp and 
ruled Armenia through her Zak‘arRIp viceroys. 
The Mongol invasions of the 1230s abruptly halted 
Bagratid prosperity, but the Bagratids continued 
to rule over a reduced and divided Georgia. 

LIT. Toumanoff, Caucasian Hist, esp. 306-54. Idem, 
“The Bagratids of Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh 
Century,” Muséon 74 (1961) 5—42, 239~316. L. Movsésian, 
“Histoire des rois Kurikian de Loti,” REArm 7 (1927) 209- 
66. H. Bartikyan, “La conquéte de l'Arménie par l'Empire 
byzantin,” REArm n.s. 8 (1971) 327-40. R. Suny, The Mak- 


ing of the Georgian Nation (Bloomington-Stamford 1988) 
29—59. -N.G.G. 


BAHA’ AL-DIN, also called Ibn Shaddad, Arab 
historian, educator, jurist, and authority on Is- 
lamic traditions (hadith); born Mosul 1145, died 
Aleppo 1235. In July 1188, Baha’ al-Din joined 


the staff of Saranın to serve as the “judge of the 
army” and “judge of Jerusalem.” In this capacity 
he accompanied Saladin everywhere on his travels 
and campaigns, including the bitter fight against 
the Third Crusade. After Saladin died (1199), 
Baha’ al-Din remained active in Egyptian and 
Syrian politics. 

Baha’ al-Din wrote several works, among them 
a treatise on the Holy War (jthad), dedicated to 
Saladin. The most important is his biography of 
Saladin, which, with the works by ‘IMAp aL-Din, 
constitutes the most authentic source for Saladin’s 
life. Whereas for the account of the years prior 
to his entering Saladin’s service Baha’ al-Din de- 
pended on trustworthy friends, for the subse- 
quent period he relied on his own observations. 
Although his work mainly concerns Saladin’s mil- 
itary and political accomplishments, the book con- 
tains important documents illustrating the rela- 
tions of the Sultan, the Crusaders, and the Byz. 
In addition to brief references to Byz. participa- 
tion in the 1169 attack against Damietta (Wilson, 
infra 57) and to Muslim capture of a ship that 
“came from Constantinople” to Acre on 12 June 
1190 (p.182), Baha’ al-Din treats diplomatic ex- 
changes between Isaac H and Saladin, some of 
them affecting religious practices of the Greeks 
in Jerusalem and of the Muslims in Constantino- 
ple (pp. 198-201, 334f). He also quotes the Ar- 
abic translation of an Armenian letter from 
Katholikos Basil on the impact of Frederick Bar- 
barossa’s Crusade on the Byz. Empire (pp. 185— 
89). 

ED. Sirat! Salah al-Din, ed. Gamal El-Din El-Shayyal (Cairo 
1964). The Life of Saladin, tr. C.W. Wilson [= PPTS 13] 
(London 1897; rp. New York 1971). 


LIT. Gamal El-Din El-Shayyal, EI? 3:933f. M.H.M. Ah- 
mad in Lewis-Holt, Historians, 87f. ~A.S.E. 


BAHNASA. See OxYRHYNCHUS. 


BAIAN (Baiavés), Avar khan (ca.562—582/4) who 
led his people to the lower Danube by 562. Per- 
haps it was Baian who in 558 sent envoys to 
Constantinople to conclude an alliance: THEO- 
PHANES THE CONFESSOR (232.6—10) gives no name. 
Menander Protector is the only historian to name 
Baian while recounting the attempts of the Avars 
to cross the Danube and seize Sirmium. Even 
though the negotiations of Baian’s ambassador 
Targitaj brought no result, emperors tried to use 


BAIOULOS 245 


the Avars against the Gepids and Slavs. Finally, 
with the help of Greek engineers, Baian built a 
bridge over the Sava, besieged Sirmium, and im- 
pelled the Byz. to yield the starving city in 582. 
Kollautz and Miyakawa’s statement (infra 249) that 
in 586 Baian beleaguered Thessalonike is mis- 
taken; even more erroneous is M. Artarmonov 
(Istorija Chazar [Leningrad 1962] 160), who gave 
his date of death as 630. 

tir. T. Olajos, “La chronologie de la dynastie avare de 
Baian,” REB 34 (1976) 151—58. A. Kollautz, H. Miyakawa, 
Geschichte und Kultur eines vilkerwanderungszeitlichen Noma- 
denvolkes, vol.ı (Klagenfurt-Bonn 1970) 239-49. V. Po- 
povi¢, “La descente des Koutrigours, des Slaves et des 


Avares vers la Mer Egée,” CRAI (1978) 612—16. 
-W.E.K, AK. 


BAILO (uraiovhos), “bailiff,” the head of the 
Venetian colony in Constantinople in the Palaio- 
logan period and simultaneously the Venetian 
ambassador at the court of the emperor. Gregoras 
(Greg. 1:97.21—25) translates the term batilo into 
Greek as epitropos or ephoros. In this capacity the 
bailo replaced the Venetian podestà whose func- 
tions were more limited. The office of batlo was 
introduced after the Byz. reconquest of Constan- 
tinople by the agreement of 4 Apr.—go June 1268. 
The bailo was elected by the Great Council in 
Venice for a short term (about two years or less); 
his salary was set at 100 librae a month. The bailo 
had two assistants (consiliarii) who were also sent 
from Venice. His duties were to administer the 
trade activity of the colony, sit in judgment, and 
supervise the four Venetian churches in the Byz. 
capital. There was a Venetian bailo in Euboea as 
well as in Constantinople, whereas Venetian ad- 
ministrators elsewhere bore different titles (dux of 
Crete, castellani of Methone). 


uit. Ch. Maltezou, Ho thesmos tou en Konstantinoupoler 
Benetou bailou (Athens 1970). -A.K. 





BAIOULOS (Batovios, from Lat. baiulus, “bearer”) 
in Byz. signified a preceptor or mentor. Balsamon 
(PG 119:1213D) derives the word from baion, 
palm leaf, allegedly because teachers had the re- 
sponsibility to develop and supervise the growth 
of young minds. Probably not earlier than Theo- 
phanes the Confessor, the term was applied to 
the emperor’s preceptor, and in the 1oth C. the 
honorific title of megas baioulos was created for 
Basil LEXAPENOS. Pseudo-Kopinos remarks (140.8— 


246 | BAKCHEIOS, GERON 














9) that the place of the megas baioulos in the 14th- 
C. hierarchy is unknown; some contemporary lists 
locate him above the kouropalates. 


LIT. V. Laurent, “Ho megas baioulos,” EEBS 23 (1953) 
193—205. Seibt, Bleisiegel 147-49. -A.K. 


BAKCHEIOS, GERON (Baxxevos, Fépwv), Greek 
music theorist of the age of Constantine the Great; 
fl. late grd—early 4th C. He is known only for his 
Introduction to the Art of Music (Etsagoge technes 
mousikes), written in the form of a catechism. It is 
an eclectic production, mostly following the school 
of Aristoxenos (4th C. B.c.). The short treatise, 
not in dialogue form, published under his name 
by F. Bellerman in 1841, is by Dionysios, Bak- 
cheios’s contemporary. 

ED. Musici scriptores graeci, ed. C. Janus (Leipzig 1895; 


rp. Hildesheim 1962) 283—316. Alypius et Gaudence, Bacchius 
Vancien, tr. C.E. Ruelle (Paris 1895). -D.E.C. 








BAKER (uáyk), also artopotos, artokopos, arto- 
poles. These terms are already found in Egyptian 
papyri and refer specifically to those who made 
BREAD. In the ioth C. the bakers formed an im- 
portant guild, whose members were exempted 
from public service, as were the animals they used 
to grind the grain. Their activities and profit (4 
1/6 percent) were regulated by the state, and when 
grain prices varied, they were allowed to change 
the weight of the loaf, but not its price (Bk. of 
Eparch, ch.18). The quaestor of Constantinople 
could force beggars to work for bakers (Epanagoge 
5.5). Bakers’ shops could not be located beneath 
dwellings, or very close to them, for fear of fire 
(Bk. of Eparch 18.3; Harm. 2.4.14). 

The question arises whether bakers who made 
the bread sold it in a retail fashion. The De cere- 
montis (1.96) states that in the early months of the 
reign of Nikephoros II, the rebel Joseph Bringas 
went from the patriarchate past the Milion and 
ordered the bakers (artopoioi) to neither bake bread 
nor sell it on the market. The bakers in question 
may be identical to those who sold bread in the 
main bread market of Constantinople, the Arto- 
poleia, located just beyond the Forum of Constan- 
tine (Parastaseis, ch.40). If this is the case, then 
breadmakers and bread sellers are identical; it 
could well be, however, that the artopolai who 
presumably worked in the Artopoleia sold whole- 























sale. Other texts (e.g., Theoph. 234.23) distin- 
guish between artopoleia, where bread was sold, 
and mankipeia, where it was made. It seems likely 
that in other parts of Constantinople outside the 
main bread market, as well as in smaller cities, 
those who made bread also sold it to the con- 
sumer. This is suggested by monastic documents 
that show (e.g., in Serres) mankipeia (Koutloum. 
nos. 8.13, 18.42), but make no mention of arto- 
poleia, probably because the two were identical. 
uit. Stéckle, Ztinfte 47—50. M. Sjuzjumov in Bk. of Eparch 


236-44. A. Graeber, Untersuchungen zum spdtrémischen Kor- 
porationswesen (Frankfurt-Bern—New York 1983) 79—90. 
-A.L. 


BALĀDHURĪ, AL-, more fully Aba’l-‘Abbas Ah- 
mad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri, Arab historian; died 
ca.8g2. Little is known about al-Baladhuri. Clearly 
he was born into a well-connected family. He 
studied under or knew many of the great Iraqi 
scholars of his day, pursued his researches in 
several Syrian cities, and enjoyed patronage and 
favor at the ‘Abbasid court in Baghdad. A pro- 
foundly learned scholar, he was also a traditionist, 
poet, and Arabic translator of the Testament of 
Ardashir. 

Two of Baladhuri’s Arabic histories survive, both 
based on extensive oral and written sources. His 
Conquests of the Provinces relates to the conquests 
of the Arabs. It is arranged by province and 
describes many nonmilitary developments. The 
incomplete enlarged version is lost. The later Ge- 
nealogies of the Notables (also unfinished and still 
largely unedited) is a voluminous history, orga- 
nized genealogically, down to the early ‘Abbasids. 
Baladhuri often deals with Byz. He relates the 
conquests of Syria, Egypt, and Cyprus in detail; 
discusses the campaigns for Rhodes, Crete, and 
Sicily; and describes frontier defenses and expe- 
ditions (by both sides). Also considered are dip- 
lomatic relations, preconquest conditions, the at- 
titudes of the indigenous populations and later 
demographic changes, the continuing use of the 
Greek language and Byz. coinage, and commer- 
cial contacts between the two sides. 

ED. Liber expugnationis regionum, ed. M. de Goeje (Leiden 
1866). The Origins of the Islamic State, tr. P.K. Hitti, F.C. 
Murgotten, 2 vols. (New York 1916—24). Ansdb al-ashréf, 
vol. 1, ed. M. Hamidullah (Cairo 1959); vol. 2, ed. M.B. al- 
Mahmidi (Beirut 1977); vols. 4A-B and 5, ed. M. Schloes- 


singer, M.J. Kister, and S.D. Goitein (Jerusalem 1936-71). 
Ii Califfo Mu‘awiya I, tr. O. Pinto, G. Levi della Vida (Rome 


1938). Bibliotheca Islamica ser., pt.g, ed. “A. al-Dūrī (Wies- 
baden 1978), and pt.4.1, ed. I. ‘Abbas (Wiesbaden 1979). 
uit. A.A. Duri, The Rise of Historical Writing Among the 
Arabs (Princeton 1983) 61—64. Sezgin, GAS 1:320f. 
-L.LC. 


BALANCE SCALES (tvyós), the simplest weigh- 
ing device used in Byz., was an equal-arm balance 
(contrast STEELYARD) supported from above, often 
by a hinged needle within a bracket to indicate 
perfect horizontality. In turn, it supported a pair 
of pans in which the weights and load were placed. 
Although balance scales have been made of var- 
ious materials and in widely varying sizes, those 
surviving from Byz. are small and bronze. Their 
size and relative precision suggests that they were 
used for weighing coins and precious metal. Im- 
perial legislation (e.g., Cod. Theod. XII 7.1-2; XII 
6.21) stipulated how and by whom the device was 
to be held to ensure the fair payment of taxes 
(see ZYGOSTATES). Balance scales are a frequent 
component of the PsYCHOMACHIA in images of the 
Last Judgment. 


uT. Vikan-Nesbitt, Security 29—31. Davidson, Minor Ob- 
jects, nos. 1662—78. ~G.V.. A.C. 


BALDWIN II (BaAdovivos), Latin emperor of 
Constantinople (1240-61); born Constantinople 
1217, died 1273. It was his fate to preside over 
the dissolution of the Latin Empire of Constanti- 
nople. The youngest son of PETER OF COURTENAY, 
he was only ten when his brother RoBERT OF 
Courtenay died in 1228, JOHN oF BRIENNE took 
over the reins of government on the understand- 
ing that Baldwin would eventually succeed. This 
agreement was sealed by Baldwin’s marriage to 
John’s daughter Marie. When John died in 1237, 
Baldwin was in the West, seeking help for Con- 
stantinople. To this end he mortgaged his county 
of Namur to Louis IX of France for 50,000 livres 
parisis. Late in 1239, Baldwin finally reached Con- 
stantinople by the overland route through Hun- 
gary and was crowned emperor in 1240. 

He soon returned to the West and was given a 
place of honor at the First Council of Lyons in 
1245. His presence insured that help for Constan- 
tinople was placed high on the agenda, but there 
was to be little effective aid because of Louis EX’s 
plans for a crusade. The help promised by the 
Spanish order of Santiago in 1246 failed to ma- 
terialize (J. Longnon, Byzantion 22 [1952] 297- 





BALDWIN OF FLANDERS | 247 


99). Baldwin was reduced to pledging his son 
Philip in order to raise money (R.L. Wolff, Spe- 
culum 29 [1954] 45-84). It was only a matter of 
time before Constantinople fell. After its conquest 
by the Nicaeans in 1261, Baldwin made his way 
to the West, seeking supporters who might help 
him win back his empire. The most promising 
was CHARLES I or Anjou. A treaty was concluded 
at Viterbo in 1267, whereby Baldwin surrendered 
suzerainty over the Frankish principality of ACHAIA 
against the promise of an expedition to recover 
Constantinople. 


LIT. Longnon, Empire latin 178-86. Geanakoplos, Mi- 
chael Pal. 193-200. HC 2:221-32. -M.J.A. 


BALDWIN III, king of JERUSALEM (1143-63); 
born 1129, died Beirut 10 Feb. 1163. In 1157, 
threatened by Nor at-Din, Baldwin began to seek 
Byz. aid and a bride from Constantinople. Theo- 
dora Komnene, Manuel I’s niece, married Bald- 
win in 1158. Shortly after Renaud of Antioch’s 
abject surrender to Manuel at Mopsuestia, Bald- 
win was ceremonially welcomed by the emperor. 
When Manuel entered Antioch in triumph (Apr. 
1159), Baldwin rode in the procession. The threat 
of joint Crusader-Byz. action caused Nir al-Din 
to make concessions, and Manuel unexpectedly 
returned to Constantinople. During 1160—61, 
Baldwin's efforts to induce Manuel to wed Meli- 
sende of Tripoli instead of MARIA OF ANTIOCH 
were unsuccessful. After Baldwin’s death, Theo- 
dora received Acre as her portion, but in 1167 
she fled with the future Andronikos I. 


LIT. H.E. Mayer, Kreuzziige und lateinischer Osten (London 
1983) pt. VI (1980), 549-566. -C.M.B. 


BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, count Baldwin IX 
of Flanders, Baldwin VI of Hainault, then Bald- 
win I of the Latin Empire; born Valenciennes 
1172, died Tūrnovo 1205 or 1206. He joined the 
Fourth Crusade and set out in Apr. 1202 at the 
head of the expedition’s largest contingent. To 
sustain the Crusade he supported BONIFACE OF 
MonrTFERRAT and Enrico DANDOLO in welcoming 
the offers of PuiLip oF Swasia and the future 
Alexios IV. Baldwin and his troops played leading 
roles in fighting Alexios III and Alexios V. After 
the capture of Constantinople, he was elected 
emperor on 9 May 1204, probably through the 
votes of the Venetians; he was crowned 16 May. 





248 BALKANS 











Baldwin employed traditional Byz. titles but had 
a feudal concept of government. Despite his 
agreement that Boniface should have THEssaLo- 
NIKE, he wished to occupy the city. Boniface re- 
acted violently; peace was made only in Aug. 
1204. Early in 1205 the Byz. of Thrace, alienated 
by Baldwin’s contemptuous attitude, revolted and 
summoned Katojan to their assistance. On 14 
Apr. Kalojan defeated and captured Baldwin out- 
side Adrianople. He perished mysteriously in 
prison. In July 1206 news of his death was reliably 
reported to the Crusaders. 

tir. Wolff, Latin Empire, pt. TV (1952), 281—322. B. 
Hendrickx, “Baudouin IX de Flandre et les empereurs 


byzantins Isaac II l'Ange et Alexis IV,” RBPH 49 (1971) 
482—89. Longnon, Compagnons 137-40. —C.M.B. 





BALKANS (medieval Aijos), the modern (1gth- 
C.) name of the mountain range that extends 
about 550 km from the Timok Valley eastward 
to the Black Sea. The word Balkan (balgan) is 
Ottoman Turkish, meaning “thickly wooded 
mountain”; the Bulgarians called it in Slavonic 


Stara Planina. The Balkans form the major divide 
between the Danube (north) and Marica (south) 





ADRIATIC” 
SEA i i 
| == 


f 


ea 


REGIONS OF 
THE BALKANS 


MOESIA Late Roman Province 
ISTRIA Region 


BOSNIA Late Byzantine and 
Non-Hyzantine Area 





rivers, and are traversed by some 20 passes, of 
which the most important are TRaJANn’s GATE; Via 
Succorum (now Ichtimanski Prohod), a link on 
the Via EGNATIA; and Siderogephyron. 

In antiquity the Haimos mountains formed the 
ethnic frontier of the Thracians. During the Great 
Migrations it remained a natural border of the 
Byz. Empire against the Goths and later the Avars; 
its passes were well fortified. In the 6th and 7th 
C. the romanized Thraco-Illyrian population was 
forced to settle in the mountains; they reappear 
in the 11th C. as the Viacus. In the second half 
of the yth C. the leading role was assumed by a 
Sklavene group called the “Seven Tribes,” but as 
early as 680 these Sklavenoi had become associates 
of the newly arrived Bulgars of ASPARUCH. A year 
later the Byz. acknowledged Bulgar occupation as 
a fait accompli and concluded a peace with the 
newcomers; Haimos became the Byz. frontier. In 
Omurrac’s treaty (816-17) the Byz.-Bulgarian 
frontier was defined by a line that ran westward 
from Develtos to Makrolivada. The Bulgarians 
were allowed to fortify this line with ramparts and 
trenches; it became known as the “Great Fence” 
(herkesia). 











MOESIA 


INFERIORIS » BLACK 






SEA 


| et 











cS 
1a PEE: 
ap ees ote Y 


A AEGEAN 
wi SEA 


ur. D. Detev, “Hemus i Rodopi: Prinos kim starata 
geografija na Bălgarija,” GSU FIF 21.10 (1925) 3-36. G. 
Cankova-Petkova, “Sur l'établissement des tribus slaves du 
groupe bulgare au sud du Bas Danube,” Etudes historiques, 
vol. 4 (Sofia 1968) 143-66. P. Koledarov, Politi¢eska geo- 
grofija na srednovekounata biilgarska diiriava, vol. 1 (Sofia 


1979). —O.P. 


BALNITOR (Sadvitwp, probably from Lat. bal- 
neator, “bathkeeper”), a title known from seals 
dated ca.650—850. The term—always modified by 
the adjective “imperial”—appears in conjunction 
with modest titles such as kandidatos (Zacos, Seals 
1, no.403), hypates (no.224) or former hypatos 
(no.2000), or modest offices such as silentiarios 
(no,1016), anagrapheus of Opsikion (no.2095), and 
several times kommerkiarios (nos. 223-24, 226-27, 
230-31). The functions of the balniter are not 
defined in available sources. Guilland (Institutions 
1:268) views him as an ancestor of the NIPSISTIA- 
rRIOS—a hypothesis that Oikonomides (Listes 301, 
n.88) rejected. 


LIT. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes 174, 0.2. —A.K. 














BALSAMON, THEODORE, canonist; born Con- 
stantinople between ca.1130 and 1140, died after 
1195. Balsamon (BaAcape@v) occupied high po- 
sitions in the church hierarchy: first as patriarchal 
nomophylax and chartophylax, then (from ca.1185— 
go) as patriarch of Antioch (although he remained 
in Constantinople). Isaac II considered the pos- 
sibility of Balsamon’s election as patriarch of Con- 
stantinople but preferred Dositheos of Jerusalem 
(1189—91). Balsamon acted also as hegoumenos of 
Blachernai (PG 104:975A) and of the monastery 
ton Zipon. His major work is the Commentary (Ex- 
egesis) on the NOMOKANON OF FOURTEEN TITLES, 
begun in the 1170s; Balsamon’s aim was not only 
an explanation, but also a critical revision of con- 
tradictory and obsolete statements. Unlike his pre- 
decessors, ARISTENOS and Zonaras, Balsamon in- 
cluded in his commentary many legal texts now 
lost. He differs from Zonaras also in his political 
program; Balsamon staunchly supported strong 
imperial power and imperial political aspirations. 
He defended the privileges of the patriarchate of 
Constantinople and in this connection critically 
studied the DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (A. Pav- 
lov, VizVrem 3 [1896] 21—29). His other canonical 
works included a treatise defending third mar- 












































BANALITY | 249 


riages, which were important for the aristocracy’s 
attempt to strengthen clan linkages (A. Pavlov, 
VizVrem 2 [1895] 503-11). Balsamon defended 
the role of the CHARTOPHYLAX against the PRO- 
TEKDIKOS. In 1195 he issued answers to canonical 
questions of Mark III, patriarch of Alexandria 
(ca.1195). He also wrote letters and epigrams that 
throw light on Byz. cultural life. As a canonist 
Balsamon was criticized by Neilos KABASILAS (A. 
Failler, REB 32 [1974] 211-23). 

ED. Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 2—4, or PG 1937—38. E. Miller, 
“Lettres de Théodore Balsamon,” Annuaire de l'association 
pour l'encouragement des études grecques en France 18 (1884) 
8—19 (also Th. Papazotos in Trito symposio byzantines kai 
metabyzantines archatologias kai technes [Athens 1983] 70). 
Horna, “Epigramme” 178—204. 

LIT. G.P. Stevens, De Theodoro Balsamone (Rome 1969). 
V. Narbekov, Nomokanon konstantinopol’skogo patriarcha Fo- 
tija s tolkovaniem Val’samona (Kazan’ 1899). A. Christophi- 
lopoulos,“He schesis ton kanonon pros tous nomous kai ho 
Theodoros Balsamon,” EEBS 21 (1951) 69~73. -A.K. 


BANALITY in Western medieval law designated 
an economic monopoly imposed by landlords on 
their peasants; it included primarily the obliga- 
tions to grind grain at their lord’s water mill, to 
bake bread at his oven, and to press grapes at his 
wine press. Banalities are known in Frankish Mo- 
rea as jus linebrosti in quo actatur linum, “where the 
flax was worked on” (Longnon-Topping, Docu- 
menis 38.13) or labotaga ubi fit oleum, “where olive 
oil was produced” (p.62.1). It is unclear whether 
these rights were of Greek origin or introduced 
by the Crusaders. The Greek term linobrocheion is 
frequently used in Byz. praktika, for instance, to- 
gether with opsonion and vivarium (Délger, Sechs 
Praktika 36, Ago) or with ennomion (Xénoph., 
no.15.24), that is, as one of the rents paid by 
peasants to their lord. A linobrocheion—as a work 
site—had to be located next to water, near a water 
mill (Lavra 2, no.105.23). A payment for using a 
mill, EXAGION, is mentioned in an act of 105g 
(Xénoph., no.1.161). The existing sources do not, 
however, say that the use of these mills, olive 
presses, or places for soaking flax was coercive; it 
is plausible that former coercive rights were sup- 
planted by regular payments imposed on the vil- 
lage as a whole or, indeed, that the use was not 
coercive but de facto unavoidable, since often mills 
belonged to the landlord. 


LIT. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnosentja 125f. J. Bompaire in 
Xerop. 146. Schilbach, Metrologie 183, n.12. -A.K. 


250 | BANDON 

















ANDON (8av6ov), ensign or banner, eventually 
came to signify a small military detachment. As 
defined in the STRATEGIKON OF MauRICE (86.21— 
22), “A bandophoros was a man who carried the 
ensign of a bandon.” The earliest evidence often 
refers to Persian banda. Malalas (Malal. 461.11—- 
12) speaks of the “royal bandon” of the Persians, 
and Theophanes (Theoph. 319.5) reports that 
Herakleios took captive 28 Persian banda. Hagiog- 
raphers of the 7th C. mention banda (W. Kaegi, 
Byzantina 7 [1975] 65-67), usually with ethnic 
designations. In the 1oth C. a TOURMA was com- 
posed of five to seven banda, each bandon consist- 
ing of 50-100 mounted soldiers or 200—400 in- 
fantrymen. The commander of a bandon was called 
KOMES. Constantine VII equated bandon and to- 
poteresia, considering the bandon as a territorial 
unit (De adm. imp. 50.94—110). Unlike other terms 
for territorial units, such as KLEISOURA or tourma, 
the bandon enjoyed longevity and survived at least 
in the empire of Trebizond (F. Uspenskij, V 
BeneSevit, Vazelonskie akty [Leningrad 1927] Ix). 


Lit. Haldon, Praetorians 172f, 276F. S. Kyriakides, By- 
zantinai meletai 5, (Thessalonike 1937) 5378. -A.K. 

















BANJANI. See Nixrra, MONASTERY OF SAINT. 





BANKER (rpamelirns). In the late Roman Em- 
pire the term trapezites was used synonymously 
with ARGYROPRATES, a moneylender (E. Hanton, 
Byzantion 4 [1927-29] 132f). Frequently cited in 
papyri, a trapezites was primarily an administrator 
of a trapeza or bank (F. Preisigke, Girowesen im 
griechischen Egypten? (Hildesheim—New York 1971] 
59); in the grd—qth C. trapezitai were sometimes 
called demosioi or politikoi trapezitai—probably to 
distinguish them from private money changers. 
In the 5th and 6th C., these qualifying epithets 
seem to have disappeared; references are to plain 
trapezitai or to a lamprotatos trapezites (Preisigke, 
Wörterbuch 3:173f). Many, but not all, trapezitaz 
were associated with propertied families, such as 
the Apions in Egypt, and served them as cashiers. 
Another term for the “banker’—money changer 
in the 5th-8th C. was kollektarios (R. Bogaert, 
Chronique d'Egypte 60 [1985] 5—16). 

The trapezitai of the 10th-C. Book of the Eparch 
(ch.3) formed a guild separate from the argyropra- 
tai, at that time the dealers in gold and silver. 
Their principal function was to exchange money; 
their responsibilities also included assaying coins 








of poor alloy and denouncing the sakkoullarioi 
(“bag bearers”), probably unauthorized coin deal- 
ers operating “on the market squares and in pub- 
lic streets.” There is no evidence that the trapezitai 
of this period served as moneylenders. Great em- 
phasis was placed on the necessity for trapezztai to 
prove their honesty. They were also supposed to 
carry out certain imperial assignments, the char- 
acter of which is not defined in the Book of the 
Eparch. 

In late documents as well as in the Book of the 
Eparch, money changers are also called katallaktai. 
In 15th-C, Thessalonike a katallaktes named Platy- 
skalites had a sister who was married to another 
katallaktes, called Chalazas (S. Kougeas, BZ 23 [1920] 
153.14-16). The term trapeztes continued to be 
used, as in the case of lannes Androuses, a money 
changer of the late 14th C. (PLP, no.goiii). The 
shops of money changers were small; thus, in the 
mid-14th C. the Lavra monastery owned in Con- 
stantinople 20 katallaktika trapezia that it had ac- 
quired from different people, some of them noble 
(Lavra 3, no.123.105—10). In 1400 a certain Sa- 
maminthes rented from the monastery of Hode- 
getria in Thessalonike two trapezia that he made 
from katallaktika in a perfumer’s shop (MM 
2:526.17-23). Ecclesiastical institutions thus 
avoided the prohibition on engaging in the money- 
changing business. 

Lit. G. Platon, Les banguters grecs dans la légistation de 


Justinien (Paris 1912). Stéckle, Ziinfte 23f. Bk. of Eparch 140— 
48. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires 64. ~ALK. 


BANQUET (ovurócov), feast held in private 
households during religious and public festivities 
or to celebrate a WEDDING or birth of a child. The 
guests sat in the dining room (triklinon) around 
the best TABLE in the house. They either reclined 
on couches or mattresses (see BEDS) or sat on 
chairs and benches. At a banquet sponsored by 
PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL the imperial guests sat 
at a round ivory table that accommodated 36 
people (Vita, 137.31). Guests were seated accord- 
ing to their social position; usually ecclesiastics 
occupied the place of honor to the right of the 
host. Women and children sat apart in another 
room and were rarely introduced to the guests 
(Vita, 139.32—35). The host provided food, wine, 
and entertainment—music, song, and dancing. 
The clergy stayed only for dinner and had to 
leave when the entertainment began. Kekaume- 


nos recommended avoiding banquets in order to 
be spared their intrigues and idle talk (Kek. 
124.14~20). 

Imperial banquets were held at the palace to 
mark the emperor’s birthday, coronation, mar- 
riage, or birth of a child. They were also held on 
religious FEASTS and public holidays. On such 
occasions the emperor invited high officials along 
with the church hierarchy. The guests wore their 
insignia and regalia. The emperor sat at a sepa- 
rate “golden” or “honorable” table, joined only by 
the six most important state officials. The ban- 
quets were held in various palace rooms with 
different seating capacities. Therefore, each ban- 
quet had a different group of participants. The 
seating was arranged according to a strict proto- 
col. Such occasions were both solemn and festive, 
including the distribution of imperial gifts to 
courtiers and songs and pances. A Westerner like 
LIUTPRAND OF CREMONA criticized these imperial 
banquets as obscene and too lengthy, with food 
reeking of garlic, onions, and leeks. By the 14th 
C. such banquets were given only five times a 
year, on religious feastdays (pseudo-Kod. 219.27— 
220.7). 

In a typological illustration in Athens, Nat. Lib. 
211 (G. Galavaris, Bread and the Liturgy [Madison, 
Wisc., 1970], fig.g4), a table being heaped with 
food by attendants is compared to John Chryso- 
stom serving the faithful at an altar. 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:194—-204. Treitinger, Kaiseridee 
101-05. McCormick, Eternal Victory 104f. —Ap.K., A.C. 


BAPHEUS (Badevs, often incorrectly called Ba- 
phaion), site in BrrHynta of a crucial battle in 
which Osman defeated the Byz. army under 
George MouzaLon on 27 July 1302. By this time, 
the Ottoman Turks had penetrated to the region 
of NIkoMEDEIA and threatened famine by block- 
ing its communications. Mouzalon, with a force 
of 2,000, hoped to relieve the city and allow the 
inhabitants, who had taken refuge within its walls, 
to harvest their crops. Instead, the Turkish cav- 
alry charge broke the ranks of the Byz., whose 
Alan contingent failed to participate, and Mou- 
zalon withdrew ignominiously into the citadel of 
Nikomedeia (Pachym., ed. Bekker 2:333—35). 
The battle produced a fatal weakening of the Byz. 
position in Bithynia, provoked a wave of westward- 
bound refugees, and left the defensible fortified 











BAPTISM 251 





towns as islands in a region soon overrun by the 
Turks. The exact site of the battle has not been 
determined; it was in view of Nikomedeia, prob- 
ably to the east. 

Lit. Arnakis, Othomanoi 127-29. R. Lindner, Nomads and 


Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington, Ind., 1983) 25f. 
-C.F. 


BAPTISM (Bámrioua, Bartıruos), the SACRA- 
MENT of initiation into Christian life via ritual 
lustration in the name of the Trinity for the 
remission of sin. Baptism performed but once and 
never repeated was interpreted in the New Tes- 
tament by metaphors of new beginning, esp. re- 
birth in the Spirit, dying and rising in Christ, 
restoration of sight and illumination, and with 
Old Testament types such as the FLoop, the 
CROSSING OF THE RED SEA, and circumcision on 
the eighth day. Byz. authors like John of Damas- 
cus (Expositio fidei, ed. Kotter, Schriften 2:181—-86, 
231.23~35) develop these traditional themes. 

In the early church an elaborate initiation pro- 
cess, including a lengthy CATECHUMENATE, pre- 
ceded baptism, which took place in the BAPTIS- 
TERY, principally at Easter Vigil, but also, in 
Constantinople, on EPIPHANY, Lazarus SATUR- 
pay, and PENTECOST because of the baptismal and 
resurrectional symbolism associated with these days. 
With the decline of the adult catechumenate and 
the shift to infant baptism (by ca.600), the ritual 
elements that marked the principal stages of this 
three-year process of initiation were concentrated 
within the last weeks of Lent. Finally, on Holy 
Saturday evening, while the congregation kept 
vigil in Hagia Sophia with LECTIONS recounting 
biblical types of baptism, the patriarch in the 
Great Baptistery blessed the Font, presbyters and 
deacons anointed the candidates, and the patri- 
arch himself baptized them and anointed them 
with chrism. Then the neophytes, vested in the 
white robes of sinlessness, made their solemn rit- 
ual entrance into the church to the chant of Psalm 
31 with the baptismal TROPARION (Gal 3:27 plus 
alleluia) as refrain, to join the waiting congrega- 
tion in the final rite of initiation, COMMUNION in 
the paschal Eucnarist (Mateos, Typicon 2:84—89). 
(For the feast of the Baptism of Christ, see Err- 
PHANY.) 











LIT. Arranz, “Rites d'incorporation” 53-66. Arranz, “Les 
sacrements.” ~R.E.T. 


252 | BAPTISTERY 


BAPTISTERY (famriaryprov), a building or room 
containing the FonT and used for rites of BAPTISM. 
The earliest known baptistery was a room within 
the Christian domus at Dura Evropos. Beginning 
with Constantine I’s baptistery at the Lateran Ba- 
silica in Rome and continuing into the 6th C., 
baptisteries were often distinct constructions with 
a variety of forms—circular, octagonal, square, 
rectangular, cruciform, or triconch. No rules de- 
termined the position of the baptistery relative to 
its church. It could be located in front of, to either 
side of, or behind the church building and some- 
times lacked any direct connection with the church. 
Some baptisteries were provided with vestibules 
and subsidiary rooms, though the font was usually 
located in the center of the main space, often 
beneath a dome. After the 6th C. and probably 
as the result of changing baptismal customs, the 
detached baptistery disappears. The font was 
moved into the church, occupying a position in 
the narthex or in a room set aside for that pur- 
pose. In monastic settings the function of the 
baptistery was frequently superseded by that of 
the PHIALE. 

ur. A. Khatchatrian, Les baptistéres paléochrétiens® (Paris 
1980). C. Delvoye, RBK 1:460-—96. M. Falla Castelfranchi, 
Baptisteria (Rome 1980). —MJ. 


BARA, AL-. See Kaper PERA. 


BARBARA (BapGdpa), saint; feastday 4 Dec. The 
different versions of her legend disagree as to 
her birthplace and the date of her martyrdom. 
Barbara was supposedly a daughter of Dioskoros, 
a rich and noble pagan in Heliopolis (or Niko- 
medeia or Antioch), who placed Barbara in a 
tower (pyrgos) to prevent her from marrying. 
Ironically, she had no intention of marrying. She 
soon converted to Christianity and, during her 
father’s absence, ordered a third window installed 
in the bath to symbolize the Trinity. When Dio- 
skoros learned this, he tried to kill Barbara, but 
a supernatural force brought her to a mountain- 
top; helped by a shepherd who was at once trans- 
formed into a rock, her father discovered her and 
dragged her off to trial and execution. The exe- 
cution is variously ascribed to the reign of Maxi- 
minus the Thracian (235-38), of MAXIMIAN, or 
of another emperor. 

The legend was probably created by the 6th or 
7th C. Jonn or Damascus praised Barbara (Schrif- 


ten, ed. Kotter, 5 [1988] 247~78), her passio was 
included in the collection of Symeon Mera- 
PHRASTES (PG 116:301—16), and the legend in- 
spired various encomiasts. It was also translated 
into Syriac and broadly spread in the West. 

Representation in Art. The earliest portrait of 
Barbara is presumed to be that of the 8th C. in 
the presbytery of S. Maria Antiqua in Rome, where 
she is discreetly clad in a MAPHORION. Later images 
of the high-born virgin are virtual fashion plates 
of female COSTUME and HEADGEAR. Her execution 
at the hands of her father is depicted only rarely 
(MENOLOGION OF Basi II, p.224). 

sources. Passions des saints Ecaterine et Pierre d’Alexandrie, 
Barbara et Anysia, ed. J. Viteau (Paris 1897) 89—105. 

ut. BHG 213~-218q. W. Weyh, Die syrische Barbara-Legende 


(Leipzig 1912). A. Wirth, Danae in christlichen Legenden 
(Vienna 1892). —A.K., N.P.S. 


BARBARIANS (SapGapot). The concept of a 
world divided into two polar groups—civilized 
Romans and uncivilized barbarians—-was inher- 
ited by the thinkers of the late Roman Empire 
from classical antiquity and formed part of late 
Roman nationalism. AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS was 
one author who developed the negative stereo- 
type of the barbarian, although as a descriptive 
ethnographer he was more objective and cautious 
than his contemporaries (T. Wiedemann in Past 
Perspectives [Cambridge 1986] 189-201). Practical 
needs (settlement of barbarians as FOEDERATI, mil- 
itary conflicts, and diplomacy) required a more 
sober assessment, reflected, for example, in the 
advocacy by THemistios of tolerance and philan- 
thropy toward the barbarians; on the other hand, 
attempts to idealize the morally upright barbarian 
(e.g., in Theophylaktos SimoxaTres) also repre- 
sented an ancient attitude. 

Initially Christianity tended not to emphasize 
the old contrast but replaced it with another polar 
opposition—Christian and heathen: the percep- 
tion of the limits of the “Roman” OLKOUMENE were 
expanded and gradations were introduced in the 
non-Roman world. Thus, Cassroporus did not 
perceive the Goths as barbarians, reserving this 
epithet for the less “civilized” Franks (L. Viscido, 
Orpheus n.s. 7 [1986] 338-44); the ideas of Chris- 
tian MISSION and the conquest and conversion of 
barbarians were influenced by this concept. 

These Christian notions were not entrenched, 
however, and the Byz. clung to a definition in 


terms of culture rather than creed: not only wild 
nomads but also Christian Latins and even Ortho- 
dox Bulgarians could be regarded as barbarians. 
The distinction between the “Romans” and bar- 
barians (the embodiment of vanity, cruelty, greed, 
bad manners, illiteracy, and so forth) survived 
and was still applied to all peoples outside the 
empire. 

As a conventional image of imperial TRIUMPH, 
statues of defeated barbarians were set up on the 
spina of the HiproproME in Constantinople and 
were frequently represented in Late Antique art 
(e.g., Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, no.54) and on coins. 

uit. Y.A. Dauge, Le barbare (Brussels 1981). J. Vogt, 
Kulturwelt und Barbaren (Wiesbaden 1967). B. Luisellt, 
“L'idea romana dei barbari,” Romanobarbarica 8 (1984-85) 
33-61. G. Podskalsky, “Die Sicht der Barbarenvélker in 
der spatgriechischen Patristik,” OrChrP 51 (1985) 330-51. 

—A.K., A.C. 


BARBARICARII, gold-weavers, embroiderers in 
gold, probably of Germanic origin; the 4th-C. 
grammarian Donatus described them as working 
“with gold and colored threads.” Under Constan- 
tine I they were still private laborers, but later in 
the 4th C. state “factories” were founded in which 
they worked under the supervision of three prae- 
positi branbarwariorum [sic] sive argentariorum, who 
were posted in the West—Arles, Rheims, and Trier; 
in the West they were under the jurisdiction of 
the COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM. In the East 
their function included the decoration of armor 
(helmets) and they were under command of the 
magister officiorum. By 374 their factories were 
known in Constantinople and Antioch, but the 
5th-C. NOTITIA DIGNITATUM locates them in every 
eastern diocese except for Thrace and Illyricum, 
which shared one workshop. 


uT. O. Seeck, RE 2 (1896) 2856f. ~A.K. 


BARBARO, NICOLÒ, Venetian doctor attached 
to the fleet of Venice and eyewitness to the fall of 
Constantinople to the Turks; born ca.1400, died 
after 1453. Barbaro kept a detailed diary of the 
siege from 2 Mar. 1451 to 29 May 1453. Back in 
Venice and nearly a year (at least) after the event, 
he reworked his record into an account that sur- 
vives in the Venetian dialect autograph MS. His 
perspective on the siege is favorable to the Byz., 
highlights the Venetian contribution (e.g., he 
identifies leading Venetian participants, ed. Cor- 


BARBER 253 


net, pp. 16-18), and accuses the Genoese of un- 
dermining the city’s defense, thereby comple- 
menting the accounts of LEONARD oF Curios and 
Jacopo TEDALDI. 

ED. Giornale dell'assedio di Costantinopoli 1453, ed. E. Cor- 
net (Vienna 1856). Excerpts—Pertusi, Caduta 1:8~38. Tr. 
J.R. Jones, Diary of the Siege of Constantinople 1453 (Jericho, 
N.Y., 1969). 

Lit. Karayannopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde 2:527. A. Car- 
ile, LMA 1:1439- —M.McC. 


BARBARUS SCALIGERI, conventional name of 
the author of a chronicle entitled (also conven- 
tionally) Excerpta latina barbari. The Greek original 
was produced in Alexandria after 412 (the end 
of the patriarchate of THEoPHILOs of Alexandria 
is the last event mentioned). While from the Greek 
original only a parchment leaf of the early 5th C. 
survives (P. Berol. 13296), an awkward Latin 
translation of ca.700 is preserved in a single MS 
(Paris B.N. lat. 4884). The name Barbarus Scali- 
geri was given for its first editor, the humanist 
Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540—1609). 

The chronicle consists of three sections: a world 
history from Adam to the fall of Cleopatra; a list 
of rulers (Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek, Persian, etc.) 
to which lists of Jewish high priests and Roman 
emperors have been added; and a list of Roman 
consuls from Caesar to 387. The list of emperors, 
which extends to Anastasios I, is considered an 
interpolation. The chronicle of Barbarus Scaligeri 
was based on older chronicles by Hippolytos, Sex- 
tus Julius Africanus, and Eusebios. 

The Greek parchment leaf contains colored, 
strip illustrations paralleling the papyrus Golen- 
iščev of the so-called ALEXANDRIAN WORLD 
CHRONICLE: it has busts of saints, a scene of mar- 
tyrdom, and one of the earliest representations of 
the walls of Constantinople (H. Lietazmann in 
Quantulacumque. Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake 


{London 1937] 339-48). 


ED. C. Frick, Chronica minora, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1892) 183— 
371. 

ur. H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische 
Chronographie, vol. 2.1 (Leipzig 1885; rp. New York 1967) 
316-29. F. Jacoby, RE 6 (1909) 1566-76. R. Klein, LMA 
4:15 6. —B.B., A.K., A.C. 


BARBER (xovpevs). Information on barbers is 
scanty, despite the important role HarR-cutting 
played in Byz. (e.g., through the monastic TON- 
SURE, or as a form of punishment, or as an expres- 


254 BARBERINI IVORY 


sion of social attitudes through growing a BEARD). 
In late antiquity there were professional barbers, 
and Diocletian established the price of a haircut 
as 2 denaria. According to the Miracles of Kosmas 
and Damianos, a butcher could become a barber; 
he needed only special tools, kourtka ergaleia, and 
some funds (around 50 nomismata) to set up a 
shop (H.J. Magoulias, BS 37 [1976] 28f). Some 
barbers worked in the precincts of churches; in 
the 14th C. Matthew Blastares mentioned barber- 
shops operating at Hagia Sophia alongside the 
shops of PERFUME sellers (Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 
2:483.6—7). There were also barbers at the im- 
perial palace; according to a legend, Emp. Julian 
dismissed all of them but one (Theoph. 47.12). 
Law codes (e.g., Basil. 60.11.1) mention barbers 
working near playgrounds. 


Lit. Koukoules, Bios 2.1:199f. ~Ap.K. 


BARBERINI IVORY (Paris, Louvre, inv. no. OA 
9063), carved ivory panel that takes its name from 
the cardinal-legate whose collection it entered in 
1625. The ivory is often assumed, with insufficient 


BarBerinI Ivory. The Barberini ivory. Musée du 
Louvre, Paris. 

















Aad 





reason, to be one leaf of the so-called five-part 
DIPTYCHS. The mounted emperor is usually said 
to be Anastasios I; the suggestion that he repre- 
sents Justinian I (D.H. Wright, grd BSC Abstracts 
[1977] 6f) is more likely to be correct. The right 
panel is now missing, but the military figure to 
the emperor’s left, presenting a wreath-bearing 
Nike, lends some support to the notion that ivo- 
ries such as this were presented to the emperor 
rather than by him. The PERSONIFICATION of Terra 
(Earth) at his feet and the Indians and other 
BARBARIANS making offerings in the lower panel 
complete a selection of figures deriving from Ro- 
man imperial iconography. The pagan themes of 
tribute to majesty, of victory, and of prosperity 
are, however, christened by the beardless Lord 
set axially above the earthly ruler among cosmo- 
logical symbols. The thesis that the central panel 
is a replacement (P. Speck, Vana H [Berlin 1987] 
348-53) is unlikely, given that all four preserved 
panels bear liturgical notations written on the 
back, indicating that they were in Gaul as early as 
ca.613 (E. Hlawitschka, Rheinische Vierteljahrsblatter 


43 [1979] 1-99). 


uit. Delbrück, Consulardiptychen, no.48. ~AC. 


BARDANES, GEORGE, church official and met- 
ropolitan; born Athens second half of 12th C., 
died ca.1240. Bardanes (Bapéavns) was a central 
figure and spokesman, along with John Apoxau- 
Kos and Demetrios CHOMATENOS, for the ecclesi- 
astical independence of Epiros from the patriarch 
at Nicaea in the period of the Latin occupation 
of Constantinople. He began his career studying 
in Athens with Archbp. Michael CHoniares; when 
Choniates went into exile on Keos after 1205, 
Bardanes served him as hypomnematographos and 
chartophylax (J. Herrin, DOP 29 [1975] 26af). He 
represented Choniates in Constantinople in 1214 
in the discussions with Cardinal PELAGIUS OF AL- 
BANO and by 1218 was serving in the bishopric of 
Grevena, still with the title of chartophylax. Strongly 
recommended by Apokaukos, his friend and cor- 
respondent on matters of canon law (M.Th. Fö- 
gen in Cupido Legum 47-71), Bardanes was ap- 
pointed metropolitan of Kerkyra in 1219 by 
THEODORE Komnenos Doukas, without consult- 
ing the patriarch at Nicaea. He contributed much 
to the schism between the churches, officially de- 
clared in a letter to Patr. Germanos IL, written by 


Bardanes in 1228 on behalf of the Epirot clergy 
(R.-J. Loenertz, EEBS 33 [1964] 87—118), and 
ended in 1233 by another letter of Bardanes. In 
1235/6 MANUEL ANGELOS sent him on an embassy 
to Frederick II and Pope Gregory IX, but illness 
prevented him from fulfilling his mission. While 
convalescing at the monastery of St. Nicholas of 
Casole at Otranto, Bardanes took part in a dis- 
cussion with a Franciscan, Fra Bartolomeo, on 
PURGATORY, of which Bardanes has left an ac- 
count. 

ED. Letters in Latin tr—J.M. Hoeck, R.-J. Loenertz, 
Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto, Abt von Casole (Ettal 1965) 
117-28, 148—235. On Purgatory—M. Roncaglia, Georges 
Bardanes, métropolite de Corfou, et Barthélemy de (Ordre fran- 
ciscain (Rome 1953) 56-71. A. Acconcia Longo, “Per la 
storia di Corfou nel XIII secolo,” RSBN 22—23 (1985—86) 
209-29. 

‘Lit. Nicol, Epiros I 82f, 115-21. G. Prinzing, “Die Anti- 
graphe des Patriarchen Germanos I. an Erzbischof Deme- 
trios Chomatenos von Ohrid und die Korrespondenz zum 
nikäisch-epirotischen Konflikt 1212-33,” RSBS 3 (1984) 
21—64. -R.J.M. 


BARDANES TOURKOS (Bapddavys ó mikiny 
Todpxos), unsuccessful rebel in 803. Of Armenian 
origin, Bardanes was a patrikios and strategos of 
the Anatolikon under Nikephoros I (Toumanoff, 
“Caucasia” 150); he is probably to be identified 
with the patrikios Bardanios who, as domestikos ton 
scholon under Constantine VI, arrested PLATO oF 
SAKKOUDION and, as strategos of the Thrakesion, 
supported Irene against Constantine in 797 (Guil- 
land, Titres, pt. 1X [1970] 339f). In 803 Emp. Ni- 
kephoros I appointed Bardanes “monostrategos of 
the five eastern themes” (TheophCont 6.14~16), 
probably anticipating an offensive against the Ar- 
abs. On 18 July Bardanes was proclaimed em- 
peror reportedly for economic reasons: Nikepho- 
ros may not have paid the troops, Bardanes had 
equitably distributed booty from Arab campaigns. 
or Bardanes may have opposed the high taxes of 
Nikephoros. His supporters included Michael (I1), 
Leo (V), and THOMAS THE SLAV. 

According to several Byz. sources (Genes. 6.4— 
7.36; TheophCont 7), before his revolt Bardanes 
visited a holy man who prophesied that his rebel- 
lion would fail, Michael and Leo would each reign, 
and Thomas would himself instigate a revolt. The 
Armeniakon troops refused to join Bardanes, who 
unsuccessfully besieged Chrysoupolis for eight 
days. Michael and Leo deserted him, and Bar- 


BARDAS | 255 


danes withdrew to Malagina to negotiate with 
Nikephoros, who apparently used Joseph of Ka- 
thara as an intermediary (see MOECHIAN CONTRO- 
VERSY). Receiving a written guarantee of safety 
confirmed by Patr. Tarasios, in Sept. Bardanes 
took refuge in the monastery of Herakleion in 
the port of Kios (in Bithynia), where he became 
a monk under the name Sabbas. He moved to a 
monastery that he had built on Prote, but Nike- 
phoros confiscated his property, arrested his sup- 
porters, and blinded him. 

LIT. E. Kountoura-Galake, “He epanastase tou Bardane 
Tourkou,” Symmeikta 5 (1983) 203-15. S. Mauromate- 
Katsougiannopoulou, “He epanastase tou strategou Bar- 
dane stis synchrones kai metagenesteres aphegematikes 
peges,” Byzantina 10 (1980) 217-36. Kaegi, Unrest 245-47. 
Bury, ERE 10-14. ~P.A.H. 


BARDAS (Bapéas), caesar; died 21 Apr. 866 
(TheophCont 206.13). An Armenian from Paphla- 
gonia (Toumanoff, “Caucasia” 136) and brother 
of Empress THEODORA and Petronas, Bardas be- 
gan his career in the military. In 837 Emp. Theo- 
philos, who entitled him patrikios, sent him with 
THEOPHOBOS into Abchasia, where he was de- 
feated. He may have played a small role during 
Theodora’s regency for Michael HI, but after 
helping Michael dethrone her by assassinating 
THEOKTISTOS, he was named chartoulartos tou ka- 
nikleiou, magistros, and then domestikos ton scholon. 
In 859 Michael entitled his uncle kouropalates and 
on 26 Apr. 862 crowned him as CAESAR. 

An outstanding administrator, Bardas was re- 
sponsible for many achievements of Michael’s reign, 
including the baptism of Boris I of Bulgaria, the 
mission of CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER and 
METHODIOS to Moravia, and the election of Patr. 
PHotios. Bardas contributed to the revival of 
secular learning by organizing a school in the 
MaGnavra and patronizing scholars such as Tro 
THE MATHEMATICIAN (Lemerle, Humanism 183f). 
From his first marriage he had two sons—one he 
named domestikos ton scholon, another a strategos-— 
and one daughter. He married his second wife, 
Theodosia, ca.855 and divorced her ca.862, but 
probably continued to live with his daughter-in- 
law EUDOKIA INGERINA, who had joined his house- 
hold after the death of his eldest son, apparently 
ca.857. According to NikeTas Davip PAPHLAGON 
(PG 105:504C), Bardas deposed Patr. IGNATIOS 
for condemning his relationship with Eudokia as 


256 | BAR HEBRAEUS 


incestuous. Bardas was assassinated by Basil (I) 
while campaigning with Michael in Asia Minor. 
Following other numerous scenes from his life, 
this last event is depicted in the Madrid Skylitzes 
MS (Grabar-Manoussacas, Skylttzés, no.195) in a 
manner suggesting that Michael II] was respon- 
sible for Bardas’s death. 

ur. Guilland, Institutions 1:437. F. Dvornik, “Patriarch 


Ignatius and Caesar Bardas,” BS 27 (1966) 7-22. 
~P.A.H., A.C. 


BAR HEBRAEUS. See GREGORY ABO’L-Farayj. 


BARI (Bá&pıs), Adriatic port in Apulia, occupied 
by the Byz. in 875/6 and used as a military base 
during their recovery of southern Italy under 
Basil I. In 893 Bari became the residence of the 
strategos of Longobardia and later of the KATEPANO 
of Italy. The Normans conquered the city in 
1071. The population of Bari was predominantly 
Lombard, the local language was Latin, and the 
ecclesiastical rite was and remained Roman Cath- 
olic throughout the Byz. period. As the capital of 
Byz. Italy for almost 200 years, however, Bari 
experienced the presence of a conspicuous num- 
ber of non-Italian officials, the immigration of 
new inhabitants from all parts of the empire 
(Greeks, Armenians, and Jews), and frequent con- 
tacts between the local upper class and Constan- 
tinople. In fact, 11th-C. documentation shows that 
many members of the upper class of Bari were 
bilingual and acquired Byz. tastes in art and lit- 
erature. According to the local annals (MGH SS 
5:51-63), Bari was also the center of Italian op- 
position to the Byz. government. There is some 
evidence of trade between Bari and the empire. 
In 1087, local merchants brought the relics of St. 
NicHOoLas OF Myra to Bari. The church of the 
city’s new patron saint, Nicholas, was built on the 
site of the Byz. governor’s residence (praetorium), 
which was given by Duke Roger to the archbishop 
of Bari in the same year. Schettini (infra) argued 
that the extant church is actually the remodeled 
shell of the katepano’s palace, but his thesis has 
been generally rejected, not least because a doc- 
ument attests the destruction of the palace in a 
revolt of 1079. Many fragments of Byz. sculpture 
are still preserved in the town. 

LIT. V. von Falkenhausen, “Bari bizantina,” in Spazio, 


società, potere nell'Italia det Comuni, ed. G. Rossetti (Naples 
1986) 195—227. Guillou, Byz. Italy, pt. VIII, 1—22. M. Milella 


Lovecchio, “La scultura bizantina dell XI secolo nel museo 
di San Nicola di Bari,” MEFRM 93 (1981) 7—87. M. Sal- 
vatore, N. Lavermicocca, “Sculture altomedievali e bizan- 
tine nel museo di S. Nicola di Bari,” Rivista dell’Istituto 
nazionale di archeologia e storia dell’arte” 3 (1980) 93—135. F. 
Schettini, La Basilica di San Nicola di Bari (Bari 1967), rev. 
G. Morsch, ZKunst 31 (1968) 151-58. Archeologia di una 
citlà. Bari dalle origini al X secolo, ed. G. Andreassi, F. Radino 
(Bari 1988) 499-589. -V.v.F., D.K. 


BARLAAM AND IOASAPH, prose romance of 
uncertain date and authorship. “A story beneficial 
for the soul,” it describes the conversion to Chris- 
tianity of the Indian prince Ioasaph by the hermit 
Barlaam and the subsequent conversion of King 
Abenner by his son Ioasaph. The plot provides 
the opportunity to develop the principles of the 
Christian creed and its advantages over paganism. 
One of the most widely read Greek texts of the 
Middle Ages, Barlaam and Ioasaph survives in over 
140 MSS, some probably of the 1oth C.; the 
earliest dated MS is from 1021 (B. Fonkič, AB gi 
[1973] 13-20). The story is of Oriental origin, 
reflecting to some extent the life of Buddha, but 
the path of transmission of the legend from India 
to Byz. is unclear. The date of composition and 
the authorship of the Greek Barlaam and Ioasaph 
are also under discussion. Scholarly tradition clings 
primarily to two names: Jonn oF Damascus and 
EUTHYMIOS THE IBERIAN, who allegedly translated 
the work from Georgian. Probably neither is to 
be credited with this achievement, and the work 
should instead be assigned to an unknown John 
of Mar Saba of the gth C.(?), whose name appears 
on dozens of MSS. Barlaam and Ioasaph was trans- 
lated into various languages, Latin, Slavic, etc. 
Five densely illustrated Byz. MSS of Barlaam 
and loasaph survive, dating from the 1ith C. (Je- 
rusalem, Gr. Patr. Stavrou 42) and later. The 
earliest have purely narrative illustration that closely 
follows the text, much like that of the Madrid MS 
of John Sxytirzes. Examples of the 13th to 14th 
C. include miniatures of the FLoon, the CROSSING 
OF THE Rep Sea, and other Old Testament scenes. 
Paris, B.N. gr. 1128 (14th C.) adds a notable 
CREATION cycle, as well as scenes of the INFANCY 
OF CHRIST, MIRACLES OF CHRIST, and PASSION OF 
CuristT. It also depicts Barlaam as a monk in its 
frontispiece and includes scenes and figures, such 
as CARPENTERS, drawn from everyday life. In all 
versions, Indian buildings, boats, beds, and other 
realia are represented as if they were Byz. Only 
the occasional turban suggests the tale’s exotic 


setting. The name loasaph was adopted by Jonn 
VI KANTAKOUZENOS and several members of the 
Nemanjip dynasty, who had themselves repre- 
sented as the monastic hero of the story at STU- 
pENICA and Gracanica (V.J. Djuri¢, CahArch 33 
[1985] 99-109). 

ED. St. John Damascene: Barlaam and Joasaph®, ed. G.R. 
Woodward, H. Mattingly (Cambridge, Mass.~London 1967), 
with Eng. tr. Slavic version—Povest’ o Varlaame i loasafe, ed. 
I. Lebedeva (Moscow 1985). 

uit. P. Peeters, “La première traduction latine de ‘Bar- 
laam et Joasaph’ et son original grec,” AB 49 (1931) 276- 
a12. F. Délger, Der griechische Barlaam -Roman (Ettal 1953). 
A. Kazhdan, “Where, when and by whom was the Greek 
Barlaam and Ioasaph not Written,” in Zu Alexander d. Gr. 
Festschrift G. Wirth zum 60. Geburistag am 9.12.86, vol. 2 
(Amsterdam 1988) 1187—1209. S. Der Nersessian, L’tlus- 
tration du roman de Barlaam et Joasaph, 2 vols. (Paris 1937). 


Treasures 2:306—22, figs.53—122. 
-E.MJ., MJJ., A.K., A.C. 


BARLAAM OF CALABRIA, theologian; born 
Seminara, Calabria, ca.1290, died Avignon? June 
1948 (A. Pertusi, /iMedUm 3 [1960] 108 n.1). Born 
in southern Italy to an Orthodox family, he be- 
came a monk in his youth. In 1330 he moved to 
Constantinople, where he was hegoumenos of the 
Akataleptos monastery until 1341. A protégé of 
Anpronikxos III, he served as an Orthodox 
spokesman in Union negotiations in Constanti- 
nople and, in 1339, as imperial emissary to the 
courts of Naples and Paris. A brilliant but arro- 
gant and contentious scholar, in the mid-1330s 
he began to attack HESycHaASM for both its theol- 
ogy and manner of prayer. He accused Gregory 
PaLaMas of MESSALIANISM, and argued that the 
light on Mt. Tapor at the Transfiguration was 
created and not eternal. His intemperate criticism 
of the mystical exercises of the monks of Mt. 
Athos (whom he called omphalopsychoz, “with souls 
in their navels”) triggered the controversy over 
PALAMISM that was to divide the Byz. church for 
over a decade. The local council of Constantino- 
ple of 1341 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUN- 
CILS OF) condemned Barlaam and ordered his 
anti-hesychast writings burned. He returned to 
the West, converted to Catholicism at Avignon in 
1342, and became bishop of Gerace in Calabria 
(1342—48). At Avignon Barlaam met Petrarch, 
who was later to study Greek with him. Barlaam 
was anathematized by the Orthodox church in 
1351. 

Bilingual, Barlaam left writings in both Latin 
and Greek. Most of his anti-Palamite works (ex- 


BARNABAS 257 


cept for his letters and an unedited disputation 
with Gregory AKINDYNOS) were destroyed, so his 
views are known primarily from the rebuttals of 
his opponents. His 21 anti-Latin treatises on the 
Procession of the Holy Spirit and papal primacy 
do survive (in Latin), but are mostly unpublished. 
Barlaam was also interested in ASTRONOMY and 
wrote treatises on solar ECLIPSES and the ASTRO- 
LABE. 

ED. PG 151:1255—82, 1301—84. Epistole greche, ed. G. 
Schirò (Palermo 1954). Epistole a Palamas, ed. A. Fyrigos 
(Rome 1975), with Ital. tr. Traités sur les éclipses de soleil de 
1331 et 1337, ed. J. Mogenet, A. Tihon (Louvain 1977), 
with Fr. tr. For further ed., see Tusculum-Lexikon 102. 

ur, G. Schirò, Ho Barlaam kai he philosophia eis ten Thes- 
saloniken (Thessalonike 1959). Podskalsky, Theologie 126— 
94. PLP, no.2284. R.E. Sinkewicz, “The Doctrine of the 
Knowledge of God in the Early Writings of Barlaam the 
Calabrian,” MedSt 44 (1982) 181—242. P. Leone, “Barlaam 
in Occidente,” in Studi in onore di Mario Marti (Lecce 1981) 
427-46. A. Fyrigos, “Barlaam Calabro tra laristotelismo 
scolastico e il neoplatonismo bizantino,” Id Veltro 27 (1983) 
185-95. -A.M.T. 


BARLEY. See GRAIN. 


BARNABAS (BaprvaBas), apostle and saint; feast- 
day (together with St. Bartholomew) 11 June. 
Originally from Cyprus, he taught with PauL in 
Antioch and Cyprus and thereafter with MARK. 
He is considered the founder of the Cypriot 
church. Eusebios of Caesarea (HE 1.12.1) states 
that some people listed Barnabas among the 70 
disciples of Christ. The epistle of Barnabas was 
seen as authentic by Origen and was included in 
some MSS of the Bible (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus), 
but Eusebios and Jerome considered it apocry- 
phal. The New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews 
was attributed to Barnabas in the 2nd and grd C., 
but Eusebios rejected his authorship. Although 
the so-called Gospel According to Barnabas, a piece 
of pro-Islamic polemic, has survived only in Ital- 
ian and Spanish, Cirillo (infra) considered it to 
have descended from an apocryphal work com- 
piled in the Judaeo-Christian milieu before the 
5th C. 

Byz. legend usually connects Barnabas with Cy- 
prus. His relics, together with a copy of the Gospel 
of Matthew allegedly copied by Barnabas himself, 
were discovered under a tree in Cyprus (4887); 
this tradition was used by the Cypriots as an 
argument against their dependence on Antioch 
(THEODORE LECTOR 121.19~-23). The Cypriot leg- 
end was developed by Alexander the Monk in his 


258 BARSANOUPHIOS 


eulogy of Barnabas. Another legend, accepted in 
the Synaxarion of Constantinople, stressed the con- 
nection of Barnabas with PETER—Barnabas was 
Peter’s companion and Peter ordained him; the 
memory of Barnabas was celebrated in Constan- 
tinople in the Church of St. Peter, near Hagia 
Sophia. 

ED. Évangile de Barnabé, ed. and tr. L. Cirillo and M. 
Frémaux (Paris 1977). 

uit. BHG 225-226e. L. Cirillo, “Un nuovo Vangelo apo- 
crifo: il Vangelo di Barnaba,” Rivista di storia e letteratura 
religiosa 11 (1975) 391-412. R. Stichel, “Bemerkungen zum 
Barnabas-Evangelium,” BS 43 (1982) 189—201. —A.K. 


BARSANOUPHIOS (Bapoavovduos), monastic 
writer; died ca.445. An Egyptian by birth, Bar- 
sanouphios took up the vocation of a recluse at 
the koinobion of Abba Seridos at Thavatha, near 
Gaza. Together with another recluse at the same 
monastery, John “the Prophet,” Barsanouphios 
issued opinions, presumably in Greek, on a wide 
range of problems presented to him as questions 
coming from other monks, bishops, and lay peo- 
ple. The responses of the two holy men, called 
“the Great Old Man” and “the Other Old Man,” 
respectively, were gathered by a now anonymous 
monk of the monastery into a collection of some 
850 questions and answers. As recluses, Barsa- 
nouphios and John corresponded with others only 
through intermediaries. Abba Seridos performed 
this service for Barsanouphios; the young Do- 
ROTHEOS OF Gaza was intermediary for John. The 
texts of the responses of the two recluses furnish 
abundant evidence for many of the practical prob- 
lems churchmen and others encountered in 5th- 
and 6th-C, Palestine. They approved the ascetical 
counsels of Evacrios Pontikos, while rejecting 
his “Origenism.” Their teaching was extremely 
influential in monastic circles. The kernel of their 
ascetical advice is the constant admonition to cul- 
tivate an attitude of freedom from anxiety and 
reliance on God. 

ED. S.N. Schoinas, Nikodemou Hagioreitou Biblos Barsan- 
ouphiou kai Ioannou (Volos 1960). “Barsanuphius and John: 
Questions and Answers,” ed. D.J. Chitty, PO 31 (21966) 
447-616. Fr. tr. L. Regnault, P. Lemaire, B. Outtier, Bar- 


sanuphe et Jean de Gaza, Correspondance (Solesmes 1972). 
urr. Chitty, Desert 132-40. -S.H.G. 


BARSAUMA, or Barsumas, metropolitan of Ni- 
sibis (from ca.470); born in northern Persia (as a 
slave?) between about 415 and 420, died 496. 


Educated in Edessa by Isas of Edessa, he eagerly 
joined the Nestorians, stirring up such a hatred 
of the Monophysites that the “Robber” Council of 
Ephesus (449) demanded his expulsion from 
Ephesus. After the death of Ibas in 457, Bar- 
sauma left Edessa and settled in Nisibis, where he 
was elected bishop. He successfully contested the 
authority of Babaway, metropolitan of Ktesiphon- 
Seleukeia, and with the help of the Persian king 
Pér6z (459-84) brought about the deposition of 
the metropolitan and a flogging that proved fatal; 
Barsauma’s friend Akakios was appointed as Ba- 
baway’s successor. Barsauma opposed the require- 
ment of celibacy for the clergy and was himself 
married to a former nun. He founded the acad- 
emy of Nisibis and invited Narsat or EDESSA to 
teach there. A Syriac catalog of ‘ABDISHOS BAR 
BerixA lists his sermons, hymns, and other works, 
of which six short letters (in Syriac) to Akakios of 
Ktesiphon have survived. At the end of his life 
Barsauma opposed the HENoTIKON and the in- 
creasing influence of the Monophysites. 

ED. O. Braun, ed., “Des Barsauma von Nisibis Briefe an 
den Katholikos Akak,” in Actes du Xe Congrès des Orientalistes, 
Généve, 1894 (Leiden 1896), pt.3, sect.2:83—101. 

LiT. S. Gero, Barsauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity 
in the Fifth Century (Louvain 1981). J. Labourt, Le Christian- 
isme dans l'empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide® (Paris 1904) 
igt—52. G. Bardy, DHGE 6 (1932) 948-50. J.-M. Sauget, 
DPAC 1:484~-86. ~AK. 


BARTER ECONOMY. Alongside the Byz. mon- 
etary economy there existed an element of barter 
that took various forms. First, small-scale produc- 
ers may have exchanged their products in local 
markets, as did the gth-C. peasant Metrios at a 
FAIR; but there he met a merchant who conducted 
his business in large amounts of cash (Synax.CP 
721.30-34). Barter could be a first stage in trans- 
actions that eventually became monetized, as is 
evident by the development of Athonite trade (a 
clear case of barter is found in the vita of ATHANA- 
sios oF ATHOS [vita A, ed. Noret, par.38.9—-30]; 
see also Prot. nos. 7.99-100, 8.gg~—100). Second, 
some taxes were paid in kind, not in the Byz. 
Empire proper but rather in outlying provinces. 
The Bulgarians, after the conquests of Basil H, 
were allowed to pay their taxes in kind. The 
conversion of these taxes into payments in cash, 
during the reign Michael IV, caused a revolt. 
Third, foreign trade occasionally took the form 
of an exchange of commodities. The BOOK oF THE 
Eparcu (9.6) describes a classic barter situation: 


Bulgarians or other non-Byz. go to Constantino- 
ple to exchange their goods; the linen merchants, 
acting as brokers, find the [Byz.] merchants who 
have the appropriate commodities and receive a 
commission, in cash, for their services. It is im- 
portant to note the juxtaposition of a barter econ- 
omy, resulting from the needs of outsiders, and 
the cash economy in which the Byz. merchants 
themselves operated. There is, finally, another 
type of barter, involving services. Professionals of 
one sort or another might receive their salary 
partly in cash and partly in kind; these include, 
for example, the bishops and priests of rural areas 
and the doctors of the hospital of the PANTOKRA- 
TOR MONASTERY in Constantinople. 

Given the fact that taxes were collected over- 
whelmingly in cash and cash transactions were 
commonplace, the role of barter must not be 
exaggerated. The importance of barter may have 
increased somewhat in the 7th—8th C., but in 
general its role was secondary to the dominant 
cash economy. 

ur. A.P. Kazhdan, “Iz ekonomiteskoj žizni Vizantii xi- 
xii vv.,” VizOe 2 (1971) 200f. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes 
241-55. ~-ALL. 


BARTHOLOMEW (Bap@odopaios), apostle, 
treated as one of the Twelve, and saint; feastday 
in Constantinople (together with St. BARNABAS) 
11 June. Byz. legends present Bartholomew as 
teaching in Asia Minor where, together with PHILIP, 
he suffered a martyr’s death in Hierapolis. Al- 
ready Eusebios of Caesarea (HE 5.10.3) was aware 
of Bartholomew’s journey to “India” (Ethiopia or 
Arabia?), whither Bartholomew brought the Gos- 
pel of Matthew written in Hebrew. Eventually, 
the legend developed that he was crucified in 
Arbanoupolis in Armenia, whence his relics were 
brought in a lead casket first to Benevento and 
then to Lipari. Armenian texts from the 7th C. 
onward claimed that Bartholomew died and was 
buried in “Urbanopolis of Great Armenia,” which, 
according to van Esbroeck, was a new name for 
Nikopolis of Pontos. The presence in Armenia of 
one of the Twelve Apostles (not merely that of 
Thaddeus, one of the 70) served as a justification 
for Armenian ecclesiastical autonomy. In Byz. the 
veneration of Bartholomew was probably con- 
nected with Thessalonike: there, Joseph the Hym- 
nographer received the relics of “the great apos- 
tle” and soon after built (in Thessalonike?) the 


BASIL | 259 


Church of Bartholomew (PG 105:964A). Several 
eulogies of Bartholomew were compiled (e.g., by 
Theodore of Stoudios). 

uit. BHG 227-232f. F. Spadafora, Bibl.sanci. 2:852-62. 
M. van Esbroeck, “The Rise of Saint Bartholomew’s Cult 


in Armenia,” Medieval Armenian Culture (Chico, Calif., 1984) 
161—78. —A.K. 


BARUCH (Bapovy), legendary friend and com- 
panion of JEREMIAH; pseudonymous author of 
several Hebrew and Judaeo-Christian apocalyptic 
books. The Book of Baruch or Baruch I, which 
develops the theme of sin and repentance, became 
popular with Christian theologians; it was com- 
mented on by THEODORET OF CyRRHUS, OLYMPIO- 
DOROS OF ALEXANDRIA, and (in the 7th C.?) John 
the Droungarios. Theodoret (PG 81:761A) jux- 
taposed Baruch with Paul (“the divine apostle”) 
and stressed the concordance between Old Tes- 
tament and New Testament. Baruch II is a Syriac 
Apocalypse, probably of the early end C. Baruch 
HI, which may also date to the 2nd C., has sur- 
vived in only two Greek MSS of the 15th—16th C. 
and—in different forms—in Slavic versions. It is 
accepted that Origen knew Baruch IHI and that 
it was written before 231, even though ORIGEN 
(First Principles 2.9.6) found “clear indication of 
the seven worlds or heavens,” where Baruch IH 
speaks of Baruch’s ascent to the five heavens: the 
first two of these house sinners; the third a dragon, 
a sea, primal rivers, the garden of Eden (?), the 
sun with the Phoenix, and the moon; the fourth, 
the souls of the righteous; the fifth, the angels. 
ED. J.C. Picard, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece (Leiden 1967). 
LIT. M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-Catenen nach römischen 
Handschriften (Freiburg im Breisgau 1899) 129f. E. Tur- 
deanu, “L’Apocalypse de Baruch en slave,” RES 48 (1969) 
23—48. =], AK. 


BASIL (Bacidetos), personal name (meaning 
“imperial, royal”). Unknown in antiquity and in 
the New Testament, the name first appeared in 
the 4th C. (O. Seeck, RE 3 [1899] 48; PLRE 
1:148f). Relatively rare in the early centuries 
(Theophanes the Confessor lists only four Basils), 
it became more popular in the 10th and 11th C. 
when, for example, Skylitzes mentions 25 Basils, 
almost as many as THEODORE (26); it is perhaps 
no coincidence that the two emperors named Basil 
ruled in the gth—11th C. In the later acts of Lavra, 
vols. 2—3 (19th—15th C.), however, Basil occupies 


260 BASIL 


only the eighth place among male names. The 
puns based on the etymology of the name are 
self-evident: thus PHotios (Epistulae 3:42.1346) 
called Basil the Great “the imperial (basileios) attire 
of the church.” -A.K. 


BASIL, archbishop of Seleukeia (from ca.440); 
ecclesiastical writer; died after 468. Basil vacillated 
publicly and dramatically in his attitude toward 
EurycHes and MonopnysitisM—either from op- 
portunism or genuine changes of heart. He first 
opposed the Monophysites at Constantinople in 
448, supported them the next year at the “Rob- 
ber” Council of Ephesus, and finally subscribed 
to their condemnation at Chalcedon in 451 (M. 
van Parys, lrénzkon 44 [1971] 493-514). 

Forty-one biblical sermons survive under his 
name, though at least two (nos. 38—39) are spu- 
rious; six pseudo-Athanasian sermons (PG 
28:1047—61, 1073-1108) are now, however, at- 
tributed to him. Photios (Bibl., cod.168) read 15 
of Basil’s homilies, noting the exegetical influence 
of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom; he ap- 
proved their content but found the style too pre- 
tentious. Basil’s taste for dramatic form has led to 
his being credited with an influence on the kon- 
takia of Romanos THE MELODE (P. Maas, BZ 19 
[1910] 285-306). G. Dagron (Vie et miracles de 
sainte Thécle [Brussels 1978] 13-19) has argued 
that Basil is not the author of the vita and Miracles 
of THEKLA, as is usually thought. According to 
Photios, however, he did write a poetical version 
of her Acta, which has not survived. 

ep. PG 85:10~618. P. Camelot, “Une homélie inédite 
de Basile de Séleucie,” in Mélanges A.-M. Desrousseaux (Paris 
1937) 35-48. Homélies pascales, ed. M. Aubineau (Paris 
1972) 167—277, with Fr. tr. 

tit. B. Marx, “Der homiletische Nachlass des Basileios 
von Seleukeia,” OrChrP 7 (1941) 329-69. M. Lopez-Salva, 
“Los Thaumata de Basilio de Seleucia,” Cuadernos de filologia 
clásica 3 (1972) 217-319. —B.B., A.M.T. 


BASIL I, emperor (867-86) and founder of the 
MACEDONIAN DYNASTY; born Thrace or Mace- 
donia 830 or 835 (E.W. Brooks, BZ 20 [1911] 
486—g1i) or on 25 May 836 (Adontz, Etudes 67), 
died Constantinople 29 Aug. 886. Of peasant 
origin, Basil had a brilliant career under MICHAEL 
HI, was crowned co-emperor in 866, and became 
emperor after Michael’s murder 23/4 Sept. 867. 


In the Vrra Basiu Constantine VII described 
Basil (his grandfather) as an ideal ruler concerned 
with fiscal administration, justice, and protecting 
the poor and catalogued the many structures, 
including the Nea Exkesia and the Kainourgion 
in the GREAT Parace, that he built or restored, 
Basil’s known reforms reveal his tendency to 
strengthen state control over economic life: he 
prohibited the exaction of INTEREST and tried (but 
failed) to require peasants to pay taxes for aban- 
doned neighboring lands. He stimulated the res- 
toration of Roman law and promulgated the 
PROCHEIRON and the EPANAGOGE. 

Basil faced resistance of various sorts: the re- 
bellion of slaves of his cousin Asylaion was crushed; 
in 872 Basil’s general Christopher routed the Pau- 
LICIANS; John Kourkouas organized an aristo- 
cratic plot in 883—85. There were also troubles 
within the family: Leo, Basil’s son and heir, was 
imprisoned, allegedly slandered by Sanrasa- 
RENOS, and reconciliation was achieved only ‘just 
before Basil’s death. Basil fought the Arabs both 
in the East and in Italy. He seized Zapetra and 
Samosata in 873 but suffered defeat at MELITENE; 
in 878 ANDREW THE SCYTHIAN won a Victory at 
Podandos but retreated from Tarsos. The suc- 
cesses of Nasar and Nikephoros PHoxas in south- 
ern Italy only partly compensated for the Byz. 
loss of Syracuse. In Italy Basil sought an alliance 
with both Louis II and the papacy; he had to 
yield to Pope NıcHoras I and replace PHorios 
with Icnatios. Basil succeeded in occupying Cy- 
prus for seven years. He died after a hunting 
accident. Together with members of his family, 
he is portrayed at the start of the PARIS GREGORY 
MS. 

SOURCES, TheophCont 211-353. A. Vogt, I. Hausherr, 
Oraison funèbre de Basile I par son fils Léon VI le Sage (Rome 
1932). Gy. Moravesik, “Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser 
Basileios L,” DOP 15 (1961) 59—126. 

LIT. A. Vogt, Basile Ier, empereur de Byzance (867-886) 
(Paris 1908). Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.1:1~114. B.N. Blysidou, 
“Symbole ste melete tes exoterikes politikes tou Basileiou 
A’ ste dekaetia 867—877,” Symmeikta 4 (1981) 301-15. E. 
Kislinger, “Der junge Basileios I. und die Bulgaren,” JOB 
30 (1981) 137-50. ~ALK., A.C. 


BASIL I, grand duke of Moscow and Vladimir 
(1389-1425); born 1371, died Moscow 28 Feb. 
1425. Son of Dimitrij Donskoj, he was sent in his 
youth as a hostage to the Golden Horde. Soon 
after Basil succeeded his father as grand duke, 


be married the Lithuanian princess Sophia (1391). 
He annexed Nizni Novgorod and withstood the 
incursion of Timur in 1395. In 1393 Basil ob- 
jected to the commemoration of Emp. Manuel H 
in the diptychs by the pro-Byz. metropolitan Kır- 
RIAN, reportedly saying, “We have a church but 
no emperor.” It was in response to this incident 
that Patr. ANTONY IV sent his letter defending 
the universal sovereignty of the Byz. emperor. 
Good relations were soon restored, however, be- 
tween Basil and Constantinople, for in 1398 Basil 
sent the Byz. emperor funds to assist in defending 
the capital against the Ottoman siege. In 1413 (P. 
Schreiner, BZ 63 [1970] 294) or 1414 (Barker, 
Manuel IT 345) Basil’s young daughter Anna was 
married to the Byz. crown prince John (VIII) 
Palaiologos; she died in 1417 of the plague. Basil, 
his Lithuanian wife, his daughter Anna, and her 
Byz. husband are all depicted on the so-called 
“Large Sakkos” of Metr. Photios (1408—31), prob- 
ably made between 1414 and 1417 (D. Obolensky, 
ECAR 4 [1972] 141-46). 

LIT. Meyendorff, Russia 244f, 254-57. PLP, no.2387. 
Obolensky, Commonwealth 264-67. L.V. Cerepnin, Obra- 


zovanie Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV—XV ve- 
kach (Moscow 1960) 663-743. —A.M.T. 


BASIL I, ANONYMOUS POEM ABOUT, a work 
in 12—syllable verses, probably written before 872, 
since the author prays for the emperor’s victory 
over “the friends of Mani,” i.e., the PAULICIANS. 
The beginning is lost. The author praises Basi I 
as a megas basileus whose deeds surpass those of 
all other emperors and who has succeeded in 
subjugating “false tribes.” At the same time he 
emphasizes that Basil is a peacemaker (eirenopoios), 
“the lord of tranquility,” far removed from “im- 
pious struggles,” who pursues justice and treats 
archontes and the poor alike. The panegyric is 
strikingly similar to the epitaph of Leo VI for his 
father, as well as the Vira Bası and GENESIOS; 
the anonymous poet stressed more emphatically 
than these writers the humble origin of his hero, 
and compared Basil with Davip. This theme was 
apparently an element of official propaganda, since 
on a mosaic in the Kainourgion palace Basil’s 
children were depicted as praising God who raised 
their father up “from Davidian poverty” 
(TheophCont 335.2—3). 


ED. Alexandri Lycopolitant contra Manichaei opiniones dis- 
pulatio, ed. A. Brinkmann (Leipzig 1895) xvi—xxii. 


BASILIT | 261 


uit. Gy. Moravesik, “Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser 
Basileios I,” DOP 15 (1961) 63—70 (modern Gr. version in 

Eis mnemen Konstantinou Amantou [Athens 1960] 1—10). 
~ALK. 


BASIL I, emperor (976—1025); born 958, died 
Constantinople 15 Dec. 1025. Crowned in g60, 
Basil and his brother CONSTANTINE VIII suc- 
ceeded on the death of Jonn I Tzimiskes. Until 
his exile in 985, the parakoimomenos Basil LEKA- 
PENOS exercised power; thereafter, Basil II gov- 
erned. The rebellions of Bardas SKLEROs and Bar- 
das PHOKaS were overcome with aid from VLADIMIR 
I of Kiev, to whom Basil married his sister ANNA. 
The revolts convinced him to curb the wealthy 
landholders. His law of 996 limited their rights to 
acquire their poor neighbors’ properties; monas- 
tic lands were restricted. Basil forced landlords to 
pay the ALLELENGYON of their poor neighbors. 
Nevertheless, the magnates remained powerful; 
numerous families that later became prominent 
originated in Basil’s reign (Kazhdan, Gosp.klass. 
255-58). He fought to destroy the Bulgarian state 
led by SAMUEL OF BuLcGariA. His first campaign 
(986) ended in disaster at Trayan’s GATE. Rebel- 
lons and the need to oppose the FATrmips in 
northern Syria delayed further action. 

From 1001, when he made a durable peace 
with the Fatimid caliph, Basil campaigned repeat- 
edly against the Bulgarians. In 1014 at Kleidion 
(Slavic Belasica, near the river Struma) he cap- 
tured a large Bulgarian force; allegedly, he blinded 
14,000, allowing one man in 100 to retain one 
eye. Stunned by this catastrophe, Samuel died. 
Bulgarian resistance continued until 1018. Basil’s 
conquests were organized into the themes of Pa- 
RISTRION and BuLcaria. By the late 12th C., he 
was called “Bulgar-Slayer” (Boulgaroktonos). 
Croatia and Serbia became Byz. dependencies. 

Basil forced Davip or TayxK‘/Tao to promise 
his lands to Byz. upon his death, and in 1000 
Basil acquired most of them. In 1021—22 he de- 
feated a Georgian effort to recover David’s terri- 
tories, which became the theme of IBERIA (V. 
Stepanenko, VizVrem 44 [1983] 211-14). In 1022 
the king of Vaspurakan ceded his realm, which 
also became a theme. Around 1001 Basil had 
offered a marriage alliance to Orro III. Late in 
life, he planned aggressive expansion against Sic- 
ily and even the Western Empire. 

Despite his wars, Basil’s prudent government 


262 BASIL II KAMATEROS 





Basit II. Image of the emperor; prefatory miniature 
to a Psalter (Venice, Marciana gr. 17, folir). The 
triumphant emperor is crowned by both the archangel 
Gabriel and Christ and is given a lance by the archan- 
gel Michael. At his feet, his defeated enemies; to his 
left and right, framed busts of military saints. 


enriched the treasury. Devoted to military life, he 
refused to marry. Basil is depicted crowned by 
Christ, with his enemies in PROSKYNESIS, in a psal- 
ter in Venice (Marc. Z.17—A. Cutler, ArtVen 31 
[1977] 9-15). He was the recipient of the MENO- 
LOGION OF Basix II. 

tir. Rosen, Vasily Balgarobojca. W. Felix, Byzanz und die 
islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (Vienna 1981) 


46-79, 132-41. Ohnsorge, Abend. Byz. 288—316. 
—C.M.B., A.C. 


BASIL II KAMATEROS, patriarch of Constan- 
tinople (Aug. 1183—Feb. 1186 [V. Grumel, REB 
1 (1943) 261—63]). His career before the patriar- 
chate is described in two unpublished speeches, 
by Gregory ANTIOCHOS and Leo Balianites, also a 
contemporary. A member of the KamMareros fam- 
ily, Basil served Manuel I primarily as a diplomat, 
but his mission to Rome (in 1169?) ended in a 
fiasco, and he was (temporarily?) banished. As a 


man out of favor with Manuel, Basil was wel- 
comed by Andronikos I, who had troubles with 
Patr. THEODOSIOS BorapIOTES; compelled to ab- 
dicate, Theodosios was replaced by Basil. Imme- 
diately Basil nullified Theodosios’s prohibition of 
the marriage between the illegitimate imperial 
offspring Irene and Alexios (despite their being 
close relatives) and freed the murderers of Alex- 
ios [I from their solemn vow to be his guardians. 
The speech of Antiochos contains vague allu- 
sions to Basil's ecclesiastical reforms: “The all- 
encompassing house of the church has been swept 
clean,” he says; no longer decked out in superficial 
ornament, the church stood now in all its natural 
beauty. The execution of Andronikos meant the 
end of Basil’s success. Even though he tried to 
gain the favor of the new ruler, Isaac [I Angelos, 
by crowning him and by promulgating a synodal 
declaration that noblewomen forced by Andron- 
ikos to enter convents could return to secular 
status, [saac did not want to retain a staunch 
supporter of his predecessor on the patriarchal 
throne; Basil had to abdicate and was condemned 
by the synod for permitting the marriage of Al- 
exios and [rene. His subsequent fate is unknown. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 3, nos. 1162—67. Kazhdan-Franklin, 
Studies 207-11. Brand, Byzantium 48f, 77f. L. Bréhier, 


DHGE 6 (1932) 1120f. Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.25bis. 
-A.K. 


BASILAKES (Basıiárns, fem. Baoıikakiva), a 
family of Armenian or Paphlagonian origin. Ac- 
cording to Matthew of Edessa, the noble Arme- 
nian Vasilak fell at the battle of Mantzikert in 
1071. Nikephoros Basilakes made an unsuccessful 
attempt to usurp the throne in 1078 (see Bası- 
LAKES, NIKEPHOROS). George Basilakes was proto- 
proedros in 1094/5; he or his homonym partici- 
pated in a plot against Alexios I. The will of Kale 
(Maria) Basilakina, produced between 1098 and 
1113 (G. Litavrin, Starmar n.s. 20 [1970] 185—g0; 
VizOč 2 [1971] 164-68), provides some data con- 
cerning the family’s affiliations and estates: they 
intermarried with the DABATENOI and PAKOURI- 
anot and had high titles, including that of kouro- 
palates; Kale-Maria owned the village of RADOLI- 
Bos granted her by Alexios I. By the mid-12th C. 
the position of the Basilakes family declined and 
they entered civil service. Constantine was envoy 
and treasurer “of foreign expenses” (ton ep’allo- 


dapes chrematon—Regel, Fontes 2:235.21); both 
warrior and intellectual, he perished in the war 
against the Sicilian Normans. Other known mem- 
bers of the family were insignificant provincial 
officials: John was nephew of John Tzerzes, Mi- 
chael acted as legariastes in the Miletos region in 
the early 13th C.; Basilakes, nomikos (?) in Mistra 
ca.1296, was a scribe and poet. 


uit. Kazhdan, Arm. 103-06; PLP, nos. 2367—68. 
—A.K. 


BASILAKES, NIKEPHOROS, theologian and 
writer; born ca.1115, died after 1182 (cf. A. Gar- 
zya, BZ 64 [1971] 301f). Born to a noble family 
(that was, however, losing its preeminent posi- 
tion), Basilakes served as imperial notary and then 
as didaskalos of the Apostle at Hagia Sophia in 
Constantinople (ca.1140). According to his own 
testimony, he was very popular because he intro- 
duced new techniques of teaching. He belonged 
to the circle of Jonn II and delivered panegyrics 
of both the emperor and his supporters, such as 
John Axoucn and John Komnenos, archbishop 
of Bulgaria. Involved in a dogmatic dispute begun 
by Soterichos PANTEUGENOS, Basilakes was con- 
demned in 1156/7 and exiled to Philippopolis (P. 
Wirth, ByzF 1 [1966] 389-92). His subsequent 
career is unknown, although some letters from 
this period survive. He probably dedicated his 
time to writing; ca.1160 he produced a collection 
of his works with an introduction, in which he 
described his education, teaching, and literary 
activity, mentioning among other works four 
comedies or satires now lost. Basilakes produced 
both PROGYMNASMATA and panegyrics and mon- 
odies, dedicated to his contemporaries (e.g., the 
monody on his brother Constantine). Conven- 
tional in style, these works abound in antique 
imagery. A unique speech of indictment against 
a certain Bagoas presents the biography of an 
average man, son of a fisherman from Constan- 
tinople and a Scythian (Cuman?) woman from 
Cimmerian Bosporos. Bagoas, who was a catamite 
according to Basilakes, received a good education, 
pretended to be pious, and with the help of some 
monks wormed his way into the Palace. He also 
committed a sacrilege by inciting a certain Hiero- 
theos to smear honey on icons in a church. 


ED. Orationes et epistulae, ed. A. Garzya (Leipzig 1984). 
Progimnasmi e monodie, ed. A. Pignani (Naples 1983). 


BASILEOPATOR 263 


ur. A. Garzya, “Un lettré du milieu du XHe siècle: 
Nicéphore Basilakés,” RESEE 8 (1970) 611-21. Idem, 
“Precisazioni sul processo di Niceforo Basilace,” Byzantion 
40 (1970) 309-16. Idem, “Une rédaction byzantine du 

mythe de Pasiphaé,” Le parole e le idee g (1967) 222-26. 
~ALK. 


BASIL ELACHISTOS (“the least”), archbishop 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia (mid-1oth C.); accord- 
ing to R. Cantarella (BZ 25 [1925] 293), he was 
born in Seleukeia. Basil wrote a commentary on 
the speeches of GREGORY oF Nazianzos, dedicat- 
ing the work to CONSTANTINE VII. In the text he 
calls fortunate those cities which have philoso- 
phers as emperors (p.6.3—4); in his commentary 
on the epitaph of BASIL THE GREAT (p.25.3-18), 
the hero’s upbringing is strikingly like that of 
Basix I in the biography written by Constantine 
VIL. Basil’s commentary encompasses ancient my- 
thology and philosophy (e.g., refutation of De- 
mocritus’s concept of the existence of manifold 
worlds), rhetoric, painting, and sculpture; refer- 
ences to contemporary events are rare. J. Sajdak 
(Historia critica scholiastarum et commentatorum Gre- 
gorii Nazianzeni [Krakow 1914] 59-61) wrongly 
identified Basil with St. BASIL THE YOUNGER. 

ED. R. Cantarella, “Basilio Minimo. IL,” BZ 26 (1926) 
3-34. PG 36:1073—1205. 


tir. Beck, Kirche 597. -å.K. 


BASILEOPATOR (Bacid(s)omartap, lit. the “em- 
peror’s father”), the office of protector or tutor 
of a young emperor. According to the Kletorolo- 
gion of Philotheos (Oikonomides, Listes 101.1—2), 
this office was created by Leo VI and occupied 
the highest rung on the ladder of offices; Philo- 
theos listed it among the “special” axiai (ibid. 109.1— 
2). The title was invented in the late goth C, for 
Stylianos ZaouTzes, the father of Zoe, second wife 
of Leo VI; a few years later Romanos (I) Leka- 
penos was granted the same title (Aik. Christo- 
philopoulou, Symmeikta 2 [1970] 60) before he 
became caesar. According to Liutprand of Cre- 
mona, Leo Phokas ardently desired to become 
pater vasilleos. There is no evidence that the title 
was in use after the 1oth C. It was employed 
without a technical meaning in some texts anterior 
to the gth C. and by some 1oth-C. authors refer- 
ring to the earlier period; thus, Symeon Meta- 
phrastes, in the Life of Arsenios (died ca.445), 
said that the saint was the tutor of the emperor’s 


264 | BASILEUS 


sons and was called basileopator. L. Rydén (AB ioo 
[1982] 494f) finds a reflection of this title also in 
the revised version of the vita of Philaretos the 
Merciful. After 1259, Michael VIII’s supporters 
tried to reintroduce the basileopatoria (Pachym., 
ed. Failler, 1:105.13—16), which they found ap- 
propriate for the REGENT of the young emperor, 
John IV Laskaris. 


uit. P. Karlin-Hayter, “The Title or Office of Basileo- 
pator,” Byzantion 38 (1968) 278-80. -A.K. 


BASILEUS (SactXevs), the main title of the Byz. 
emperor. Roman antiroyalism had camouflaged 
imperial monarchy behind the titles of imperator- 
autokrator and augustus. In the Greek East’s liter- 
ature and everyday speech, however, the Hellen- 
istic royal title basileus (king) predominated for 
the emperors by the time of Constantine I (A. 
Wifstrand in Dragma Martino P. Nilsson a.d. IV Id. 
Tul MCMXXXIX dedicatum [Lund-Leipzig 1939] 
529-39) and prevailed outside of 4th—6th-C. of- 
ficial documents. The emergence of barbarian 
kingdoms in the West imposed a distinction be- 
tween universal monarchy—official documents in 
Constantinople seem to have used the term basi- 
leus for only the Persian shah—and these lesser 
rulers, whose Latin title rex was transliterated into 
Greek, while basileus increasingly was understood 
as “emperor” in unofficial usage. Common par- 
lance, biblical example, and Hellenistic theories 
of kingship probably combined with Persia’s final 
collapse to encourage Herakleios to replace the 
traditional title AUroKRATOR with pistos en Christo 
basileus in an edict issued in 629, which symbolized 
the empire's progressive hellenization (cf. I. Shahid, 
Byzantion 51 [1981] 288-96). A century later, the 
title began to appear on silver coins of Leo III 
and on gold coinage under Constantine VI. 

The additional qualifier “of the Romans” (basi- 
leus Rhomaion) also goes far back in popular usage, 
but first appears on imperial seals in 654-68 (Za- 
cos, Seals 1:19, no.18) and, for example, on Con- 
stantine 1V’s subscription to the Third Council of 
Constantinople (680). An imperial document’s in- 
titulatio uses it in connection with the Second 
Council of Nicaea (24 Sept. 787; Reg 1, no.346), 
but the combination first gained wide publicity on 
miliaresia of Emp. Michael I Rangabe, in obvious 
response to Charlemagne’s imperial dignity (DOC 
3.1:1'78). This Byz. assertion of Roman legitimacy 


sparked numerous disputes in diplomacy with 
Western rulers; the qualifier became the rule in 
chrysobulls and diplomatic letters down to 1453 
(Délger, Diplomatik 141-48), but disappeared from 
coinage after Nikephoros IlI Botaneiates, except 
for a brief reappearance under the Palaiologoi 
(V. Laurent, Cronica numismatică si arheologică 15 
[1940] 198-217). From the gth C. onward, megas 
basileus is sometimes equivalent to the contempo- 
rary meaning of autokrator. 

Use for Foreign Rulers. The applicability of 
the term basileus to foreign rulers started to cause 
problems for Byz. when its Christian neighbors 
began to challenge the Greek monopoly on the 
imperial status. As for the German emperor, the 
Byz. accorded him the title basileus of the Franks 
(but not RHomatrol, Romans); a greater threat was 
the claim of the Bulgarian ruler to the title “basz- 
leus of the Rhomaioi and Bulgarians.” By the end 
of the 12th C. the nonofficial use of the term 
basileus for foreigners became common: Niketas 
Choniates calls Roger of Sicily, Frederick Barba- 
rossa, and Henry VII bastleis; for George Akro- 
polites, Kalojan was basileus of the Bulgarians; the 
Latin emperors of Constantinople and the Greek 
rulers of Trebizond were officially titled basilezs. 
In the 14th C. the Serbian king assumed the title 
“basileus of the Rhomaioi and Serbs” in his official 
Greek documents. From the 13th C. onward, some 
authors used the title as a designation of some 
non-Christian Eastern rulers, for example, Ti- 
mur, “basileus of Scythians and Massagetes” (Sphr. 
204.24), or megas basileus Mehmed II (Kritob. 
13.19), while other authors, like Doukas, avoided 
this title and gave to Eastern rulers the name of 
tyrannoi, hegemones, or archegoi (S.K. Krasavina, 
VizVrem 34 [1973] 102). 

LIT. G. Rösch, Onoma basileias (Vienna 1978) 37--39, 
111-16. E. Chrysos, “The Title Basileus in Early Byzantine 


International Relations,” DOP 32 (1978) 29-75. 
—-M.McC., A.K. 


BASILICA (BaotAtKy), a type of church building. 
In Roman architecture, a basilica was a hall or 
building used for large assemblies and serving as 
a market, law court, or palace audience hall. The 
term is used by Eusebios of Caesarea to denote a 
church; thereafter, in Byz. Greek, it generally 
refers only to profane structures, with rare excep- 
tions (cf. D. Feissel, Recueil des inscriptions chré- 
tiennes de Macédoine du IIe au Vie siècle [Paris 1983] 


no.226). Most commonly, the basilican church is 
characterized by an oblong plan consisting of a 
nave (NAOS) usually with two or more aisles and 
terminating in an APSE or tribunal. Generally, 
basilicas were covered with wooden trussed roofs 
and illuminated by clerestory windows. As a church 
type, the basilica displayed many regional varia- 
tions with respect to proportions, number of aisles, 
and presence of a NARTHEX (or vestibule), ATRIUM, 
transept, GALLERIES, PASTOPHORIA, etc. Typically, 
the nave was used for processions by the clergy, 
with lay persons occupying the aisles and galleries, 
if the latter existed. The basilica served as the 
standard church type until the 6th C. By this time, 
a variant employing vaulting throughout the 
building had come into being in areas such as 
Cyprus (A.H.S. Megaw, JHS 66 [1946] 48-56). A 
related development was the basilica with a dome 
or a tower over the nave. Although not as com- 
mon after the 6th C., basilicas continued to be 
built. Beginning in the gth C., a major revival of 
the basilica occurred, represented in Greece and 
the Balkans at Pliska and the Anargyroi at Kas- 
toria as well as in Asia Minor (Hagia Sophia at 
Nicaea), though apparently not in Constantino- 
ple. Small-scale basilicas, however, constitute the 
most common church type until the isth C. (For 
ground plan, see illustration in CHURCH PLAN 
TYPES.) 
uit. R. Krautheimer, “The Constantinian Basilica,” DOP 
21 (1967) 115-40. C. Delvoye, RBK 1:514—67. Dj. Stričević, 
“La rénovation du type basilical dans l’architecture ecclé- 
siastique des pays centrales des Balkans au [Xe—Xle siécles,” 
12 CEB 1 (Belgrade 1963) 165-211. G. Stanzl, Léngsbau 
und Zentratbau als Grundthemen der frithchristlichen Architektur 
[= DenkWien 139] (Vienna 1979) 16-29, 60-74. 
—M._J., J.W. 


BASILICA DISCOPERTA, or “hypaethral basil- 
ica,” a type of basilica in which the aisles and apse 
are roofed but the nave left open to the sky. The 
existence of this type is based on tenuous evi- 
dence. Only two ruined buildings—at Marusinac 
near Salona (426) and at Pécs—and a confused 
description by the Pracenza PILGRIM of a monu- 
ment in Hebron, “a basilica built with a guadripor- 
licus, with the middle atrium uncovered,” suggest 
the type. The interpretation of the buildings at 
Salona and Pécs is debated, though they appear 
to have been roofless basilicas or open courtyards 
with exedrae along one of the short sides. E. 


BASILIKA | 265 


Dyggve (ZKirch 59 [1940] 103-13) argued that 
this type represented the link between the classical 
heröon and the Christian MARTYRION, and that the 
type was also adopted for use in Late Antique 
PALACES (idem, Ravennatum Palatium Sacrum [Co- 
penhagen 1941] 30f). Both theories have been 
largely discounted. 


ur. A.M. Schneider, “Basilica discoperta,” Antiquity 24 
(1950) 131-39. K. Wessel, RBK 1:507~-14. -M.]. 


BASILIKA (rà Basix, “the imperial [laws]”), 
or the Basilics, the term used from the 11th C. 
onward to designate an extensive collection of 
laws divided into six volumes or 60 books, begun 
under Emp. Basil I and completed in the first 
years of the reign of Leo VI (probably Christmas 
888, A. Schminck, SubGr 3 [1989] 90-93). Ac- 
cording to the preface composed by Leo, the work 
was to be a clearly arranged compilation of the 
legal material contained in the Corpus Juris Crv- 
ILis, eliminating everything superfluous. The col- 
lection is based on all four parts of the Justinianic 
corpus, though there is little from the Institutes. 
The Latin texts, esp. those of the Digest and the 
Codex Justinianus, are presented in Greek transla- 
tions (mainly of the 6th C.). The books are sub- 
divided into titles, which are arranged according 
to subject and are always structured so that per- 
tinent chapters from the Digest precede those from 
the Codex, which in turn precede those from the 
Novels. Many books of the Basilika have been 
handed down in only one MS; others can be 
reconstructed only partially through the indirect 
evidence provided esp. by the EPANAGOGE AUCTA, 
the Synopsis BASILICORUM, the Perra, the Tirou- 
KEITOS, and the commentary of BALsAMon. Pre- 
sumably in the middle of the 11th C. a CATENA 
commentary was appended to the work, com- 
posed mainly of excerpts from the writings of the 
6th-C. ANTECESSORES (the so-called “old scholia”); 
compared with these, the “newer scholia” (from 


the 11th and 12th C.) are fewer in number. 
-A.S. 


The Basilika as a Source. The Basilika was con- 
sidered the official collection of actual law, and 
the Book of the Eparch (1.2) prescribes that a notary 
be thoroughly familiar with the “60 books of the 
Basilika.” The Basiika contains some precepts, 
however, esp. in the sphere of administrative and 
social regulations, that were definitely obsolete by 


266 BASILIKE 


the gth C., and its terminology is sometimes out 
of date and misleading (A. Kazhdan, JOB 39 [1989] 
7—10). Some jurists, for example, the author of 
the MEDITATIO DE NUDIS PACTIS, argued for the 
higher merit of Justinianic law over the Basilika. 
—A.K. 

eD. Basilicorum libri LX, Text, 8 vols., Scholia, g vols., ed. 
H.J. Scheltema, N. van der Wal, D. Holwerda (Groningen 


1953—88). ; 
ur. H.J. Scheltema, “Uber die Natur der Basiliken,” 


Tijdschrift 23 (1955) 287-310. Schminck, Rechtsbiicher 17— 
54. F.H. Lawson, “The Basilica,” The Law Quarterly Review 
46 (1930) 486-501; 47 (1931) 536-56. N. van der Wal, 
“Der Basilikentext und die griechischen Kommentare des 
sechsten Jahrhunderts,” in Synteleia Vincenzo Arangio-Ruzz, 
vol. 2 (Naples 1964) 1158—65. 


BASILIKE (Baothtxy), a public building in Con- 
stantinople, located on the Mese, not far from the 
Milion. It formed a vast square courtyard, sur- 
rounded by colonnades inside and porticoes out- 
side. Its relationship with the TerrasToon is un- 
clear. In the centuries immediately following the 
foundation of Constantinople it served as a legal 
and cultural center of the city: rhetoricians and 
lawyers assembled there, and in the sth C. it 
housed the university and a library. A law of 
Theodosios I of 440 prohibited the establishment 
of shops and boutiques in the Basilike, bringing 
in horses, or celebrating marriages there. The 
building was burned down in 476 but immediately 
restored. Justinian I constructed a cistern nearby, 
probably the one now called Yerebatansaray (see 
under CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF). Justin 
II placed in the Basilike a HOROLOGION (perhaps 
a sundial). After the 6th C. the Basilike lost its 
position as an intellectual center and was con- 
sidered primarily as a repository of old statues, 
including those of the emperors Herakleios and 
Justinian II. In such a connection “the golden- 
roofed Basilike” is cited several times in the PARA- 
STASEIS SYNTOMOI CHRONIKAI. After the ioth C. it 
is no longer mentioned. 

ur. Janin, CP byz. 157-60, 208f. Guilland, Topographie 
2:3-6. Speck, Univ. von KP 93—99. —A.K. 


BASILIKOI ANTHROPOI (Gaowsxoi &v- 
Bpwrrot, “imperial men”), sometimes simply basi- 
likoi, a term applied in the Kletorologion of PHILO- 
THEOS to two categories of functionaries. In a 
broad sense, the term embraced all high-ranking 


officials; thus Philotheos (Oikonomides, Listes 
215.7—8) speaks of banqueting magistroi, praiposi- 
toi, patrikioi, and other basilikoi anthropoi. In a re- 
stricted sense, the term designated a relatively low 
echelon of imperial servants—including spatharo- 
kandidatoi and stratores (205.25—26)—who con- 
sisted, at least partially, of foreigners (like the 
troops of HETAIREIA), that is, Pharganoi, Khazars, 
Hagarenes, and Franks (177.29g—30). Their com- 
mander apparently was protospatharios of the basi- 
likoi, one of the sTRATARCHAI, even though his 
staff did not include basiliket anthropoi, but con- 
sisted rather of the domestikos of the basilikoi, spa- 
tharioi, kandidatot of the Hippodrome, and impe- 
rial mandatores. In the De ceremoniis (e.g., De cer. 
20.20) and the TAKTIKON of Escurial (Oikonomi- 
des, Listes 269.35), their commander is also called 
the katepano of the basilikoi. Oikonomides (ibid. 
328) suggests that basilikoi anthropor formed a mil- 
itary detachment, since some sources describe spa- 
thariot participating in military actions. On seals 
basilikot are often civil officials of relatively low 
rank: Constantine, hypatos and basilikos in the bu- 
reau of the sakellarios, 11th C. (Zacos, Seals 2, 
n0.971); spatharokandidatos Anastasios, basilikes in 
the district of Amastris and head of the otkeiakoi, 
ioth—1iith C. Gbid., no.88); and spatharokandidatos 
Chosnis, basilikos of Tarsos, ioth C. (ibid., no.108). 
In the 10th C. the domestikos of the basilikoi anthro- 
poi was evidently a courtier (ibid., no.1065). 


tir. Bury, Adm. System 111-13. -A.K 


BASILIKON (Saovhkixdv), a small silver coin 
weighing 2.2 g introduced by Andronikos II shortly 
before 1304 and modeled in weight, fineness, and 
general appearance on the Venetian grosso or 
silver ducat. Both coins have on one side a seated 
figure of Christ, and on the other two standing 
figures, but on the Byz. coins these are Androni- 
kos II and Michael IX instead of St. Mark and 
the doge. By analogy with its prototype of the 
duchy (ducatus) of Venice, it was called a basilikon 
(from BASILEUS), but Byz. sources of the early 14th 
C. often made no distinction between the two and 
called both doukatoi. The basilikon was worth 
1/12th of a HYPERPYRON, so that it corresponded 
to the old MILIARESION, which had become no 
more than a money of account as tWO KERATIA. 
The value of the actual coins, however, fluctuated 
with the price of silver and was usually less, as 


ratios of between 12.5 and 15 to the hyperpyron 
were common. Half basilika were also minted. 
The introduction of the basilikon marked a re- 
vival in the empire of the large-scale use of silver 
for coinage, but in the 1330s and 1340s its weight 
was reduced in response to a general silver short- 
age that affected western Europe and the Medi- 
terranean world. In the 1340s the basilikon 
weighed no more than 1.25 g and after the 13508 
it ceased to be struck. 

ur. V. Laurent, “Le basilicon, nouveau nom de mon- 
naie sous Andronic II Paléologue,” BZ 45 (1952) 50-58. 


Grierson, Byz. Coins 280f, 295-98, 338. Hendy, Economy 
5316 -Ph.G. 


BASILIKOS LOGOS (Bacıhıxos AGyos), a variety 
of ENKOMION addressed to an emperor on some 
notable occasion. MENANDER RHETOR (pp.76—94) 
set out the form and the sentiments considered 
appropriate; the major points were the emperor’s 
origin, physical appearance (esp. his handsome- 
ness), upbringing, habits, deeds in peace and war, 
four virtues (courage, righteousness, prudence or 
moderation, and good sense), philanthropy, and 
good fortune (rYcHE). The term is rare: Michael 
Italikos devoted basilikoi logoi to both John I and 
Manuel I, but the regular title of an imperial 
enkomion was logos eis ton autokratora, “speech to 
the emperor”; such an enkomion was delivered on 
special occasions and regularly on the feast of 
EPIPHANY. EuseBios OF CAESAREA, in his pane- 
gyric of Constantine I, established the principle 
of encomiastic oratory as depicting the ideal 
emperor rather than giving a factual account. 
Hunger (Lit. 1:157) distinguishes between a con- 
ventional panegyric-enkomion and a more individ- 
ualized Mirror OF Princes. The structure of the 
basilikos logos varied: Italikos’s panegyric of Man- 
uel I contains many conventional elements (ori- 
gin, prophecy, portrait), whereas his enkomion of 
John II is primarily historical. The Byz. basilikos 
logos became “Christian” with an emphasis on 
piety, and the concept of tyche disappeared. As a 
specific kind of basilikos logos, Menander (p.180) 
distinguished the presbeutikos, a speech to the em- 
peror on behalf of a city in difficulty. In Byz. this 
subgenre disappeared, and the term presbeutikos 
designated the report of an ambassador (e.g., 
Theodore METOCHITES) on his mission. 


LIT. Martin, Rhetorik 205f. P. Hadot, RAC 8:601—19. 
-A.K., EM. 


BASILIUS PICTOR | 267 


BASILISKOS (BactAtcKos), more fully Flavius 
Basiliskos, usurper (Jan. 475-summer 476); died 
Limnae in Cappadocia after Aug. 476. Brother of 
the empress Verina, Basiliskos was consul in 465 
and magister militum from 468. His expedition 
against the Vandal king GAISERIC in 468 ended 
in disaster, but Verina saved him from punish- 
ment. He helped to overthrow Asrar for which 
he received the title of first senator in 474. When 
Leo [I and soon after him Leo [I died, the anti- 
Isaurian faction in Constantinople urged Emp. 
Zeno to flee. Basiliskos was acclaimed augustus. 
Basiliskos wanted to gain the support of the Mo- 
nophysites. He published an edict (enkyklion) abol- 
ishing the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. 
This policy met with broad resistance from the 
people of Constantinople, led by Patr. Akakros 
and DANIEL THE STYLITE. An enormous fire in 
the capital, which destroyed many books and works 
of art, was interpreted as a sign of divine wrath 
against Basiliskos. The army commanders, such 
as Basiliskos’s former allies ILLos and Armatus, 
joined Zeno who returned to the capital welcomed 
by the faction of the Greens. Basiliskos sought 
asylum in a church. He was promised that he 
would not be executed, was exiled with his wife 
and child, and was starved to death. Zeno crowned 
the son of Armatus, also named Basiliskos, as 
caesar and heir to the throne, but soon thereafter 
executed Armatus and enrolled the younger Ba- 
siliskos among the clergy; the latter probably lived 
until the reign of Justinian I. 

LIT. Bury, LRE 1:390-94. PLRE 2:212-14. L. Hart- 
mann, RE 3 (1899) 101-02. B. Croke, “Basiliscus the Boy- 
Emperor,” GRBS 24 (1983) 81—91. E. Dovere, “L "Eyxv- 
kov BactAtoKov: Un caso di normativa imperiale in Oriente 


su temi di dogmatica teologica,” Studia et documenta historiae 
el juris 51 (1985) 153-88. -T.E.G. 


BASILIUS PICTOR, mosaicist whose name is 
given in both Latin and Syriac at the bouom of a 
frieze of angels set up ca.116g in the Church of 
the Nativity, BETHLEHEM, where EPHRAIM also 
worked. Kiihnel (infra) suggested that an abbre- 
viation in the Syriac inscription yields the to- 
ponym Moschem and that this northern Syrian 
village was the painter’s place of origin. There is 
no necessary reason to connect Basilius with the 
inscription Basili[us] me fecit in the Melisende Psal- 
ter (see CRUSADER ART AND ARCHITECTURE) said 
to have been made in Jerusalem. 


268 BASIL OF ANKYRA 


ur. Buchthal, Miniature Painting, xxix, 2—9. G. Kühnel, 
“Neue Feldarbeiten zur musivischen und malerischen Aus- 
stattung der Geburts-Basilika in Bethlehem,” Kunstchrenik 


37 (1984) 507-13. -A.C. 


BASIL OF ANKYRA, bishop (336-43, 350-60); 
died Illyria ca.364. An erudite and eloquent for- 
mer physician, Basil was appointed in 336 to re- 
place MarkeLLos as bishop of Ankyra by the 
synod of Constantinople. He was deposed in 343, 
restored after 350, and finally deposed in 360 and 
exiled to Illyria. As a moderate Arian, he was 
caught between the Scylla of his own extremists 
and the Charybdis of Orthodox opposition. 
ATHANASIOS of Alexandria (De synodis 41) con- 
firms his role as leader of the Homorousians. He 
played a prominent role in the arianizing synods 
of Sirmium (351), Ankyra (358), and Seleukeia 
(359). EPIPHANIOS of Salamis preserves (Panarion 
73.12—22) a Trinitarian treatise (Hypomnemaiis- 
mos), which Basil co-authored with George of Lao- 
dikeia. Many scholars ascribe to Basil the essay 
On Virginity that is included among the spuria of 
BASIL THE GREAT (F. Cavallera, RHE 6 [1905] 5- 
14). Other works such as a polemic called Against 
Markellos mentioned by JEROME are lost. 

ED. Hypomnematismos—PG 42:425—44. On Virginity—PG 
30:669—809. De virginitate de saint Basile, ed. A. Vaillant 
(Paris 1943), Slav. text with Fr. tr. 

ur. J. Schladebach, Basilius von Ancyra (Leipzig 1898). 
R. Janin, DHGE 6 (1932) 1104—07. F.J. Leroy, “La tradition 
manuscrite du ‘De virginitate’ de Basile d’Ancyre,” OrChrP 
38 (1972) 195—208. —B.B. 


BASIL OF IALIMBANA. See GroRGE oF Cy- 
PRUS. 


BASIL OF OHRID, metropolitan of Thessaloni- 
ke, rhetorician; died ca.116g. In 1154 Basil had 
a debate with ANSELM of Havelberg, yielding on 
many points. Pope Adrian IV (1154-59) sent 
Basil a letter asking for help in bringing about 
the UNION OF THE CHURCHES. Basil participated 
in the council at Constantinople in 1157 against 
Soterichos PANTEUGENOS (see under CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE, CouNCILS OF). In 1160 Basil delivered a 
funeral oration on BERTHA OF SULZBACH, wife of 
Manuel I, with conventional praise of both the 
emperor and the late empress. Basil corre- 
sponded with TZerzes. 


ED. Regel, Fontes 311-30. J. Schmidt, Des Basilius aus 
Achnida, Erzbischofs von Thessalonich, bisher unedierte Dialoge 
(Munich 1901). 

LIT. Beck, Kirche 626. J. Darrouzés, “Un faux Théodore 
de Cyzique,” REB 25 (1967) egif. —ALK, 


BASIL THE BOGOMIL, leader of the BoGoMILS 
of Constantinople; died Constantinople ca.1111,. 
Nearly all we know about him comes from Anna 
Komnene (An.Komn. 3:218—28), who describes 
his arrest, trial, and execution. A monk and a 
doctor, he appears to have become a teacher in 
the Bogomil sect ca.1070. According to Anna, he 
was tall, clean-shaven with a withered counte- 
nance, and went about with 12 disciples whom he 
called apostles. One of them betrayed him under 
torture. Emp. Alexios I invited Basil to the palace 
and persuaded him to expound his teaching; if 
Anna can be believed, her father then dramati- 
cally drew back a curtain, revealing a secretary 
who had secretly written down Basil’s confession. 
Verbal persuasion having failed, and on the ad- 
vice of Patr. NicHoLas II] GRAMMATIKOS and the 
synod, the emperor ordered Basil to be publicly 
burned in the Hippodrome. Anna’s account of 
the execution is uncommonly vivid. Her horror 
at Basil’s beliefs cannot wholly conceal a grudging 
admiration for “an inflexible and very brave Bo- 
gomil.” About these beliefs she says very little, 
referring the reader to the relevant section of the 
Panoplia dogmatike of Euthymios ZiGABENOS, who 
presumably used Basil’s palace confession as his 
main source. 

Lit. Ja.N. Ljubarskij, “Rasprava imperatora Alekseja I 
Komnina s bogomilom Vasiliem,” Voprosy istorii religi i 
aleizma 12 (1964) 310-19. -D.0. 


BASIL THE COPPER HAND, leader of an up- 
rising against Romanos I; born in Macedonia, 
died Constantinople ca.g32. According to the 
chronicle of Symeon LOGOTHETE (TheophCont 
912.6—7), Basil was an impostor who falsely as- 
sumed the name of Constantine Doukas (killed 
in 913) and collected a following of “many peo- 
ple.” Arrested by Elephantinos, tourmarches of Op- 
sikion, he was brought to Constantinople and 
condemned by the eparch of the city to have his 
hand cut off. Basil returned to Opsikion and had 
manufactured for himself a copper hand holding 
an enormous sword. He then gathered a “crowd 


of the poor” and started “the great rebellion” 
against the empire. The rebels seized the strong- 
hold of Plateia Petra, where various kinds of vic- 
tuals were collected and, according to Symeon 
Logothete, looted at random. Defeated by impe- 
rial troops, Basil was transferred to Constantino- 
ple, where he accused many magnates of involve- 
ment in his rebellion. After an investigation proved 
his charges false, he was burned at the stake on 
the Forum Amastrianum. 

The major problem concerning Basil’s revolt is 
whether it can be considered a popular uprising; 
besides the direct evidence of Symeon Logothete, 
this hypothesis finds support in Constantine Dou- 
kas’s popularity among the common people. The 
chronology of the revolt (before THEOPHYLAKTOS 
was elected patriarch) suggests dating the event 
between the famine of 928 and Romanos’s novel 
of 934 and treating it hypothetically as a reflection 
of peasants’ wrath and an incentive for the em- 
peror’s agrarian legislation. 

ur. A. Kazhdan, “‘Velikoe vosstanie’ Vasilija Mednoj 


Ruki,” VizVrem n.s. 4 (1951) 73-83, with criticism by 
H. Grégoire, Byzantion 21 (1951) 500-02. -A.K. 


BASIL THE GREAT, bishop of Caesarea (from 
370/1), writer and saint; born Caesarea in Cap- 
padocia ca.329, died probably in Caesarea 1 Jan. 
379; feastdays 1 and 2 Jan. His two brothers, 
GREGORY oF Nyssa and Peter of Sebaste, also 
became bishops, while his sister, St. Makrina the 
Younger, was a model ascetic. Education in Con- 
stantinople and Athens grounded Basil in both 
Christian and classical culture. During the course 
of his studies he met Grecory oF NAZIANZOS, 
who became his lifelong friend; his student 
friendship with the future emperor JULIAN, how- 
ever, was doomed by circumstances. He soon 
abandoned rhetoric, an early interest, for the mo- 
nastic life. After travels to monasteries in Egypt 
and Syria, he settled near Neokaisareia in Asia 
Minor. 

As one of the CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS, Basil con- 
tributed much to the development of the concept 
of the Trinity as based on the principle of Ho- 
mMoousios. In so doing he became involved in 
political and ideological struggles, esp. in combat- 
ting Eunomios. Basil encouraged an active eco- 
nomic, social, and cultural role for monks; he 


BASIL THE GREAT | 269 


preferred the KOINOBION to the eremitic life and 
viewed the monastery as a community of brethren 
who had to live and work together. Basil wrote 
sets of Rules for monks and nuns that are pre- 
served in a short and a long version; they greatly 
influenced the development of Monasticism both 
in Byz. and outside the empire and are character- 
ized by a tone of moderation and common sense. 
Of his homilies, those on the HEXAEMERON are 
most noteworthy for their content and style. 
The letters of Basil furnish much geographical 
and secular information about the Roman Empire 
in the 4th C. A work of special interest and im- 
portance is the essay (written for his nephews) on 
deriving Christian benefit from pagan literature. 
Basil argues that pagan works, both prose and 
poetry, should be read eclectically, not uniformly 
censored or condemned; classical literature can 
be morally beneficial to Christians and, since pa- 
gan morality sometimes approaches Christian eth- 
ics, May serve as a propaedeutic to the true faith. 
Of the many authors cited, Homer and Plato (not 
surprisingly) stand out. His authorship of the 
LITURGY ascribed to him is questionable, even 
though attested as early as the 6th C. 
Representation in Art. Basil, as a purported 
author of a liturgy, is regularly depicted at the 
head of one line of the procession of bishops 
adorning a church apse; Jonn Curysostom leads 
the other. Basil has a distinctive pointed black 
beard and narrow face, evident already on a Sinai 
icon of about the 7th C. (Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, 
no.B.24). Episodes from his vita by pseudo- 
AMPHILOCHIOS OF IKONION were illustrated as early 
as the gth—1oth C. in churches in Rome (J. La- 
fontaine, Peintures médiévales dans le temple dit de la 
Fortune Virile à Rome [Brussels-Rome 1959] 77f), 
while the gth-C. Paris Grecory MS contains a 
variety of scenes relating to the saint in conjunc- 
tion with Gregory’s Homily 43 on Basil (fol.104r). 
Some of these scenes recur in 11th-C. MSS of the 
homilies as well (Galavaris, Liturgical Homilies 46— 
52). Among the frescoes in the Church of Hagia 
Sophia in Ourrp is one showing the saint first 
performing the liturgy (R. Hamann-MacLean, H. 
Hallensleben, Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und 
Makedonien, vol. 1 [Giessen 1963] fig.25); this theme 
also appears at the beginning of those liturgical 
ROLLS that contain the text of the liturgy of Basil. 
Narrative compositions from later periods are rare, 


270 BASIL THE NOTHOS 


though there is a vita icon of Basil of the 13th C., 
now in the De Menil collection, Houston (Splen- 
deur de Byz. 36, Ic.2). 

ED. PG 29—32. The Letters, ed. K. Deferrari, 4 vols. (Lon- 
don—New York 1926~34), with Eng. tr. Lettres, ed. Y. 
Courtonne, 3 vols. (Paris 1957—66), with Fr. tr. On Greek 
Literature, ed. N. Wilson (London 1975), with Eng. tr. 

ut. Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. P. 
Fedwick (Toronto 1981). M.M. Fox, The Life and Times of 
Basil the Great as Revealed in His Works (Washington, D.C., 
1939). Basilio di Caesarea: La sua etd, la sua opera e il basili- 
anesime in Sicilia, vol. 1 (Messina 1983). G. de Jerphanion, 
“Histoires de saint Basile dans les peintures Cappado- 
ciennes et dans les peintures romaines du moyen 4ge,” 


Byzantion 6 (1931) 535-58. J. Myslivec, LCI 5:337—-41. 
~B.B., A.K., N.P.S. 


BASIL THE NOTHOS (“bastard”), parakoimome- 
nos; born ca.g25, died after 985. The son of Ro- 
MANOS I by a bondwoman of “Scythian” (Slav?) 
origin, Basil was a eunuch from his boyhood. In 
944-47 he was megas BAIOULOS. Basil supported 
CONSTANTINE VII against Romanos I's sons Ste- 
phen and Constantine and was rewarded with the 
titles of patrikios and parakoimomenos. In 958 he 
participated in the campaign of Joun I TziMiskes 
against Sayf AL-DAwLa and was granted a trium- 
phal procession at the Hippodrome (TheophCont 
462.4). Romanos H pushed Basil into the back- 
ground and replaced him with Joseph Brincas, 
thus inciting Basil’s hatred of Bringas; siding with 
NikEPHOROS I] PHoxas in his struggle against 
Bringas, Basil received from Nikephoros the 
highest title of proedros. Basil’s alliance with Ni- 
kephoros was brief: he joined Tzimiskes against 
Nikephoros, but again changed sides; he report- 
edly poisoned Tzimiskes (Skyl. 312.15—20). Basil 
administered the empire while Bası II was a 
child and used his power to accumulate enormous 
wealth. In 985, however, Basil II dispensed with 
his tutelage, exiled him to the shores of the Bos- 
poros, and confiscated his property. In his Novel 
of g96 Emp. Basil annulled all the ordinances 
promulgated by Basil the Nothos. 

Basil was one of the most lavish Byz. art patrons. 
Psellos (Chron. 1:13.11-22) comments on Basil's 
concern for the monastery of St. Basil that he 
built in Constantinople. To this or some other 
house, he presented two reliquaries of a Symeon 
the Stylite, including one that allegedly contained 
the saint’s skull and is now at Camaldoli di Arezzo. 
The Treasury of St. Mark’s in Venice contains a 
splendid yellow jasper paten and chalice, the latter 


inscribed with the supplication of “Basil, proedros 
and parakotmomenos,” and thus datable after g63 
(H. Belting, CorsiRav 2g [1982] 52—57). The well- 
known enamel cross-reliquary now at LIMBURG- 
AN-DER-LAHN was commissioned by Basil in g64/ 
5. He also ordered three very large books written 
on parchment of high quality: a collection of 
TAKTIKA, including his own work on naval battles 
(Milan, Ambros. B 119 Sup.}; a copy of the hom- 
ilies of Joun Curysostom (Athos, Dion. 70) dated 
to 955; and a Gospel book with the Pauline epis- 
tles in Leningrad (Publ. Lib. gr. 55). 

uit. Guilland, Institutions 1:18af. W.G. Brokaar, “Basil 
Lekapenus,” Studia bizantina et neohellenica Neerlandica 3 
(1972) 199-234. M. Ross, “Basil the Proedros Patron of 
the Arts,” Archaeology 11 (1958) 271-75. E. Follieri, “L’or- 
dine dei versi in alcuni epigrammi bizantini,” Byzantion 94 
(1964) 447-64. Zacos, Seals 2, no.795- -A.K., A.C. 


BASIL THE YOUNGER, saint; died in Constan- 
tinople 26 Mar. 944 (less probably 952). His origins 
and early career are unknown. According to his 
vita he was brought by imperial offictals from Asia 
Minor to Constantinople, where he was interro- 
gated by Samonas, flogged, and thrown into the 
sea, but miraculously saved by dolphins. Angelide 
(infra) dates Basil’s arrival in Constantinople in 
896, but the chronology of the vita is not reliable. 
Basil did not belong to any monastic community 
but lived in private homes (first with a certain 
John and his wife Helene, thereafter in the houses 
of the primtkertos Constantine and of the Gongylas 
brothers), preaching morality and performing 
miracles. 

Basil’s vita was written by his contemporary, the 
layman Gregory, a disciple of the eunuch Epi- 
phanios; Gregory was a modest landowner pos- 
sessing a proasteton near Rhaidestos. Although 
Gregory depicts some ordinary people, he focuses 
on Emp. Romanos 1, his family, and courtiers 
such as Romanos Saronites and the patrikia zoste 
Anastasia. The hagiographer describes important 
political events: the revolt of Constantine Doukas 
in 913, the death of Christopher Lekapenos, the 
Rus’ attack of 941, the fall of Romanos I. While 
some of these episodes took place outside, most 
of the action occurred indoors (Mango, Byzantium 
82). A salient episode of the vita is the vision of 
the pious Theodora who served Basil for many 
years: during its journey to heaven Theodora’s 
soul passed customs houses (teloneia), and there- 


after Theodora saw the celestial Jerusalem and 
observed the punishment of sinners. The vita has 
an evident anti-Semitic tendency: according to 
Basil, the Jews are doomed to eternal punishment 
despite their closeness to the Christian concept of 
God and their veneration of the Old Testament. 

ep. S.G. Vilinskij, Zitie sv. Vasilija Novogo v russkoj litera- 
ture (Odessa 1911—13}. A.N. Veselovskij, “Razyskanija v 


oblasti russkogo duchovnogo sticha,” Sbornik Otdelenija rus- 
skogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk 46 (1889— 


go) supp. 3—89; 53 (1891—92) supp. 3-174. 

uit. BHG 264-264f. G. da Costa-Louillet, “Saints de 
CP,” Byzantion 24 (1954) 492-511. Ch. Angelide, Ho dios 
tou hosiou Basileiou tou Neou (Ioannina 1980). L. Rydén, 
“The Life of St. Basil the Younger and the Date of the 
Life of St. Andreas Salos,” in Okeanos 568-77. -A.K. 


BASTARDS. See ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. 


BATHMOS (Ba6u0s), grade or degree. The word 
was used by late Roman writers to designate “rank”; 
thus Jonn Lypos (On Magistracies 2.8) says that 
the consul in ancient Rome held a higher bathmos 
than the king. In the Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS 
the term has a technical meaning differing from 
that of OFFICE or TITLE—it meant the position on 
the hierarchical ladder according to which the 
ATRIKLINES seated the individual at imperial ban- 
quets. In the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the sacred 
(hieros) bathmos meant the degree conferred by a 
sacramental ordination as distinct from the office, 
i.e., function (Darrouzés, Offikia 1). -A.K. 


BATHS (sing. Badaveiov, hourpov) remained an 
important element of urban culture during the 
late Roman period, functioning as centers of lei- 
sure and social intercourse. In Constantinople the 
most famous were the Baths of Zeuxippos. The 
Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae indicates that 5th- 
C. Constantinople contained as many as nine pub- 
lic and 153 private baths (see also CONSTANTINO- 
PLE, MONUMENTS OF). Separate facilities were pro- 
vided for men and women, and the interiors were 
sumptuously decorated with marbles and statu- 
ary; they were heated by Hypocausts. Gregory of 
Nyssa (PG 46:449C) ridiculed a miserly money- 
lender in a Cappadocian town who did not go to 
the public bath because he was reluctant to pay 
the price of three obols. Even clergy and monks 
used public baths, which were occasionally deco- 


BATHS | 271 


rated with subjects from Christian iconography. 
The church, however, regarded public baths as 
centers of immorality, issued regulations prohib- 
iting mixed bathing, and condemned frequent 
visits to the baths by clergy. 

After the 6th C. a profound change occurred: 
most of the huge public baths fell into disuse 
either because of the decline in population or 
simply because they proved too costly to maintain. 
Some establishments were destroyed, others 
transformed into churches or army barracks. Some 
public baths continued to operate in major cities, 
but the overall attitude of the public toward baths 
and bathing had gradually changed. Attendance 
at the baths was no longer a normal part of 
everyday life but had become a luxury or hygienic 
necessity. The new attitude toward bathing, shaped 
by teachings of the church, is reflected in monastic 
typika; those of the 11th and 12th C., for example, 
vary as to the frequency of bathing they prescribe: 
from twice a month to three times a year, with 
the norm being once a month. Kekaumenos tes- 
tied without astonishment that the Macedonian 
town of Servia at the beginning of the 11th C. 
had only one bath, located outside the city walls. 
Michael Choniates described a provincial bath as 
a smoky and drafty hut heated by an open hearth. 
An extraordinary exception to this trend is the 
sumptuously decorated bathhouse of Leo VI, which 
is the subject of an ekphrasis by Leo Choiro- 
sphaktes (P. Magdalino, DOP 42 [1988] 97—118). 

Baths came to be associated with healing: sick 
monks or nuns and patients in monastic hospitals 
were permitted more frequent or even unlimited 
baths. This connotation entered Christian sym- 
bolism so that the church building was sometimes 
called a spiritual balaneion, and God might be 
designated balaneus, or bathkeeper (Germanos I], 
Homily 2, ed. S. Lagopates, 225.7—11). 

Relatively few baths of post-6th-C. date have 
been uncovered by archaeological excavations, tor 
example, at Sparta (Ch. Bouras, ArchEph 121 [1982] 
99—112) and Trikkala (A. Tziaphalias, ArchDelt 
31.2.1 [1976] 178-81). The evidence suggests that 
they continued the Roman principles of planning 
and construction, generally being divided into a 
series of vaulted or domed rooms for dressing, 
exercise, and cold, warm, or hot bathing. Monastic 
baths, which constitute a distinctive and important 
category, continued to be built throughout the 
Byz. era (Orlandos, Monast.Arch. 95—108). 


272 BATOPEDI 


ut. C. Mango, “Daily Life in Byzantium,” JOB 31.1 
(1981) 338-41. A. Berger, Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit 
(Munich 1982). Kazhdan-Constable, Byzantium 69f. 

—Ap.K., M.J., A.K., R.B. 


BATOPEDI. See VATOPEDI MONASTERY. 


BATTLE STANDARD AND FLAG (onueiov, 
Bavéov, @d&ppovdov). Battle standards such as 
the Roman eagle or dragon were used by late 
Roman infantry units until the 6th C., while cav- 
alry units were identified by the vexillum, a square 
banner on a pole. The raising of the standards 
was the traditional signal to begin battle, and since 
they often served as rallying points, the rank of 
standard-bearer (bandophoros) was assigned to an 
exceptionally brave soldier (Prokopios, Wars 
4.10.4). Armies of the gth and 1oth C. carried 
standards bearing relics or icons (McCormick, 
Eternal Victory 247£), and banners suspended from 
a cross are also mentioned (Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 
2.2!59). The LABARUM, the cross itself, and cross- 
like standards were used from Constantine I on- 
ward, esp. by Iconoclastic emperors, and later by 
Nikephoros I Phokas (Leo Diac. 8.5—7). Regi- 
mental standards were commonly used in impe- 
rial ceremonies and processions (Haldon, Praeto- 
rians 287f) and the imperial units or tagmata kept 
their ceremonial standards (ptychia, skeptra) both 
in the Churches of St. Stephen of Daphne, and 
in the Church of the Lord (De cer. 640.16—-641.5). 

Battle flags (banda) in the shape of a square field 
(kephale) with trailing streamers ( phlammoula, from 
Lat. flammulae, “small flames”) appeared as early 
as the 6th C. and were used for signalling and 
identification. The Strategikon of Maurice (Strat. 
Maurik. 1.2, p.82.75—80) notes that each unit (meros) 
had a flag whose field was of one color with 
variously colored streamers attached to identify 
the division (moira). The Strategikon warns that too 
many flags might be a hindrance and source of 
confusion in battle (2.10). The units of the bag- 
gage train (TOULDOS) were also designated by sep- 
arate flags (1.9, p.102.g—12). The 1oth-C. Prae- 
cepta militaria (Praecepta Milit. 14.27—34) records 
that separate flags identified each 50-man cavalry 
unit (bandos) and its spare horses in battle; flags 
were also used to mark the places of each unit 
when preparing the camp (18.30—33). Battle flags 
are often depicted in illustrations (S. Dufrenne, 


Byzantion 43 [1973] 51—60), and the Madrid MS 
of John Skylitzes offers a rich repertoire of stan- 
dards and flags without, however, assigning them 
to specific nations. Under Michael II (Grabar- 
Manoussacas, Shylitzés, no.6o, fig.18), for instance, 
both Byz. and Arab armies carried dragon 
streamers. Wall paintings in Cappadocia depict 
several types of standard featuring the cross (D. 
Wood, Archaeology 12 [1959] 38—46). 

Flags for signaling and identification were also 
important in naval warfare. A special dark-colored 
banner (kamellaukien) was hoisted on the flagship 
as the signal to begin battle (TAKTIKA OF Leo VI 
19.41). 

tir. R. Grosse, “Die Fahnen in der rémisch-byzanti- 
nischen Armee des 4.-10. Jahrhunderts,” BZ 24 (1929/4) 


359-72. G.T. Dennis, “Byzantine Battle Flags,” ByzF 8 
(1982) 51-59. —E.M., A.C, 


BAWIT, village in Upper Egypt, site of the mon- 
astery of Apa Apollo, probably founded in the 
late 4th C. The two churches (north and south) 
are both of basilican plan and are richly outfitted 
with columns, pilasters, and various carved friezes, 
most being spolia of the 4th-6th C. There are 
several monastic complexes; some contain small 
chapels, as well as large transverse halls, probably 
prayer-halls, which are furnished with painted 
niches. The niche in hali no.6 of the northernmost 
complex represents the Virgin Mary flanked by 
Apostles. Some complexes have kitchens. The large 
complex (I-XV) southwest of the two churches 
probably housed the monks. There are also sev- 
eral tombs nearby. 

Bawit’s history resembles that of the monastery 
of Apa Jeremias at Saggara. The two churches 
of Bawit evolved from structures which were not 
originally ecclesiastical in purpose. The surviving 
wall paintings, though simple and provincial in 
character, use Byz. themes of decoration (e.g., 
Majestas Domini, Virgin “Galaktotrophousa” [see 
Vircin Mary: Types of the Virgin Mary]). The 
monastic community continued to flourish in the 
gth C., as seen from papyri. 

LIT. J. Clédat, Le monastère et la nécropole de Baouit {Cairo 
1904). E. Chassinat, Fouilles à Baouit (Cairo 1911). J. Mas- 
pero, Fouilles exécutées à Baouit, 2 vols. (Cairo 1931—43). H.- 
G. Severin, “Gli scavi eseguiti ad Ahnas, Bahnasa, Bawit e 
Saqqara,” CorsiRav 28 (1981) 309-14. Timm, Agypten 2:643- 
53. H. Torp, “Le monastére copte de Baouit,” Acta Norv 9 
(1981) 1-8. ~P.G. 


BAYEZID I (Iaiagirns and similar forms), Ot- 
toman sultan (13989-1402); born 1354, died Ak- 
şehir 8 Mar. 1403. The successor of Muran I, he 
was the first of the sultans to attempt the conquest 
of Constantinople. From 1389 to 1394 Bayezid 
maintained his authority over the Palaiologoi 
through established tributary alliances and by ma- 
nipulating their dynastic struggles to his advan- 
tage. As of 1389, his key Palaiologan vassals were 
Jonn V and Manuet II in Constantinople, THEO- 
DORE | in Mistra, and Jonn VII in Selymbria. It 
is unlikely that Manuel and John VII participated 
in his first Anatolian campaign, which included 
the conquest of PHILADELPHIA (1389—90). Early 
in 1390, however, Bayezid probably sanctioned 
John VIPs plans for a coup in Constantinople. By 
March 1390 John was besieging the city with 
‘Turkish troops. Although John VII seized Con- 
stantinople (13—14 Apr.), afterward he made no 
major concessions to Bayezid, who was then cam- 
paigning in Karaman. Following Manuel’s recov- 
ery of Constantinople for John V and himself (17 
Sept. 1390), John VII took refuge with Bayezid, 
then returned to Selymbria and remained the 
sultan’s loyal vassal until 1399. Likewise, John V 
dispatched Manuel to Bursa (see Prousa) to re- 
affirm their tributary alliance with Bayezid, at 
which time Bayezid pressured John V to disman- 
tle recently built fortifications outside the GOLDEN 
GaTE in Constantinople. When John V died (16 
Feb. 1391) Manuel returned to Constantinople 
and established his rule—doubtless with Bayezid’s 
consent. Bayezid then summoned Manuel and 
John VII to join his campaign against Süleyman 
Pasha of Kastamonu (see KASTAMON) and Kadi 
Ahmed Biirhaneddin of Sivas (June—Dec. 1391). 
In spring 1392, Bayezid appointed Manuel to 
prepare a naval expedition to Sinope, but then 
aborted the enterprise. 

Bayezid’s rapport with Manuel and Theodore 
deteriorated in 1393. Manuel’s efforts to achieve 
reconciliation with John VII were betrayed by the 
latter himself to Bayezid, and Theodore’s seizure 
of Monemvasia from Paul Mamonas (another of 
Bayezid’s dependents) also angered the sultan. 
Late in 1393 or early in 1394 Bayezid summoned 
Manuel, Theodore, John VII, and other vassals 
to his court at Serres. Amid acrimonious confron- 
tations, Bayezid allegedly resolved at one point to 
execute Manuel and additionally pressured Theo- 
dore to surrender control of Monemvasia and 


BEACON | 273 


Argos. Shortly thereafter both Manuel and Theo- 
dore renounced their pacts with Bayezid, and he 
assaulted them as rebels. By summer 1394 Baye- 
zid had begun the siege of Constantinople, which 
lasted eight years. Meanwhile, devastating raids 
were launched into the Morea in late 1394 or 
1395, and again in 1397. In 1399 John VII was 
reconciled with Manuel and governed Constanti- 
nople during Manuel's journey to the West. By 
1401 the morale of the citizens was low, and John 
VII was negotiating with Bayezid for surrender. 
The city was saved, however, when Timur de- 
feated and captured Bayezid at Ankara (see AN- 
KARA, BATTLE OF) on 28 July 1402. Eight months 
later, Bayezid purportedly committed suicide, still 
a captive of Timur. 

Many Byz. perceived Bayezid archetypically as 
a neo-Pharaoh or Sennacherib, whose blasphe- 
mous attack on the people of God and their holy 
city inevitably evoked God’s saving wrath. In this 
vein, Bayezid’s epithet yddzrim (“lightning bolt”) 
was usually interpreted as an allusion to all- 
consuming violence and destruction, and not 
merely alacrity or impetuous daring. 

ur. Barker, Manuel H 67-218. H. Inaleik, EP 1:1117- 
ig. Schreiner, Kleinchroniken 2:339—70. E. Zachariadou, 
“Manuel II Palaeologos on the Strife Between Bayezid I 


and Kadi Burhan al-Din Ahmad,” BSOAS 43 (1980) 471- 
81. —5.W.R. 


BEACON (d¢avés). In the gth C., Byz. created a 
series of beacons across Asia Minor to give ad- 
vance warning of Arab attack. Signals were flashed 
from Loulon north of the Citician Gares, where 
the Arabs would be first observed, to Argos on 
the Hasan Dag in Cappadocia, and thence by a 
series of unidentified stations to Mokilos above 
Pyal, then to Mt. AuxeNnTios and the imperial 
palace, a distance of about 450 miles. The system 
was reportedly created by LEo THE MATHEMATI- 
cIAN, who devised a code tor the interpretation 
of signals, and had two identical water clocks (see 
HoROLOGION) made for the terminal stations. His 
work took account of the difference in longitude 
and of the time the signal needed for transmis- 
sion. Modern experiments suggest that one hour 
would suffice for the entire distance. The beacons 
consisted of huge bonfires on platforms or towers 
within fortifications on isolated hills; two have 
been identified at Loulon and Argos (TIB 2:135- 
37, 223). In the open country of central Anatolia, 


274 | BEARD 


where the air is clear, stations were more than 60 
miles apart, while in the broken country of the 
northwest the average separation was about 35 
miles. The system was curtailed or modified by 
Michael HE, whose victories reduced the necessity 
for it. Smaller chains of beacons served to notify 
places off the main line and along the frontier; 
others were in use in 19th-C. Greece. Remains of 
a beacon station near Koryaron (C. Foss, Survey 
of Medieval Castles of Anatolia I: Kütahya [Oxford 
1985] 86—94) indicate that the system was revived 
by Manuel I. 


tir. P. Pattenden, “The Byzantine Early Warning Sys- 
tem,” Byzantion 53 (1983) 258-99. -CF. 


BEARD (yévecov). In late antiquity the norm for 
men was to be clean-shaven, and imperial por- 
traits of the qth—6th C. present predominantly 
beardless rulers; after that date bearded images 
on coins came to symbolize imperial power or 
imperial seniority, although some exceptions can 
be found, such as Constantine V. On coins, a 
beard and moustache are often not portrait ele- 
ments but conventions to distinguish a senior from 
a junior emperor, Later images of Constantine I, 
who was historically clean-shaven, show him with 
a beard, the shape of which was often changed to 
conform to the type worn by the current emperor. 
The huge beard of Constans II, added as an 
afterthought to the dies of his coins, gave rise to 
his nickname, Pogonatos (P. Grierson, NC 70 [1962] 
159f). 

The defense of beards originated not only within 
Christian circles, but also among pagan “philoso- 
phers” who saw, as JuLian did, in the shaggy 
beard a symbolic rejection of effeminacy and a 
return to the classical fashion; Julian’s satiric trea- 
tise Misopogon is addressed to those who criticized 
his beard. Beards served in the Byz. view as an 
indication of manliness, contrasted with beardless 
EUNUCHS; the deprivation of one’s beard was con- 
sidered a severe punishment. Monks were nor- 
mally bearded. 

After the scHism of 1054 the beard became a 
symbol of national pride that differentiated Byz. 
from clean-shaven Latins. The cult of the beard 
was ridiculed, however, by satirists such as Theo- 
dore Propromos (Boissonade, AnecGr 4:430~35). 
On the other hand, many 12th-C. authors (esp. 
ZONARAS) relate that youths preferred to shave 


off their beard, evidently following the Latin style; 
the same fashion was mentioned by a 14th-C., 
historian (Greg. 1:396.17). Social prejudices against 
the beardless are reflected, to some extent, in 
proverbs and satiric texts, such as SPANOS. Touch- 
ing the beard was an important element of Bopy 
LANGUAGE. 

ut. Ph. Koukoules, “Peri kommoseos ton Byzantinon,” 
EEBS 7 (1930) 3-37. L. Bréhier, La civilisation byzantine 


(Paris 1950) 47f. H. Leclercq, DACL 2:478-86. 
~Ap.K., A.C. 


BEASTS OF BURDEN (sing. tirofvyiov). To 
transport loads, the Byz. used animals, since in 
mountainous areas the cart could not always be 
employed. Horses were rarely used for transport 
or cartage; the main pack animals were asses 
(onika) and mules (hemionot). Cattle and esp. don- 
keys are depicted as beasts of burden in illustra- 
tions of Old Testament narratives (Uspenskij, 
Seral’sky kodeks, nos. 260, 302), while, as in illus- 
trations of BARLAAM AND loasaPH, the ass re- 
mained the primary form of humble transporta- 
tion. CAMELS and their drivers, kamelarioi, are 
usually mentioned in connection with Syria or 
Egypt; John VI Kantakouzenos, however, kept a 
number of camels in Thrace. 

It is difficult to calculate the weight of a load; 
in the vita of PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL (ed. A. 
Vasiliev, JRAIK 5 [1900] 72.4) a hypozygion carried 
6 modiot of grain. The load was sometimes put (or 
poured) into ceramic vessels attached on both 
sides of an animal. The rural population, unless 
exempt from this fiscal burden, was required to 
provide so-called parangaria—the duty of supply- 
ing military contingents or imperial officials with 
pack animals. 

LIT. A. Leone, Gli animali da trasporto nell’Egitto greco, 


romano e bizantino (Rome-Barcelona 1988). 
—J.W.N., A.K., A.C. 


BEAUTY (kaAdos). Physical beauty was not per- 
ceived by Christian apologists as a virtue—our 
bodies, according to Augustine, are defective, and 
will be improved by the Creator after our resur- 
rection (V. Byčkov in Ezkon und Logos [Halle 1981] 
23f); Christ, in his Incarnation, assumed not a 
handsome body, but a plain and undistinguished 
one. Emphasis was placed on spiritual beauty, 
which might be accentuated by external ugliness, 


esp. if the body was distorted and mutilated dur- 
ing a martyrdom or in ascetic exercises. Pseudo- 
DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE developed a hier- 
archy of beauty: the absolute beauty of God—an 
efficient and final cause, radiating into the world 
and attracting everything to itself; the beauty of 
heavenly beings; and the visible beauty of corpo- 
real objects and beings. This visible beauty was 
understood as moral goodness rather than exter- 
nal handsomeness. 

Beauty was also an AESTHETIC category. The 
beauty of nature and that of the Holy Writ, having 
been created by God, stood on a higher level of 
aesthetic values than the work of painters and 
writers (Gregory of Nyssa, PG 44:1197B). Al- 
though in theory beauty was linked to simplicity, 
Byz. ideologists discarded the early apologists’ 
contempt for sumptuous ornamentation of the 
body and of buildings; external “beauty” came to 
occupy a significant place in both court ceremo- 
nial and liturgy. Ekphraseis praised the visible beauty 
of churches, icons, palaces, gardens, etc.; female 
beauty was described in romances and verses, and 
noted in funeral orations; and preambles to his- 
torical works named beauty of speech as one of 
the highest qualities. 

Lit. V. Byčkov, Vizantiskaja estetika (Moscow 1977) 65— 


107. C.C. Putnam, Beauty in the Pseudo-Denis (Washington, 
D.C., 1960). -A.K. 


BEBAIAS ELPIDOS NUNNERY, located in 
Constantinople, dedicated to the Theotokos Be- 
baias Elpidos (“of sure hope”). It was founded in 
the 1320s or 1330s by Theodora Synadene, niece 
of Michael VIII and wife of the megas stratope- 
darches John Komnenos Doukas SyNapENos. When 
widowed, Theodora Synadene retired to her new 
foundation, taking the monastic name of Theo- 
doule; her daughter Euphrosyne, the “second 
founder” of the convent, accompanied her. The 
monastery is known only from its lengthy rule, 
written by Theodora between 1327 and 1342 and 
preserved in a deluxe parchment MS (Oxford, 
Lincoln College gr. 35), known as the “Lincoln 
College Typikon.” It includes ten pages of double 
portraits, showing the founder’s family as married 
couples in court and/or monastic costume. The 
sequence closes with images of the Mother of God, 
inscribed “he bebaia elpis,” in the pose of the Vir- 
GIN Hopecerri, gesturing toward Theodora and 


BEBAIAS ELPIDOS NUNNERY 275 





Bergalas Evprpos Nunnery. Portraits of the founders 
of the nunnery Theodora (Theodoule) and her daugh- 
ter Euphrosyne. Miniature in the manuscript of the ty- 
pikon of the nunnery (Lincoln College, Oxford, gr. 35 
fol.l Ir). Bodleian Library, Oxford. 


Euphrosyne on the facing recto. The final min- 
iature (fol.12r) depicts nuns and novices gathered 
about their superior. 

The convent, in the Heptaskalon region, first 
housed 30 nuns, then 50. It followed the typikon 
of St. SABAS wiih icgaid iv lituigy aiid dietary 
regulations. The convent possessed considerable 
property in Constantinople, its environs, and 
Thrace. It also received valuable donations of 
money and liturgical objects from relatives and 
descendants of Theodora who wished to assure 
their posthumous commemoration at the convent. 

source, H. Delehaye, Deux typica byzantins de l'époque des 
Paléologues (Brussels 1921) 10-14, 18-105, 141-72. 

uit. A. Cutler, P. Magdalino, “Some Precisions on the 


Lincoln College Typikon,” CahkArch 27 (1978) 179-98. Janin, 
Églises CP 158—Go. -A.M.T., A.C. 





276 | BEDE 


BEDE, called “the Venerable,” English Benedic- 
tine monk, polymath, historian, and theologian; 
born near Wearmouth (Northumberland) ca.672/ 
3, died Jarrow (Durham) 25/6 May 735. The Latin 
church fathers were major sources for him, but 
Bede also knew some Greek and possibly some 
Hebrew. His works on spelling, metrics, and com- 
putus, for instance, contain a little Greek (M.C. 
Bodden in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture, ed. P.E. 
Szarmach, V.D. Oggins [Kalamazoo, Mich., 1986] 
55, 62, n.16). W.F. Bolton considered Bede’s use 
of Greek “passive,” based on earlier writers such 
as Jerome and Isidore of Seville and on interlinear 
Greek-Latin texts, but K.M. Lynch (Traditio 39 
[1983] 432-39) argues that, by the late 720s when 
Bede wrote his second commentary on Acts, he 
read biblical Greek. L.T. Martin (American Bene- 
dictine Review 35 [1984] 211-16) and A.C. Dioni- 
sotti (Revue Bénédictine g2 [1982] 123-29) show 
that in this work and in On Spelling, respectively, 
Bede systematically compares variants, both Greek 
and Latin. 

Where his Ecclesiastical History of the English Peo- 
ple touches on events at Constantinople, he seems 
generally to draw on preserved sources (e.g., bk.1, 
ch.13 on a 5th-C. famine, plague, and earthquake; 
bk.s5, ch.15 on the pilgrim Arculf’s trip to the 
Levant and Constantinople; see ADOMNAN), but 
he supplies independent testimony on Theodore 
of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, who sup- 
ported the Lateran Council of 649 and glorified 
“the Holy Spirit ineffably proceeding from the 
Father and the Son” (bk.4, ch.17). Bede’s Anglo- 
Saxon connections with Rome presumably explain 
his revision of the Latin translation of the Passion 
of St. Anastasius (cf. C. Vircillo Franklin and P. 
Meyvaert, AB 100 [1982] 373-400) as well as the 
independent testimony on contemporary events 
in Constantinople supplied in the chronicle ap- 
pended to his De temporum ratione, such as Justin- 
ian II’s career (chs. 567 and 577-78, pp. 529 and 
531), Philippikos’s destruction of conciliar images 
(ch. 581, p.523), and the Arab siege of Constan- 
tinople and attack on the Bulgars in 717-18 (ch. 
592, pp. 5346). 

ED. Ecclesiastical History, ed. B. Colgrave, R. Mynors (Ox- 
ford 1969). See list in Brown (infra). De temporum ratione, 
ed. T. Mommsen, C. Jones, in CCL 123b (1977) 463-544. 

LIT. Bede: His Life, Times, and Writings’, ed. A.H. 
Thompson (Oxford 1969). G.H. Brown, Bede the Venerable 
(Boston 1987). —C.B.T., M.McC. 


BEDS (sing. kpaBBarvov) were used, at least until 
the 1oth C., not only as a place for sleeping, but 
also for reclining during BANQUETS, even though 
the custom of sitting at TABLES to dine became 
more and more usual (Koukoules, Bios 5:167f). 
The bed was normally made of wooden planks, 
whereas the rich bedecked their Alinai (bedsteads) 
with silver (e.g., John Chrysostom, PG 55:516.34— 
35) or ivory (Symeon Metaphrastes, PG 115:g0gB). 
The frame was provided with ropes or chains that 
supported the stromne, or mattress. The frame 
was placed on two trestles or on four legs, which 
were sometimes decorated. Beds of this kind are 
often depicted in miniatures. The stromnai were 
filled with rushes, straw, or wool; in rich houses 
they were covered with CARPETS, animal skins, or 
silk cloths of gay colors (M. Gedeon, BZ 5 [1896] 
115.1—3). Pillows were used at one end of the bed 
to elevate the head (Psellos, Scripta min. 2:206f). 
Folding beds were also employed (MM 6:243.4). 
Warriors and ascetics prided themselvés on re- 
jecting the comfort of beds: Manuel I reportedly 
slept on brushwood during his campaigns, and 
Nikephoros II Phokas slept on the floor even in 
the palace. St. Andrew the Fool reportedly pre- 
ferred to spend the night on a dunghill (PG 
111:705AB). Eustathios of Thessalonike ridiculed 
the ascetics’ habit of spending their nights on the 
ground. 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 2.2:67-—77. —Ap.K., AK. 


BEEKEEPING. See APICULTURE. 


BEER. See BEVERAGES. 


BEG (mod. Turk. bey), a Turkish title of unknown 
origin appearing on the oldest monument of the 
Turkish language, the 8th-C. Orkhon inscrip- 
tions, meaning “nobility” and opposed to bodun, 
i.e., “the mass of the people”; later it acquired the 
meaning “lord” and was widely used in the Islamic 
world as the equivalent of the Arabic title ‘amir 
(see Emir). The Karakhanids and the founders of 
the Sejuk dynasty used it. The 14th-C. Turkish 
emirates or beyliks were ruled by a senior lord 
known as the ulu (big) beg, whose territory was 


divided into provinces governed by members of 
his family, simple begs. The title was also used in 
the Ottoman Empire and was introduced into 
Greek as a loanword (máris, méy, etc.). 

ut. L. Bazin, Ef? 1:1159. Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica 


2:250f. E.A. Zachariadou, “Observations on Some Turcica 
of Pachymeres,” REB 36 (1978) 261-67. ~E.A.Z. 


BEGGAR (é7airns). Assistance to beggars was 
consistent with Byz. PHILANTHROPY toward the 
unfortunate. The texts rarely distinguish “profes- 
sional” beggars from the poor, who are described 
as plochoi, penetes, AKTEMONES, Or APOROI. Scenes 
of begging are, however, abundant in the sources: 
thus, a 14th-C. historian (Greg. 3:225.14—16) de- 
scribes indigents in the streets who were stretch- 
ing out their hands to the crowd, pleading for a 
small coin to buy some bread; Ptochoprodromos 
tells of a rich woman who fed her husband less 
well than the beggars who came to her house. 
PALLaptos in the Laustac History (164.7—10) writes 
of indigent people who lived in the stoa of a 
church and were in constant search of food; a 
woman even gave birth to a child in this stoa. The 
beggars were either naked or wore specific clothes, 
the beggar’s cloak, himatia epaitika (PG 65:228B). 
Anna Komnene (An.Komn., bk.12.3; 3:63.19g—20) 
relates that her mother Irene distributed money 
among epaitar, who were either naked or sisyropho- 
roi, clad in goathair cloaks. Some beggars are 
described as insolent: when one of them was given 
a loaf of bread, he demanded a cloak instead 
(Moschos, PG 87:2860A). The Homeric Iros (Od- 
yssey, bk.18) was for the Byz. an archetypal image 
of the insolent beggar. The vita of Andrew the 
Fool (PG 111:708C) speaks of the “poor robbers” 
who stole Andrew’s cloak; the hagiographer com- 
ments that citizens called them “children of the 
archtereus,” a term probably indicating an institu- 
tionalized organization of Constantinopolitan 
beggars. It is not clear whether “the poor breth- 
ren in Christ” who were fed at the PTOCHOTRO- 
PHEION Of ATTALEIATES (Typtkon, ed. Gautier, 
47.493-501) and the poor people who were an- 
nually chosen to have their feet washed by the 
emperor (Treitinger, Kaiseridee 126f) were genu- 
ine beggars or poor people able to sustain them- 
selves. The government tried to restrict the num- 
ber of beggars in Constantinople by prescribing 


BEHAVIOR 277 


that the quaestor employ able-bodied beggars or 
expel them from the city. 


LIT. Constantelos, Philanthropy 5, 26f, 119, 130, 260. 
-ALK. 


BEHAVIOR. The Byz. developed several images 
of ideal behavior. One of them was the eremitic 
ideal, with its tendency to mortification of the 
flesh in forms such as flight to the desert or 
wilderness, STYLITE life on a pillar, seclusion, and 
fasting. This ideal was contrasted with the com- 
munal life of the koinoBion: both were based on 
the principle of tapeinotes, “humility” (see Mop- 
ESTY, Topos oF), but the cenobitic ideal placed 
more emphasis on discipline and activity than on 
individual abnegation. Attitudes toward PHILAN- 
THROPY also varied; usually treated as a virtue, it 
was questioned by people such as Symeon the 
Theologian. Another criticism of ASCETICISM (esp. 
in the 12th C.) came from clerical and lay intel- 
lectuals (such as Eustathios of Thessalonike) who 
contrasted hermits with virtuous married people 
living in the world. 

The secular ideal of behavior was construed in 
several forms: individualistic behavior concen- 
trated on the interests of the nuclear family, em- 
phasizing obedience to the law and fealty to the 
ruling emperor (Kekaumenos); behavior based on 
tolerance and o1kONoMi4, with developed bonds 
of FRIENDSHIP and values such as education and 
moderate enjoyment of life (Psellos); the knightly 
ideal, with stress on military prowess and personal 
fealty (Eustathios of Thessalonike). The ideal of 
WOMEN’s behavior slowly shifted from that of ex- 
treme piety (the prostitute transformed into an 
ascetic, a woman in male disguise eagerly search- 
ing for salvation) to the model housewife; in the 
12th C. a new image appeared—the woman ac- 
tively involved in political affairs, a patron of art, 
a faithful mistress 

Byz. ideals of behavior were developed partic- 
ularly in hagiography and in special moralistic 
treatises, such as those by KEKAUMENOS or SpA- 
NEAS, in MIRRORS OF PRINCES, and in rhetorical 
writings (panegyrics, monodies, etc.). (See also 
EtHics; Bopy LANGUAGE.) 

uT. Kazhdan, Secial’nyj sostav 241-43. Patlagean, Struc- 


ture, pt-XI (1976), 597-623. W. Horandner, “Customs and 
Beliefs as Reflected in Occasional Poetry,” ByzF 12 (1987) 


235-47. —A.K. 


278 | BEIRUT 


BEIRUT. See Berytus. 


BELA III (Alexios to the Byz.), king of Hungary 
(from 1172); born ca.1148, died 23 Apr. 1196. 
Second son of Géza Il (ruled 1141—61/2), by 
agreement with his brother Istvan HI Béla went 
to Constantinople ca.1163 to be betrothed to Ma- 
ria Komnene, heiress apparent of MaNueEx I; Béla 
may have been named DEsporTEs (but see L. Stier- 
non, REB 21 [1963] 292). Manuel envisaged an 
eventual union of Hungary and Byz. In 1166 Béla 
helped fight Hungary to regain Croatia and Dal- 
matia, his promised inheritance. After the birth 
of ALEXIOS Il, the engagement to Maria was ter- 
minated; Béla (now caesar) wedded Anne of 
Chatillon, half-sister of Manuel’s empress. Upon 
the death of Istvan HI, Béla occupied Hungary 
with Byz. assistance. In 1181, he seized Croatia 
and Dalmatia; ca.1182—84 he took the Morava 
valley and Niš (Naissus). Following Anne’s death 
(1184), he sought the hand of Manuel’s relative 
Theodora, which would have given him a claim 
to the throne. When this marriage was denied, 
Béla’s daughter Margaret married Isaac H An- 
GELOS. In 1192 he and Isaac met at Belgrade, but 
only in 1195 were they able to agree on joint 
action against Bulgaria. Isaac’s overthrow frus- 
trated their cooperation. 

urr. Moravesik, Studia Byz. 305-193. Idem, Byzantium and 
the Magyars (Amsterdam 1970) 82—84, 89-95. Brand, By- 
zantium 7of, 88-96. F. Makk, “Relations hungaro-byz- 


antines à l'époque de Béla IH,” ActaHistHung 31 (1985) 3— 
32. -~C.M.B. 


BELGRADE. See SInGIDUNUM. 


BELISARIOS (Bedtodpios), general; born Ger- 
mania on borders of Thrace and Illyricum ca.505, 
died Constantinople March 565. Belisarios be- 
came guard officer of Justinian I (who was then 
magister militum), doux of Mesopotamia (526), and 
then magister militum of the East (529). He de- 
feated the Persians near Dara in 590, but Justinian 
recalled him because these operations ultimately 
failed. In 532 Belisarios suppressed the Nika RE- 
VOLT. Belisarios commanded the successful ex- 
peditionary force that reconquered Africa in late 
533, decisively defeated the Vandals, destroyed 
their kingdom in 533-34, and celebrated a triumph 


at Constantinople in 534. He occupied Sicily, then 
entered Rome on 9/10 Dec. 536. His victories 
were represented in mosaic on the CHALKE Gate. 
Belisarios was recalled to Constantinople because 
of Justinian’s mistrust and fear of Persia. The 
emperor again sent Belisarios to Italy in 544, but 
recalled him in 548. Despite internal dissension 
and inadequate resources, he skillfully directed 
the reconquest of much of Italy from the Ostro- 
goths. In 559-60 he led an emergency defense 
against Cotrigur Huns who threatened Thrace 
and Constantinople. Justinian removed him as 
comes domesticorum in 562 but restored him to favor 
on 19 July 563. Belisarios was greatly influenced 
by his wife, ANTONINA, but was apparently indif- 
ferent to politics. He possessed many (possibly 
7,000) buccellarti (private guardsmen). Master of 
strategy, operations, and tactics, with a swift and 
instinctive grasp of the potential in a situation, 
Belisarios was probably the best Byz. general. Pro- 
KOPIOS OF CAESAREA, Belisarios’s assessor, de- 
scribed many of Belisarios’s campaigns and con- 
tributed to his high reputation. 

LIT. Cameron, Procopius 51-55, 156-64, 171-76. Stein, 
Histotre 2:284—93, 312-24, 346-55. Thompson, Romans & 
Barbarians 77—109. —-W.E.K., A.C. 


BELISARIOS, ROMANCE OF, an anonymous 
verse text composed probably in the late 14th C. 
(cf. Romance). The fate of the hero, blinded and 
reduced to begging at the central crossroads of 
Constantinople, exemplifies the workings of Envy. 
He has little connection with the historical BELI- 
SARIOS, Justinian I’s general, though both Proko- 
pios and Theophanes the Confessor comment 
that envy destroyed Belisarios’s career. The leg- 
end first appears in a 12th-C. MS of the Patria 
OF CONSTANTINOPLE and the Chiliades of TZETZES, 
while the developed story reflects episodes from 
the 12th C. (the PeTratrpHas brothers and the 
siege of Kerkyra, 1149) and the 14th C. (the 
career of Alexios PHILANTHROPENOS). An under- 
lying theme, unusual in Byz. literature, is a class- 
based tension between aristocrats and populace, 
which may account for the poem’s continued pop- 
ularity in the post-Byz. period, when it circulated 
in two rhymed versions. 

ED. Istoria tou Belisariou, ed. W.F. Bakker, A.F. van Gem- 


ert (Athens 1988). Wagner, Carmina 322-78. 
-E.M.]., MJJ- 


BELL (xwdwv). Bells were used by the Romans 
for various purposes, for example, as children’s 
toys (bells of this kind were found in catacombs) 
and as devices to signal the opening of public 
baths and help keep track of livestock. A bas- 
relief discovered in Galata and dated to the reign 
of Justin I] shows a bell, struck by two men, that 
was apparently used to announce the beginning 
of circus games (H. Leclercq, DACL 3.2:1970). 

Small bells for animals survive from the 4th C. 
onward; one is inscribed “St. Theodore help the 
horse (alogon)” (unpublished; Oxford, Ashmolean 
Museum, inv. 1980.26). Small bells were also among 
the silver horse fittings (see CHARIOT MOUNTS AND 
Horse Firrincs) excavated in Nubia (W.B. Emery, 
L.P. Kirwan, The Royal Tombs of Ballana and Qustul 
[Cairo 1938] 262—71, pls. 55-56). A pavement 
mosaic at Umm Harteyn in Syria, dated 499/500, 
shows a bull with three bells hanging from its 
neck (J. Balty, Mosaiques antiques de Syrie [Brussels 
1977], fig.61). The Farmer’s Law (ch.30) establishes 
the punishment for a thief who removed a kodon 
from a cow or sheep. 

The metal content of two 6th- or 7th-C. smail 
bronze bells in the Ashmolean Museum has been 
analyzed and found to conform to the traditional 
high-tin formula for bells, a formula imported 
into the western world from southeast Asia where 
it originated in the Iron Age (P. Craddock in 
Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art, 
ed. P.A. England, L. van Zelst [Boston 1985] 64). 

Theodore of Stoudios (PG 99:841 A), when de- 
scribing the persecution of the faithful in Con- 
stantinople, exclaims that the tolling of bells (ko- 
donismos) was heard throughout the whole city— 
Theodore’s hostile attitude toward the kodonismos 
suggests that he meant secular rather than eccle- 
siastical bells, since Byz. churches at that time used 
a gong or SEMANTRON for signaling the hour. 

In the West, however, bells were widely used 
from the 6th C. to summon the faithful to church 
services. The sophistication of the Latin West in 
bell-founding is amply demonstrated by Theo- 
philus Presbyter’s extensive description (11th C.?) 
of the techniques involved (Schedula diversarum 
artium, ed. A. Ug [Vienna 1874; rp. Osnabrück 
1970] 319-31). Such experience may have led 
Basil I to seek bells in the West: according to the 
CHRONICON VENETUM (ed. G. Monticolo, 126.13— 
16), the Venetian doge Orso II (864-81) sent to 
Constantinople 12 bells “and from this time on- 


BELL TOWER | 279 


ward the Greeks started having campanae.” LiuT- 
PRAND OF CREMONA (Antapodosts 3:34) describes a 
machina in the Nea EKKLEsIA that struck (sonat) 
ecclesiastical hours—it may have been an AUTO- 
MATON equipped with a bell. 

Some monasteries used kodones instead of se- 
mantra to summon monks: one is mentioned in 
the hypotyposis of Athanasios of Athos (Meyer, 
Haupturkunden 136.22-23), another in the typikon 
of the KECHARITOMENE NUNNERY (P. Gautier, REB 
43 [1985] 77.1035). Balsamon (Rhalles-Potles, 
Syntagma 4:521.32—522.5), however, considers the 
semantron as typical of Byz. and stressed that the 
Latins used the “brass-tongued” kampana. An- 
other 12th-C. writer (Eust. Thess., Capture, pp. 
134.23—136.14) also describes the animosity of 
the Normans toward wooden gongs and asks in 
astonishment why they were not hostile to “the 
large semantikoi kodones” in the Church of St. De- 
metrios. Texts of the 14th and isth C. more 
frequently mention church bells that also rang at 
times of danger. After 1453 the Turks prohibited 
the tolling of bells. Allatios, in the first half of the 
17th C., wrote that bells of brass and copper were 
rare in Greece, although many very old bells were 
preserved on Mt. Athos. 

LIT. L. Allatios, The Newer Temples of the Greeks (Univer- 
sity Park, Pa.—London 1969) 5f. E.V. Williams, The Beils of 


Russia (Princeton 1985) 21—24. E.M. Zumbroich, LMA 
4:1500f. -M.M.M., A.G., A.K. 


BELL TOWER, a multistoried structure built as 
an integral part of, or adjacent to, a church with 
the purpose of hanging BELLS. Though at times 
functionally and formally related to monastic PYR- 
col, bell towers are invariably distinct from them. 
Belfries are made of masonry-bearing walls, per- 
forated on all four sides. The top floor, where 
the bells are hung, usually has the largest open- 
ings. Relatively few Byz. churches with bell towers 
have been preserved (e.g., at the Omorphoklisia 
near Kastoria; Zoodochos Pege near Samara, 
Messenia; Aphentiko, Brontocheion monastery, 
Mistra); several others survive in Serbia (e.g., Bo- 
gorodica Ljeviška in PRIZREN; main church of Zi¢a 
monastery) and Bulgaria (Pantokrator church at 
Mesemsria). No surviving example appears to 
antedate 1200. This led earlier scholars (G. Millet, 
L'école grecque dans l'architecture byzantine [Paris 1916; 
rp. London 1974] 137£) to assume that the form 
was imported from the West during the Latin 


280 | BELT 


occupation of Constantinople. Recent research in- 
dicates that many churches in Constantinople 
(KALENDERHANE Camil, Kilise Camii, PAMMAKA- 
RISTOS, CHORA) once had belfries, although none 
survive. Their destruction may be related to the 
general Turkish prohibition on bells. The origins 
of the Byz. bell towers remain murky. Their ex- 
istence by the gth C. at the latest is attested in 
miniatures depicting Holy Sion in the Khludov 
Psalter (Ščepkina, Miniatjury, fols. 51r, 86v). 

uit. Ch. Barla, Morphe kai exelixis ton byzantinon kodono- 
stasion (Athens 1959). H. Hallensleben, “Byzantinische 


Kirchtürme,” Kunstchronik 19 (1966) 309-11. O.M. Kandić, 
“Kule-zvonici uz srpske crkve XII-XIV veka,” ZbLikUmet 


14 (1978) 3-75. E 


BELT (ovn, Lat. cingulum), in the early Roman 
Empire an element of military costume. During 
the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine I, a 
zone became part of the dress of every official, 
with the exception of the empress, who did not 
wear a belt since she was not considered a true 
officeholder. The fashion for belts spread, and in 
382 the state tried to restrict the use of belts by 
civilians. Monks and priests followed the trend, 
viewing the belt as a symbol of purity, temper- 
ance, and manliness. 

Byz. belts were made of leather or cloth, with 
buckles of bronze. Luxurious specimens could be 
purple or gilded. Constantine VII Porphyrogen- 
netos (De cer. 470.10-12) mentions purple and 
quasi-purple zostriat (the price of which ranged 
from 8 to 16 miliaresia apiece). As official INSIG- 
NIA, belts of court functionaries differed in form 
and color; some were studded with precious stones. 
Higher orders of the clergy (from priests on up) 
wore belts, made of silk, over the STICHARION and 
the EPITRACHELION; the EPIGONATION was attached 
to the belt. All-metal belts are unknown, except 
for gold MARRIAGE BELTS. Numerous BELT FIT- 
TINGS have been found, primarily on the frontiers 
of the empire, in civilian as well as in military 
contexts. 

The Virgin’s girdle was one of the most impor- 
tant relics in Constantinople. Brought to the cap- 
ital perhaps in the 5th C. and contained in a 
special reliquary box or soros, it was housed in 
the Church of the CHALKOPRATEIA, and ultimately 
at the Church of BLacHERNai. Its deposit at the 
Chalkoprateia was celebrated annually on 31 Aug. 


UIT. Koukoules, Bios 2.2:50-55. M. Sommer, Die Gürtel 
und Gürtelbeschläge des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts im römischen 


Reich (Bonn 1984). Braun, Liturgische Gewandung 101-17. 
M. Jugie, “L’église de Chalcopratia et le culte de la Ceinture 
de la Sainte Vierge à Constantinople,” EO 16 (1913) 308— 
12. ~ALK. 


BELT FITTINGS. Until recently most excavated 
belt fittings of the 5th—7th C. were from barbar- 
ian graves and it was assumed that those found 
on Byz. soil were iniports (Davidson, Minor Objects 
267); recent finds from Constantinople and Asia 
Minor, however, suggest that the Byz. appro- 
priated and diffused barbarian fittings. Most sur- 
viving specimens may be assigned to the 6th—¥th 
C.; they are primarily bronze, with rare examples 
in gold, lead, iron, or silver. The discovery of 
bronze stamping molds in Cherson testifies to the 
existence of the local production of belt fittings 
of Byz. type in the 7th C. (A.I. Ajababin, SovArch 
3 [1982] 1g0—g8). A fairly limited range of design 
types is replicated in various media. A few deluxe 
fittings even bear gemstones. 

Byz. belt fittings assumed a variety of forms: 
those with hinged buckles versus those on which 
only the tongue is hinged; those secured to the 
belt strap with pierced studs versus those with a 
slit through which the end of the strap could be 
looped. Examples of the later type, with rigid 
buckle and strap loop, tend to be of the 8th—10th 
C. and most bear zoomorphic decoration. Earlier 
(6th—7th C.) specimens boast a greater variety of 
shapes (hearts, triangles, lozenges) and often bear 
highly stylized floral or zoomorphic motifs. Iconic 
images (Christ, the Virgin Hodegetria) occasion- 
ally appear, as do simple biblical scenes (e.g., the 
Annunciation), pagan heroes (e.g., Herakles), in- 
vocations, and expressions of good luck. Most 
common, however, are personal monograms, which 
suggests that personalized belt fittings may have 
facilitated the retrieval of one’s clothing at the 
baths. (See also BELT; MARRIAGE BELT.) 

LIT. J. Werner, “Nomadische Gürtel bei Persern, Byzan- 
tinern und Langobarden,” Atti del Convegno sul tema la civiltà 
dei Longobardi in Europa (Rome 1974) 109~39. M. Sommer, 


Die Gürtel und Giirtelbeschldge des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts im 
rémischen Reich (Bonn 1984). ~G.V. 


BELTHANDROS AND CHRYSANTZA (Béà- 
Gavdpos kal Xpvodvrýa), an anonymous ROMANCE 
in 1,348 unrhymed POLITICAL VERSES, written 
probably during the 14th C. in a language that 
shows the confusion of vERNACULAR and learned 


elements characteristic of this genre. A striking 
feature of the plot is the elaborate Erotokastron 
(Castle of Love) in which, in a dreamlike atmo- 
sphere, Belthandros selects from a BRIDE SHOW 
the girl destined to be his wife. He eventually 
finds her in Antioch and, after many hazards 
including a false marriage with her maid, they 
live happily ever after. The romance is familiar 
with some of the vocabulary (e.g., Lizros, “liege”) 
and habits (e.g., HAWKING) of westernized feudal 
society. Antecedents for the plot have thus been 
sought in Western literature, for example, in the 
(admittedly rare) château d'amour of Provençal po- 
etry or in the Tristan story (for a marriage with 
the beloved’s maid). Equally likely, however, are 
precedents within the Byz. learned tradition itself, 
in chroniclers’ accounts of bride shows (C. Cu- 
‘pane, JOB 33 [1983] 221—48) and in the EKPHRa- 
SEIS of gardens and buildings in the 12th-C. ro- 
mances. The mixture of motifs reflects the Western 
penetration of Byz. society following the Fourth 
Crusade. 

ED. Kriaras, Mythistoremata 85—130. Germ. tr., E. von 


Nischer-Falkenhof, “Belthandros und Chrysantza: Ein by- 
zantinischer Minnesang aus dem 13. Jahrhundert,” JOB 8 


(1959) 87-122. 
uit. Beck, Volksliteratur 120f, 124-27. M. Chatzigia- 
koumes, Ta mesaionika demode keimena: symbole ste melete kai 
sten ekdose tous (Athens 1977) 60-69, 104-26, 2139-46. H. 
and R. Kahane, “The Hidden Narcissus in the Byzantine 
Romance of Belthandros and Chrysantza,” JOB 33 (1983) 
199—219. G. Fulciniti, “H romanzo di Beltrando e Crisanza: 
un tentativo di Analisi narratologica,” Università di Napoli. 
Annali di Facoltà di lettere e filosofia 27 (1984—85) 229-41. 
-EMJ., MJJ. 


BEMA (Bua), the area of the church containing 
the ALTAR, also referred to as the presbyterion or 
hierateion (sanctuary). In Byz. churches, the bema 
occupied the position at the east end of the naos, 
directly in front of the arse, though in some cases 
it extended laterally to include areas in front of 
the subsidiary apses. In Syria the bema was placed 
in the middle of the naos. In early churches the 
bema was usually raised on a platform one step 
high, enclosed by the chancel barrier and later 
the TEMPLON. The entire closed area was accessible 
only to the members of the clergy who celebrated 
the liturgy there. In theological terms, the bema 
was viewed as the Christian equivalent of the 
“Holy of Holies” in the ancient Jewish Temple. 
The “bema of the anagnostai (readers)” was an- 
other name for the amspo (Sozom., HE 9.2.11); 
John Chrysostom is said (ibid. 8.5.2) to have 


BENEVENTO 281 


preached in the middle of his crowded audience, 
sitting on the bema of the anagnostaz. 

LIT. C. Delvoye, RBK 1:583—99. A.M. Schneider, RAC 
2:129f. R. Taft, “Some Notes on the Bema in the East and 


West Syrian Tradition,” OrChrP 34 (1968) 326-59. 
-M,J. 


BENEVENTO (BeveBevros), city in CAMPANIA, 
capital of the province of Samnium in the late 
Roman Empire. In the late 530s Benevento was 
contested between Justinian I’s general Belisarios 
and the Goths. Circa 545 Totila conquered the 
city and destroyed its walls. The Lombards occu- 
pied Benevento ca.570; various Byz. attempts at 
reconquest (e.g., Constans II’s siege of 663) failed, 
and the city and the duchy of Benevento re- 
mained under the nominal suzerainty of Lombard 
kings. 

Much construction occurred during this period. 
Theuderata, wife of the duke Romuald, built the 
monastery of S. Pietro outside Benevento (680s). 
Duke Arechis II (758-87) is credited with build- 
ing a palace (perhaps an addition to the existing 
ducal palace), extending the city walls, construct- 
ing the palace-church of S. Sofia, and granting 
the monastery connected with S. Soha a water 
pipe to supply its bath as well as a yearly supply 
of wood for heating. The chapel of S. Sofia is 
described in 8th-C. documents as a likeness of 
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Excavations in 
1950 revealed that the church originally was star- 
shaped, with two inner rings of supports and a 
low dome. It had marble and mosaic decoration 
that does not survive. 

When the Lombard state was crushed by the 
Franks in 774, Benevento gained full indepen- 
dence. After its political surge in the 8th C., Be- 
nevento experienced internal strife (SALERNO de- 
tached itself from the duchy in 849) and hostile 
attacks on its territory: the Carolingian king Louis 
I] managed to repel the Arabs in 872, but only 
temporarily. Emp. Basil I sought an alliance with 
Lombard principalities, and in 876 a Byz. ambas- 
sador was sent to Benevento, Salerno, and Capua 
but had no success (Reg 1, no.495). In Oct. 891 
the Byz. captured Benevento and the Byz. strategos 
remained there until 895, when he was forced to 
leave the city and its territory. Benevento was still 
politically dependent upon the empire, however, 
until the Norman invasion. With the help of the 
Normans, Atenulf III, prince of Benevento, de- 
feated in 1041 the Byz. army of the katepano 


282 | BENJAMIN I 


Boioannes the Younger, but soon thereafter the 
Normans left the service of Atenulf and sup- 
ported Salerno against him. The subsequent events 
are obscure; George MANIAKES seems to have 
retaken Benevento from the Normans in 1042 
(Skyl. 427.52—56), but the Byz. could not retain 
the city; in 1051 Benevento, in the face of a 
Norman attack, accepted the suzerainty of the 
pope. 

uit. H. Belting, “Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 
8. Jahrhundert,” DOP 16 (1962) 141-93. Ward-Perkins, 


From Classical Antiquity 16, 20f, 171f, 230-34. Aggiornamento 
Bertaux 4:273-77. - A.K., R.B.H., D.K. 


BENJAMIN I, patriarch of Alexandria (626-65); 
born ca.5go, died 3 Jan. 665; feastday (Coptic 
church) 3 Jan. Born to a wealthy and apparently 
hellenized Egyptian family, Benjamin became a 
monk ca.621 but soon entered the service of the 
Monophysite patriarch Andronikos, who later 
named him as his successor. The Byz. reconquest 
of Egypt from the Persians and esp. the arrival in 
631 of Patr. Kyros compelled Benjamin to take 
refuge in Upper Egypt from Kyros’s persecutions. 
He returned only in 644 after the Muslims had 
captured Alexandria, reportedly following a de- 
cree by ‘Amp recalling him. Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam 
(died 871) claims that ‘Amr sought and received 
from Benjamin specific advice on administering 
Egypt. Benjamin probably left Alexandria during 
the temporary Byz. reoccupation (645) and may 
have offered ‘Amr support in exchange for leni- 
ence toward the local populace. The Coptic church 
reveres Benjamin for having encouraged and or- 
ganized the Egyptian Monophysites during and 
after the persecutions of the 630s and for rebuild- 
ing churches and monasteries. An account, pre- 
served only in Coptic and Arabic versions but 
probably composed in Greek by Benjamin’s syn- 
kellos and successor Agathon, records Benjamin's 
consecration of a church at Dair Macarius (Livre 
de la consécration du sanctuaire de Benjamin, ed. 
R.-G. Coquin [Cairo 1975]). Of Benjamin’s writ- 
ings, only a “Homily on the Wedding at Cana” is 
extant in toto; written in Coptic, its vocabulary 
reveals strong Greek influences. 

ep. C. Müller, “Neues über Benjamin I, 38. und Aga- 
thon, 39. Patriarchen von Alexandrien,” Muséon 72 (1959) 
323-47. Idem, Die Homilie über die Hochzeit zu Kana und 


weitere Schriften des Patriarchen Benjamin I. von Alexandrien 
(Heidelberg 1968). 


uit. C. Müller, “Benjamin 1., 38. Patriarch von Alex- 
andrien,” Muséon 6g (1956) 313-40. Butler, Arab Conquest 
169-79, 439-46. —P.A.H. 


BENJAMIN OF TUDELA, or Bar Yonah, the 
most important and informative medieval Jewish 
traveler; fl. mid-12th-C. Spain. His Itinerary (Se- 
pher Masaoth), apparently unedited notes, outlines 
his travels during the 1160s from Spain along the 
Mediterranean coast to Byz. It also includes data 
on the Islamic world, Ethiopia, and Europe. Ben- 
jamin recorded unique censuses of Jewish con- 
gregations, economic observations, local pronun- 
ciation of Greek, and folklore. Our main source 
for 1ath-C, Byz. Jewish history, the Itinerary also 
contains early descriptions of Vlachs, Oghuz Turks, 
Druses, and Assassins. His description of Con- 
stantinople is among the best extant. He men- 
tioned guilds of Jewish silkworkers in Thebes, 
Thessalonike, and Pera; tanners in Pera; and even 
an agricultural settlement near Delphi. He visited 
about 25 Byz. cities and recorded some 9,000 
Jews. 

ED. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. M.N. Adler 
{London 1907). 


LIT. A. Andréadés, “Sur Benjamin de Tudèle,” BZ 30 
(1929/30) 457-62. Ankori, Karaites 141—61. —S.B.B. 


BERA (Bypa), identified with modern Pherrai in 
western Thrace, site of the monastery of the 
Theotokos Kosmosoteira, founded before 1152 
by the sebastokrator Isaac KOMNENOS, son of Alex- 
ios 1. Isaac built the cenobitic monastery as his 
residence and final resting place; he requested 
that his tomb be transferred to this new founda- 
tion from the church of the Chora MONASTERY in 
Constantinople, which he had restored earlier (N.P. 
Ševčenko, GOrTAR 29 [1984] 135-39). The com- 
plex, surrounded by a wall, included a cistern, 
mill, and library. The monastery also had a GERO- 
KOMEION with 36 beds and a bathhouse for the 
use of monks and villagers. The monastery con- 
tinued in use until the mid-14th C. 

The typikon, drafted by Isaac starting in 1152, 
was Closely modeled, for its liturgical sections, on 
the ¢ypikon of the EUERGETIS MONASTERY in Con- 
stantinople. It provided for 74 monks, of whom 
50 were to be choir brothers, the rest serving 
brothers. All the monks were to be over 30 years 
of age, and no eunuchs were permitted. Isaac 


emphasized the independent status of the mon- 
astery and endowed it with substantial properties 
in Thrace. The ¢ypikon is an important source for 
local toponyms, esp. since it contains numerous 
Slavic place names (V. Tuipkova-Zaimova, Balkan- 
sko ezikoznanie 2 [1960] 123-27) and for social and 
economic relations: as the former estate of a sec- 
ular owner, the estates of the Kosmosoteira housed 
certain “vassals” who were given land in exchange 
for their service to the master (V. Arutjunova- 
Fidanjan, Tipik Grigorija Pakuriana [Erevan 1978] 
32-34). 

The church at Pherrai, which is presumed to 
be the katholikon of the Kosmosoteira monastery, 
is a large modified cross-in-square structure with 
frescoes of the 12th C. By 1433 it had been 
transformed into a mosque; it was restored and 
reconsecrated in 1940. 

source. L. Petit, “Typikon du monastère de la Kosmo- 
soteira près d’Aenos (11532),” IRAIK 13 (1908) 17-75. 

uit. $. Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera 
(Vira) (Munich 1985). A.K. Orlandos, “Ta byzantina mne- 
meia tes Beras,” Thrakika 4 (1933) 3-34. N. Patterson 


(Ševčenko), “Byzantine Frescoes at Pherrai” (M.A. thesis, 
Columbia University 1964). —A.M.T., N.P.Š. 


BERBERS. See Mauri. 


BERROIA (Bé[plpocw), name of cities in Syria 
and Macedonia. 


BERROIA IN SYRIA (Ar. Halab, Aleppo in mod. 
Syria), city and bishopric of Syria I; it stood on 
the road leading east from Antioch, about halfway 
to Hierapolis to the northeast and to the Tigris 
River to the east. It was raised to a metropolitan 
bishopric in 536. In 540, the citizens of Berroia 
gave only half of the 4,000 pounds of silver de- 
manded by Chosroes I, who burned the city; the 
local military garrison then deserted to the Per- 
sians, complaining of a lack of pay (Prokopios, 
Wars 2.7). By the 580s, the Legio IV Parthica was 
stationed at Berroia (Theoph.Simok. 2.6.9). The 
city was under Persian rule from 604 to 628 and 
Arab rule after 636; after NikeEPHOROs II PHoKas 
took and sacked it in 962, Berroia was again Byz. 
between 995 and 1017. Among the few Byz. ves- 
tiges at Berroia is part of an aisled tetraconch 
(cathedral?) church (in the Madrasah al-Hala- 
wiyya) with sculpture characteristic of the early 
6th C. 


BERROIA: BERROIA IN MACEDONIA 283 


LIT. J. Sauvaget, Alep (Paris 1941). H. Gaube, E. Wirth, 
Aleppo (Wiesbaden 1984). W.E. Kleinbauer, “The Origins 
and Functions of the Aisled Tetraconch Churches in Syria 
and Northern Mesopotamia,” DOP 27 (1973) 101-03. 

-M.M.M. 


BERROIA IN MACEDONIA, city at the west end 
of the central Macedonian plain, sometimes con- 
fused in the sources with Beroe-Stara Zagora in 
Thrace. In late antiquity Berroia belonged to the 
province of Macedonia I. In the 7th C. Droucou- 
BITAI settled in the plain below the city. In the 
late 8th C. the empress Irene is said to have rebuilt 
Berroia and named it Eirenoupolis; some texts, 
including Theophanes (Theoph. 457.8—10), place 
Berroia-Eirenoupolis in Thrace (Chionides, His- 
toria [1970] 2:14-18). The 1oth-C. Taktikon of 
Escurial (Oikonomides, Listes 265.32) mentions a 
strategos of Berroia alongside that of Strymon, and 
an act of 1196 specifically names the theme of 
Berroja (Lavra 1, no.69.3). A letter of THEOPHY- 
LAKTOS of Ohrid (ep.i23, ed. Gautier 563.1) is 
addressed to a doux of Berroia. For a short time 
Samuel of Bulgaria held the city, but in 1001 
Dobromir, its kalarchon (1.e., governor or master), 
surrendered Berroia to Basil II. The city does not 
appear again in the sources until the end of the 
12th C. It is questionable whether Peter and Asen 
conquered Berroia, since the evidence on this may 
refer to Thracian Beroe (Chionides, infra [1970] 
2:27, n.g). 

After 1204 Berroia was assigned to BONIFACE 
or MONTFERRAT. In 1224 it was taken by Theo- 
dore I Komnenos Doukas of Epiros, then in 1246 
by John III Vatatzes. John VI Kantakouzenos 
took an interest in Berroia, but in 1343/4 it was 
surrendered to STEFAN Uroš IV DuSan; Kanta- 
kouzenos retook the city in 1350, but it soon fell 
again into Serbian hands and was administered 
from 1358 by the Serbian noble Radoslav Chla- 
pen. Berroia was once more Byz. ca.1375, but 
Ottoman attacks began at just that time. The 
Turks seized the city several times, definitively 
€a.1430. 

The bishopric of Berroia, suffragan of Thes- 
salonike, is known from 347. After 1261 Michael 
VIII promoted Berroia to an archbishopric, and 
by 1300 it had become a metropolis. 

A considerable number of the monuments of 
the Byz. city have survived, and some of the many 
post-Byz. churches may have been built on Byz. 
foundations. An Early Christian cemetery with 


284 | BERTHA OF SULZBACH 


more than 5o tombs has been excavated (ArchDelt 
33.2 [1978] 264-66, 268, 273-82). Some churches 
with frescoes of the 12th and igth C. are still 
standing, but the most significant monument is 
the Church of the Anastasis, an unpretentious, 
single-aisled basilica with spectacular frescoes dated 
by inscription to the year 1315 (S. Pelekanides, 
Kallierges: Holes Thettalias aristos zographos [Athens 
1973]). The artist is named Ka.irerces, the do- 
nors a certain Psalidas and his wife Euphrosyne. 
The paintings bear comparison with the mosaics 
of the PAMMAKARISTOS in Constantinople and the 
Hoty ArosTLES in Thessalonike, and esp. with 
the frescoes of St. NICHOLAS ORPHANOS, also in 
Thessalonike. The program of the Anastasis church 
includes “panels” of the Crucifixion and the Ana- 
stasis in niches opposite each other. On the north 
and south walls are a Feast cycle with an expanded 
Passion sequence and the portrait of a monk in 
proskynesis before St. Artemios. The church may 
have been the katholikon of a patriarchal monas- 
tery (RegPatr, fasc. 5, no.2018). The old cathedral 
is a Byz. construction using spolia from some Early 
Christian basilica (Ph.A. Drosogianne, ArchDelt 18.2 
[1963] 249f). 

tir. G.Ch. Chionides, Historia tes Beroias 2 (Thessalonike 
1970). Idem, “Perigramma tes ekklesiastikes historias tes 
Beroias,” GregPal 65 (1982) 159-81. Laurent, Corpus 5.1:342. 
N.K. Moutsopoulos, He laike architehtonike tes Berowas (Athens 
1967). Ch. Mauropoulou-Tsioumi, “Verroia,” in Alte Kirchen 


und Klöster Griechenlands, ed. E. Melas (Cologne 1972) 126- 
30. -T.E.G., N.P.S. 


BERTHA OF SULZBACH, sister-in-law of Con- 
RAD III and first wife of MANUEL I; she was given 
the name Irene after her marriage; died Constan- 
tinople ca.1160. To confirm the alliance of 1140 
with John II, Conrad sent Bertha to marry Man- 
uel in 1142, but the wedding occurred only in 
Jan. 1146. She is said to have been just, charitable, 
pious, opposed to cosmetics, stubborn, and narrow- 
minded, She acted as a patron, and Tzerzes ded- 
icated some of his works to her. Manuel soon 
neglected her in favor of other women, partly 
because she failed to bear a male heir; allegedly, 
Patr. Kosmas II Attikos, on being deposed (Feb. 
1147), cursed her womb. In 1152 she bore Maria 
KOMNENE and ca.1156 Anna, who died ca.1160. 
Bertha warned the emperor about the conspira- 
cies of Andronikos Komnenos and STYPPEIOTES. 


She was commemorated in an EPITAPHIOS by Basi, 
or Ourip (Regel, Fontes 1.2131 1—30). 
ur. C. Diehl, Figures byzantines? (Paris 1938) 170~g1, 


Lamma, Comneni 1:33—39. Barzos, Genealogia 1:454~59. 
~C.M.B, 


BERTRANDON DE LA BROQUIERE, Burgun- 
dian pilgrim to the Holy Land; died Lille 1459. 
Bertrandon, who was a knight of Philip IIT the 
Good of Burgundy, described his journey in a 
book entitled Voyage d’outremer. He set off in Feb. 
1432 from Ghent to Palestine and visited Jerusa- 
lem, Damascus, Antioch, and many other places 
in the area; then, in a caravan, he traversed Asia 
Minor as far as Pera and Constantinople (which 
he left on 23 Jan. 1433). Bertrandon describes 
the city walls of Constantinople, its churches (Hagia 
Sophia, St. George, the Pantokrator, the Holy 
Apostles, Blachernai), and squares. The city seemed 
to him smaller than Rome, and he described it as 
having more open space than built-up areas. He 
saw Emp. John VIII and his brother Demetrios 
Palaiologos, despotes of the Morea, as well as the 
empress Maria Komnene, daughter of the em- 
peror of Trebizond; Bertrandon writes how Ma- 
ria mounted—“like a man”—a horse with a mag- 
nificent saddle; she wore a mantle and a tall pointed 
hat. Bertrandon also attended a solemn church 
service and a wedding of one of the emperor's 
relatives. From Constantinople Bertrandon trav- 
eled across Macedonia, observing that the coun- 
tryside was completely devastated and, except for 
Selymbria, was in the hands of the Turks. The 
description is sober and concise but tinged with 
animosity toward the Greeks: he finds them less 
honest than the Turks and deceitful in their sub- 
mission to the Roman church. It is worth noting 
that the court of Constantinople sought infor- 
mation from Bertrandon about Joan of Arc. 

ED. Le Voyage d'Outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquiére, ed. 


C.H.A. Schefer (Paris 1892). Eng. tr. in Early Travels in 
Palestine, ed. T. Wright (London 1848) 283—382.  —AK. 


BERYTUS (Bnpvrós, now Beirut [Ar. Bayriit] in 
mod. Lebanon), city in the province of Phoenicia 
Maritima under Tyre and independent metro- 
politan bishopric under the patriarch of ANTIOCH. 
Berytus was damaged by earthquakes in 347/8, 
501/2, and 550/1; after the last, the city was re- 


stored by Justinian I (Theoph. 227.21-228.4), 
epigraphic and other vestiges of which work (in- 
cluding a bath) have been found in the forum. 
Berytus was still noted in the 6th C. for its famous 
LAW SCHOOL and for its state silk factories (Pro- 
kopios, SH, ch.25) as well as its private purple- 
dyeing industry. The Arabs took Berytus in 635; 
it was held briefly by Jonn I TziMisKEs in 975. 
uT. R. Mouterde, “Regards sur Beyrouth phénicienne, 


hellénistique et romaine,” MélUniu]os 40 (1964) 147—go. P. 
Collinet, L'école de droit de Beyrouth (Paris 1925). —M.M.M. 


BESSARION (Bnogapiwv), Greek expatriate 
scholar and theologian in Italy, cardinal (1439— 
72), and titular Latin patriarch of Constantinople 
from 1463; baptismal name John; born Trebi- 
zond 1399/1400?, died Ravenna 18 Nov. 1472. 
Educated in Constantinople and Mistra, Bessarion 
studied with John CHortTasMENos, George CHRY- 
SOKOKKES, and Gemistos PLETHON. He became a 
monk in 1423 and subsequently deacon, priest, 
and hegouwmenos of the monastery of St. Basil in 
Constantinople. Appointed metropolitan of Ni- 
caea in 1437, he attended the Council of FERRARA- 
FLORENCE as a leader of the pro-Unionists. In 
1439 he converted to Catholicism and was made 
a cardinal. After a brief return to Constantinople, 
he spent the rest of his career in Italy. He was 
appointed to numerous high ecclesiastical posi- 
tions, including that of papal legate, and was twice 
a candidate for the papacy (1455 and 1471). Ever 
mindful of his Greek origins, he lobbied unsuc- 
cessfully for a crusade against the Turks. 

It was as a scholar that Bessarion made his 
greatest impact. He wrote prolifically in Greek 
and in Latin, of which he acquired an excellent 
knowledge. During the Byz. portion of his career, 
he composed pro-Unionist theological treatises, 
refuting the views of Orthodox scholars such as 
Mark EuceEnixos. He was also the author of nu- 
merous orations and enkomia, including a pane- 
gyric of his native Trebizond (ed. O. Lampsides, 
ArchPont 39 [1984] 3-75), probably written in 
1436-37. He emphasized its seapower, military 
preparedness, and strong fortifications. The ora- 
tion also described the layout of Trebizond, esp. 
the imperial palace and the thriving commercial 
and manufacturing quarter of this emporion tes 
otkoumenes or “marketplace of the world.” 


BESSARION RELIQUARY 285 


In Rome Bessarion headed an academy that 
produced new and/or more accurate translations 
of ancient Greek authors. To this end he was an 
energetic collector of Greek MSS, which he even- 
tually (1468) bequeathed to Venice, where they 
became the nucleus of the Biblioteca Marciana. 
He himself also copied some MSS (H.D. Saffrey, 
ST 233 [1964] 263-97). Bessarion took a moder- 
ate position in the mid-15th-C. debate over Plato 
and Aristotle; he did, however, write (in Greek) 
a lengthy work, Against the Calumniator of Plato, 
attacking the extreme Aristotelian views of GEORGE 
TRAPEZOUNTIOS. He was the patron of Greek 
émigrés such as Theodore Gazes and Michael 
APOSTOLES, who wrote his funeral oration (PG 
161:cxxvii—cxl). 

ED. PG 161:137-744. Against the Calumniator of Plato, ed. 
L. Mohler, infra, vol. 2. For list of ed., see Tusculum-Lexikon 
121f. 

LIT. L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist 
und Staatsmann, 3 vols. (Paderborn 1923-42). PLP, no. 
2707. Gill, Personalities 45—54. Miscellanea Francescana 73.9— 
4 (1973). L. Labowsky, Bessarion’s Library and the Biblioteca 
Marciana (Rome 1979). Miscellanea Marciana di studi Bessa- 
rionet (Padua 1976). -A.M.T. 


BESSARION RELIQUARY, a wooden siauro- 
theke, that is, a container for fragments of the 
Truet Cross, composed of several parts, now in 
the Accademia in Venice; it took its name from 
the 15th-C. cardinal who presented it to the Scu- 
ola della Carita in that city. BESSARION may have 
obtained it from “Gregory Pneumatikos,” as he is 
called on the cross within the RELIQUARY, perhaps 
Patr. Gregory HI (1443—50/1). A second inscrip- 
tion speaks of “Irene Palaiologina, daughter of 
the emperor’s brother,” whom Frolow (infra) be- 
lieved to be the niece of John VIII rather than of 
Michael IX. The sliding lid of the stawrotheke is 
painted with seven scenes of the Passion OF CHRIST 
surrounding the Crucifixion. Beneath this cover, 
a silver-gilt cross with the crucified Christ, Hanked 
by Constantine and Helena in niello, is sur- 
rounded by eight framed ENAMEL panels; four of 
these have windows for relics. This part of the 
reliquary may be Western, but the cross itself 
carries Byz. enamel with Greek letters, which Fro- 
low reads as the initials of such phrases as “The 
place of Calvary has become Paradise.” Similar 
medallions are found on the back. 


286 | BESTIALITY 


LIT. Venezia e Bisanzio, ed. 1. Furlan (Venice 1974} no.112. 
Frolow, Religue, no.872. G. Fogolari, “La teca del Bessa- 
rione e la croce di San Teodoro di Venezia,” Dedalo 3 
(1g22—23) 138-60. —M.ELF., A.C. 


BESTIALITY (CaodGopia, krnvoBacia), human 
intercourse with animals, was prohibited by the 
Old Testament, which associated it with HOMOSEX- 
uaLiry (Lev 18:22-23). This connection domi- 
nated Byz. canon law, which often imposed the 
same EPITIMION for both sins (NOMOKANON OF 
FourTEEN TITLES 13.2). The Ecloga (17.39) im- 
posed the penalty of castration and ranked bes- 
tiality after incest and consanguinous intercourse 
as the third sexual sin, before homosexuality. The 
condemnation of bestiality continued throughout 
Byz. history, from Basil the Great in the 4th C. to 
Demetrios CHOMATENOS and John APOKAUKOS in 
the 13th C., always stressing the perversity of this 
form of intercourse. In the Penitential attributed 
to John IV Nesteutes, both men and women were 
condemned for bestiality (PG 88:1893D). Some 
monastic communities, such as Mt. Athos, prohib- 
ited the residence of children, eunuchs, women, 
and female animals in or near monasteries to 
deter fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality. 
The typikon of the PHOBEROU MONASTERY (pp. 
75.14-77.10, 82.g—-25) denied access to female 
animals specifically to prevent bestiality; at other 
monasteries their prohibition seems to reflect a 
general repudiation of the female sex (C. Gala- 
tariotou, REB 45 [1987] 121). 

Ancient myths with their elements of totemistic 
bestiality endured in literature and art, for ex- 
ample, in epigrams about Zeus’s transformation 
into a bull or swan to seduce Europa or Leda 
(AnthGr, bk.5, nos. 65, 125, 307) and on the Eu- 
ropa casket. Pasiphaé, who disguised herself as a 
heifer to have intercourse with a bull and thus 
conceive the Minotaur, was interpreted as the 
embodiment of female initiative and its terrible 
consequences. 

ur. Troianos, Potnaltos 36-38. H.-G. Beck, Byzantin- 
isches Erotikon (Munich 1986) 140f. ~J.H. 


BESTIARY. See PHysioLocos, 


BETHANY (By@avia, Ar. al-‘Azariya or ‘Ayzari- 
yah), located 3 km east of Jerusalem, is the site 
associated with the Raising of Lazarus. EUSEBIOS 


OF CAESAREA (Onomastikon 58:15) speaks of 
Bethany’s Lazarion or “Place of Lazarus”—evi- 
dently a rock tomb. EGreria (ca.380) implies the 
existence of a church there, which was used in 
the stational liturgy on Palm Sunday. Its prox- 
imity to JERUSALEM made it part of that city’s 
“pilgrimage circuit.” The early church, which had 
guest rooms, was rebuilt in the 5th C. A monastery 
existed there as well, and a second church, dedi- 
cated to Mary Magdalene, was erected during the 
time of the Latin Kingdom. 


uit. Wilkinson, Pilgrims 151. Ovadiah, Corpus 29-31. 
-G 


BETHLEHEM (By6@acéy), village in the Judaean 
hills, g km south of Jerusalem, that was revered 
from the 4th C. as Jesus’ birthplace. The first 
church on the site of the traditional cave of the 
Nativity was built by Constantine I, probably on 
the initiative of Helena. It was a five-aisled basilica 
with an octagonal martyrion, preceded by an atrium. 
This church was destroyed at the time of the 
SAMARITAN revolt of 529. Justinian I replaced it 
with another basilica, larger and more ornate: a 
narthex was added, a trefoil apse constructed, and 
two entrances cut leading to the cave of the Na- 
tivity. Much later, under Manuel 1, the east end 
of the church received lavish mosaic decoration 
at the hands of EPHRAIM. Other points of pilgrim- 
age were the shrine of the Holy Innocents; the 
Well of the Star; and the tomb of St. JEROME, 
who, with a group of matrons, had established 
two monasteries at Bethlehem. 

After the Arab conquest of Palestine, Bethle- 
hem was venerated by Muslims as the birthplace 
of “Īsā ibn Maryam” (Jesus, son of Mary) but 
never developed into an important center. The 
Crusaders occupied Bethlehem in 1099 and tried 
to create a bishopric there but lost it to Saladin in 
1187. 

LIT. Wilkinson, Pilgrims 151f. Ovadiah, Corpus 33—37. 
W. Harvey, Structural Survey of the Church of the Nativity, 
Bethlehem (London 1935). B. Bagatti, Gl antichi edifici sacri 


di Betlemme (Jerusalem 1952). EAEHL 1:198—206. 
—G.V., Z.U.M. 


BETH MISONA TREASURE, dated to the 6th 
or 7th C., four liturgical vessels in silver acquired 
by the Cleveland Museum of Art in 1950. None 
of the objects has sitver stamps but two bear 


dedicatory inscriptions: the paten was offered by 
a certain Domnos to the Church of St. Sergios in 
the village (chorion) of Beth Misona, possibly to be 
identified with the modern village of Msibine, 
southwest of Aleppo (Berrola) in northern Syria; 
one of the three nearly identical chalices, with 
repoussé decoration, was presented to the same 
church by Kyriakos, son of Domnos. Because of 
the dedication to St. Sergios, a misreading of the 
village name, and confusion over modern prove- 
nance, the Beth Misona Treasure has mistakenly 
been called the Rusafa Treasure (see SERGIO- 
POLIS); instead it is one of several silver TREASURES 
given to village churches in the 4th—7th C. 


uit. Mango, Silver 228-91. —-M.M.M. 


BETH SHEAN. See SKYTHOPOLIS. 


BETROTHAL (uvyorsia, Lat. sponsalia). Roman 
law had no specific form of contract preceding 
MARRIAGE; no penalty for breach of promise ex- 
isted. The legislation of Constantine I (Cod.Theod. 
HI 5.2, etc.) introduced the concept of ARRHA 
SPONSALICIA, the prenuptial gift, and by so doing 
transformed the informal agreement into a for- 
mal contract. Ensuing developments led to the 
reinforcement of the ties of the betrothal and a 
gradual disappearance of the clear distinction be- 
tween it and marriage: the Council in Trullo 
(canon 98) equated marrying another person’s 
betrothed to ADULTERY, and the Ecloga prescribed 
the punishment of cutting off the nose for one 
who engaged in intercourse with another's be- 
trothed. In 1066 a synod under Patr. John VIII 
Xiphilinos proclaimed the legal equality of the 
two institutions, and in 1084 Alexios I confirmed 
their identity (Reg. 2, no.1116). The celebration 
of the betrothal continued, nevertheless, after Al- 
exios’s novel, and Demetrios CHOMATENOS (Laiou, 
infra 295) strongly contrasts mnesteia and mar- 
riage, defining the former as “the prearrange- 
ment and preagreement of a marriage.” 

Despite the lack of consistency in the Byz. treat- 
ment of betrothal the following features seem to 
have characterized mnesteia, distinguishing it from 
gamos: (1) the type of priestly benediction—even 
in the later period “incomplete” betrothal, without 
priestly benediction, was possible; (2) the age of 
the partners, the betrothed being allowed to be 
of five to seven years (and older); (3) the lack of 


BEZANT | 287 


economic ties, the powRy not yet being transmit- 
ted to the family of the groom; (4) the tendency 
to avoid (if not legally prohibit) sexual relations 
between the betrothed; (5) a broader range of 
valid grounds for dissolution of the betrothal, for 
example, madness, religious differences—in the 
11th C. it was debated whether the reduced means 
(aporia) of one of the parties could cause the 
termination of a betrothal (Peira 49.26); (6) cer- 
tain betrothals (those not blessed by a priest) could 
be terminated, but under the penalty of a PRO- 
STIMON. 

LIT. A. Laiou, “Ho thesmos tes mnesteias sto dekato 
trito aiona,” in Aphieroma Svorones 1:280—98. S. Papadatos, 
Peri tes mnesteias eis to Byzantinon dikaion (Athens 1984). 


Hunger, Grundlagenforschung, pt.XI (1967), 322-24. Ritzer, 
Mariage 178-91. ~J.H., ALK, 


BEVERAGES (7rord). WATER was the basic bev- 
erage, closely followed by wine (often mixed with 
water), which was consumed in large quantities 
and considered a staple of the diet. An acidic 
wine, phouska (really a mixture of vinegar and 
water), was served in cheap taverns called phou- 
sharia (E. Kislinger, JOB 34 [1984] 49-53). In 
monasteries, during the fasting periods, monks 
and nuns substituted for wine a hot drink made 
of boiling water mixed with spices such as pepper, 
cumin, and anise (eukraton or kyminothermon). Li- 
queurs were prepared from FRUITS such as dates, 
pears, and prunes. Neither dairy drinks nor beer 
seem to have been very popular. Eustathios of 
Thessalonike relates that “semibarbarians” pre- 
pared an intoxicating winelike drink from BAR- 
LEY; he denotes this drink with an old Russian 
word, olovina or “beer” (A. Kazhdan in Okeanos 
355). The biberatikon (“drink payment”) was a re- 
ward given to laborers for their work (M. Mc- 
Cormick, AJPh 102 [1981] 160f). 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:121-35. Koder-Weber, Liutprand 
76-84. M. Poljakovskaja, A. Cekalova, Vizantija: byt i nravy 
(Sverdlovsk 198g) 127-30. ~Ap.K., A.K. 


BEZANT (Lat. bizantius aureus, OF besant), the 
name given in western Europe to the Byz. gold 
NOMISMA. The word is mainly found in documents 
of the 1oth—13th C., and its use subsequently is 
literary or heraldic, the coins themselves being 


known to merchants as HYPERPYRA or perperi. 
—Ph.G. 


288 | BIBLE 


BIBLE (Bibig, lit. “books”), also graphe (scrip- 
ture) usually with the epithet “holy,” the collection 
of books that constitute the foundation of the 
Christian creed. Even though the Bible consists 
of two sections, the OLD TESTAMENT and the New 
TESTAMENT, written in different languages and in 
different historical situations, the CHURCH FA- 
THERS emphasized its unity and the concordance 
of Old Testament and New Testament that de- 
rives from divine inspiration, the Bible being a 
work of the Holy Spirit. However, some heretics 
(e.g., the BoGomiLs) contrasted the Old Testa- 
ment and New Testament, rejecting the former 
(wholly or in part) as inspired by Satan. 

The Bible presents to the human mind various 
difficulties and alleged contradictions, the solu- 
tion of which can lead to a profounder under- 
standing of the text. A special discipline, EXEGESIS, 
arose, aimed at the interpretation of the Bible, 
while homiletics sought to explain biblical situa- 
tions in SERMONS, the material of which was set 
out as scenes, dialogues, and rhetorical imagery. 
Two major branches of exegesis were founded: 
the ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL, which stressed the al- 
legorical interpretation, and the ANTIOCHENE 
ScHooL, which stressed “historical” interpreta- 
tion. The “true” exegesis of the Bible was the 
focal point of doctrinal discussions, beginning with 
the Arian controversy. Each faction of the theo- 
logians tried to find in the Bible appropriate ref- 
erences or to interpret biblical citations in a sense 
that accorded with their views; consequently the 
idea of biblical “obscurity” requiring interpreta- 
tion became important. 

After the 5th C., the church assumed the exclu- 
sive right to interpret the Bible; tradition (para- 
dosis) based on the sanctified church fathers im- 
posed limits on previously free understanding. 
Dispute then centered on interpretation of the 
Fathers, rather than of the Bible itself. 

Lit. The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. ı (Cambridge 
1970). Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. C. Mondésert 
(Paris 1984). H.M. Biedermann, “Bibelverstandnis der Ost- 
kirchen,” OstkSt 31 (1982) 122-41. M. Harl, “Origéne et 


les interprétations patristiques grecques de I’ ‘obscurité 
biblique,” VigChr 36 (1982) 334-71. —J.L, A.K. 


BIBLIOTHECA, also Myricbiblon (Mupi6BiBrov, 
“thousand books”), conventional titles of a work 
of Puotios. In the oldest MS (Venice, Marc. gr. 
450) the heading of the work is “List and Descrip- 


tion of Books We Have Read.” The Bibliotheca 
contains 280 chapters (“codices”) that describe 
386 books according to Treadgold (infra 5). It 
also has a preface and epilogue, both addressed 
to Photios’s brother Tarasios. If we take them at 
face value, Photios compiled the Bibliotheca before 
leaving on an embassy to the “Assyrians,” ie., 
Arabs; this embassy has been variously identified 
with those of 838, 845, or 855. F. Halkin (AB 81 
[1963] 414~—17), however, suggested a much later 
date of composition (after 875). Most recently A. 
Markopoulos (Symmeikta 7 [1987] 165-82) pro- 
posed that the bulk of the Bibliotheca represents a 
revised version written in Photios’s old age. B. 
Hemmerdinger hypothesized that Photios worked 
in Greek libraries in Baghdad (REGr 69 [1956] 
101-03). N. Wilson surmised that Photios was 
working from memory (infra 95—99). 

The Bibliotheca surveys both pagan and Chris- 
tian authors, sometimes very extensively, some- 
times briefly. Photios evidently avoids school texts 
(poets, Plato, Aristotle), is very interested in he- 
retical works, and devotes more attention to his- 
torians than to natural science; very indicative is 
his concern for LEXIKA since he himself wrote one. 
The composition is not systematic, although sev- 
eral “codices” are organized in thematic groups. 
Photios sometimes provides biographical data on 
the author, summarizes the contents, and in some 
cases presents a theological and stylistic evalua- 
tion. Although Photios preferred a simple style, 
the Bibliotheca demonstrates that he could appre- 
ciate diverse stylistic approaches. Since his com- 
pilation includes many texts now lost, historians 
of ancient literature have studied it closely. Less 
attention has been paid to the Bibliotheca as reflect- 
ing the Byz. worldview. It is significant, for ex- 
ample, that Photios understood HERoporTus as a 
historian of the Persian basileis and of an illegiti- 
mate revolt against them (cod. 60), and not as one 
who described the victory of the Greek city-states 
over a monarchy. 


ED. Bibliothèque, ed. R. Henry, vols. 1-8 (Paris 1959- 
77), with Fr. tr. Eng. tr. J.H. Freese, vol. 1 (London 1920). 

LIT. W. Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photios 
(Washington, D.C., 1980). Wilson, Scholars gg—111. G. Kus- 
tas, “The Literary Criticism of Photius,” Hellenika 1'7 (1962) 
132-69. T. Hägg, Photios als Vermitiler antiker Literatur 
(Stockholm 1975). T. Hagg, W. Treadgold, “The Preface 
of the Bibliotheca of Photius Once More,” Symbolae Osloenses 
61 (1986) 133-38. J. Schamp, Photios historien des lettres: La 
Biblothéque et ses notices biographiques (Paris 1987). --A.K. 


BILLETING. See MitaTon. 


BINBIRKILISE (Turk., lit. “thousand and one 
churches”), ecclesiastical site in LYKAONIA, appar- 
ently medieval Barata (Bapara), attested as a bish- 
opric from the 4th to the 12th C. The area con- 
tains the remains of over 40 churches, in two 
main groups. The majority stand in the lower 
town (Madengehir) and consist primarily of vaulted 
basilicas with horseshoe-shaped apses of a massive 
ashlar construction, together with an octagonal 
church that strikingly corresponds to the descrip- 
tion of a “martyrium” by GreGcory oF Nyssa (ep. 
25). Those of the upper town (Degle) include 
cross-in-square churches of less regular masonry 
with decorative brickwork. Dating is difficult and 
disputed; it appears that the lower town flour- 
ished from the 4th to the 7th C. and was reoc- 
cupied in the gth, while the upper town was a 
refuge during the Arab invasions. 

ur. W.M. Ramsay, G. Bell, The Thousand and One Churches 
(London 1909). TIB 4:138—43. M. Restle in RBK 1:6g0- 


718. S. Eyice, Recherches archéologiques à Karadağ (Binbirkilise) 
(Istanbul 1971). —C.F. 


BIOGRAPHY, a literary genre created in antiq- 
uity that flourished during the Roman Empire. It 
was considered an intermediate form lying some- 
where between ENKOMION and HISTORIOGRAPHY 
and having as its purpose the presentation of the 
hero's character (ethos) and/or actions (praxeis) in 
logical rather than chronological sequence. The 
material was presented in anecdotes, maxims (say- 
ings), catalogs of works, etc. Biographies were 
often combined in series, as by Plutarch. Late 
Roman biography included emperors (HISTORIA 
AUGUSTA), philosophers (Diogenes Laertius in the 
grd C.), and rhetoricians (the Lives of the Sophists 
by Eunapios or Sarpis). There was a tendency to 
transform the wise man into a “godlike” holy man 
like Pythagoras and Plotinos in their biographies 
by Porpuyry, Origen in his Life written by Eu- 
SEBIOS OF CAESAREA (bk.6 of the Ecclesiastical His- 
tory), and esp. APOLLONIOS OF Tyana. Works of 
this kind, along with the books of the Maccabees 
and the Acts of the Martyrs, contributed to the 
development of HaGIoGRAPHY, the vita of ANTONY 
THE Great by Athanasios of Alexandria being the 
model for the new genre. The late Roman biog- 
raphy of the holy man was based on a precon- 


BIRDS 289 


ceived ideal of behavior, presented the hero’s life 
as a continual acme from cradle to grave, and had 
the purpose of defending the principles of partic- 
ular philosophical and religious schools. 

In Byz., secular biographies were not very com- 
mon, nor were they produced in series (unlike 
the Historia Augusta and Eunapios). The demar- 
cation of the genre from both hagiography and 
historiography was vague: the Life of Basil I (Vira 
BASILII) commissioned by Constantine VII was 
included in a historical compilation; Anna Kom- 
nene’s panegyric on her father, the Alexiad, was 
construed as a book on history; the biographies 
of some emperors (JOHN III VATATZES) or em- 
presses (THEODORA, wife of Theophilos) who be- 
came revered as saints were couched in the form 
of vITAE. The Byz. elaborated the genre of pejor- 
ative biography (INVECTIVE) such as the anony- 
mous dialogue ANAcHaRSIS, and the pamphlets 
of Nikephoros BASILAKES on a certain Bagoas, 
and of John Argyropoulos (?) on Katablattas (N. 
Oikonomides, P. Canivet, Diptycha 3 [1982—83] 5- 
97). 


Lit. P. Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1983). 
A. Priessnig, “Die literarische Form der spatantiken Phi- 
losophenromane,” BZ 30 (1929—30) 23-30. ~ALK. 


BIRDS (Gpv.des). The Byz. raised birds for food 
and for use in sport and hunting. Book 14 of the 
GEOPONIKA is dedicated to rearing domestic FOWL, 
primarily pigeons and hens. Ornithology fasci- 
nated Byz. artists and sportsmen, much as it had 
earlier Greek and Roman naturalists and bird- 
catchers. Aristotle’s study of birds (esp. in Parts of 
Animals) left a heavy imprint on later ornitholo- 
gists, but additional data were included by Alex- 
ander of Myndos (fl. 1st C. B.c.2) and elaborated 
by a certain Dionysios (fl. ist C. A.D.?) in a tract 
called Ornithiaka or Ixeutikon. Dionysios’s original 
text is lost, but a paraphrase with magnificent 
illuminations of 48 birds is part of the Vienna 
DioskoriveEs. The illustrations in this MS (esp. 
fol.483v with 24 birds in a grid) suggest observa- 
tions in the field of varied species such as the 
ostrich, various ducks, the moor hen, bustard, 
partridge, and many others. Later tracts on or- 
nithology include an excellent work on HAWKING 
by Demetrios PEPAGOMENOS, who apparently used 
sources different from those of FREDERICK I] in 
his On the Art of Hunting with Birds (De arte venandi 


290 BIRTH 


cum avibus—C.H. Haskins, Studies in the History of 
Mediaeval Science (Cambridge, Mass., 1924] 299- 
326). Besides falcons, the Byz. kept other tamed 
birds: peacocks to decorate their gardens or par- 
tridges and geese (Great Palace, rst Report, pl.29) 
as house pets. 

The mosaics of the ACHEIROPOIETOS CHURCH in 
Thessalonike depict ducks and other birds, used 
in Roman fashion apparently without the sym- 
bolic content that had earlier been attached to the 
peacock; at the mausoleum of Galla Placidia in 
Ravenna, birds drinking from a chalice are de- 
picted as attending a FOUNTAIN oF Lire. This 
interpretation persisted in the veritable aviaries 
that adorn the CANON TABLES and HEADPIECES of 
illuminated MSS. On the other hand, birds were 
sometimes seen as part of the natural world in- 
appropriate to Christian decoration. The author 
of the Life of STEPHEN THE YOUNGER (PG 
100:1120C) objected to the Iconoclastic mosaic 
program of the church at BLacHERNAI in Con- 
stantinople, which included “cranes, crows, and 
peacocks, thus making the church, if I may say 
so, altogether unadorned.” Yet, as winged crea- 
tures free of earthly bonds, birds were widely 
represented in sacred settings and were a favorite 
motif in relief SCULPTURE, as on the drum cornice 
of the Church of Constantine Lips. Bird-filled 
trees figured among the auTomara of the Mag- 
naura witnessed by Liutprand of Cremona. 

In Byz. mythology birds played a lesser role 
than animals or SNAKES; a deep significance was 
ascribed to the dove, however, as a symbol of the 
Hoty Spirit, and to the peacock and pelican. The 
theme of the EAGLE fighting the serpent was pop- 
ular in art. Birds are dramatis personae in the 
POULOLOGOS. 

source. A. Garzya, Dionysii Ixeutikon seu De aucupio libri 
tres in epitomen metro solutam redacti (Leipzig 1963). 

ur. Z. Kádár, Survivals of Greek Zoological Illuminations 
in Byzantine Manuscripts (Budapest 1978) 77—90. D'A.W. 
Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds (Oxford 1936; rp. 
Hildesheim 1966). -}.S., A.C. 


BIRTH (yévvqjots). Women usually gave birth at 
home with the assistance of relatives and/or a 
midwife. There were, however, some lying-in 
HOSPITALS, such as the institutions established in 
Alexandria by St. Jonn ELEEMON, according to 
one version of his vita (H. Delehaye, AB 45 [1927] 
22.17-27). Paramedical and magical means were 





a 


Birtu. The birth of John the Baptist. Miniature in a 
Gospel book (Vat. Urb. gr. 2, fol.167v); 12th C. Bib- 
lioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 


commonly used to achieve an easier delivery, for 
example, Anna, the mother of the future empress 
Theophano, was given, during her labor, a girdle 
from a monastery of the Virgin (E. Kurtz, Zwei 
griechische Texte über die heilige Theophano [St. Pe- 
tersburg 1898] 2.28—34). The newborn baby was 
washed and swaddled in woolen wrappings. The 
placenta was sometimes retained as a talisman. 
After childbirth the mother and those who as- 
sisted her were considered unclean and a priest 
was summoned to exorcise the evil spirits, yet the 
mother could not partake of communion until 40 
days had passed. The wet-nurse was common, 
even though some moralists disapproved of this 
practice (J. Beaucamp, JOB 32.2 [1982] 549-58). 
Male babies were preferred (e.g., PRODROMOS, 
Hist. Gedichte, no.44.6—7), but in general the birth 
of a CHILD was a panegyris that provided an occa- 
sion for a BANQUET, visits, and gifts; if the baby 
was an heir to the throne, special festivities were 
held throughout the empire. The gross birth rate 


in 14th-C. rural Macedonia is estimated as 44 per 
1,000, but because of high mortality the net birth 
rate was 22 (Laiou, Peasant Society 292-94). 

Birth scenes, with mothers shown frontally seated 
with raised skirts, are treated particularly candidly 
in the Vatican Book of Kings (Lassus, Livre des 
Rois, figs. 3, 6). Childbirth and the washing of the 
newborn infant are also depicted in images of the 
Nativity of Christ and John the Baptist. 


uit. Koukoules, Bios 4:9—42. —Ap.K., A.K., A.C. 


BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN (yévvnots ris Oezoró- 
kov), one of the five Marian Great Feasts, cele- 
brated 8 Sept. with both a forefeast and a four- 
day afterfeast. The feast originated in Jerusalem 
with the dedication of a sth-C. church at the 
Probatic Pool (Jn 5:2—9), where tradition placed 
the house of Mary’s parents Ioakeim and Anna 
(H. Vincent, F.-M. Abel, Jérusalem, vol. 2 [Paris 
1926] 669—76). From the 6th C. onward, it was 
celebrated at this spot with a reading from the 
PROTOEVANGELION OF JAMES (G. Garitte, Le calen- 
drier palestine-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (X° siècle) 
[Brussels 1958] 324f). The earliest evidence for 
the existence of the feast in Constantinople, a 
kontakion by Romanos THE MELODE (no.95, ed. 
Maas-Trypanis, 276-80), is a paraphrase of this 
apocryphal narration, which was also incorpo- 
rated into Byz. MENOLOGIA and panegyrika for use 
on the feast (Ehrhard, Überlieferung 1:57, 204). 

The feast opened in the evening with a pannychas 
(see Vici) at Hagia Sophia, in which the patri- 
arch took part. After the orthros service there was 
a procession, with a station (LITE) at the Forum 
(Mateos, Typicon 1:18~21), in which “the sover- 
eigns and the whole senate proceed with great 
pomp” to the Church of the CHALKOPRATEIA (Phi- 
lotheos, Kletor. 223.10—11). Once the liturgy was 
over, the emperor offered a banquet in the Trik- 
linos of Justinian. 

In art the standard composition is first seen in 
the MENOLOGION oF BasiL II (p.22) with Anna 
reclining on a bed, three gift-bearing women ap- 
proaching, and midwives bathing the child. Used 
in narratives of the Life of the Vircin Mary, the 
scene also occurs among Christological feasts, as 
in the naos at Darsni. Versions from the 12th C. 
onward stress the wealth of the Virgin’s parents, 
adding a peacock fan (Daphni), richly carved cra- 
dle (MSS of James or KOKKINOBAPHOS), palatial 


BISHOP | 291 


setting (King’s Church, STUDENICA), and numer- 
ous attendants (CHORA). Ioakeim joins the scene 
in the 14th C. (Chora). 

LIT. G. Babić, “Sur liconographie de Ja composition 
‘Nativité de la Vierge’ dans la peinture byzantine,” ZRVI 7 
(1961) 169-75. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de 
Venfance de la Vierge dans l'Empire byzantin et en Occident, vol. 
1 (Brussels 1964) 89—121. =R.F.T., A.W.C. 


BIRUNI, AL-, more fully Aba’l-Rayhan Muham- 
mad ibn Ahmad al-Birūnī, Muslim scientist, his- 
torian, and observer of cultures; born Kath (in 
Khwarizm) 4 Sept. 973, died Ghazna? 11 Dec. 
1048 (E. Kennedy, LMA 2:226) or after 1050 (D. 
Boilot, EI? 1:1236). Under royal patronage in 
Khwarizm, al-Bīrūnī studied the sciences. After 
the Ghaznavid conquest (1017), he was lavishly 
maintained in Ghazna until his death. He visited 
India, but journeyed westward only to Iran. 

Bīrūnī ranks among the greatest scholars of 
medieval Islam and wrote almost 150 works on 
science, geography, chronology, and history. He 
considers Byz. in his Vestiges of the Past (Chronol- 
ogy of Ancient Nations), written in 1000, incor- 
porating much cultural information within dis- 
cussions of calendars and eras. Major topics for 
Bīrūnī are doctrine, hagiography, customs con- 
cerning Lent, and MELCHITE festivals. Birtini di- 
gresses at length on the Greek ecclesiastical 
hierarchy and the organization of the Byz. admin- 
istration and army. Though sometimes offering 
secondhand information from Melchites in 
Khwarizm, Birtini refers to The Learning of the 
Greeks, a book (now lost) by a certain Abd’l-Husayn 
(or Hasan) al-Ahwazi (gth C.) based on his expe- 
riences in Constantinople. 

ED. Chronologie orientalischer Völker, ed. E. Sachau (Leipzig 
1878; rp. Leipzig 1923) 288-308. Tr. E. Sachau in The 
Chronology of Ancient Nations (London 1879; rp. Frankfurt 
1969) 282—305. For other works, see A.S. Khan, A Bibli- 
ography of the Works of Aba’'l-Rathan al-Birtini (New Delhi 
1982). 

ees Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.2:427-30. H.M. Said, Al-Binini: 


His Times, Life and Works (Karachi 1981). P.G. Bulgakov, 
Žizn’ i trudy Beruni (Tashkent 1972). -=L.I.C. 


BISHOP (ėriíoxoros), the highest ranking min- 
ister among the major orders of the Byz. CLERGY, 
supreme in all matters concerning the discipline 
(cf. EPISCOPALIS AUDIENTIA), doctrine, and admin- 
istration of the bishopric (episkope). As a generic 
term the title also included METROPOLITANS, pa- 


292 BITHYNIA 


triarchs, etc. St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca.100) is 
the earliest witness of the monarchic episcopate 
and describes the bishop as the source and center 
of church unity. Although the exclusive focus of 
unity and authority in his district—as PROEDROS 
and archiereus of his flock and of his CHOREPIS- 
kopos—-a bishop was still subordinate to the met- 
ropolitan of the province of which his bishopric 
was a part. His nomination was in fact confirmed 
by the provincial metropolitan, from whom he 
also received consecration (Nicaea II, canon 3). 
Normally he was restricted for life to the see for 
which he was ordained, although translations were 
not unknown. 

All ecclesiastical properties, charitable institu- 
tions, and hospitals of the bishopric were under 
the bishop’s disposition but were actually man- 
aged and administered by various officials, such 
as the orxonomos. The revenues of the see were 
derived from property, voluntary offerings, and 
donations, and, from the 11th C., from ecclesias- 
tical taxes as well, such as the KANONIKON and 
KANISKION. The income was used for the upkeep 
of the bishop and his clergy but also for the sick, 
poor, the redemption of war prisoners, and the 
maintenance of churches. Despite their consider- 
able privileges and authority, Byz. bishops (with 
some exceptions) did not play the role of feudal 
magnates, unlike their counterparts in the West, 
although they often enjoyed considerable political 
influence. Their vestments were similar to those 
worn by PRIESTS except (later) for the episcopal 
SAKKOS and OMOPHORION. (For list of bishoprics, 
see NOTITIAE EPISCOPATUUM.) 

uit. ILI. Sokolov, “Izbranie archiereev v Vizantii IX-XV 
va” VizVrem 22 (1915—16) 193-252. D.T. Strotmann, 
“L'évêque dans la tradition orientale,” Irénikon 34 (1961) 
147-64. A. Guillou, “L’évéque dans la société méditerra- 
néenne des VIS—VII* siècles: Un modèle,” BECA 131 (1973) 


5-19. S. Troianos, “Ein Synodalakt des Sisinios zu den 
bischoflichen Einkünften,” FM 3 (197g) 211-20. ~A.P. 


BITHYNIA (Be6vria), a region of northwest Asia 
Minor, opposite Constantinople. Bithynia became 
a separate province in the early 4th C. Besides its 
capital, NIKOMEDEIA, Bithynia contained a few 
important cities (NICAEA, CHALCEDON, PROUSA) 
and rich agricultural land. Although its cities were 
eclipsed by the growth of Constantinople, Bithy- 
nia prospered from its location on the trade and 
military routes between Constantinople and An- 


atolia. The suburban coastal region east of Con- 
stantinople flourished particularly as the seat of 
many rich villas. Bithynia became part of the 
Opsikion theme in the yth C., then was divided 
between that theme and the Ortimarol. The civil 
province of Bithynia continued to exist into the 
8th C., when Slav captives were settled there (Za- 
cos, Seals 1:190f). Frequent later references are 
to the geographical region. Texts of the 13th C. 
mention a district called Mesothynia, which ap- 
parently denotes the peninsula of Nikomedeia (D. 
Zakythenos, EEBS 19 [1949] 3). Bithynia pre- 
serves the remains of numerous fortifications but 
is esp. noted for its churches (SIGE, MEDIKION, 
PELEKETE, Nicaea). It was also a monastic center 
that grew in importance in the Iconoclastic period 
(Mt. AuUXxENTIos, Mt. O_ympos). Ecclesiastically, 
Bithynia was divided into three provinces after 
451: Nikomedeia, Nicaea, and Chalcedon. 

uit. R. Janin, “La Bithynie sous l'empire byzantin,” EO 
20 (1921) 168-82, go1—19. Janin, Eglises centres 1-191. J. 
Sélch, “Historisch-geographische Studien über bithynische 
Siedlungen,” BNJbb 1 (1920) 263-337- -C.F. 


BIZYE (Begúnņ, mod. Vize), city in Thrace, north- 
east of ARKADIOPOLIS. A polis in the late antique 
province of Europe, Bizye appears in Byz. texts 
as kastron (BeSevliev, Inschriften 184, no.27), po- 
lisma (TheophCont 68.6—7), or polichnion (Zon. 
3:346.15). The vita of MARY THE YOUNGER refers 
to Bizye as a polis, but describes the town’s inhab- 
itants as engaging in agricultural work (AASS Nov. 
4:699BC, 7ooF); in the eyes of the chronicler 
Geoffrey VILLEHARDOUIN (par.428), Vizoi (Bizye) 
was “good and strong.” 

As a fortress Bizye played an important role 
during the gth-C. revolt of THOMAS THE SLAV, 
whose son fled there but then surrendered to the 
emperor. Symeon of Bulgaria captured Bizye, 
demolished it, and later rebuilt the city walls. In 
the 13th C. Bizye was one of the larger asteis 
(Akrop. 1:54.14-15) and the base of many mili- 
tary operations; the city was one of the focal 
points during the Cıvıl WAR OF 1841—47, and its 
demos actively participated in the political struggle 
(Weiss, Kantakuzenos 75). Bizye was finally taken 
by the Turks in 1453. 

A bishopric by 431, then autocephalous arch- 
bishopric, Bizye became metropolis in the 14th C. 
It served as the place of exile for several impor- 


tant ecclesiastical dissidents such as Maximos the 
Confessor (PG go:160C). 

The remains of ramparts still survive in the city. 
A.M. Mansel (Trakyanin kültür ve tarihi [Istanbul 
1938] 45) suggests that their upper part was con- 
structed in the 6th C. On the other hand, D. 
Dirimtekin (Ayasofya müzesi yıllığı 5 [1963] 15-25) 
dates this section to the time of the Palaiologoi. 
The large Church of Hagia Sophia in Bizye com- 
bines the floor plan of a basilica with the elements 
of a cross-in-square church; its plan is similar to 
that of Dere Ağzı. C. Mango (ZRVI 11 [1968] g— 
13) suggests, on the basis of a painted inscription, 
now lost, that the church was built in the late 8th 
or gth C. and housed the tomb of St. Mary the 
Younger in the 1oth C. However, S. Eyice argues 
that the church dates to the 13th or 14th C., and 
may have replaced the earlier church where St. 
Mary was venerated (18 CorsitRav [1971] 293-97). 

ur. V. Velkov, “Die thrakische Stadt Bizye,” in Studia 
in honorem V. Besevtiev (Soha 1978) 174-81. R. Janin, DHGE 


g (1937) 44-46. E. Oberhummer, RE 3 (1899) 552. 
-T.E.G. 


BLACHERNAI, CHURCH AND PALACE OF. 
The name Blachernai (BAaxépvar) designates an 
area possessing a spring of water in the north- 
western corner of Constantinople. A basilica of 
the Virgin Mary, which became the most famous 
Marian shrine of the city, is said to have been 
built there by Empress Pulcheria (ca.450). Leo I 
added a circular reliquary chapel (soros) after 
the “honorable robe” (see MAPHORION) of the 
Virgin had been brought from Palestine. Situated 
a short distance outside the walls, the church was 
miraculously spared during the Avar siege of 626, 
after which Emp. Herakleios extended the walls 
to enclose it. A New Testament cycle in mosaic 
was destroyed by Constantine V and replaced by 
vegetal ornament and pictures of birds (Vita S. 
Stephani Junioris, PG 100:1120C). The church was 
burned down in 1070 and rebuilt. Fire destroyed 
it completely in 1434. Next to it was a bathhouse 
(louma) in which the spring flowed. The latter is 
now enclosed in a modern Greek church. 

South of the church complex and on higher 
ground, an imperial palace was set up by ca.500. 
It is known to us from protocols described in De 
cer. (bk.1, chs. 27, 34; bk.2, chs. 9, 12) and in- 
cluded one hall named Anastasiakos, another called 


BLACK SEA 293 


Okeanos, and a third called Danoubios, the last 
communicating with the church complex by means 
of staircases. Under the Komnenoi the Blachernai 
palace became the customary residence of the 
emperor and was so strongly fortified as to resem- 
ble a castle. Alexios I and Manuel I built addi- 
tional halls of great splendor. The Palaiologoi also 
lived in the Blachernai palace. Its approximate 
situation is marked by the mosque of Ivaz Efendi, 
but the evidence is too slight to allow even an 
approximate reconstruction (see also TEKFUR Sa- 
RAYI). 

Lit. J.B. Papadopoulos, Les palais et les églises des Bia- 
chernes (Thessalonike 1928). V. Grumel, “Le ‘miracle ha- 
bituel’ de Notre-Dame des Blachernes à Constantinople,” 
EO 30 (1931) 129—468. A.M. Schneider, “Die Blachernen,” 
Oriens 4 (1951) 97-105. S. Runciman, “Blachernae Palace 
and Its Decoration,” in Studies in Memory of D. Talbot Rice 
(Edinburgh 1975) 277-83. A. Wenger, “Notes inédites,” 
REB 10 (1952) 54-59. Janin, CP byz. 123-28. Janin, Eglises 
CP 161-71. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon 223f. -C.M. 


BLACHERNAI, COUNCIL OF. See CONSTAN- 
TINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: Local Council of 1285. 


BLACK DEATH. See PLAGUE. 


BLACK SEA (Ilóvros Evfewos, Mavipn Oddkacca). 
Throughout its history Byz. sought to maintain 
control of the Black Sea, in part to preclude 
foreign powers from establishing a foothold there 
and threatening Constantinople. Justinian I pre- 
vented the Sasanian Persians from gaining per- 
manent access to the coast of Lazixa; from the 
yth C. Byz. policy in the area focused on diplo- 
matic efforts and control of CuEerson. Herakleios 
made a treaty with Kuvrat in hope of hindering 
KHAZAR access to the Azov Sea and the CRIMEA, 
and the Khazars were afterward the focus of Byz. 
diplomatic and missionary activity in the area. 
‘The Arabs never established a presence on the 
coast of the Black Sea, but the Rus’ of Kiev re- 
peatedly sailed through the Black Sea to attack 
Constantinople, beginning in 860. The city and 
naval arsenal of Cherson remained a Byz. posses- 
sion (apart from a brief occupation by VLADIMIR 
I of Kiev in 988) until the Fourth Crusade, after 
which it passed into the hands of the empire of 
TREBIZOND. Only in 1215/16 did the Seljuk Turks 
establish a temporary naval base at Sinope; the 


294 BLASIOS OF AMORION 


southeastern coast of the Black Sea remained un- 
der the control of Trebizond until 1460. 

Byz. naval control was not matched by similar 
commercial success. The Black Sea was important 
as a source of food for Constantinople; fish came 
from its waters, and grain from the Dobrudja and 
Crimea. It was also a crossroads of long-distance 
trade, linking Byz. with central Europe, Russia, 
the Caucasus, Central Asia, and China. This trade 
attracted Italian merchants, particularly Vene- 
tians and Genoese, from the 11th C. Manuel I, 
seeking an ally against Venice, granted Genoa the 
right to trade in the Black Sea. In 1261 Michael 
VIII granted the Genoese exclusive access to the 
Black Sea, together with tax exemptions, by the 
Treaty of NympHaron. Thereafter they domi- 
nated the Black Sea trade from their colonies of 
Galata, Vicina, Karra, Tana, AMASTRIS, and 
Samsun (Amisos), and the profits of this trade 
were lost to Byz. 


Asprokastron 


Ñ A NUBE 

x PAS 
WALLACHIA 

4 


be 
pas Silistria o 


THE BLACK SEA REGION 





THRACE 
Selymbri 


SEA OF onstantinople 


MARMARA O 


aNicxea |.” 


park 


9 
~80°, AS tnt of ie 


Atransy ition 





| Anat, ~~" 
Strait uf | 
Phase } a e 4 b 


ena aa E 


Lir. G.I. Bratianu, La Mer Noire (Munich 1969). Balard, 
Romanie génoise. A. Poppe, “The Political Background to 
the Baptism of Rus’: Byzantine-Russian Relations between 
986-89,” DOP 30 (1976) 195-244. O. Lampsidis, “La Mer 
Noire byzantine,” ArchPont 35 (1978) 363-69. E. Todorova, 
“The Thirteenth-Century Shift of the Black Sea Economy,” 
EtBalk 23.4 (1987) 112-16. ~R.B. 


BLASIOS OF AMORION, saint; secular name 
Basil; born in village of Aplatianais near Amorion, 
died Constantinople ca.gi2; feastday 20 Dec. After 
elementary schooling in his village, Blasios 
(BAaouos) came to Constantinople and chose an 
ecclesiastical career; Patr. IGNATIOS consecrated 
him deacon of Hagia Sophia. En route to Rome 
he had various adventures: he was sold into slav- 
ery to the “Scythians” (Pechenegs rather than 
Bulgarians), freed, robbed by pirates on the Dan- 
ube, and saved by an angel; he returned to Bul- 
garia, met the local bishop and the “first archon” 
of the barbarians, and eventually reached Rome. 


46s 


200 300 km 
SEA 


OF AZOF 


Cimmerian 


& eo 45° 


ABCHASIA f° 





— ma 
~~ renin 


3: 


There he took the monastic habit and stayed for 
18 years, mostly in the monastery of St. Caesarius, 
where he was consecrated priest. To escape his 
increasing fame, Blasios returned to Constanti- 
nople, joining the monastery of Sroupros ca.897. 
Around goo he retreated to Athos, which he was 
forced to leave 12 years later because of a contro- 
rersy. He returned to Constantinople but died 
soon after he had received a chrysobull from Leo 
VI. He was buried at the Stoudios monastery. 

The anonymous author of his Life (written in 
the 930s or 940s and preserved in a single 10th- 
C. MS) claimed to have received his information 
from Blasios’s disciple Loukas; it is plausible that 
the Life was produced in the Stoudios. The ha- 
giographer praises Blasios’s sociability and intel- 
lectual qualities (e.g., his work as a calligrapher) 
and defends moderation: the hegoumenos who 
flogged the young monk Euphrosynos for having 
a filthy garment was condemned in a vision. 

source. AASS Nov. 4:657-59. 

ut. BHC 278. H. Grégoire, “La vie de Saint Blaise 
d’Amortum,” Byzantion 5 (1929-30) 391—414. V. Gjuzelev, 
“Zitieto na Viasij Amorijski kato izvor za bilgarskata isto- 
rija,” GSU FIF 61 (1968), istor. 3, 19—33. ~A.K. 


BLASTARES, MATTHEW, canonist and theo- 
logian, monk and priest in the monastery of Kyr 
Isaac in Thessalonike; died Thessalonike after 
1346. In 13935 Blastares (variously spelled Bàa- 
oTapys, Bkaorapys, BAd&orapis) completed his 
principal work, Syntagma kata stoicheion (lit. Alpha- 
betical Treatise) in 24 sections, most of them sub- 
divided into chapters. Each chapter is devoted to 
a separate legal topic (e.g., 1.12 on robbers) and 
contains first the statements of CANON LAW and 
then those of civil law, the nomoi politikoi. In the 
preamble, Blastares defines his goal as gathering 
“all the canons” as well as interpreting and para- 
phrasing them (5.7—33). This attempt at reconcil- 
ing canon and civil law differentiates the work of 
Blastares both from previous NOMOKANONES in 
which civil legislation is but an insignificant ap- 
pendix and from previous synopses that ignore 
canon law (A. Soloviev, SBN 5 [1939] 700). As 
sources Blastares used not only the Basilika and 
other Byz. compendia but the Codex and Digest of 
Justinian I as well as the novels of various em- 
perors (e.g., the novel of Andronikos II of 1306); 
he also used the Nomokanon of Fourteen Titles and 
the commentary of Theodore Balsamon. The Syn- 


BLATADON MONASTERY | 295 


tagma became popular beyond the borders of the 
empire and was translated into Serbian during 
the reign of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan. Blastares also 
wrote several short synopses of canon law, an 
index of Latin legal terms, theological works, 
hymns, etc, 

ED. Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma, vol. 6. P.B. Paschos, Ha- 
panta ta hymnographika tou Matthaiou Blastare (Athens 1980). 

LIT. S. Troianos, “Peri tas nomikas pegas tou Matthaiou 
Blastare,” EEBS 44 (1979—80) 305~29. N. I'inskij, Sintagma 
Matfeja Vlastarja (Moscow 1892). St. Novaković, Matije Vlas- 
tara sintagmat (Belgrade 1907). P.B. Paschos, Ho Matthaios 
Blastares kai to hymnographiken ergon tou (Thessalonike 1978). 
PLP, no.2808. -A.K. 


BLATADON MONASTERY, established ca.1355 
on the north edge of Thessalonike, next to the 
acropolis. Blatadon (Bàaráĝwv, Bàæraiwv, Ba- 
téwv) was founded by Dorotheos Blates, metro- 
politan of Thessalonike (1371—79), and his brother 
Mark, a hymnographer and hieromonk from the 
Great Lavra (PLP, nos. 2818—19). Both were dis- 
ciples of Gregory PaLamas and accompanied him 
to Thessalonike in 1352 after the triumph of 
PALAMISM. The monastery was dedicated to Christ 
Pantokrator and the Transfiguration. [GNATI] OF 
SMOLENSK visited it in 1405. The monks of Bla- 
tadon were anti-Unionist and opposed the Vene- 
tian occupation of Thessalonike (1423-30); Sto- 
glioglou (infra 162-73), however, rejects the 
tradition that they betrayed the city to the Turks 
in 1430 by suggesting to Muran II that he cut off 
the water supply. During the Turkish occupation, 
Blatadon was sometimes called Çavuş Manastir. 

Blatadon is the sole monastery of Byz. origin 
still functioning in Thessalonike; its much-restored 
i4th-C. church, on an inscribed-cross plan, is the 
only surviving Palaiologan building at the mon- 
astery. Frescoes dated between 1360 and 1380 by 
Ch. Mauropoulou-Tsioumi (He Thessalonike 1 
[1985] 23 1—54) are preserved in the south chapel, 
and the library contains a number of Byz. MSS. 
Today the stauropegic monastery houses the Pa- 
triarchal Institute of Patristic Studies (founded 
1965), which owns an important collection of mi- 
crofilms of MSS from Mt. ATHOS. 

tit. G.A. Stoglioglou, He en Thessalonike patriarchike mone 
ton Blatadon (Thessalonike 1971). A. Xyngopoulos, Tessares 
mikroi naoi tes Thessalonikes ek ton chronon ton Palaiologan 
(Thessalonike i952) 49-62. S. Eustratiades, Katalogos ton 
en te mone Blateon (Tsaous-monasteri) apokermenon kadikon 


(Thessalonike 1918). Janin, Églises centres 356-58. 
~A.M.T., A.C. 


296 | BLATTION 


BLATTION (fSdarriov), a term that originally 
meant the color PURPLE, and, by extension, the 
cloths, both sik and wool, dyed in the highest 
quality purple. By the 10th C., however, the term 
blattion had come to mean silk in general, regard- 
less of shade (R. Guilland, infra). Silk curtains and 
festive hangings such as those in the Great Palace 
(De cer. 12.20, 572.2); hangings covering icons 
(Patmos inventory, ed. C. Astruc, TM 8 [1981] 
21.33); and silk garments were all referred to as 
blattia. The meaning of the terms diblattia and 
triblattia is obscure. They have been thought to 
refer to the number of times the silk cloth was 
dipped in the dye, or to the number of colors 
used in weaving it. Guilland has suggested that 
these may be double or triple bands of silk at- 
tached or applied to the basic piece of silk cloth, 
a proposal that neither the extant silks nor the 
depictions of court COSTUME can readily substan- 
tiate. The term blatopoles (Prodromos in PG 
193:1265B) designated a vendor of blattia. 

LIT. J. Ebersolt, Les arts somptuaires de Byzance (Paris 
1923) 21-23. R. Guilland, “Sur quelques termes du Livre 
des Cérémonies de Constantin VII Porphyrogénéte,” REGr 


62 (1949) 333-48. Sjuzjumov in Bh. of Eparch 151f. Kou- 
koules, Bios 2.2:39. -A.G. 


BLEMMYDES, NIKEPHOROS, teacher and 
writer in the empire of Nicaea; born 1197, died 
Ephesus ca.1269. Son of a doctor, Blemmydes 
(BAsuuúðns, Bhewyidns) moved with his parents 
ca.1204 from Latin-occupied Constantinople to 
Bithynia where he pursued studies, including seven 
years of medicine, until his 26th year. His subse- 
quent career in the church was initiated by Patr. 
Germanos II, who ordained him anagnostes, dea- 
con, and logothetes in quick succession (1224—25). 
Ten years later Blemmydes took monastic vows, 
keeping his name, and ca.1237 was appointed 
hegouwmenos of the monastery of Gregory Thau- 
matourgos in Ephesus. In 1241 he founded his 
own monastery near Ephesus. His attempts to 
ensure its independence failed, however, for it 
became a metochion of the Garesios monastery 
ca.1273. 

Famous in his time for his learning, Blemmydes’ 
most important role was as a teacher. His best 
known students were George AKROPOLITES, whom 
he instructed in philosophy, and THropore II 
Laskaris. In connection with his teaching duties 


he traveled to Athos, Thessalonike, Larissa, and 
Ohrid in search of books (1239-40) and wrote 
epitomes of logic and physics (PG 142:685—1320). 
A difficult man by most accounts, Blemmydes left 
a remarkable two-part autobiography, the Partial 
Account (1264, 1265), a defense of his life that 
contains elements of a hagiographical work (J.A. 
Munitiz in Byz. Saint, 164-68). His other surviving 
works include the Imperial Statue, a MIRROR OF 
Princes for Theodore II (which George Gate- 
SIOTES and George Ornalores paraphrased in the 
14th C.), occasional verses, ascetic works, and 
fragments of a typikon g. A. Munitiz, REB 44 [1986] 
199—207). 

ED. Autographia sive curriculum vitae, ed. J.A. Munitiz 
(Turnhout-Leuven 1984). Eng. tr. J.A. Munitiz, A Partial 
Account (Leuven 1988). Curriculum vitae et carmina, ed. A. 
Heisenberg (Leipzig 1896). Hunger-Ševčenko, Blemmydes, 
esp. 13—18, 43—147. Gegen die Vorherbestimmung der Todes- 
stunde, ed. W. Lackner (Leiden 1985), with Germ. tr. 

ur. 1. Ševčenko, “Nicéphore Blemmydés, Autobiogra- 
phies (1264 et 1265),” La Civiltd bizantina dal XII al XV 


secolo (Rome 1982} 1 11—37. Hunger, Lit. 1:169f, 166f; 2:42, 
243. -R.J.M. 


BLEMMYES (BAéypves), a tribe of perhaps Lib- 
yan Berber origins that inhabited the eastern 
desert between the Nile and Red Sea in Upper 
Egypt. A qth-C. historian (Amm.Marc. 1424.3) 
describes them as half-naked warriors, all of equal 
rank, riding swift horses and camels. Diocletian 
in 297 ended the raids of the Blemmyes in Egypt 
by handing over to them the territory south of 
the First Cataract and by fortifying the island of 
Philae. The Blemmyes were concentrated in this 
area. Their embassies to the imperial court in the 
320s and 330s are reported by Eusebios (Vita of 
Constantine) and in the ABINNAEUS ARCHIVE. They 
resumed attacks in 373 (J. Desanges, Meroitic 
Newsletter 10 [1972] 33f); PALLapios of Heleno- 
polis met crowds of refugees from the Blemmyes 
at Tabennesi in the early 5th C. OLYMPIODOROS 
oF THEBES, who visited the Blemmyes ca.423, 
reported that they possessed several cities and 
emerald mines and had developed a rudimentary 
form of administration headed by a “king.” An 
uprising of the Blemmyes was quelled ca.452 when 
Maximinos, the military commander of the THE- 
BAID, defeated them and negotiated a hundred- 
year peace; at that time the Blemmyes were acting 
in concert with the Noubades (Nobatae), a neigh- 


BLINDING | 297 





Biemmyes. Monks of Sinai martyred by the Blemmyes. Miniature in the Menologion 
of Basil H (Vat. gr. 1613, p. 315). Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 


boring tribe, but soon a conflict arose between the 
two, and Silko, king of the Noubades, conquered 
the Blemmyes, as he boasted in an inscription. 

Probably to the 6th C. belong documents from 
the island of Gebelein (Greek and Coptic texts on 
leather from gazelle and crocodile skins) that re- 
cord the names of some chieftains of the Blem- 
myes and indicate the penetration of Christianity 
into their predominantly pagan society. Justinian 
I reportedly destroyed their sanctuaries at Philae 
dedicated to Isis, Osiris, and Priapus. Greek pa- 
pyri of the 6th C. often mention the Blemmyes, 
and in the early 7th C. a certain Dioskoros is 
known who, as a scribe of the Blemmyes, dealt 
with kommerkia. Kosmas Indikopleustes (11.21:2—- 
5) indicates that the Blemmyes sold emeralds to 
the Axumites in Nubia, who then sent them to 
India. The numerous Coptic papyri of the 7th 
and 8th C. contain only two references to the 
Blemmyes. 


SOURCE. Anonymi fortasse Olympiodori Thebani Blemyoma- 
chia (P. Berol. 5003), ed. H. Livrea (Meisenheim-Glan 1978). 
„UT. R.T. Updegraff, “A Study of the Blemmyes” (Ph.D. 
diss., Brandeis University, 1978). M. Satzinger, “Urkunden 
der Blemyer,” Chronique d'Egypte 43 (1968) 126~32. T. 
Hägg, “Blemyan Greek and the Letter of Phonen,” in 
Nubische Studien (Mainz 1986) 281-86. —R.B.H., A.K. 


BLINDING (riddwors) as a punishment did not 
exist in the law of Justinian I; the evidence con- 
cerning the blinding of Christian martyrs during 
the persecution is probably legendary. The first 
certain case of punitive blinding is that of Patr. 
Kallinikos in 705, by Justinian II (Theoph. 375.13). 
The EcLoca mentions blinding only once (17.15}-— 
as a punishment for stealing from the altar. The 
FARMER’s Law (pars. 68—69) prescribes blinding 
for the thief of grain or wine who had been caught 
for the third time. Blinding became the major 
means of punishing political rivals; among the 
victims of blinding were ARTABASDOS, CONSTAN- 
TINE VI, MicHaet V, Romanos IV, and Jonn IV. 
Michael VIII was probably the last emperor to 
resort to total blinding, although in 1373 John V, 
under pressure from Murad I, was compelicd to 
order the partial blinding of Andronikos IV and 
his son, the future John VII (R. Loenertz, EO 38 
[1939] 335). Blinding was a PENALTY for heretics, 
magicians, and traitors. Basil II employed mass 
blinding of prisoners to terrorize the Bulgarians 
with whom he was at war. Blinding was carried 
out by pouring boiling vinegar, gouging out the 
eyes, or applying a red-hot iron. The degree of 
blindness achieved could be of varying severity, 


298 BLIND MAN, HEALING OF THE 


so that some generals continued to command ar- 
mies after this operation. An attempt to introduce 
blinding in Kievan Rus’ in 1097 failed because of 
general indignation. 


uit. O. Lampsides, He poine tes typhloseos para Byzantinois 
(Athens 1949). ~A.K. 


BLIND MAN, HEALING OF THE. The Gospels 
record several blind men healed by Christ: two 
who followed Jesus in Jericho (Mt 9:27—34); two 
who sat by the way in Jericho (Mk 10:46-52, Lk 
18:35—43); one healed at Bethesda (Mk 8:23-26); 
and the man born blind, healed at Siloam (Jn 
g:i-12). Gaining sight was an apt metaphor for 
gaining faith, and Early Christian art abounds in 
generic vignettes of Christ healing a blind person. 
Byz. art uses fewer such images, though no mir- 
acle cycle lacks some scene of blindness cured. 
Most frequently distinguished from the others is 
the healing at Siloam, usually depicted in at least 
two phases: Jesus placing mud on the man’s eyes, 
and the man washing them. This is the most fully 
narrated of all healings: the Paris FRIEZE GOSPEL 
(fol.186r) uses eight vignettes. This healing is also 
distinctive in being one of the three water miracles 
recounted in the Gospel of John (also Christ and 
the Samaritan woman, Jn 4:5-30; paralytic at 
Bethesda, Jn 5:2—9) that are often joined in exe- 
gesis (E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel {London 1947] 
363-65) and art (Sopoćani, exonarthex of CHORA) 
to convey the healing power of faith. 


LIT. Underwood, Kariye Djami 4:256-61. -A.W.C. 


BLOOD (atua) was understood in Byz. as the 
biblical “life of the living body” (Lev 17:11) and 
was consequently surrounded by taboos. The Book 
OF THE EparcH (8.4) prohibited the use of blood 
for dyeing raw silk; the penalty for ignoring this 
prohibition was having one’s hands cut off. Some 
blood taboos, such as the prohibition of eating 
blood, were imposed only on the clergy (Apos- 
TOLIC CANONS 62), whereas the cooking of blood 
broth (aimatia) was widespread among laymen. 
Bloodshed, as in military actions, was completely 
forbidden to the clergy. The precious Blood of 
Christ was regarded as the price of human RE- 
DEMPTION. The Church repeated the sacrifice of 
Jesus in the Eucuarist, when the wine was thought 
to become the true Blood of Christ. Since blood 


was identified with life and redemption, the color 
PURPLE, symbolizing blood, assumed an important 
role in the imperial cult. For Niketas Choniates, 
however, the imperial purple symbolized the 
shedding of blood and murder. Blood that left 
the body was identified with death, and a constant 
bloodthirstiness was ascribed to demons. Blood 
was also the symbol of union, as of FAMILY ties 
and particularly aristocratic LINEAGES. 

LIT. Atti della settimana Sangue e Antropologia nella lettera- 
tura cristiana (Rome 1983). J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism 
of Blood and Sacrifice,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88.2 
(1969). -A.K, 


BLOOD VENGEANCE. Killings in revenge are 
not well attested in Byz. sources. A. Mirambel 
(Byzantion 16 [1944] 381—92) mistakenly saw evi- 
dence for it in the term PHONIKON (but see P. 
Charanis, Speculum 20 [1945] 331—33). There are 
examples, however, of compensating the family 
of the deceased by handing over the person re- 
sponsible for the MURDER: in the Petra (66.27; also 
66.28) a slave who murdered a soldier at his 
master’s order was given by the judges to the 
widow “to serve her.” Neilos of Rossano advised 
the princess of Capua to give, as a form of peni- 
tence, one of her sons to the family of the man 
murdered by her sons at her instigation “for them 
to do with him whatever they wish” (AASS Sept. 
7:308D-F). 

The sources also preserve measures taken to 
prevent blood vengeance. Constantine VII legis- 
lated that the person guilty of a willful killing was 
to be subjected to lifelong exile far from the scene 
of the crime, thus protecting the victim’s relations 
from the painful reminder of the crime and also 
helping to prevent a killing in retaliation (Zepos, 
Jus 1:233). Other factors that may have helped to 
check blood vengeance were the private settle- 
ment, which could be arranged between the mur- 
derer and the victim’s family and which provided 
a form of compensation (Basil. 11.2.1; 60.53.15 
Peira 66.25, and 66.27), and the “warning” at- 
tached to documents issued by the church, ad- 
dressed to civil officials and members of the de- 
ceased’s family, admonishing them not to harm 
the killer, on penalty of excommunication (R.J. 
Macrides, Speculum 63 [1988] 509-38). ~RJ.M. 


BLUES. See Facrions. 


BOBBIO AMPULLAE. See AMPULLAE, PILGRIM- 
AGE; MONZA AND BOBBIO, TREASURIES OF. 


BODRUM CAMII. See MYRELAION, MONASTERY 
OF. 


BODY (capa), sometimes distinguished from flesh 
(sarx), was considered in Byz. ANTHROPOLOGY as 
one of the two “natures” that constituted man: 
unlike the sout, the body was construed as three- 
dimensional, visible, and corruptible (mortal). It 
consisted of four elements (stoicheia): earth, dry 
and cold; water, cold and wet; air, wet and warm; 
fire, warm and dry. It had four humors (chymoi): 
black bile, analogous to earth; phlegm—to water; 
blood—to air; light bile—to fire. The main so- 
matic qualities were divisibility, qualitative change 
(warming, cooling, etc.), and mutability in re- 
sponse to voiding (kenosis) that created physical 
desires (hunger, thirst, etc.). A peculiar definition 
of the body is to be found in Anastasios I, pa- 
triarch of Antioch, and ANASTASIOS OF SINat: the 
body is all that “was not uncreated” or “what 
originates from nothingness.” The concept of a 
double creation—of the inner man and of the 
unity of the soul and body—had no chance of 
survival after the condemnation of ORIGENISM. 
The body distinguishes man from both the an- 
GELS and DEMONS, even though sometimes the 
concept of angelic (demonic) finer flesh was main- 
tained. Thus, PsELLos, in his demonology, insisted 
that the astral bodies of demons (pnewmata) were 
vehicles to transfer false images, fantasies, and 
hallucinations, and to deceive mankind. 

A major problem for Byz. theology was deter- 
mining an appropriate moral or soteriological role 
for the body. The Byz. rejected the Stoic image 
of the body as the cage or prison of the soul as 
well as the Manichaean vision of the body as the 
embodiment of evil. The body, created by God 
himself, was conceived of as ethically irrelevant, 
an instrument through which the soul could sin. 
Corruptible as it was, the body was to expect 
RESURRECTION. 

ur. H.J. Blumenthal, “Some Problems about Body and 
Soul in Later Pagan Neoplatonism,” in Platonismus und 
Christentum: Festschrift für Heinrich Dérrie (Münster 1983) 
75-84. P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York 1988). 
A. Kazhdan, “Der Körper im Geschichtswerk des Niketas 


Choniates,” in Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, ed. G. Prinzing, D. 
Simon (Munich 1990} 91—106. —K.-H.U. 


BODY LANGUAGE 299 


BODYGUARD (cwparodvAaé). In addition to 
guards entrusted with the defense of the palace 
(HETAIREIA), there were small units designed to 
protect the person of the emperor; when the 
emperor traveled, the palatine somatophylakes 
guarded him (e.g., Attal. 9.20). Belisarios, while 
removed from supreme command, served as ar- 
chon of the emperor’s somatophylakes (Prokopios, 
Wars 8.21.1). In the 14th C. the corps of body- 
guards was under the command of the primikerios 
of the court (aule) and consisted of several units, 
each of which had its own station: the VARANGIANS 
stood watch at the doors of the emperor’s cham- 
ber, the so-called paramonai in the palace court. 
There were also Tsaxones and other mounted 
and foot soldiers (pseudo-Kod. 179f). The dis- 
tinction between bodyguards, palace guards, and 
imperial retinue was blurred, and Niketas Chon- 
iates (Nik.Chon. 184.11, 322.49) defined somato- 
phylakes and doryphoroi (retainers) together as the 
contingents closest to the emperor. 

Bodyguards were often recruited from foreign- 
ers in West and East. Protection of the emperor 
was also assigned to some courtiers, one of whom, 
the PARAKOIMOMENGOS, slept at the threshold of the 
emperor’s chamber. In the 5th- or 6th-C. ro- 
mance The Tale of the Persian Affairs, it is said that 
King Kyros had female bodyguards, somatophylak- 
issai (E. Bradtke, Das sogenannte Religionsgespriich 
am Hof des Sasaniden [Leipzig 1899] 20.1-2)—but 
it is questionable whether this evidence reflects 
the existence of a corps of female bodyguards (of 
the empress?) at the late Roman or Byz. court. 
High-ranking military officers and influential pri- 
vate individuals might also have bodyguards 
(sometimes called BOUKELLARIO}). -A.K. 


BODY LANGUAGE. The ideal of late Roman 
and Byz. BEHAVIOR was “statuary”: one should 
imitate the statue (agalma}, avoiding unnecessary 
movements and appearing solemn and quiet. Early 
medieval attitudes condemned passionate EMO- 
TIONS, including lamentations, and art and liter- 
ature rarely present dramatic gesturing (M. Bar- 
asch, Gestures of Despair [New York 1976] 34f). 
SYMEON THE THEOLOGIAN (Catéchéses, no.26.28— 
31) prescribed strict discipline for the body during 
prayer, and Psellos followed the same vein when 
he censured a priest for excessively moving his 
lips, shoulders, and hands (Ljubarskij, Psell 238). 


300 BOEOTIA 


Nevertheless, body movement was a significant 
component of state ceremonial (with PROSKYNESIS 
the extreme physical expression of self-submission), 
LITURGY (the gestures of the priest), funerals 
(tearing of hair, beating of breasts), or marriage 
rites. It was also a part of everyday behavior— 
embraces and kissing signifed greeting and re- 
spect (e.g., vita of BASIL THE YOUNGER, ed. Vilin- 
skij 1:338.14-—-16); a movement of a finger could 
denote a charitable attitude (vita of Basil the 
Younger, ed. Veselovskij 2:106.34—107.1); pull- 
ing out the hair of the beard expressed dismay 
(PG 111:797A); touching the beard indicated 
pleading for mercy (ATHANASIOS I of Constanti- 
nople, ep.g4.19-22). 

Some GESTURES—in reality or in fiction?— 
stressed a tragic situation, as in a description of 
the execution of Andronikos I (Nik.Chon. 351.53- 
54): the maimed emperor, whose hand had been 
amputated, in pain extended the stump to his 
mouth as if trying to suck out the dripping blood. 
On the other hand, the strange and indecent body 
language of a holy fool (such as SYMEON OF EMESA) 
was interpreted metaphorically as an expression 
of the saint’s utmost humility. -A.K. 


BOEOTIA (Bowwria), a region in central Greece; 
THesEs was still considered its metropolis in the 
6th C. Prokopios (Buildings 4.2.24) stresses that 
the city walls of Boeotian towns were neglected 
before the reign of Justinian I, and Zosmmos (5.5.7, 
ed. Paschoud 3:11.25-30) describes how “all 
Boeotia” was destroyed by the invasion of Alaric 
in 395/6. On the other hand, an inscription shows 
that in 401/2 Boeotia was able to provide the state 
with a significant amount of grain (F. Cauer, RE 
3 [1899] 663), and U. Kahrstedt (Das wirtschaftliche 
Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit [Bern 1954] 
86f) suggested that substantial areas of the region 
were turned over to large estates. Archaeological 
investigation demonstrates that in the 4th—6th C. 
Boeotia retained, in general outline, the classical 
urban pattern, the territory of Thespiai showing 
even a remarkable resettlement. From the 7th C. 
Boeotia was in decline, and O. Rackham (BSA 78 
[1983] 346f£) concludes that this period was bad 
for men and goats, but good for trees, so that the 
woodland expanded. Some revival can be ob- 
served in the gth—11th C. when the massive stone 
church at Skripou near Orchomenos (dated 873/ 
4) and Hosios Loukas were constructed. The 


area seems to have been densely populated after 
1204. Boeotia formed a part of the theme of 
HELLAS, although the ancient name of Boeotia 
appears frequently in various authors; for in- 
stance, Skylitzes (Skyl. 341.28—29) lists Thessaly, 
Boeotia, and Attica; Nikephoros Gregoras (Greg, 
2:239.7 and 17—18) speaks of Boeotia and Thebes 
as an administrative unit. 

uur. J.L. Blindiff, A.M. Snodgrass, “The Cambridge/ 
Bradford Boeotian Expedition: The First Four Years,” 
Journal of Field Archaeology 12 (1985) 147-49. T.E. Gregory, 
“The Fortified Cities of Byzantine Greece,” Archaeology 35 
(1982) 14—21. A. Harvey, “Economic Expansion in Central 
Greece in the Eleventh Century,” BMGS 8 (1982~83) 21~ 
28. M. Chatzidakis, Byzantine Monuments in Attica and Boeotia 
(Athens 1956) 11-17. ~ALK. 


BOETHIUS, more fully Anicius Manlius Severi- 
nus Boethius, Latin philosopher and writer; born 
ca.480, died Ticinum ca.524. Of a rich and con- 
sular family, he was cared for by the family of 
Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus upon his 
father’s death. Boethius may have studied in Al- 
exandria. Boethius served THEODORIC THE GREAT 
as consul (510) and magister officiorum (ca.522~23), 
until his intervention in a treason trial resulted in 
his own condemnation, imprisonment, and exe- 
cution on the same charge. 

While in prison he wrote On the Consolation of 
Philosophy, a five-book dialogue in prose and verse 
between himself and Philosophy, neoplatonically 
showing how the soul may achieve a vision of 
God. His authorship, now generally accepted, of 
five theological treatises, including one on the 
Trinity and anti-Nestorian polemic (J.R.S. Mair 
in Maistor 149~58), demonstrates that Boethius 
was indeed a Christian. An expert in Greek as 
well as Latin and a practitioner of many genres 
including poetry, his main interests were philos- 
ophy and translation. His scheme to latinize all of 
ARISTOTLE and PLato was never completed, al- 
though he did manage to translate some of the 
former. The above works, along with writings on 
logic, mathematics, and music, helped to consoli- 
date the medieval educational concept of the seven 
liberal arts (quadrivium and trivium). Some of his 
work was later translated into Greek by Maximos 
PLANOUDES and Manuel Kacexas (A. Pertusi, Af- 
PHOS 11 [1951] 301-22) as well as by Prochoros 
Kypones (D.Z. Niketas, Hellentka 35 [1984] 275~ 
315). 

ED. PL 63-64. Philosophiae consolatio, ed. L. Bieler (Turn- 
hout 1957). Gr. tr. by Planoudes—Boéce: De la consolation 


de la philosophie, ed. E.-A. Bétant (Geneva 1871; rp. Am- 
sterdam 1964). D.Z. Nikitas, Eine byzantinische Ubersetzung 
von Boethius “De hypotheticis syllogismis” (Göttingen 1982). 
The Theological Tractates, ed. H.F. Stewart, E.K. Rand (Cam- 
bridge, Mass., 1973), with Eng. tr. 

uit. M. Gibson, ed., Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Influ- 
ence (Oxford 1981). Boethius, ed. M. Fuhrmann, j. Gruber 
(Darmstadt 1984). H. Chadwick, Boethius: The Consolations 
of Music, Logic, Theology and Philosophy (Oxford 1981). D. 
Shanzer, “The Death of Boethius and the ‘Consolation of 
Philosophy,’ ” Hermes 112 (1984) 352-66. S. Lerer, Boethius 
and Dialogue (Princeton 1985). -B.B. 


BOGOMIL, POP, the presumed founder of the 
sect of the BocomiLs; f. 10th C. Our information 
about him comes mainly from KOSMAS THE PRIEST, 
who states that Bogomil was a priest (pop) and 
that he began to teach his heresy in Bulgaria in 
the reign of Tsar PETER OF BuLGaria (927—689). 
A Russian index of forbidden books, preserved 
in a 16th-C. MS, states that Bogomil wrote heret- 
ical books. His name is probably the Slavic equiv- 
alent of the Greek Theophilos. His dualist follow- 
ers in toth-C. Bulgaria, named after him, are 
described by Kosmas as “lamb-like, gentle, mod- 
est, and silent, and pale from hypocritical fasting. 
They do not talk idly, nor laugh loudly, nor give 
themselves airs. They keep away from the sight 
of men, and outwardly they do everything so as 
not to be distinguished from Orthodox Chris- 
tians.” 

uit. D. Obolensky, The Bogomils (Cambridge 1948) 117- 


20, 124~26, 271~74. D. Angelov, Bogomilstvoto v Bilgarija® 
(Sofia 1980) 123-27. —-D.O. 


BOGOMILS, a dualist, neo-MANICHAEAN sect, 
founded in 10th-C. Bulgaria, presumably by Pop 
Bocomiz. It subsequently spread over the entire 
Balkan peninsula and parts of Asia Minor, ex- 
erted a formative influence over the CATHAR 
movement in Italy and France, and proved for 
five centuries a determined enemy of the Byz. 
church. Holding the material world to be the 
creation and realm of the Devil, the Bogomils 
denied most of the basic doctrines of the Ortho- 
dox church, including the Incarnation. They im- 
posed, at least on a minority of “elect” initiates, 
an ascetic life that required abstinence from sex- 
ual intercourse, meat, and wine, and—at least in 
1oth-C. Bulgaria—preached civil disobedience. 
Most evidence of their teaching and behavior is 
in the works of their enemies, esp. KOSMAS THE 
Priest, Anna Komnene, and Euthymios Zica- 


BOHEMUND 501 


BENOS, though some valuabie information is also 
found in the Interrogatio Johannis (or Liber Secretus, 
i.e., “Secret Book”), the only undeniably authentic 
product of Bogomil APOCRYPHA. 

Originally the Bogomil doctrines owed much to 
the teaching of the Pauticians, who lived along- 
side them in the Balkans, and, unlike the Bogo- 
mils, were warlike in spirit and frequently rose 
up in arms against their Byz. overlords. Messa- 
LIANISM, with which Bogomilism was frequently 
identified in the later Middle Ages, was probably 
used by Orthodox writers of the time as little 
more than a label for suspect or heretical mystical 
currents. 

In the 11th C. the sect gained ground in Con- 
stantinople where, under its leader BASIL THE 
BoGomIL, it found converts in aristocratic circles. 
At the behest of Alexios I Komnenos, Euthymios 
Zigabenos described its doctrines, rules, and cer- 
emonies at considerable length. In the 1eth C. 
Bogomilism spread in the empire’s Slavic prov- 
inces (notably in Macedonia), and also in Asia 
Minor, where in the 13th C. the Nicaean patriarch 
GERMANOS I] wrote a treatise against them. De- 
spite continued persecution, votaries of Bogo- 
milism scored notable successes in Serbia, Dal- 
matia, and esp. Bosnia, where under the name of 
Patarenes they later became the dominant reli- 
gious group. After the Turkish conquest they 
disappeared from the Balkans. 

LIT. D. Obolensky, The Bogomils (Cambridge 1948). S. 
Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge 1947; rp. 
1982). M. Loos, Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages (Prague 


1974). D. Angelov, Bogomilstvoto v Biilgarija*® (Sofia 1980). 
~-D.O. 


BOHEMUND (Baipotvros), son of ROBERT Guis- 
CARD; born between ca.1050 and 1058, died Bari? 
5 or 7 Mar. 1109 (A. Gadolin, Byzantion 52 [1982] 
125-31) or 1111. In 1081 he accompanied his 
father in attacking Alexios i, but was forced to 
withdraw in 1084. He joined the First Crusade in 
1096 and reached Constantinople ca.g Apr. 1097. 
There he swore fealty to Alexios, but Alexios put 
off his request to be named domestikos of the East. 
During the siege of Antioch, Bohemund helped 
induce TaTik1os to depart, then obtained the city 
in violation of his oath to Alexios. Bohemund 
fought against the Byz. at Laodikeia until he was 
captured by Danişmend ca. July 1100. Following 
his ransom in 1103, he again fought the Byz. Late 
in 1104 he returned to Italy; with papal support, 


302 | BOILAS 


he called for a new Crusade, then, in France 
(1106), proclaimed his intention of directing it 
against Alexios, whom he denounced for treach- 
ery to the Crusaders. His expedition to Dyrra- 
chion (Oct. 1107) became trapped between the 
Byz. fleet and army. Bohemund was forced to 
accept a treaty at Devor (Sept. 1108) whereby he 
became an imperial vassal and received Antioch 
as a fief from Alexios (Ja.N. Ljubarskij, M.M. 
Frejdenberg, VizVrem 21 [1962] 260-74). Anna 
Komnene depicts him as valiant, clever, an out- 
standing and farsighted commander, but treach- 
erous, deceitful, a natural liar, and chameleon. 
His goal, in her opinion, was to win for himself 
land and power, and ultimately to seize Byz. 

uit. R.B. Yewdale, Bohemund I, Prince of Antioch (Prince- 
ton 1924). J.G. Rowe, “Paschal II, Bohemund of Antioch 
and the Byzantine Empire,” Bull]RylandsLib 49 (1966-67) 
165—202. G. Rösch, “Der ‘Kreuzzug’ Bohemunds gegen 
Dyrrhachion 1107/1108 in der lateinischen Tradition des 


12. Jahrhunderts,” RémHistMitt 26 (1984) 181—go. 
~C.M.B. 


BOILAS (Boidas), name of Bulgarian origin; it 
designated a high Bulgarian title. The first known 
Boilas in Byz. was the patrikios Constantine, a 
contemporary of the 8th-C. empress Irene. St. 
Ioannikios is said to have been related to the 
Boilas family. In the 10th C. members of the 
Boilas family were military commanders: Bardas 
Boilas, strategos of Chaldia, inspired a revolt in 
Armenia ca.g22; Petronas Boilas served as kate- 
pano of Nikopolis (on the Pontos?) during the 
reign of Constantine VIL. Judging from the names, 
one might infer that these two Boilades were 
Armenians. Some members of the family were 
courtiers: the chamberlain Constantine Boilas was 
involved in 925 in an unsuccessful plot against 
Romanos I and was compelled to take the mo- 
nastic habit. The status of the family declined by 
the 11th C.: historians of this period call Romanos 
Boilas, the favorite of Constantine IX, a man of 
humble origin (Psellos, Chron. 2:38, par.140.10); 
he was in charge of the imperial guard. Convicted 
of plotting against the emperor ca.1051, he was 
exiled but soon returned to the court. The tra- 
ditional image of Romanos Boilas as a buffoon 
accounts for the biased judgment of him in Psellos 
and other sources. His contemporary, Eustathios 
Boilas, is known from his will of 1059 (see Boras, 
Wixi or EusTaTuios). Even though the name of 


Boilas was common in the later period (PLP, 
nos. 2933—41), the Boilades did not occupy sig- 
nificant posts at that time. George Boilas (ca.1400) 
wrote a now-lost treatise Against the Latins to refute 
the teaching of Thomas Aguinas (Beck, Kirche 
745). 


uT. Winkelmann, Quellenstudien 150f, 181. -A.K. 


BOILAS, WILL OF EUSTATHIOS. In Apr. 1059, 
Eustathios Boilas, protospatharios, epi tou chrysotri- 
klinou, and hypatos, wrote his will; it was then 
copied on the last blank folios of a MS of St. John 
Klimax (Paris, B.N. Coisl. 263). Boilas was writing 
in an unknown place (probably near Edessa in 
Syria) where he had taken refuge after leaving 
his native Cappadocia. He had previously served 
for 15 years under the late doux Michael Apokapes 
and was still attached to members of his family. 
Reasonably wealthy in 1059, he had many slaves 
and real estate that he distributed among his two 
married daughters and Theotokos tou Salem, his 
pious foundation, which was scheduled to remain 
their property. This testament is important be- 
cause of its early date and because it provides an 
insight into a poorly known region and society. 
ED. and UIT. Lemerle, Cing études 13—63. Eng. tr. S. 


Vryonis, “The Will of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius 
Boilas (1059),” DOP 11 (1957) 263-77. -N.O. 


BOIOANNES (Borwávvns), a family name, prob- 
ably of Slavic origin. According to M. Mathieu 
(Nouvelle Clio 4 [1952] 299-301), the name was 
connected with the Slavic name Boian; it is also 
recorded in the form of Boinos, Baianos (Dujéev, 
Proucvanya 11, n.1; V. BeSevliev, Byzantion 35 
[1965] 3); one of Leo VI’s wives was Eudokia 
Baiana. The first known Boioannes was Basil, 
katepano of Italy in 1017—28 (see BOIOANNES, BASIL). 
It is questionable whether a rebellious magnate 
called Baianos (Skyl. 396.26), whose fortune was 
confiscated in 1034, belonged to the same family. 
Another Boioannes, exaugustus of Italian sources, 
was katepano of Italy in 1041; the Normans cap- 
tured him. Skylitzes (Skyl. 426.38—41) considered 
him a descendant of Basil Boioannes. Constantine 
Boioannes, a member of the local nobility in Dyr- 
rachion, is mentioned in a synodal decision of 
1199 (RegPatr, fasc. 3, no.1193): a certain Alexios 
Kapandrites, backed by an armed band, forced 
Constantine’s sister, Eudokia, to marry him; in 


retaliation Constantine seized his undesirable 
brother-in-law, fettered him, and gave Eudokia 
in marriage to another man. 

uit. W. Holtzmann, “Der Katepan Boioannes und die 
kirchliche Organisation der Capitanata,” NachGétt, no.2 


(1960) 19-39. Falkenhausen, Domimazione gof, 93f. 
-~A.K. 


BOIOANNES, BASIL, protospatharios and KATE- 
pano Of Italy (1017—summer 1028); whether the 
name derives from Slavic or Greek is uncertain 
(M. Mathieu, Nouvelle Clio 4 [1952] 299-301). The 
career of Boioannes before his appointment as 
hatepano by Basix II and after his recall by Con- 
STANTINE VIII is unknown. In Oct. 1018, at Can- 
nae, Boioannes defeated the rebel Melo of Bari. 
He refortified northern Apulia, where he founded 
Troia (1019). Cooperating with Pandolf IV of 
Capua, Boioannes’s army campaigned success- 
fully on the Garigliano (1021). In response, Pope 
Benedict VHI summoned Henry II of Germany, 
who in 1022 captured Pandolf and vainly besieged 
Troia. After Henry’s death (1024), Boioannes 
helped restore Pandolf (1026); Salerno, Capua, 
and Naples acknowledged Byz. overlordship. 
Boioannes secured papal recognition of Bari as a 
metropolis and of Troia and other places in the 
capitanate as bishoprics (W. Holtzmann, NachGétt 
[1960] no.2:19—39). In 1024 Boioannes raided 
Croatia and in 1025 joined in an unsuccessful 
expedition sent by Basil H against Sicily. In May— 
Sept. 1041, another Boioannes, a son or relative, 
was kaltepano, but was captured by Lombards and 
Normans. 

ur. Falkenhausen, Dominaziene 57f, gof. W. Felix, By- 


zanz und die islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (Vi- 
enna 1981) 1gof. -C.M.B. 


BOJANA, a settlement in Bulgaria, southwest of 
Sofia, the site of a double church dedicated to Sts. 
Nicholas and Panteleemon. The smaller, east 
church has been dated on the basis of style to the 
12th C. It has a square exterior enlivened by blind 
arches and a cruciform interior. The later church 
is a two-story funerary structure adjoining the 
older church at the west and serving as its narthex. 
The lower story is a barrel-vaulted hall with ar- 
cosolia; the chapel above it is cruciform, with short- 
ened cross arms and a central dome. Frescoes 


BOLDENSELE, WILHELM VON 303 


dated by inscription to 1259 cover the entire in- 
terior of both churches. The scenes follow the 
usual Byz. arrangement, and certain iconographic 
details (the fresco icons of Christ Euergetes and 
Christ Chalkites, the cityscapes) link the paintings 
to Constantinople. Despite the presence of some 
up-to-date details (such as the intricate armor), 
the tall, slim proportions of the figures and land- 
scape in the compositions reflect Byz. models of 
the 11th and 12th C., and give the ensemble an 
archaic look. The lower church contains a cycle 
of scenes from the life of St. NICHOLAS OF MYRA; 
though Byz. in origin, the cycle is unusually long 
and displays many Western features. The captions 
to all the frescoes are in Slavonic; the artists may 
have come from Ttrnovo. The donor portraits 
of the sebastokrator Kalojan (otherwise unknown) 
and his wife in the lower church are surprisingly 
individualized. 

LIT. A. Grabar, L’église de Beiana (Sofia 1924). K. Mijatev, 
The Boyana Murals (Dresden 1961). Sv. Bosilkov, “Za tra- 
diciite i novatorstvoto v Bojanskata Zivopis,” Tůrnovska kni- 
žavna škola 1371-1971 (Sofia 1974) 355—7121. ~ECS. 


BOLDENSELE, WILHELM VON (originally 
named Otto of Nygenhusen), German traveler to 
Mt. Sinai; born in Westphalia-Saxony, died in 
Cologne? after 1337. A Dominican friar, Otto left 
his priory, changed his name to Wilhelm, and, in 
1332-36, on assignment from the papal curia, 
traveled to the Levant. His purpose was probably 
not just a simple pilgrimage but also a reconnais- 
sance with an eye to planning a new Crusade. At 
any rate, he paid serious attention to strategic 
points in Palestine and to the places where the 
Mamluk sultan allegedly kept his treasures. On 
his way to Sinai Wilhelm stopped at Constanti- 
nople, Chios, Rhodes, and Cyprus; whether he 
visited Athens is unclear. In Constantinople he 
was received by Andronikos III, who gave him a 
letter to deliver to the sultan ot Egypt. In his 
Itinerary, Wilhelm describes the marvelous churches 
and palaces of Constantinople and says that Hagia 
Sophia surpassed any other building in the world. 
He dwells particularly on the equestrian statue of 
Justinian I, which, to Wilhelm, seemed to threaten 
potential rebels and enemies of the empire. The 
Itinerary of Wilhelm was used by his contemporary 
Ludolf of Sudheim, who traveled to the East in 
1336-41; in some cases Ludolf corrected and 
added to the work of his predecessor. 


304 BOLERON 


ED. C.L. Grotefend, “Des Edelherrn Wilhelm von Bol- 
densele Reise nach dem Gelobten Lande,” Zeitschrift des 
historischen Vereins Niedersachsen (1852) 226-86. 

LIT. Van der Vin, Travellers 1:25-37. G. Schnath, “Drei 
Niedersächsische Sinaipilger um 1330,” in Festschrift P.E. 
Schramm, ed. P. Classen, P. Schiebert, vol. ı (Wiesbaden 
1964) 464-78. -A.K. 


BOLERON (Boàepóv), region in Thrace between 
the Rhodope mountains and the sea, bounded by 
the Nestos River on the west and the defile of 
Korpiles on the east. First mentioned in the vita 
of GREGORY OF DEKAPOLIS (as a geographical lo- 
cation), it became an administrative unit in the 
first half of the 11th C.: an act of 1047 refers to 
a “new diotkesis” of Boleron (lvir., no.29.77). By 
1083 Boleron was considered a separate theme, 
containing at least two banda, Mosynopouis and 
PERITHEORION (Typikon of Gregory Pakourianos, ed. 
P. Gautier, REB 42 [1984] 37.288). Most com- 
monly it appears as part of the joint theme of 
Boleron, Strymon, and Thessalonike—the first 
known reference is the hypomnema of its judge 
Constantine Kamateros of 1037 (Decheiar., no.1.35). 
After 1204 the region was part of the Latin King- 
dom of Thessalonike. It was probably reconsti- 
tuted ca.1246 by John III Vatatzes and called the 
theme of Boleron-Mosynopolis. In the early 14th 
C. it was united with Mosynopolis, Serres, and 
Strymon under a kephale (Guillou, Ménécée, nos. 
7.25—26, 11.1—2). A document of 1344 (Dochezar., 
no.22.1~3), however, considers Boleron, Popolia, 
Serres, Strymon, and MELNIK as astra, in contrast 
to the themes of Thessalonike and BERRoIA. 

tit. Lemerle, Philippes 129f, 160-63. S. Kyriakides, By- 
zantinai Meletai 2—5 (Thessalonike 1937) 291-362. Th. Pa- 


pazotas, “Semeioseis sto ‘Boleron’ tou St. Kyriakide,” Thra- 
kike epeterida 2 (1981) 233-43. —T.E.G., A.K. 


BONE CARVING, a perennial industry, based 
on the slaughter of cattle and pack animals. Bone 
was used for buttons, knobs, and struts as well as 
for tools, esp. in the weaving trade. Bone gaming- 
pieces, containers, and bird-rings as well as or- 
namental handles for fans or fly-switches from 
many different periods have been found in Con- 
stantinople (M.V. Gill in R.M. Harrison, Excava- 
tions at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. 1 [Princeton 
1986] 226-33, 251-53, 258-63); bone’s range of 
application thus exceeded that of Ivory, although 
it was probably worked by the same craftsmen. 


Numerous plaques attached to CASKETS AND BOXES, 
often said to be of ivory, are in fact of bone. 
LIT. Ai. Loverdou-Tsigarda, Osteina plakidia (Thessalo- 


nike 1986). A. Bank, Prikladnoe iskusstvo Vizantii IX—XII vv. 
(Moscow 1978) 86—89. ~AC, 


BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT (Bovidartos ó 
Movrns Pepavrns), marquis of Thessalonike 
(1204—07); born early 1150s, died near Mosyno- 
polis 4 Sept. 1207. In 1179—80 Boniface served 
as guardian of the captive Christian of Mainz 
while his brother CONRAD OF MONTFERRAT trav- 
eled to Constantinople (D. Brader, Historische Stu- 
dien: Bonifaz von Montferrat bis zum Antritt der 
Kreuzfahrt (1202) [Berlin 1907; rp. Vaduz 1965} 
23—25). In June 1201, possibly influenced by his 
cousin King Philip II of France, Boniface ac- 
cepted the leadership of the Fourth Crusade (E. 
Kittell, Byzantion 51 [1981] 562—65). At Christmas 
1201, at Hagenau, he met another cousin, PHILIP 
or Swabia, and the future Alexios IV; they prob- 
ably discussed the use of the Crusade to enthrone 
Alexios. Boniface avoided participating in the 
capture of Zara, but early in 1203 enthusiastically 
supported the proposal of Alexios and Philip of 
Swabia to turn the Crusade against Constantino- 
ple. After Alexios HI fled, Boniface joined Alex- 
ios IV in an expedition through Thrace. In late 
1203, he took a leading role in the discussions 
with Alexios IV. 

During the sack of Constantinople, Boniface 
occupied the Great Palace, where his captives in- 
cluded the widow of Isaac II, Margaret of Hun- 
gary, whom he subsequently married. Because he 
had commanded the Crusaders, the populace of 
Constantinople anticipated his choice as emperor 
and hailed him as Ayos vasileas marchio (“the holy 
emperor, the marquess”), but BALDWIN OF FLAN- 
DERS was elected. Boniface received Thessalonike 
as a kingdom, but a quarrel over it with Baldwin 
(mid-1204) was resolved with difficulty. Initially 
the populace of Thessalonike welcomed him 
warmly; later he appropriated the dwellings of 
the wealthiest inhabitants for his knights. In late 
1204, using Margaret and Isaac’s son Manuel (clad 
in imperial robes) to smooth his advance, Boniface 
drove Leo Scouros from Thessaly and occupied 
central Greece, where he captured Alexios HI. 
The inhabitants of Thebes received Boniface en- 
thusiastically, but he rejected the support of the 
Byz. aristocracy who then turned to Kalojan. In 


1205—07 he fought Kalojan and allied himself 
with Henry or Hartnauxt, then perished in a 
Bulgarian ambush, 

urr. M.A. Zaborov, “K voprosu o predistorii cetvertogo 


krestovogo pochoda,” VizVrem 6 (1953) 223-35. J. Dufour- 
net, Les écrivains de la IV° croisade: Villehardouin et Clari, vol. 


1 (Paris 1973) 208-44. Longnon, Compagnons 227-34. 
-C.M.B. 


BOOK (8:Briov, BiBdos, 5édTos). The written word 
was of great importance in Byz., for the trans- 
mission of the Bible (the didlos par excellence) and 
patristic literature, and for the preservation of the 
heritage of classical antiquity. The number of 
preserved Greek MSS is about 55,000 (A. Dain, 
Les manuscrits? [Paris 1964] 77), of which perhaps 
40,000 are Byz. They are mainly in the form of 
a CODEX, but the ROLL survived in the transmission 
of liturgical texts and in the imperial chancery. 
Few pre-ioth-C. MSS survive; the numbers of 
MSS produced increased dramatically with the 
introduction of MINUSCULE script. Most MSS were 
liturgical or theological; these books predominate 
both in modern collections and in medieval inven- 
tories of monastic libraries. Literary, scientific, 
and historical books were generally found in the 
private collections of literati. Books were a rare 
and expensive commodity in Byz., because of the 
shortage of writing materials (PARCHMENT and 
paper) and the length of time it took a SCRIBE to 
copy a MS (see Book Trane). N. Wilson has 
shown that in the gth C. a MS of about 400 folios 
cost 15-20 nomismata, a sum reckoned by C. 
Mango as equivalent to half the annual salary of 
a civil servant (Books & Bookmen, 3f, 38f). 

Private libraries rarely exceeded 25 volumes. 
Booksellers are scarcely ever mentioned; books 
were obtained by borrowing from friends, com- 
missioning the copying of a MS at a SCRIPTORIUM, 
or using a LIBRARY. Hence books were highly 
valued by clergy and intellectuals; MSS trom li- 
braries frequently contain an imprecation against 
anyone who would dare steal the book. The des- 
ignation of a book for a certain use might change 
in the course of the centuries; thus the Vienna 
Dioskoripes (Vienna, ONB med.gr.1) was origi- 
nally dedicated to the princess Anicia Juliana in 
the 6th C, but served as a herbal for a hospital in 
Constantinople in the 14th and 15th C. Many 
monasteries such as Sroupios, Hopgecon, and 
GaLesios housed important scriptoria; at others, 


BOOK COVER 305 


however, esp. in the early Christian centuries, 
books were scorned. ANTONY THE GREAT report- 
edly memorized the Scriptures so that he had no 
need for books (PG 26:845A, 945A); an abbot 
criticized a monk for spending money on codices 
instead of the poor (PG 65:416C). 

ut. Byzantine Books and Bookmen (Washington, D.C., 1975). 
G. Cavallo, “Il libro come oggetto d'uso nel mondo bizan- 
tino,” JOB 31 (1981) 395—423. C. Wendel, Kleine Schriften 
zum antiken Buch- und Bibliothekswesen (Cologne 1974). Av- 
erincev, Poetika 183—209. ~A.M.T., E.G. 


BOOKBINDING (craxoua, &upiasna). The 
CODEX was protected by a binding, usually of 
leather or parchment, more rarely of silk or pre- 
cious metals. Normally two leather-covered wooden 
boards held together and protected the QUIRES, 
which the bookbinder stitched together. The di- 
mensions of the quires and of the boards that 
form the binding are identical. In contrast to 
Western bookbinding, Byz. bindings did not have 
raised bands but were distinguished by a smooth 
spine. Sumptuous bindings sometimes took the 
form of metal BOOK COVERS, occasionally adorned 
with precious stones or ENAMELS. Technical names 
for elements of the decoration are known from 
the description of books in the inventories of 
monastic LIBRARIES (such as Patmos). Owing to 
the custom of storing MSS horizontally, the leather 
of the binding was protected by bosses (amygdala, 
lit. “almonds”). Preserved examples of Byz. book- 
binding permit the analysis of the stamps used 
for decoration; further research of this sort could 
enable us to investigate centers for bookbinding. 
Among the motifs used for blind-tooling on bind- 
ings from the late Byz. period are the monogram 
of the Palaiologos family (P. Hoffmann, Scripto- 
rium 39 [1985] 274-81) and metal representations 
of patron saints. 

uT. E. Baras et al., La reliure médiéuale (Paris 1978) 29— 
35. C. Federici, K. Houlis, Le legature bizantine vaticane 
{Rome 1988). B. Atsalos, “Sur quelques termes relatifs a la 


reliure des manuscrits grecs,” in Studia Cedicologica [= TU 
124], ed. K. Treu (Berlin 1977) 15~42. -E.G. 


BOOK COVER. Some ancient codices still have 
their original BOOKBINDING of wooden boards, 
sometimes covered in leather; metal and silk and 
other textiles were also used for covers. A number 
of preserved metal and ivory plaques, which cor- 


306 BOOK ILLUSTRATION AND ILLUMINATION 





Book Cover. Metal book cover (Venice, Marciana lat. 
C1. 1, 101; front cover); 9th to early 10th C. The fig- 
ures of Christ on the Cross and the busts of saints and 
angels around him are made of cloisonné enamel out- 
lined in pearls. 


respond to the general sizes of Byz. books, are 
thought to have served originally as covers; ex- 
amples are the 6th-C. sets of silver plaques in the 
KAPER KORAON TREASURE and the SION TREA- 
sure, decorated with standing figures or a cross 
under an arch. The colophon of a Syriac MS of 
633/4 written near Damascus refers to its cover 
composed of metal plates and gems (J. Leroy, Les 
manuscrits syriaques à peintures [Paris 1964] 118). 
Elaborate fittings for book covers are described 
in church inventories in and after the 11th C.: 
cross-shaped panels (staurot) at the center and L- 
shaped corners (gammata); hinged straps (kompo- 
thelika); roundels (boulai); nailheads (karphia); and 
almond-shaped bosses (amygdalta) (Pantel., no.7.6—- 
8; C. Astruc, TM 8 [1981] 22f). 

The most elaborate covers were reserved for 


Gospel lectionaries, intended mainly for display, 
either on the altar or during the Little Entrance, 
The Crucifixion is the dominant subject of me- 
dieval Gospel covers, though DrEsis compositions 
and Nativity scenes are also recorded. By the 14th 
C., Crucifixion scenes on the front cover are ac- 
companied by AnasTasis scenes on the back. Both 
images are surrounded by busts of angels, proph- 
ets, bishops, or saints and Christological scenes 
closely resembling contemporary ICON FRAMES 
(Treasury S. Marco 176-78). 

uT. B. van Regemorter, La reliure byzantine (Brussels 
1969). H. Hunger, RBK 1:752~-57. T. Velmans, “La cou- 
verture de l'Evangile dit de Morozov et évolution de la 
reliure byzantine,” CahArch 28 (1979) 115-36. V.H. Elbern, 
“Neue Funde goldener Geräte des christlichen Kultes in 
der frühchristlich-byzantinischen Sammlung Berlin,” 


IntCongChrArch 7 (1965 [publ. 1969]) 493-95 
~M.M.M., L.Ph.B. 


BOOK ILLUSTRATION AND ILLUMINA- 
TION. Conventionally the terms are used syn- 
onymously, or the former may refer to figural 
and the latter to ornamental decoration. MS illu- 
mination—a topic of study inaugurated by N.P. 
Kondakov in 1876—provides the most compre- 
hensive evidence for the history of Byz. painting 
and is the oldest and best-studied area of Byz. art 
history. MSS were decorated by scripes and/or 
ILLUMINATORS. Some were painted at the same 
time as they were written, but generally the text 
of the entire book was first copied and then it was 
illustrated; miniatures were either added in spaces 
left by the scribe or painted on separate leaves. A 
rare example of the illustration preceding the 
writing is the MENOLOGION oF Basix II. In the 
fatter the unit of work was the single folio, but 
more commonly an illuminator, working some- 
times in a SCRIPTORIUM, executed the entire QUIRE. 
A scribe might illuminate his own work or collab- 
orate with someone else. The basic composition 
of a miniature was first established by a prelimi- 
nary sketch, which then was typically covered with 
opaque pigments. Colored washes sufficed for 
simpler ornament and became popular for figural 
illustration in the Palaiologan period. Miniatures, 
esp. those of the DECORATIVE STYLE, often cracked 
and flaked and were repainted during and after 
the Middle Ages. 

The overwhelming number of decorated MSS 
are religious, with the PSALTER and GOSPEL BOOK 
predominating. Certain liturgical texts were dec- 


BOOK ILLUSTRATION AND ILLUMINATION | 307 


orated, €Sp. LECTIONARIES and liturgical rolls (see 
RoLLS, LITURGICAL), but illustrated versions of the 
OKTOECHOS and the STICHARION are rare. A spe- 
cial edition of the homilies of Grecory oF NA- 
ZIANZOS Was Created for liturgical use. Many MSS 
of the MENOLOGION are illustrated with images of 
saints and their martyrdom. Accounts of church 
councils, theological treatises, and monastic texts, 
such as the TyPrKoN, the Heavenly Ladder of JOHN 
KLiMaAx, or the romance of BARLAAM AND loas- 
APH, were illustrated with varying frequencies. 

Secular texts were decorated less often. A few 
imperial ROLLS open with imperial portraits or 
frame the text with decorated borders. The only 
Greek historical text with narrative illustration, 
the MS of John Skytirzes in Madrid, was pro- 
duced in Norman Sicily. Various SCIENTIFIC 
MANUSCRIPTS are accompanied by essential pic- 
tures and diagrams (DIOSKORIDES, NIKANDER). 
Decorated literary texts are very rare, but frag- 
ments of a 5th-C. Fiad with later Byz. marginalia 
are preserved in Milan. Other decorated texts 
range from an ALEXANDER ROMANCE in Venice to 
an Epithalamion in the Vatican. 

Illuminated MSS are more common in some 
periods than others. The rare and well-studied 
books from the pre-Iconoclastic period (Rossano 
GosPe.ts, RasBULA GosreLs, Genesis MSS in Vi- 
enna and London) are painted in a soft painterly 
manner of ancient origin. Little survives from the 
period of Iconoclasm, except a ProLemy MS in 
the Vatican. From the latter half of the gth C., 
the most important MSS are the Khludov Psalter, 
the Paris GREGORY, and the SACRA PARALLELA. 
The 10th C.—the height of Byz. illumination ac- 
cording to some—includes the classicizing PARIS 
PsaLTER, Bible of Leo SAKELLARIOS, JOSHUA ROLL, 
and Stavronikita Gospels. The style and iconog- 
raphy of 11th- and 12th-C. MSS (Menologion of 
Basil IH, the Tueopore PSALTER, and the Conex 
EBNERIANUS) are more innovative, however, and 
in this period, the ornament of HEADPIECES, INI- 
TIALS, and CANON TABLES reaches its apogee. The 
many MSS of the Decorative Style testify to major 
provincial production during the late 12th and 
early 13th C. Palaiologan MSS feature pear-shaped 
figures, painted in pastel colors, and intricate or- 
nament imitative of the Islamic arabesque. While 
some Palaiologan MSS were made for the em- 
peror and his family, ecclesiastical patronage was 
more important. During the later 14th C., the 


production of deluxe Greek MSS declined; it all 
but ceased in the 15th C. but resumed in Renais- 
sance Italy. 

The reasons why decorated MSS were created 
are probably as numerous as the MSS themselves. 
For the many illustrated MSS that were donations 
to religious institutions, the principal motivation 
expressed in dedication notes is the hope of eter- 
nal salvation. Miniatures of the patron, offering 
the book to an intercessory saint, document the 
gift and proclaim the donor’s piety and association 
with saintly patrons. Images of contemporary per- 
sons affirm or legitimize political and social status, 
for example, Christ blessing the emperor or in- 
vesting the hegowmenos of a monastery. Illustra- 
tions establish the context in which the text was 
used, as when the liturgical roll opens with a scene 
at the altar, an herbal adds to a plant picture an 
illustration of its medicinal use, or a lectionary 
depicts not the text’s content, but the religious 
occasion on which it was read. Even the most 
literal illustration calls attention to certain pas- 
sages and not others. Some miniatures provide 
sophisticated commentary, while others serve as 
devotional images no different from other icons. 

The contemporary significance of the illumi- 
nated MS in Byz. is attested by the language of 
inventories, wills, and notices of later owners and 
by the considerable impact that Byz. MS illustra- 
tion had on Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic illu- 
mination. Byz. illuminators painted Gospel books 
in Georgian and Arabic, and Slavic artists adapted 
Byz. illustration and ornament for local contexts. 
Even Muslim artists copied illustrated scientific 
MSS. Few illuminated Byz. MSS are documented 
in western Europe before 1204, but many were 
imported afterwards. In the 15th C., humanists 
collected secular texts, which were seldom deco- 
rated, but their secondary interest in theological 
literature brought many illuminated MSS to En- 
ropean libraries. The appreciation of Byz. MSS 
as art objects is a product of the later 19th and 
goth C. and had varied consequences. Miniatures 
were excised from MSS, forged by modern paint- 
ers, and divorced from textual and cultural con- 
texts in art historical studies. Yet the high artistic 
value accorded them gained a wider modern au- 
dience for Byz. culture in general. 

Lit. N.P. Kondakov, Istorija vizantijskogo iskusstva (Odessa 


1876), tr. as Histoire de Part byzantin considéré principalement 
dans les miniatures (Paris 1886—g1). V.N. Lazarev, Storia 


308 BOOK OF THE EPARCH 


della pittura bizantina (Turin 1967). H. Belting, Das illumi- 
nierte Buch in der spätbyzantinischen Gesellschaft (Heidelberg 
1970). K. Weitzmann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine 
Manuscript Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler (Chicago-London 
1971). I. Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhand- 
schriften (Stuttgart 1977—). -R.S.N. 


BOOK OF THE EPARCH (’Ezapxixov BiBrtov), 
a collection of regulations of the activity of the 
Constantinopolitan GuiILps, which came under the 
supervision of the EPARCH OF THE CITY. The com- 
plete text survives in a 14th-C. MS (Geneva, Bib- 
liothéque de Genève, no.23); the title and pream- 
ble are also preserved in an Istanbul MS (Metochion 
Taphou, no.25). In several MSS can be found the 
first three paragraphs of chapter 1 of the Book of 
the Eparch excerpted, as it is said, from “the de- 
crees on city guilds (somateia)” (P. Noailles, A. 
Dain, Les novelles de Léon VI le Sage [Paris 1944] 
376f). The MS of Metochion Taphou gives the 
name of the legislator—Leo VI (as do the frag- 
ments from ch.1)}—and the date, 911/12 (D. Gkines, 
EEBS 13 [1937] 186). However, the mention in 
four paragraphs of TETARTERA (coins that were 
not introduced until the mid-1oth C.) permits the 
hypothesis that the treatise was compiled (or in- 
terpolated) under Nikephoros II Phokas. This 
opinion is rejected by A. Schminck (Rechtsbiicher 
27, n.26) who identifies the tetarteron cited in the 
Book of the Eparch as the TREMISSIS Or SEMISSIS 
known through the reign of Basil I. 

The Book of the Eparch is a collection in 22 
chapters of rules devoted to separate guilds— 
notaries; argyropratatz; money changers; various 
dealers in clothing and perfume; candlemakers; 
soapmakers; purveyors of groceries, meat, bread, 
fish, and wine—as well as to some assistants of the 
eparch (legatarii) and the so-called BoTHROI and 
TECHNITAL. Some chapters repeat the same state- 
ments and probably were compiled separately. 
Certain important professions and trades (e.g., 
potters, ironmongers, tailors, dyers, shoemakers, 
barbers, physicians) are not included. 

P. Pieler (in Hunger, Lit. 2:471) considers the 
Book of the Eparch a document that “belongs com- 
pletely to the sphere of the late antique system of 
guilds.” P. Schreiner (in LMA 3:2043), on the 
other hand, emphasizes the differences between 
the commercial organization described in the Book 
of the Eparch and that of late antiquity, since the 
roth-C. treatise reflects neither coercive nor he- 


reditary membership in guilds. Sjuzjumov views 
the regulations as representing the economic ideas 
of Leo VI. 

ED. Vizantijskaja kniga eparcha, ed. M.Ja. Sjuzjumov (Mos- 
cow 1962). Eng. tr. E.H. Freshfield in Roman Law in the 
Later Roman Empire (Cambridge 1938); rp. in To Eparchtkon 
Biblion, ed. I. Dujčev (London 1970) 205-81. 

LIT. S. Troianos, Hoi peges tou byzantinou dikaiou (Athens 
1986) 135-37. ~A.K. 


BOOK OF THE HIMYARITES, a Syriac text 
preserved (in fragments) in a MS of the 15th C. 
with some remnants in another, 1oth-C. codex. 
The Book describes the persecutions by Masruq 
(Duū-Nuwās) in NAJRĀN and the invasion of Ka- 
leb (ELESBOAM), the king of Axum, in 525. The 
Book was written by a Monophysite author im- 
mediately after the events described, probably on 
the basis of oral information from eyewitnesses. 
Moberg (infra) tentatively identifed the author as 
a certain Sergios (or George) of Rusafah, of whom 
nothing is known save his participation in an 
embassy sent by Justin I to the Lakhmid ALAMUN- 
DARUS of Hira. Shahid (infra), however, identified 
him with Symeon, bishop of Béth-Arsham, the 
author of a letter detailing the same events. 

Ep. and TR. A. Moberg, The Book of the Himyarites (Lund 


1924). 
LIT. I. Shahid, “The Book of the Himyarites,” Muséon 


76 (1963) 349-62. -A.K. 


BOOK TRADE in the strict sense hardly ever 
existed in Byz., in contrast to the flourishing BOOK 
production and distribution of late antiquity. There 
was a certain market for old and rare books, while 
new books were always produced on commission 
for the private LIBRARY of the commissioner or 
for the library of a public or ecclesiastical institu- 
tion. Some MSS contain indications about the 
price, the charges for the copying and those for 
the material (i.e., the PARCHMENT) being calculated 
separately. ARETHAS OF CAESAREA paid around 
15—20 nomismata on the average for a MS, about 
a third of this amount being for the parchment. 
In other cases the data concerning book prices 
are much less clear. Because the size and format 
of the books in question are often unknown, the 
average price of a Byz. book cannot be deter- 
mined, much less related to the purchasing power 
of the currency during the period in question. 
Writing material remained expensive even after 


the introduction of oriental PAPER, and only in 
the last centuries of the empire were costs reduced 
by the importation of western paper. Under these 
circumstances acquiring and collecting books was 
a privilege of institutions and of a very few wealthy 
individuals. Owing to the high prices, intellectuals 
rarely could satisfy their need for books through 
purchase; as a result, scholars often borrowed 
books from one another and copied them person- 
ally. 

ut. N. Wilson, “Books and Readers in Byzantium” and 
C. Mango, “The Availability of Books in the Byzantine 
Empire, A.D.750—850,” in Books F Bookmen 1-15, 29-45. 
G. Cavallo, “La circolazione libraria nell'età di Giustiniano,” 
in L'imperatore Giustiniano—storia e mito (Milan 1978) 201- 
36. Hutter, CBM 3.1:386. Ph. Euangelatou-Notara, “Se- 
meiomata” Hellenikon kodikon (Athens 1978). Eadem, Sylloge 
chronologemenon “semeiomaton” Hellenikon kodikon 130u ai. 
(Athens 1984). -W.H. 


BOOTY (cxtaAa). The spoils of war included the 
enemy’s baggage, equipment, animals, money, and 
even their persons, which could be sold into sLav- 
ery or held for ransom (see PRISONERS OF WAR). 
The military treatises laid down strict regulations 
against soldiers’ plundering during battle (for 
which the penalty was death) and assigned sec- 
ond-rank men or soldiers’ attendants to follow the 
combatants and collect booty or prisoners for 
distribution afterwards (Strat. Maurik. 2.9, pp. 126— 
28; Praecepta Milit. 7.14-21, 16.32—35). Accord- 
ing to the rules on division of spoils set out in the 
Ecioca (18.1) and the 1oth-C. Sy_Ltoce TACTI- 
CORUM, ch.50 (ed. A. Dain [Paris 1938] g8f), one- 
sixth of the collected booty was reserved for the 
imperial treasury and the remainder given out to 
the soldiery. Interestingly, officers did not receive 
booty in addition to their wages unless they had 
distinguished themselves in battle; their reward 
came out of the imperial share. The Ecloga 16.1— 
2 states that booty and gratuities granted to sol- 
diers counted among PECULIUM CASTRENSE. 
Details from historical sources show practice at 
variance with theory in the distribution of booty 
and revenues derived therefrom. [pn HAWQAL 
describes the efforts of Nikephoros IH Phokas to 
tax or appropriate revenues generated from the 
sale of prisoners or booty to finance his military 
expeditions (Configuration de la terre, tr. J.H. Kra- 
mers, G. Wiet, vol. 1 [Paris 1964] 192—94). Basil 
II divided prisoners taken at Longas (1016) three 
ways between himself, his allies from Rus’, and 


BORIL, SYNODIKON OF | 309 


his own troops (Skyl. 355.22—24), and in 1018 
simply paid his army’s wages out of money seized 
at Ohrid (Skyl. 358.14—359.18). 

LIT. A. Dain, “Le partage du butin de guerre d'après les 
traités juridiques et militaires,” 6 CEB, vol. 1 (Paris 1950) 
347-52. Dagron-Mihaescu, Guérilla 231-34. ~E.M. 


BORIL (Bopidas), Bulgarian tsar (1207—18); died 
after 1218. Boril seized the Bulgarian throne after 
the murder of his uncle KALOJAN; to strengthen 
his position he married his uncle's Cuman widow. 
He invaded the Latin Empire, but was completely 
defeated on 31 July 1208 outside Philippopolis, 
and was defeated again by the Latins in 1211, this 
time near Thessalonike. His hold over Bulgaria 
was always tenuous, with members of his family 
establishing themselves as semi-independent rul- 
ers. His brother Strez controlled Prosek with the 
support of the Serbian ruler STEFAN I THE FIRST- 
Crownep. Using the good offices of the papacy, 
Boril turned to Henry or Harnautr for help 
against this pair. In 1213 they concluded an alli- 
ance, sealed by Henry’s marriage to Maria (prob- 
ably Boril’s daughter). The next year they launched 
a joint expedition against Serbia, but were re- 
pulsed. In 1211 Boril convoked a synod of the 
Bulgarian church at Tiirnovo, which condemned 
the Bocomm heresy. Though the synod con- 
formed to the practices of the Orthodox church 
(J. Gouillard, TM 4 [1970] 361-74), Boril’s deal- 
ings with the papacy suggest that he may have 
been prompted by papal concern about the Al- 
bigensian heresy, which was believed to originate 
in Bulgaria (I. Dujéev, BBulg 6 [1980] 115-24). 
In 1218 Boril was overthrown by John Asen H 
and blinded. 

ur. G. Prinzing, Die Bedeutung Bulgariens und Serbiens in 
den Jahren 1204-1219 (Munich 1972) 100-38. A. Danéeva- 


Vasileva, Bulgaria i Latinskata imperija (1204—1261) (Sofia 
1985) 8o—115,. Zlatarski, Jst. 3:1270—929. -MJ A. 


BORIL, SYNODIKON OF, conventional name 
of a Bulgarian compilation of various ANATHEMAS 
of heretics. Its initial form was a translation from 
a Greek compilation of ecclesiastical bans similar 
to the SYNODIKON OF ORTHODOXY, including some 
anathemas of the 12th C. To this translated part 
an original section was added containing the de- 
cisions of the Bulgarian synod of 1211 convoked 
by Tsar Borit. Later on, complementary entries 


310 BORIS I 


were introduced dealing with ecclesiastical discus- 
sions of the 14th C. The text has survived in two 
major Bulgarian redactions (those of Palauzov 
and of Drinov) as well as in Serbian and Russian 
versions. The Bulgarian redactions probably re- 
veal traces of the editorial work of Evtimy oF 
TOURNOVO. 

LIT. M.G. Popruzenko, Sinodik carja Borila (Sofia 1928). 
I. Dujéev, “Une source byzantine du Synodikon bulgare 
du XIIème siècle,” BS/EB 8, 11-12 (1981, 1984—85) 85— 
93. -A.K. 


BORIS I (Baywprs), Bulgarian khan (852-89); 
died 2 May 907; commemorated in Orthodox 
calendars on 2 May. Byz. sources commonly use 
his baptismal name Michael. Soon after his acces- 
sion Boris contemplated attacking Byz. but re- 
portedly was dissuaded by a personal threat from 
Empress THEODORA (Genes. 61.89—99); a treaty 
may have been concluded in 853 (G. Cankova- 
Petkova, BBulg 4 [1973] 25). During the early 
years of Boris’s reign rivalry between Byz. and 
Western clergy over missionary activity in Bul- 
garia sharply increased in close connection with 
political maneuvering by Rome, Aachen, and 
Constantinople (J.-M. Sansterre, Byzantion 52 
[1982] 375-88; H.-D. Döpmann, Die slawischen 
Sprachen 5 [1987] 21—40). Boris’s treaty with Louis 
the German in 862 provoked a campaign by Cae- 
sar Barbas in 863/4 that compelled the Bulgarian 
ruler to reject a Frankish alliance and be baptized 
in exchange for Byz. recognition of Bulgarian 
settlement in Zagorje south of the Balkans (P. 
Petrov, BBulg 2 [1966] 41-52). One legend says 
that Boris received religious instruction from his 
sister, who had converted to Christianity while a 
captive in Constantinople; another relates how a 
Greek monk painted an icon of the Last Judg- 
ment that terrified Boris into being baptized 
(TheophCont 162.13—165.10). Patr. PHotios bap- 
tized him in 864 (A. Vaillant, M. Lascaris, RES 13 
[1933] 5—15) or perhaps 865/6 (S. Mihajlov, BHR 
5-3 [1977] 63-71). 

The conversion of Boris provoked a revolt by 
conservative Bulgarian nobles, which he cruelly 
suppressed. A letter from Photios in 865 to “the 
God-sent archon” Boris described the duties of a 
Christian ruler (Photii Epistulae et Amphilochia, ed. 
B. Laourdas, L. Westerink, vol. 1 [Leipzig 1983] 
2—39). Byz. intentions to subordinate the Bulgar- 
ian church to Constantinople prompted Boris to 


seek local control over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in 
866 from Pope Nicuovas I; the pope answered 
Boris’s questions about the consequences of con- 
version for Bulgarian customs (see RESPONSA 
NicOLat PAPAE) and indicated that he would send 
a bishop (R. Sullivan in Studies in Medieval and 
Renaissance History 3 [1966] 53—139). Yet Hadrian 
II delayed in appointing a bishop, and in 86g 
Boris sent ambassadors to Basil I; their meeting 
was recorded by ANasTAsIus BIBLIOTHECARIUS 
(Lib.Pont. 2:182~—84). In March 870 a church 
council placed Bulgaria under the patriarchate of 
Constantinople. Boris expelled Western mission- 
aries from Bulgaria, and Patr. IGNATIOS ap- 
pointed clerics to staff the Bulgarian church (V. 
Swoboda, BBulg 2 [1966] 67—81). 

Boris was not hostile to Byz. but realized the 
dangers of hellenization posed by Constantino- 
ple’s religious dominance. In 885/6 he welcomed 
the disciples of CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER 
and MeEtHopios, including KLIMENT OF OHRID, 
who laid the foundation of a Slavic Christian 
culture in Bulgaria. Boris actively patronized the 
church: a later tradition reports that he built 
seven cathedrals (ed. A. Milev, Griichite Zitzja na 
Kliment Ochridski [Sofia 1966] ch.67). He built at 
least one court chapel at Piisxa. In 88g he retired 
to his monastic foundation of St. Panteleemon at 
Preslav, but emerged temporarily in 893 to depose 
his son Vladimir, who favored a pro-Frankish 
alliance and reportedly persecuted Byz. clerics. A 
local church council that summer approved the 
accession of Boriss son SyMEON and officially 
adopted Church Slavonic for Bulgarian liturgical 
use. 

LIT. Vlasto, Entry 158-68. V. Gjuzelev, Knjaz Boris Piirvi 


(Sofia 1969). Dujtev, Medioevo 3:63~75. Zlatarski, Ist. 1.2:1— 
277. —P.A.H, 


BORIS II, tsar of Bulgaria (969-71); son of PE- 
TER OF BuLcarra and Maria (Irene) Lekapena; 
born probably Preslav ca.g30, died near Ikhti- 
man? between ca.g76 and 985. At their mother’s 
death (ca.963), Boris and his brother Romanos 
went as hostages to Constantinople. Returning to 
Bulgaria perhaps as early as 967, Boris was rec- 
ognized as tsar at Peter’s death. Bulgaria was 
already involved in the struggle between Svyaro- 
sav of Kiev and the Byz. On his second invasion, 
Svjatoslav took Preslav (969), apparently peace- 
fully; Boris continued to rule. Jonn 1 TZIMISKES 


captured Boris in Preslav (971, before Apr.). Once 
eastern Bulgaria was subdued, Boris was stripped 
of his crown, taken to Constantinople, and given 
the title magistros; Romanos was castrated. After 
the outbreak of the rebellion of the Komeropou- 
Lol, Boris and Romanos escaped, but on his entry 
into Bulgaria in disguise Boris was slain by a 
Bulgarian guard. Romanos reached Vidin and 
served SAMUEL OF BuLGaRIa. According to an 
1ith-C. historian (Skyl. 346.64—-69), he surren- 
dered Skopje to Basil II (between 1002 and 1004). 

LIT. P.K. Petrov, “Vosstanie Petra i Bojana v 976 g. i 
bor’ba Komitopulov s Vizantiej,” BBulg 1 (1962) 121-44. 
A. Leroy-Molinghen, “Les fils de Pierre de Bulgarie et les 
Cométopoules,” Byzantion 42 (1972) 405-19. -C.M.B. 


BORIS AND GLEB, saints; baptismal names Ro- 
man and David; Boris died 24 July 1015 at L’to 
River, Gleb died 5 Sept. 1015 near Smolensk; 
feastday 24 July. Sons of Viapimir I, Boris and 
Gleb were murdered by their elder half-brother 
(or cousin) Svjatopolk and later widely venerated 
as martyrs. Several Byz, metropolitans of Kiev 
participated in translating the saints’ relics at their 
shrine in VyShorod (north of Kiev): John I (be- 
fore 1039), George (May 1072), and NIKEPHOROS 
I (2 May 1115). A 12th-C. MS attributes the saints’ 
first office to “metropolitan John of Rus’,” that is, 
John I or possibly Jonn II, leading to conjecture 
that the extant Slavonic text was originally com- 
posed in Greek; portions apparently stem from 
Byz. offices for Sts. Prokopios and Kyros and John 
(F. Keller, Slavica Helvetica 7 [1973] 65—74). The 
cults many hagiographic works, including a vita 
by Nestor of Kiev and the 1015 entry in the 
POVEST’ VREMENNYCH LET, also draw heavily on 
Byz. literary traditions (F. von Lilienfeld, BBA 5 
[1957] 237-71; L. Müller, ZSlavPhil 25 [1956] 
329-63, 27 [1959] 274-322, 30 [1962] 14-44). 
So too the saints’ depiction on seals, icons, fres- 
coes, enamel jewelry, and pectoral crosses and in 
MS illuminations reflects Byz. artistic models. Ar- 
menian synaxaria of the 13th C. contain a vita 
often thought (probably incorrectly) to be trans- 
lated from a lost Greek Life (Ya. Dachkevytch, 
REArm n.s. 11 [1975—76] 323-75). In 1200 An- 
TONY of Novgorod reported a church of Boris 
and Gleb in Constantinople (Janin, Eglises CP 65) 
and their icon in Hagia Sophia. 


_ Sources. D.I. Abramovič, Zitija sujatych mučenikov Borisa 
1 Gleba i služby im (Petrograd 1916), rp. with introd. L. 


BORROWING, LINGUISTIC 311 


Müller, Die altrussischen hagiographischen Erzählungen und 
liturgische Dichtungen über die heiligen Boris und Gleb (Munich 
1967). S.A. Buhoslavs’kyj, Ukrajino-rus’ki pam’jatky XI-XVII 
vv pro knjaziv Borysa ta Hliba (Kiev 1928). 

LIT. Poppe, Christian Russia, pt.V1 (1981), 29-53. Pod- 
skalsky, Rus’ 106-16. N. Ingham, “The Martyred Prince 
and the Question of Slavic Cultural Continuity in the Early 
Middle Ages,” in Medieval Russian Culture, eds. H. Birn- 
baum, M. Flier (Berkeley 1984) 31-53. ~P.A.H., S.C.F. 


BORIS KALAMANOVIGC, general; born Kiev 
ca.1113, died near the Danube River ca.1155/6. 
Son of Kalman, king of Hungary (1095—1116), 
and Euphemia, daughter of VLapimiR Mono- 
MACH, he was born after her repudiation by Kál- 
man. Between 1128 and 1130 Boris came to Con- 
stantinople, where he possibly married Anna 
Botaneiataina Doukaina Komnene (as a nun, Ar- 
ete), a descendant of Isaac KOMNENOS and thus a 
cousin of John H (Barzos, Genealogia 2:33—43). 
As a pretender to the Hungarian throne, Boris 
was supported by several neighboring states. 
Around 1151, encouraged by Manuel I, he in- 
vaded Hungary. He was killed fighting Cumans 
south of the Danube. In Sept. 1157 the “kralaina” 
(i.e., the wife of the kralj) Arete Doukaina donated 
fields and parotkoi to the monastery of Hiera- 
Xerochoraphion (V. Laurent, BZ 65 [1972] 35- 
39). (See also KALAMANOS.) 

ur. Vasil’evskij, Trudy 4:79-91. S.P. Rozanov, “Evfimija 
Vladimirovna i Boris Kolomanovit,” /zvANSSSR, otdelenie 
gumanitarnych nauk (1930) 649-71. M. Gumplowicz, “Borys 
Kolomanovic, królewicz węgierski,” Przeglad historyczny 2 
(1906) 5-19. ~C.M.B. 


BORROWING, LINGUISTIC. Greek, like other 
languages, frequently borrowed foreign words for 
new objects or concepts. Where there was wide- 
spread bilingualism, whether regional or typical 
of a professional or other group (e.g., lawyers or 
soldiers), foreign words or expressions might also 
be used for convenience or prestige, even when a 
Greek equivalent existed. Up to the end of the 
6th C. the principal source of loanwords was 
Latin, the official language of the Roman Em- 
pire, and the main semantic fields involved were 
military affairs and public administration. Among 
early Greek loan words from Latin were hospition, 
membrana or membranon, armarion, fabrika, offiki- 
alios, aplikeuo, rogeuo. Literary Greek avoided these 
Latin loan words, replacing them by Greek syn- 
onyms or by circumlocutions. After the 12th C. 


312 BOSNIA 


most loanwords were from the Romance lan- 
guages. Commercial and maritime terms were 
largely borrowed from Italian, terms of feudal 
law and administration from French; examples 
are phrounizato, ph(liskina, kouberta, skouderes, 
printzes, phlamoulon, lizios, exomplion, kaballtkeuo, tenta. 
Turkish loan words, numerous in Greek from the 
mid-ı5th C., are rare in the Byz. period. Middle 
Persian, Proto-Bulgarian, Old Slavonic, Arabic, 
Khazar, Spanish, Catalan, Provençal, and Alba- 
nian also contributed occasional loanwords. To 
survive, loanwords had to be adapted to Greek 
phonological and morphological patterns. The 
gender of a loanword is often uncertain, and 
masculine or feminine words in Latin or Romance 
are often represented by neuter diminutives in 
Greek. Nouns were more easily borrowed than 
verbs. The frequency of borrowing from Latin 
led to the adoption of certain Latin suffixes, for 
example, -arios, -arion, -ianos, which were used to 
form derivatives from Greek stems. Romance suf- 
fixes such as -ella, -ello, -inos on the other hand, 
were scarcely used except in Romance loanwords; 
the principal exception is the Italian verbal suffix 
-aro (aorist -arisa), which became extremely pro- 
ductive in late medieval Greek. 

ur. M. Triantaphyllides, Die Lehnwérter der mittelgriech- 
ischen Vulgdrliteratur (Strassburg 1909), rp. in his Hapantia, 
vol. ı (Thessalonike 1963) 299—494. A. Buturas, Zin Kapitel 
der historischen Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (Leipzig 
1910). Zilliacus, Weltsprach. F. Viscidi, I prestiti latini nei greco 
antico e bizantino (Padua 1944). H. & R. Kahane, A. Tietze, 
The Lingua Franca in the Levant (Urbana, Ill., 1958). N.G. 
Contossopoulos, L'influence du français sur le grec (Athens 


1978). Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica. S. Daris, Il lessico latino 
nel greco d'Egitto (Barcelona 1971). —R.B. 


BOSNIA (Boo[6]va), part of the Roman province 
of Datmatia. Excavations in the territory of Bos- 
nia (D. Basler, Arhitektura kasnoantičkog doba u 
Bosni i Hercegovini [Sarajevo 1972]) have shown 
that urban life and building activity survived there 
during late antiquity. The Slav invasion coincided 
with the ruralization of the area, even though the 
newcomers often settled in old church buildings 
or fortresses (N. Miletić, Balcanoslavica 1 [1972] 
121-27). The name Bosnia (probably of Illyrian 
origin) first appears in the 10th C. in Constantine 
VII Porphyrogennetos (De adm. imp. 32.151) as 
“Bosona”; according to Constantine, Bosona was 
a territory (chorion) parallel to “baptized Serbia” 
and included two kastra—Katera and Desnik. Tra- 
ditional interpretation of this passage (e.g., B. 


Ferjanéié in Vizlzvort 2:59, n.202), that is, that 
Constantine envisaged Bosona as a part of Serbia, 
contradicts the Greek text. A 12th-C. Byz. histo- 
rian (Kinn. 131.22~23) considered Bosnia part of 
Croatia and contrasted it (p.104.8—10) with the 
land of the archiZoupan (prince) of the Serbs. Later 
tradition ascribed to Basil II the conquest of “all 
Bulgaria, Raška and Bosnia” (Ferluga, Byzantium 
201). 

In the 12th C. Byz. claimed that the Croatian 
and “Bosnaios” acknowledged their allegiance to 
the emperor (Browning, Studies, pt.1V [1961], 
203.568—6q), and Manuel I Komnenos accepted 
the epithet “ruler of Bosnia” in his titulature (Reg 
2, no.1469). At the end of the 12th C. the king 
of Hungary became the lord of Bosnia, but Kulin, 
the ban (prince) of Bosnia, managed to find sup- 
port from Pope Innocent III ca.1203. Bosnia 
reached its peak in the 14th C. under King Tvrtko 
(died 1391), who in 1977 assumed the ttle “King 
of Serbia” and in 1389 participated in the battle 
at Kosovo Poje. The teaching of the Bocomits 
penetrated to Bosnia no later than the 12th C, 
and became the official creed of the land. 

uit. V. Ćorović, Historija Bosne, vol. 1 (Belgrade 1940). 
S. Cirković, Istorija srednjovekovne Bosanske države (Belgrade 


1964). J-V-A. Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation 
(New York 1975). -A.K. 


BOSPOROS (Bóoropos, Turk. Boğaziçi), the strait 
linking the Black Sea with the Propontis, usually 
called Stenon by the Byz. It is 28.5 km long (in a 
straight line) and barely 660 m wide at its narrow- 
est. Both shores were studded with small settle- 
ments; the more important are listed below. 

The European Side (south to north). Argyro- 
polis was the area to the east of GALATA. 

St. Mamas (corresponding to Turk. Dolma- 
bahçe rather than Beşiktaş) included a harbor, 
built in 469, and an imperial villa equipped with 
a hippodrome. Leo I, Constantine V and VI, and 
Empress Irene occasionally resided there. The 
villa was burnt by Krum in 813 and robbed of its 
ornaments, but was soon rebuilt. Michael I, who 
used to race chariots there with his courtiers, was 
murdered there (867). The harbor sheltered the 
ships of Anastasios II in 715 and the Kibyrrhaiot 
fleet of Constantine V in 742. By the terms of the 
treaties of go7 and 945, the St. Mamas quarter 
was assigned as the compulsory dwelling place of 
visiting merchants from Rus’ (J. Pargoire, EO 11 
[1908] 203~10). 


St. Phokas (Ortaköy) was the site of a palace 
built by the patrician Arsaber, brother of Patr. 
JOHN VII Grammatixos; Basil I transformed it 
into a monastery. 

Hestiai or Michaelion (Arnautkéy) was the site 
of a famous shrine of St. Michael, attributed to 
Constantine I, in which cures were effected by 
incubation. 

Phoneus was the site of the castle of Rumeli- 
hisarı, built by Mehmed II in 1452. 

Anaplous or Sosthenion (Istinye) is a small nat- 
ural bay next to which was another Church of St. 
Michael, transformed into an important monas- 
tery by Basil I. One mile inland stood the pillar 
of DANIEL THE STYLITE. Nearby was the Georgian 
monastery ta Rhomanou, founded in the gth C. 

The Asiatic Side (north to south). HIERON was 
a fortress. Not far from Hieron stood the mon- 
astery of St. John Prodromos tou PHOBEROU, res- 
idence of the painter Lazaros who was perse- 
cuted under Emp. Theophilos. 

Firenaion (Çubuklu) was the site of the mon- 
astery of the AKOIMETOIL, established soon after 
430. 

Ta Anthemiou (near Anadoluhisari), was the 
site of a monastery founded by Alexios MosELE, 
son-in-law of Theophilos. 

Sophianai (usually placed at Çengelköy), a pal- 
ace built by Justin H and named after his wife 
Sophia, was the birthplace of Herakleios Constan- 
tine (612). 

Bithynian CHRYSOPOLIS was a village, not a town. 
Its most famous Byz. feature was a lavish mon- 
astery built in 594 by Philippikos, brother-in-law 
of Maurice. Maximos the Confessor is claimed to 
have been its hegoumenos; so was the future patri- 
arch PyrrHos. The body of the murdered em- 
peror Michael III was temporarily buried here in 
867. The point south of the harbor of Chrysopolis 
was called Damalis (lit. “heifer”) after an antique 
statue of a cow. Manuel I had a palace there. 

ur. E, Oberhummer, RE 3 (1899) 741~57- J. Pargoire, 
“Anaple et Sosthéne,” JRAIK 3 (1898) 60—97. Idem, “Les 
Saint-Mamas de Constantinople,” /RAIK g (1904) 261-316. 
Janin, CP byz. 468-89. Janin, Églises centres 5—29 (for Asiatic 


shore). S. Eyice, Bizans devrinde Boğaziçi (Istanbul 1976). 
-C.M. 


BOSPOROS, CIMMERIAN (Crimean), ancient 
name of the Straits of Kerč, the passage leading 
from the Black Sea to the Azov Sra, as well as 
the name of the ancient city of Pantikapaion at 


BOSTRA 313 


the extreme eastern tip of Crimea; until the end 
of the 4th C. Pantikapaion was the capital of the 
kingdom of Cimmerian Bosporos, an ally of Rome. 
Excavations give evidence of a slow decline in the 
4th C.; local coins ceased to be issued in 336/7. 
Nonetheless, the site has yielded important LAR- 
GITIO DISHES and other 4th- and 5th-C. Byz. silver 
(Iskusstvo Vizantit 1, nos. 34, 35, 44, 48). Occupa- 
tion by the Goths ca.370 aggravated the economic 
situation of the people of Bosporos. According to 
Gajdukevié (infra 498), ca.400 Bosporos occupied 
barely one-tenth of its former territory, yet it 
remained an important commercial center con- 
nected with lands as distant as Egypt and Syria. 
Christianity penetrated Bosporos in the grd C., 
and its bishops attended the ecumenical councils 
of 325 and 431. 

Under Hunnic rule in the 5th C., Bosporos 
offered allegiance to the Byz. Empire ca.530; Jus- 
tinian I tried to make it a center of resistance to 
the Huns. As early as 576 the Old Turks occupied 
Bosporos. From the 7th C.—when the main city 
received the name “Keré’—until the ioth C. Bos- 
poros was a province of the Khazar realm. It was 
governed by a tarchan, but the population re- 
mained in part Christian: in the 8th C. a large 
Church of John the Baptist was built in Bosporos. 
In the 11th C. it was a part of the Rus’ princedom 
of TMuUTOROKAN and received the name of Kor- 
čev. Archaeological excavation has revealed Byz. 
ceramics of the 10th and 11th C. Bosporos was 
probably under the direct control of Byz. in the 
12th C. and can tentatively be identified as the 
port of Rosia (Rusiya), named in some Greek 
and Arab sources. After 1223 and before 1240 
the Mongols became its suzerains. With the Mon- 
gols’ permission, the Genoese soon established 
there a colony called Vosporo that, in 1332, was 
granted the rank of metropolis. Vosporo was con- 
quered by the Ottomans in 1475. 

LIT. V. Gajdukevit, Das bosporanische Reich (Berlin- 
Amsterdam 1971) 497—519. I. Kruglikova, Bospor v 
pozdneantiénoe vremja (Moscow 1966). T. Makarova, “Sred- 
nevekovyj Koréev,” KrSoobinstArch 104 (1965) 70-76. G. 
Litavrin, “Novye svedenija o Severnom Priternomor’e (XII 
v.),” in Feodal’naja Rossija vo vsemirno-istori¢eskom processe 
(Moscow 1972) 297-42. N. Brunov, “Pamjatnik ranne- 


vizantijskoj architektury v Keréi,” VizVrem 25 (1927) 87- 
105. ~O.P., A.C. 


BOSTRA (Béorpa, now Buşra [Bosra] in Syria), 
capital city and metropolitan bishopric of prov- 
ince of AraBia and seat of its doux. Tirus of 


314 BOTA 


Bostra was bishop of the city in the 4th C. Bostra 
was an important trading center {in wine and 
grain) on the Via Trajana, esp. for caravans com- 
ing via Aila from Mecca. Extensive remains (civic, 
religious, and private) of the 4th—7th C. include 
ten inscriptions of Justinian I dated 539/40 and 
referring to the restoration of an aqueduct, wall 
construction, a Church of St. Job, and some un- 
identified buildings. Unusually large in scope, the 
extent of the construction seems to conflict with 
Prokopios’s account of Justinianic work at Bostra, 
which is limited to a poorhouse (ptocheion; Build- 
ings 5.9.22). Although the aisled-tetraconch Church 
of Sts. Sergios, Bakchos, and Leontios (R. Farioli 
in Studien Deichmann 1:133—42), finished in 512/ 
13, has been called the cathedral of Bostra, the 
latter should perhaps be identified with an even 
larger church discovered in 1985, of which the 
nave is on a scale with that of Hagia Sophia, 
Constantinople (Dentzer, infra 138, fig.5). Theo- 
dore, the “bishop of Bostra (?),” a companion of 
Jacor Barapagus and leader of the Monophysites 
of Arabia from the 540s, was not, apparently, 
resident in the city, whose list of known Chalce- 
donian bishops is extensive. Under the Arabs, 
Bostra was a prosperous pilgrimage stop between 
Damascus and Mecca. 

uit. M. Sartre, Bostra: Des origines à l'Islam (Paris 1985) 
41, 99-139. Idem, /GLSyr 13 (1982). J.-M. Dentzer, “Bosra,” 
in Contribution française à l'archéologie syrienne (Damascus 
1989) 133741. ~M.M.M. 


BOTA (Bora, from Lat. vota publica), a festival 
celebrated on 3 Jan., dating from 44 B.c. The 
Bota was celebrated in the traditional manner 
with sacrifices and public prayers at banquets and 
in the Hippodrome until the end of the 4th C., 
when Emps. Arkadios and Honorius proscribed 
the sacrifices. The Council in TruLLo forbade 
Christians to celebrate the Bota, probably because 
the sacrifices were still being performed (Trom- 
bley, “Trullo” 5). A variant of the Bota called the 
Foot-race Boton (boton pezodromion) existed in 
Constantinople in the gth and 10th C. The Bota 
remained on the official calendar of court cere- 
monial until the time of Constantine VII Porphy- 
rogennetos, though by then the ritual was entirely 
christianized. Memory of the Bota had died out 
by the time of Balsamon (12th C.), who, using a 
false etymology for Bota (he confused it with the 
Greek word for “grazing beasts”), speaks of it as 


a festival of “the falsely named god Pan, the 
overseer, as the pagans blather, of beasts, cattle, 
and other animals” (Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 
2:450.11—15). 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 2.1:24f. I. Rochow, “Zu ‘heid- 
nischen’ Brauchen bei der Bevölkerung des byzantinischen 
Reiches im 7. Jahrhundert,” Kio 60 (1978) 487. —F.R.T. 


BOTANEIATES (Boraveidrys), a noble lineage 
first mentioned in an inscription of 571 from the 
Synada region (G. Buckler, Byzantion 6 [1931] 
405-10); Artemon Botaneiates, surnamed Krou- 
beles, was however from a place called Botania or 
Botane rather than a member of the family. AT- 
TALEIATES praised the family’s nobility and estab- 
lished an evidently forged pedigree from the Ro- 
man Fabii; in contrast, Psellos (Chron. 2:183, 
par.18.21—25) asserted that Michael VII elevated 
the family from a modest status to high rank. 
Other than Andrew Botaneiates, spatharios (?) and 
anthypatos, whose seal is dated tentatively to the 
gth C., the Botaneiatai became prominent only in 
the 10th C. According to Attaleiates, Nikephoros 
Botaneiates was Basil Hs archistrategos. GREGORY 
Asu’L-Fara] preserves the (legendary?) informa- 
tion that Nikephoros “Votanik” was a peasant who 
attained high positions in Cyprus and Antioch, 
fell into disgrace, and ended in penury. His son 
Michael was also Basil II’s general who served in 
Thessalonike and against Abchasia. Theophylak- 
tos was governor of Thessalonike in the early 11th 
C. His son Michael participated in the battle of 
1014 against the Bulgarians. With no reason Zla- 
tarski (Ist. 1.2:732 and n.g) identified him with 
the first Michael, whose father was not Theophy- 
laktos, but Nikephoros; the son of the first Mi- 
chael was the emperor NikepHoRos III BOTA- 
NEIATES. An unnamed grandson of Nikephoros 
HI (Michael, according to P. Gautier, REB 27 
[1969] 342) was betrothed to the daughter of 
Manuel Komnenos, Alexios I’s brother. The re- 
lationship of other Botaneiatai to Nikephoros can- 
not be established; until the first half of the 12th 
C. they were military commanders (e.g., Eustra- 
tios, strategos of Byblos) and landowners, related 
to both Komnenoi and Doukai; the death of George 
Botaneiates was lamented by Prodromos. By the 
end of the 12th C. their role declined: John Bo- 
taneiates served ca.1197 as taboularios on Crete. 
The later Botaneiatai (PLP, nos. 3001-093) held 
insignificant positions. 


uit. K. Amantos, “Hoi Botaniatai,” Hellenika 8 (1935) 
48. A. Kazhdan, “Some Notes on the Byzantine Prosopog- 
raphy of the Ninth through the Twelfth Centuries,” ByzF 
12 (1987) 67£. Byz. Aristocracy 254-66. M. Bartusis, “A Seal 
of Nikephoros Votaneiates,” MN 29 (1984) 135-41. 

—A.K. 


BOTANY. In Byz., botany was a sum of dispersed 
observations, mostly derived from ancient texts, 
rather than a discipline in its own right. Byz. 
botany stood in the context of a rich lore, stan- 
dardized in Greco-Roman times by the widely 
circulated handbooks of Theophrastos, Cato, 
Varro, Columella, and Pliny the Elder. The 10th- 
C. GEOPONIKA compacts much data from earlier 
farmers’ manuals, popular knowledge, and botan- 
ical tracts drawn from both Greek and Latin 
sources. Some botanical MSS seem to be dry lists 
of names and synonyms, but other texts indicate 
how Byz. botanists and herbalists improved on 
their predecessors’ work. Study of Byz. scholia to 
DioskoribdEs reveals observations taken directly 
from nature, and vivid proof of Byz. botanical art 
is in the illuminated SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS, par- 
ticularly the Vienna Dioskorides. Later MSS also 
show detailed care, and Byz. texts of Dioskorides, 
NIKANDER, and similar authors suggest botanical 
skills throughout the Byz. millennium. The poly- 
mathic curiosity of PseELLos encompassed botani- 
cal lore deemed extraordinary or marvelous, and 
Manuel Pures displayed expert knowledge of 
gardening in several of his poems on domesti- 
cated plants. Botany explicated plants in AGRICUL- 
TURE, dietetics, the compounding of drugs for 
PHARMACOLOGY (J. Scarborough, DOP 38 [1984] 
229-32), and occasionally in magical texts speci- 
fying herbs—for instance, the Geoponika and its 
sources, the Properties of Foods by Symeon SETH, 
and the scholia to Dioskorides. 

sources. Delatte, AnecdAth 2:273—454. Textes grecs inédits 
relatifs aux plantes, ed. M.H. Thomson (Paris 1955) 125— 
75. Idem, Le jardin symbolique (Paris 1960). 

LIT. E.L. Greene, Landmarks of Botanical History, vol. 1 
(Stanford, Calif., 1983) 426-33. J]. Stannard, “Byzantine 
Botanical Lexicography,” Episteme 5 (1971) 168-87. Hun- 
ger, Lit. 2:271-—76. —J.S. 


BOTHROS (866pos, lit. “pit” or “ditch”), assessor 
or inspector for the sale of animals in Constanti- 
nople. They are mentioned only in the Book of the 
Eparch (ch.21) and in the Tipoukeitos referring to 
the Book of the Eparch. On the basis of the state- 


BOUCICAUT | 315 


ment in the Tipoukeitos, Sjuzjumov (Bk. of Eparch 
251) assumed that there had been a special decree 
of Leo VI on the bothroi that was included in the 
Book of the Eparch but in an incomplete form. 

The bothrot operated in the Forum Amas- 
trianum, where the horse market and evidently 
the market for other animals was held. These 
officials had to be registered with the office of the 
eparch and wear a badge with their individual 
number. Their main function was to examine the 
animals that were for sale and to declare their 
patent or latent defects; for this service they were 
paid one keration per animal. After the close of 
the market they bought the unsold animals. ‘Their 
name originates from that activity, since they dis- 
posed of the leftover animals (i.e., removed them 
from the marketplace). The elder (prostateuon) of 
the bothrot received from each member of the 
guild 12 folleis a year, either for the sponsorship 
of a liturgical procession (according to Sjuzjumov) 
or for maintenance of the sewer (according to 
E.H. Freshfield, Roman Law in the Later Roman 
Empire [Cambridge 1938] 47). Among his other 
duties were the recovery of stolen animals and 
service as a judge or arbiter. 


LIT. Stéckle, Zünfte 51-54. ~A.K. 


BOUCICAUT (Jean II Le Meingre), French mar- 
shal; born Tours 1366, died England 1421. Bou- 
cicaut was a French soldier who participated in 
the Crusade of Nikopo.is (1396), was captured 
by the Turks, and subsequently ransomed. In 
1399 Charles VI of France appointed him com- 
mander of a small expeditionary force of 1,200 
men dispatched to relieve Constantinople, which 
was under Ottoman siege. He fought his way 
through the blockade of the Hellespont and joined 
ManuEL II in minor raids in the vicinity of the 
capital. Boucicaut soon realized that larger armies 
were needed and suggested that Manuel visit 
western Europe to seek military assistance. Bou- 
cicaut also negotiated a reconciliation between 
Manuel and his nephew Joun VII, who served as 
regent during the emperor's absence. Departing 
from Constantinople in Dec. 1399, Boucicaut es- 
corted Manuel as far as Venice and then preceded 
him to Paris. At first Charles VI promised to 
extend for one year the services of Boucicaut and 
his men to the Byz., but plans for a relief expe- 
dition fell through in 1401 when Boucicaut was 


316 BOUDONITZA 


appointed governor of Genoa, a new French de- 
pendency. Manuel and Boucicaut met again near 
Modon (Methone) in 1403, and Boucicaut pro- 
vided four Genoese galleys to transport Manuel 
on the final leg of his return to Constantinople. 
ur. Barker, Manuel H 162-71, 174, 189, 235-37. J. 


Delaville Le Roulx, La France en Orient au XIVe siècle: expé- 
ditions du Maréchal Boucicaut (Paris 1886). —A.M.T. 


BOUDONITZA (Bov6ovirla, also Mountinitza, 
Lat. Bodoniza, and other forms), Latin marquis- 
ate in the area of Thermopylai; its name is of 
Slavic origin (Vasmer, Slaven 106, no.36). The 
pass of Thermopylai was fortified by Justinian I 
and then by Basil IJ, but there was no population 
center until the 13th C., when BONIFACE OF MONT- 
FERRAT entrusted the region to an Italian adven- 
turer Guido (Guy) Pallavicini, the first marquis 
(1204 to sometime after 1237). The castle on a 
hill was constructed on ancient foundations and 
controlled the pass of Thermopylai. Nearby was 
a monastery where Michael Cuontares sought 
refuge after 1204. Originally under the authority 
of the prince of ACHAIA, the marquisate extended 
its territory as far north as Lamia and emerged 
as a major rival to Theodore Komnenos Doukas 
of Epiros. Later it fell under the control of the 
duke of Athens. It survived a Catalan attack in 
1911 but in 1332 the region was plundered by 
the Turks. In the second half of the 14th C. 
Boudonitza prospered under the rule of Marquis 
Francesco, who was supported by the Venetians, 
but the Ottomans continued their attacks: in 1408 
some of its inhabitants moved, with their livestock, 
to southern Euboea; the castle fell to the Turks 
on 20 June 1414. 

Women ruled the marquisate on several occa- 
sions: Marchioness Isabella, Maria della Carceri, 
Guglielma Pallavicini. The Latin bishopric was a 
suffragan of Athens; a Greek notitia (Notitiae CP 
13.458) also mentions a bishop of Mountinitza, 
who is probably distinct from the bishop of Boun- 
ditza known from the 10th C. onward (Notitiae CP 
7-579). 

Although the walls of the lower town are not 
well preserved, the 13th-C. fortress survives largely 
intact: an outer wall and an interior keep with a 
central tower. Within the walls are the remains of 
buildings and cisterns. 


ur. TIB 1:221f, 273-75. W. Miller, “The Marquisate of 
Boudonitza (1204—1414),” JHS 28 (1908) 234-49. A. Bon, 
“Forteresses médiévales de la Grèce centrale,” BCH 6, 
(1937) 148-63. P.A. MacKay, “Procopius’ De Aedificiis and 
the Topography of Thermopylac,” AJA 67 (1963) 241~55,. 
-T.E.G. 


BOUKELLARIOI (GouxedAdcdptot) were soldiers 
in the personal service of military and, occasion- 
ally, civil authorities from the beginning of the 
5th C. onward (H.-J. Diesner, Klio 54 [1972] 321— 
24); the term boukellarios allegedly derives from 
the higher quality bread (Lat. bucellatum) they 
received. Drawn from all classes and many na- 
tionalities, these private retainers were chiefly 
concerned with their employer’s security and the 
coercion (or elimination) of his rivals. They formed 
their commander’s BODYGUARD while on cam- 
paign and were often assigned important tasks 
because of their superior equipment and fighting 
abilities. Many rose to prominence, including BE- 
LISARIOS, who later, as supreme commander, raised 
a force of 7,000 boukellarioi on which he relied 
heavily during his campaigns (Prokopios, Wars 
7.1.18—20). 

During the 6th C. the state recruited boukellarioi 
(usually through private citizens) as police and 
tax-collectors and for local defense; the case of 
Egypt is particularly well documented (J. Gascou, 
BIFAO 76 [1976] 143-6). Other terms denoting 
privately hired soldiers (hypaspistai, spathariot) 
gradually replaced doukellariot, which by the 7th 
C. had come to designate one of the élite units 
comprised in the Opsrxion field force. 


tir. Jones, LRE 666f. Haldon, Praetorians 101f, 210-27. 
ELM. 


BOUKELLARION (BovxedAdpiov), a THEME of 
central Asia Minor, detached from the OPSIKION 
in the 8th C. and named for the privately hired 
soldiers, BOUKELLARIOL, Its strategos is first attested 
in 767. Boukellarion comprised Galatia, Hono- 
rias, Paphlagonia, and parts of Phrygia and was 
commanded by a strategos with 8,000 troops and 
headquarters at ANKYRA; he was paid 30 pounds 
of gold. In the gth C. Boukellarion included two 
towns and 13 fortresses. Circa 842 PAPHLAGONIA 
was detached; under Leo VI Boukellarion lost the 
region east of the Halys to CHARSIANON and its 
southern districts around the Salt Lake to CAP- 


papociA. The reduced theme subsisted into the 
sith C; the region was Jost to the Turks after 
the battle of Mantzikert in 1071. 


ur. TIB 4:62—67. ~CF. 


BOUKOLEON (Bovkokéwy, lit. “bull lion”), a 
quarter of Constantinople on the shore of the Sea 
of Marmara, south of the Great PALACE. It took 
its name from an ancient statue depicting colossal 
figures of a lion and a bull. It is not known when 
the statue was brought to the site; it survived the 
fall of Constantinople in 1453 and was described 
by western visitors in the 16th C. On the shore 
was a palace, or probably two palaces, one called 
the “palation of Leo Makellos,” another the “house 
of Justinian.” Their precise location has not yet 
been determined; the buildings probably adjoined 
the sea walls. The palace harbor, located in the 
same area, was called the limen of Boukoleon. 
ut. Guilland, Topographie 1:249—93. Janin, CP byz. 101, 
120f, 294, 2971. -A.K. 


BOULGAROPHYGON (Boviyapodvyov), now 
Baba Eski, near Adrianople, a battlefield where 
SYMEON OF BULGARIA routed the Byz. army in 
896. The war against Bulgaria had been stabilized 
after Symeon’s first successes, thanks to the activ- 
ity of Nikephoros PHoxas and the employment 
of Hungarian contingents. Then, however, Styli- 
anos ZAOUTZES, fearful of Nikephoros’s influence, 
managed to replace him with Leo Katakalon, who 
allowed Symeon to defeat the Hungarians with 
the help of the Pecuenecs; thus when Katakalon 
met Symeon at Boulgarophygon, the rear of the 
Bulgarian army was no longer threatened. Sy- 
meon won the battle, Katakalon barely escaped, 
and his lieutenant, the protovestiarios Theodosios, 
was killed. Al-Tapari preserves the story that Leo 
VI, in despair, ordered the arming of Arab cap- 
tives to be sent against Symeon, but the Bulgarian 
prince did not wait for a new confrontation and 
signed a treaty: he returned to Byz. go strong- 
holds seized in the theme of Dyrrachion, whereas 
Byz. was obliged to pay an annual tribute. 
R. Nasledova suggests that the peace treaty was 
signed only in go4, after Leo or Trirou attacked 
Thessalonike (Dve vizantyskie chroniki X veka [Mos- 
cow 1959] 221f). Whether Symeon marched against 


BOURTZES 317 


Constantinople before or immediately after the 
battle at Boulgarophygon remains unclear. 

ur. R. Abicht, “Der Angriff der Bulgaren auf Constan- 
tinopel im Jahre 896 n. Chr.,” Archiv für slavische Philologie 
17 (1895) 477-82. G.T. Kolias, “He para to Boulgarophy- 
gon mache kai he dethen poliorkia tes Konstantinoupoleos 
(896),” Archeion tou Thrakikou Laographikou kai Glossikou The- 
saurou 7 (1940—41) 341—862. ~ALK. 


BOULLOTERION. See SEALING IMPLEMENTS. 


BOULLOTES (BovAdwrijs), an assistant of the 
EPARCH mentioned in the Kletorologion of Philo- 
theos. The Book of the Eparch imposed corporal 
punishment on a silk weaver who prevented a 
boullotes or mitotes trom entering his workshop. 
Both officials evidently performed the function 
of inspector, controlling the quality of products 
and certifying quality by affixing a seal (boulla). 
tir. Stéckle, Zünfte 93. G. Spyridakes, “To ergon tou 
mitotou kata to Eparchikon Biblion Leontos tou Sophou,” 


in Mélanges O. et M. Merlier, vol. 2 (Athens 1956) 417-29. 
—ALK. 


BOURTZES (Bovprins, fem. Boúprťawa), a lin- 
eage of military aristocracy probably originating 
from the Euphrates region. The name could de- 
rive either from Arabic burj, “tower,” or from the 
toponym Bourtzo-Soterioupolis (near Trebi- 
zond). They were considered Armenians by P. 
Charanis, Arabs by V. Laurent (see Kazhdan, 
infra). The family first appears in the second half 
of the 10th C. Michael Bourrzes was doux of 
Antioch under Nikephoros II Phokas; he sup- 
ported the rebel Bardas SKLEROS but later went 
over to Basil II; he was again governor of Antioch 
ca.ggo—g6. Three of Michael’s descendants—the 
brothers Michael, Theognostos, and Samuel—were 
involved in a plot against Constantine VIII, who 
blinded Constantine Bourtzes, Michael’s son, in 
1025/6. To the same time should be dated a case 
of Peira (60.1): a certain Bourtzes bequeathed his 
land to his three sons, one of whom became re- 
bellious and forfeited his estates. Nonetheless the 
family was among the noblest of the mid-11th C.: 
an 11th-C. historian (Skyl. 488.63-—66) calls a 
Bourtzes (along with Skleros, Botaneiates, and 
Argyros) a most influential archon of the Anato- 
likon theme. Samuel Bourtzes commanded the 


318 BOURTZES, MICHAEL 


infantry in 1050; Michael Bourtzes was a military 
commander during the reign of Michael V1; and 
Theognostos was strategos of Devol in the 1070s. 
Under Alexios I a certain Bourtzes became to- 
parches of Cappadocia and Choma. In the early 
12th C. several members of the family possessed 
lands next to Mt. Athos; a forged chrysobull of 
Emp. John V (Kastam., p.84.11) mentions the 
church of “our holy father Nicholas surnamed 
Bourtzes.” The family was closely related to the 
MELISSENOI. From the 12th C. the family’s posi- 
tion declined; they appear in the provinces: for 
example, Constantine, an official on Crete in 1117/ 
18 (MM 6:96.29—30), and George, metropolitan 
of Athens (died 1160—J]. Darrouzés, REB 20 [1962] 
190). John Tzetzes wrote to an unknown Bourtzes. 
The name is very infrequent in later texts (PLP, 
nos. 3110—11). 


ur. Cheynet-Vannier, Etudes 15-55. Kazhdan, Arm. 85— 
88. -A.K. 


BOURTZES, MICHAEL, general (died after 996). 
In 968 NixepHoros II PHoxas bestowed upon 
him the title of patrikios and appointed him stra- 
tegos of the Black Mountain, with the special task 
of watching ANTIOCH. Disobeying imperial or- 
ders, Bourtzes and the eunuch Peter (former slave 
of a Phokas) attacked Antioch and in late 969 
took it from the Arabs. Bourtzes, however, was 
not rewarded for his success; this injustice incited 
his support of Jonn (I) Tzrmiskes, whom Bourtzes 
helped to murder Nikephoros Il. Basi I ap- 
pointed Bourtzes doux of Antioch, and, with Peter, 
Bourtzes participated in the battle of LAPARA in 
976 against Bardas SKLEROS; Bourtzes was, how- 
ever, the first to take flight. Soon after this defeat 
he deserted to Skleros and fought against the 
emperor, but was again defeated. Skylitzes (Skyl. 
321.58—59) stresses that those who fell at this 
battle were primarily Armenians. Soon Bourtzes 
joined Basil I's army and together with Bardas 
PHokas fought against Skleros. In ggo—g6 he 
served again as governor of Antioch. 

LIT. V. Laurent, “La chronologie des gouverneurs 


d'Antioche sous la seconde domination byzantine,” Mél- 
Univ]os 38 (1962) 229-34. -À.K. 


BOUTHROTON (Bov@pwrév, mod. Butrinti in 
Albania), located on the mainland opposite KER- 
KYRA, in late antiquity a city of Old Epiros (Hierokl. 


652.4); it was a suffragan bishopric (attested from 
the mid-sth C.) of Nixopo is, later of NAUPAKTos, 
It was probably ruralized thereafter: ARSENIOS, 
metropolitan of Kerkyra, praised its richness in 
fish and oysters, as well as the fertility of its 
territory. In the 12th C. al-Idrisi described Bou- 
throton as a small town with markets. In 1081 
and 1084 Bouthroton was captured by the Nor- 
mans. After 1204 it was first controlled by the 
despotate of Epiros, but from the mid-13th C. 
Bouthroton was contested between MANFRED OF 
Sicity, Michael VIII, and CHARLES I oF Anjou, 
being temporarily returned to the Epirots. In 
1386 it was ceded to Venice. 

The surviving fortifications of Bouthroton are 
mainly post-Byz., but they contain masonry from 
as early as the 10th C. Remains of several Early 
Christian basilicas and a triconch building have 
been found; east of the ancient theater is an 
elaborate baptistery renovated in the 6th C., with 
mosaics probably of the 4th C. On the acropolis 
are ruins of a large three-aisled basilica with tran- 
sept, probably constructed in the 5th—6th C., re- 
built in the 11th-12th C. In the northeast corner 
of the walls are remains of a small single-aisled 
church, probably of the 13th—14th C. 

LIT. TIB 3:132—34. D. Pallas, RBK 2:232—35. L.M. Ugo- 
lini, Albania Antica 3 (Rome 1942). A. Ducellier, “Observa- 
tions sur quelques monuments d'Albanie,” RA (1965) 184- 
88. C. Asdracha, “Deux actes inédits concernant l'Epire,” 
REB 35 (1977) 1560—05. -T.EG. 


BOUTOUMITES (Bovrovpirns), a family name 
of unclear origin: Ja. Ljubarskij (in Anna Kom- 
nina, Aleksiada [Moscow 1965] 524, n.688) derives 
it from the toponym Boutoma-Budva in Serbia. 
A certain Boutoumites (died 1077), presumably a 
local landowner, was a donor to the pious insti- 
tution of Michael ATTALEIATES (P. Gautier, REB 
39 [1981] 127.171). In the 1070s Michael Bou- 
toumites was in charge of the private militia of 
Michael Maurex in Herakleia Pontike (Bryen. 
199.8—10). His later contemporary, Manuel Bou- 
toumites, was a “warlike and noble man,” accord- 
ing to Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 2:160.25—26); 
he was doux of the fleet ca.10g0, doux of Nicaea 
after its recapture in 1097, commander in Cilicia 
in 1105, and envoy to Jerusalem in 1111/12. He 
may have been governor of Cyprus, as Laurent 
suggested (Coll. Orghidan, p.215). The family 
eventually lost its status, but a certain Boutomites 


(sic) is known as a kephale in a Thessalian town in 
the early 14th C. (PLP, no.3128). -A.K. 


BRABEION (GpaBeiov), properly “prize” or “re- 
ward,” the term used in the Kletorologion of PHILO- 
THEOS to designate INSIGNIA by which a DIGNITY 
was conferred upon its holder. It might take the 
form of a crown without cross (given to the cae- 
sar), tunics, ivory tablets, gold chains, special di- 
plomata, etc. 


tir. Bury, Adm. System 22. -A.K. 


BRACELET (Bpaxyxıáħov or Bpaxodcoy, lit. 
“armband,” xàáviov). Said in Justinian’s Digest 
(34.2.25.10) to be worn by women, a bracelet is 
often shown in depictions of jewelry as part of a 
matching set, together with earrings, necklace, 
and belt. No such complete sets have survived, 
however. Bracelets preserved in collections are 
usually of gold and silver, although examples in 
ivory are also known. Specimens excavated usu- 
ally from graves are more often bronze with traces 
of gilding, or simple crass bangles. These gen- 
erally seem to be locally produced, although spec- 
imens found in Kiev were imported from Byz. 
(Ju. Stapova, Steklo Kievskoj Rusi [Moscow 1972] 
107-13). The Roman form of a plain ring made 
of twisted gold or silver wires continued until the 
4th C. In the 4th—5th C., gemstones were added 
and OPUS INTERRASILE was used. In the 5th—6th 
C., tubular hoops had low relief decorative and 
figural elements. In the 6th—7th C. the form be- 
came more complex, with medallions or coins, 
modeled animal forms, and GEMS in decorative 
claw settings added. In the 7th—11th C. wide 
bands with relief figures and sometimes Christian 
iconography predominate. These bracelets are 
fairly heavy, with hinged fasteners, as opposed to 
the ring types that slip over the hand or incom- 
plete rings that relied on the metal’s flexibility. 
Examples of less elaborate bracelets from the 7th— 
11th C. tend to be narrower, not hinged, and with 
punched decoration. 

UT. C. Lepage, “Les bracelets de luxe romains et byzan- 


tins du He au VIe siècle,” CahArch 21 (1971) 17-23. 
—§.D.C., A.C. 


BRACHAMIOS (Bpaydutos, fem. Bpaxauńva, 
Bpaxapiva), noble family with a name of Arme- 
nian origin, meaning “descendant of Vahram.” 


BRANAS 319 


The family flourished in the mid-ioth C. when 
the Arab poet Abu Firās mentioned “the family 
of Bahrām” among Byz. fighting against the Ar- 
abs (N. Adontz, M. Canard, Byzantion 11 [1936] 
454, v.11). Sachakios (Arm. Sahak, {shag ibn Bah- 
ram of Arabic sources) was a general by 969 and 
later supported the revolt of Bardas SKLEROS. 
Eleventh-century seals attest several strategoi named 
Brachamios (George, Demetrios, Michael) as well 
as Kale Brachamina, wife of a strategos, and Elpi- 
dios, doux of Cyprus. 

Philaretos Brachamios (Varazhnuni), Romanos 
IV’s strategos, doux and, according to Anna Kom- 
nene (An.Komn. 2:64.5—8), domestikos, was—if we 
believe MICHAEL I THE SyRIAN (Chronique, tr. Cha- 
bot 3:1'73)—an Armenian robber from the village 
of Shurbaz; thus his identification as a Byz. gen- 
eral is questionable. After Romanos IV’s blinding, 
Philaretos became independent ruler of Tarsos, 
Antioch, Edessa, Melitene, and some other east- 
ern centers. Greek, Syriac, and Armenian tradi- 
tions all charge Philaretos with cruelty and greed: 
he allegedly confiscated the riches of Antiochene 
magnates and distributed them among his sup- 
porters. After Nikephoros IIs accession to the 
throne, Philaretos acknowledged his allegiance to 
the Byz. and was proclaimed kouropalates and do- 
mestikos ton scholon of the East; in 1084 he surren- 
dered Antioch to the Turks. He disappeared 
thereafter from the scene, but an anonymous 
Syriac chronicle mentions the sons of Philaretos 
domestikos, “Christians” (i.e., Orthodox) who ruled 
over Maraş and Black Mountain (A.S. Tritton, 
H.A.R. Gibb, JRAS [Jan. 1933] 72f). The family 
is not known after the 11th C., except in 1171 
when Brachamioi served as messengers in nego- 
tiations between Manuel I and the Armenians. 

ur. Cheynet-Vannier, Etudes 57—74. Adontz, Etudes 147—- 
52. V.A. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, Armjane-chalkidonity na vos- 
toénych granicach Vizantijskoj imperii (Erevan 1980) 152-69. 
CJ. Yaruley, “Philaretus: Armenian Bandit or Byzantine 


General?” REArm n.s. 9 (1972) 331-53. -A.K. 


BRAD. See KAPER BARADA. 


BRANAS (Bpavas, fem. Bpoárvawa), a noble lin- 
eage, its name apparently of Slavic origin (I. Dujčev, 
IzvuľnstBùŭlgIst 6 [1956] 348, n.3), although S. Lam- 
pros considered it Albanian and Ph. Koukoules 
Latino-Greek. In Serbia the name of Branos (Vran, 


320 | BRANAS, ALEXIOS 


lit. “raven”) is known in the 1oth C. (De adm. imp. 
32.67). Members of the Branas family appear in 
Byz. sources from the 11th C., primarily as mili- 
tary commanders: in 1047 Marianos Branas was 
the closest supporter of Leo Tornikios; Nicholas, 
Alexios I’s general, fell in battle against the Pech- 
enegs in 1086; George and his brother Demetrios 
were Manuel I’s generals; Michael, governor of 
Niš in 1147, commanded an army on Cyprus in 
1156, was strategos of Cilicia, and in 1166 unsuc- 
cessfully campaigned against the Hungarians. Al- 
exios Branas revolted against Isaac II (see BRANas, 
ALEXIOS); his contemporary John was governor 
of Dyrrachion in 1185. Alexios’s son Theodore, 
commander of the Alans, supported Alexios IHT's 
rebellion in 1195; after 1204 Theodore, married 
to AGNES OF FRANCE, became a vassal of the Latin 
Empire, as the lord of Didymoteichon and Adri- 
anople. The Branas family was related to both 
Komnenoi and Angeloi; the PaRTITIO ROMANIAE 
mentions their large estates. In the 13th C. the 
Branas family possessed properties in the Smyrna 
region (Ahrweiler, “Smyrne” 168f). The family 
intermarried with other noble families such as 
Palaiologos and Petraliphas. In 1259 Irene Bra- 
naina married the sebastokrator Constantine PA- 
LAIOLOGOS, and ca.1300 several members of the 
Branas family proudly called themselves the em- 
peror’s doulot and otkeioi: Theodore in 1281-85, 
Michael in 1281—1302 (?) (both also surnamed 
Komnenoi), another Theodore in 1329-30; no 
evidence of their holding any offices exists, how- 
ever (PLP, nos. 3149-51, 3153~82). On the other 
hand, some family members in this period were 
clerics and intellectuals: a Theodore Branas, scribe 
ca.1303, and another Branas, astronomer ca.1307. 
John Branas, commandant of Beograd in 1440, 
was of Croatian origin and did not belong to the 
Byz. Branas family. -A.K. 


BRANAS, ALEXIOS, sebastos ca.1166, general of 
Alexios H; partisan of Andronikos I; died Con- 
stantinople 1187. In a seal attributed to him (Lau- 
rent, Méd. Vat., no.64), Branas is called protosebas- 
los and his mother described as a Komnene; the 
continuator of William of Tyre named him “cosin 
de l'empereor Manuel” (PL 201:899C). In 1185 
Branas routed the Normans, who had captured 
Thessalonike and were moving toward Constan- 


tinople; soon after, perhaps in 1186 (Dujéev, Me- 
dioevo 1:346f), but more probably in 1187, Branas 
revolted against Isaac II but was defeated by Con- 
RAD OF MONTFERRAT and killed in battle at the 
walls of Constantinople. M. Sjuzjumov (VizVrem 
12 [1957] 69-72), emphasizing that the inhabi- 
tants of suburban Constantinople, esp. fishermen, 
supported Branas’s rebellion, suggests that his 
defeat was a factor in the ruin of Constantinople’s 
trade and handicrafts. 


LIT. Dieten, Erläuterungen 73-77. Brand, Byzantium 80— 
83, 273f. ~ALK. 


BRANIČEVO (BpavizloBa), a fortress and bish- 
opric on the river Pek, a right tributary of the 
Danube, not far from the site of Roman Vimi- 
nacium, which was deserted soon after 600 (B. 
Saria, RE 2.R. 8 [1958] 21'76f). Near Viminacium, 
remains of fortifications (probably of Justinian Ps 
time) were discovered: walls, towers, and an un- 
derground passage, 21 m long and 1.6~1.8 m 
high, that led to the river (M. Pindié in Limes u 
Jugoslaviji, vol. 1 [Belgrade 1961] 127). 

Basil II's list of sees in the Bulgarian archbish- 
opric of Onrip (H. Gelzer, BZ 2 [1893] 43.17) 
places the bishopric of Branitza between Niš and 
Belgrade. Braničevo was a station on the strategic 
road from Belgrade to Niš, en route to Constan- 
tinople (G. Skrivanié, Putevi u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji 
[Belgrade 1974] 83f). In the 12th C. the city 
belonged to the doukaton of Braničevo and Bel- 
grade and was a focal point in the Byz.-Hungarian 
conflict. During the war of 1127—29, the Hun- 
garians razed Braničevo; the Byz. restored and 
colonized it in 1166. In 1182, while Constantino- 
ple was distracted by domestic strife, BéLa IHI 
temporarily occupied Braničevo (Gy. Moravcsik, 
Studia Byzantina [Budapest 1967] 309) but re- 
turned it to Byz. as his daughter’s dowry. The 
empire, however, was unable to retain the strong- 
hold after about 1198; from the end of the 12th 
C., it was an object of contention between the 
Bulgarians, Serbs, and Hungarians. The Serbian 
prince Lazar took Braničevo in 1378/9, and the 
Turks conquered it in 1459. 

uit. M. Dinić, Braničevo u srednjem veku (Požarevac 1958). 
M. Popović, V. Ivanišević, “Grad Braničevo u srednjem 
veku,” Starinar 39 (1988) 125-79. J. Kalić in Vizlzvori 4:13, 
n.17. S. Novaković, “Ohridska arhiepiskopija u početku XI 
veka,” GlasSAN 46 (1908) 36. -LDj., A-K. 


BREAD (pros, also papioy in papyri [Preisigke, 
Wörterbuch 2:774] and narrative texts [e.g., PG 
6%:196C]) was the basic food in the popular DIET. 
It was produced from WHEAT, BARLEY, and infre- 
quently millet, rye and oats were deemed unsuit- 
able for baking. Wheat loaves were considered 
the finest, barley bread of lower quality. A 13th- 
C. historian (Akrop. 1:123.7~—9) writes of bread 
made from barley and bran (which a man of his 
status could barely swallow) as typical of peasant 
food. Bread was made either at home or by pro- 
fessional BAKERS. ATHANASIOS OF ATHOS report- 
edly invented a device powered by oxen to mix 
the dough. Bread was produced in the form of 
loaves, sometimes flat ones; soldiers on campaign 
ate paximadion, bread baked twice and dried in 
the sun (T. Kolias in Byzantios 197—99). Bread was 
baked in furnaces or special ovens; in peasant 
households loaves might be baked in ashes, as 
Gregoras (Greg. 1:379.6—8) complains. 

The daily bread consumption in the late Roman 
Empire was 3 to 6 pounds, according to Patlagean 
(Pauvreté 46, 52); by the 11th—12th C. the average 
daily ration was reduced to 1.5 pounds, probably 
due to the loss of the grain-producing areas of 
Egypt and North Africa (A. Kazhdan, ByzF 8 
[1982] 118). In the 1oth—-11th C. the price of 
bread was 1 nomisma for 8—18 modioi; according 
to G. Ostrogorsky (BZ 32 [1932] 320-22) the price 
remained at the 4th-C. level. Byz. had periodical 
shortages in bread supply, and the state tried 
several times to introduce a MONOPOLY on the 
GRAIN trade and to regulate bread prices. 

Constantine I transferred to Constantinople the 
Roman custom of distributing bread among the 
citizens. The first distribution took place on 18 
May 332. The custom was abolished in 618, when 
the grain delivery from Egypt stopped. Despite 
this, the Basilika retained some imperial regula- 
tions concerning the panis civilis. The Codex Theo- 
dosianus (Cod.Theod. XIV) preserves 15 imperial 
ordinances of 364—408 that determine the right 
of citizens (house owners) to get the “state bread.” 
It was baked in imperial bakeries (pistrina publica) 
and distributed from special high counters (gra- 
dus). Each person entitled to panis civilis had to be 
entered on a list and assigned to a particular 
gradus; these people were given special TOKENS. 

Gradually, the church took over the bread dole, 
transforming it from a citizen’s right into an act 


BREBION | 321 


of charity for the poor. The church had fed the 
poor long before 618 and retained this function 
after the state divested itself from the burden; 
the distribution of bread during a famine is a topos 
of many saints’ lives. 

Leavened bread as PROSPHORA (in contrast to 
the azymes of the West) was one of the two ele- 
ments of the EUCHARIST, and accordingly played 
an important part in ecclesiastical symbolism (Christ 
as bread) and iconography. 

LIT. Ph. Koukoules, “Onomata kai eide arton kata tous 
Byzantinous chronous,” EEBS 5 (1928) 36—52. J.L. Teall, 
“The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire, 330-1025,” 
DOP 18 (1959) 87—139. Rudakov, Kultura 89-92. B. Kü- 
bler, RE 18 (1949) 606-11. —Ap.K., A.K. 


BREBION (Bpéßiov, from Lat. brevis), a term 
known from the 4th C. onward that designated 
an INVENTORY or list of persons, offices, crafts, 
taxes, confiscated lands, etc. (O. Seeck, RE 3 [1899] 
832). In the 10th C. properties of imperial mon- 
asteries were registered in the brebia of the sa- 
KELLION (/vir., 0.9.90, Lavra 1, nO.33.39). In later 
acts (e.g., Dochewar., no.58.5—6, Dionys., no.19.27) 
“the sacred brebion of a monastery” meant the list 
of persons to be commemorated: in an act of 
1364 the word is employed synonymously with 
psychochartion (Xénoph., nos. 30.8, 35). On the other 
hand, the authors of monastic TyPIKA employed 
the term brebion for a document listing precious 
objects that belonged to the monastery. Michael 
Attaleiates used brebion to designate the appendix 
to his diataxis that listed new acquisitions of mov- 
able and immovable properties (P. Gautier, REB 
39 [1981] 83.1078—7g). According to the typikon 
of the Euergetis monastery (P. Gautier, REB 40 
[1982] 17.54—59), its brebton (now lost) included 
an inventory of cells, books, vessels, icons, litur- 
gical garments and fabrics; the typikon of the Ke- 
charitomene nunnery (P. Gautier, REB 43 [1985] 
133.2007—23) states that fypika and brebia should 
be placed in the skeuophylakia of both the Great 
Church and the Kecharitomene. In Slavic lan- 
guages the word brevno acquired the meaning of 
an inventory of lands (D. Angelov, Agrarnite ot- 
nosenija v Severna i Sredna Makedonija prez XIV vek 
[Sofia 1958] 12, n.3). 


LIT. Kalavrezou, Steatite 73—79. -A K. 


322 BRESCIA CASKET 


BRESCIA CASKET. See LipsaNOTHEK; RELI- 


QUARY. 
BREVIARIUM. See Festus. 


BREVIARIUS (Lat. “summary”), a “brief,” sim- 
ple Latin guidebook to the holy sites of JERUSALEM 
composed as “publicity material” for Western pil- 
grims. Likely of early 6th-C. date, it survives in 
two independent traditions derived from a single 
original. Additions probably reflect annotations 
of various users. Seemingly written to be carried 
around the city’s LOCA SANCTA, it gives numerous 
topographical indications and provides important 
evidence not only for the standard “Jerusalem 
tour” of the time, but also for structural details 
of such buildings as the Holy Sepulchre and the 
Golgotha Shrine, and for the existence and ven- 
eration of specific relics. 
Ep. R. Weber, “Breviarius de Hierosolyma,” in Itineraria 
et alia geographica [= CChr, ser. lat. 175] (Turnhout 1965) 
1OR— 12. 
cm Wilkinson, Pilgrims 4f, 182f, with Eng. tr. 59-61. 
~G.V. 


BRICKS (sing. arAtv@os). The production of brick 
was highly developed in the Roman Empire and 
continued in Byz., where both baked and sun- 
dried mud bricks as well as TILES were used. 
Houses “built of brick” (sing. plinthoktistos) and 
roofed with tiles (enkerames) are attested in docu- 
ments (e.g., Lavra 2, no.102.7). Workshops for 
brick production are also mentioned, such as an 
ergasterion to make keramoi (bricks and/or tiles) in 
an act of 952 (Lavra 1, no.4.4). It is more difficult 
to decide whether the term keramarion (Ivir. 1, 
nos. 4.68, 12.14; Xerop., no.gA.26) meant a brick 
factory or a water pipe made of tiles. Workers in 
brick and tiles were called ostrakarioi and keramo- 
poioi, and Constantine V is said (Theoph. 440.21— 
22) to have brought hundreds of them to Con- 
stantinople from Hellas and Thrace. 

Bricks and tiles were often stamped with signs 
or inscriptions bearing names of craftsmen or 
emperors. Most Byz. brick stamps come from 
Constantinople and its environs—probably sup- 
plied from the same kilns—and from Thessalo- 
nike. The provinces (even Nicaea) have yielded 
few stamps, and in Dalmatia, for instance, late 
Roman bricks and tiles were produced without 


f 


irrst porh evaa uteup yasr lie sarro t 
a wi ATM N paaa E, To 

dyap Dirar garane f. se bape etar] LE nicam za 
europe arias Baap iy creo ra 


ep parr gee TANTO SphySiup a” Kaa 


gO r 
W raS om 


i arig Irri 


Me eis 





lary seas Aee duria rép yida Eya 
i atx 
Keay f pie 
i gos siri 
z 5 arp 
al i aw 
3 RELY 
etr anaki 
TOt? Čau 
sa ap: 
ules 
L 
agpi 
aE 
rago: 
a? óin 
Ar 
pose 
pal 
cas tgts 


s- Kapabrarip 5352 race oye’: Trang ” F 
eparro rè rr Spores ghy Gapini or rila o ai 
pGel pambyBapasind nren Tata ae 
aaa E ‘panayr ‘Ines Saree Ley fd 
sprang * Goea-bep TEN bi pap tae 
Ga dh Me: sempe Pesp sana nd pre jual 


Bricks. The production of brick. Miniature in an Oc- 
tateuch manuscript (Vat. gr. 747, fol.78v); llth C. Bi- 
blioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 


stamps (J. Wilkes in Roman Brick and Tile [Oxford 
1979] 69f). Stamps from Constantinople are nu- 
merous for the late Roman period, but it is diffi- 
cult to tell exactly when the practice of stamping 
bricks disappeared in the capital: there are stamps 
of the 10th—11th C., but probably no Palaiologan 
examples. On the other hand, stamped bricks and 
tiles of around the 10th C. are known from Cher- 
son, the lower Danube, and Bulgaria. 

The biblical plintheia was a metaphor for bond- 
age and the sinful state from which baptism lib- 
erates man. 

uir. C. Mango, “Byzantine Brick Stamps,” AJA 50 (1950) 
19-27. S. Angelova, “Za proizvodstvoto na stroitelna kera- 
mika v Severnoiztotna Bilgarija prez rannoto srednove- 
kovie,” Archeologija 13.3 (1971) 3-24. A.L. Jakobson, Ran- 
nesrednevekovy} Chersones (Moscow-Leningrad 1959) 316- 
21. P. Diaconu, “in legătură cu datarea olanelor cu semneé 


în relief descoperite în așezările feudale timpurii din Dob- 
rogea,” SCIV 10 (1959) 491-97. K. Theocharidou, “Sym- 


pole ste melete tes paragones oikodomikon keramikon 
rojonton sta byzantina kai metabyzantina chronia,” DChAE* 


13 (1985-86) 97-111. ~A.K. 


BRICKWORK TECHNIQUES AND PAT- 
TERNS. From the 5th C. onward, Byz. architec- 
ture depended heavily on BRICK as a structural 
and decorative material. The most common build- 
ing techniques involving this material were (1) 
alternating bands of several courses of brick and 
stone (related to the Roman opus vittatum), used 
from the 5th to 14th C. in Constantinople and its 
vicinity and less consistently elsewhere; (2) solid 
brick construction, used sporadically in the 5th to 
12th C.; (3) the recessed-brick technique, an all- 
brick construction method in which every alter- 
nate course was set back from the wall plane with 
the recess filled in with MORTAR, producing seem- 
ingly thick mortar joints. This was commonly em- 
ployed in Constantinople and vicinity from the 
1ith C. onward; from Constantinople the tech- 
nique was exported to areas under Byz. influence 
(e.g, Kiev, central Balkans). A fourth method, 
the cloisonné technique, involved framing indi- 
vidual stone ASHLARS with brick on all four sides; 
it was widespread in Greece and the Balkans from 
the 1oth C. onward. These basic building tech- 
niques were often combined with decorative pat- 


Brickwork TECHNIQUES AND PATTERNS. Recessed brick 
masonry; lith C. Detail of the city walls of Nicaea. 





BRIDE SHOWS 323 


terns, executed in brick, that were used to high- 
light architectural features (e.g., apses, domes, 
tympanums, eaves) and to conceal structural tim- 
bers imbedded within walls. Some of these or- 
NAMENTS appear as early as the 1oth C., but most 
became popular in the 13th—14th C. The most 
typical were reticulate REVETMENTS; diaper and 
checkerboard patterns; dogtooth friezes; and 
chevron, herringbone, and meander patterns as 
well as inscriptions executed in brick or specially 
cut tiles. Following the Roman practice, Byz. bricks 
were occasionally stamped in the course of pro- 
duction. The general significance of Byz. brick 
stamps has not yet been properly understood (C. 
Mango, AJA 54 [1950] 19—27). 

LIT. J.B. Ward Perkins in Great Palace, and Report 52~ 
104. A.H.S. Megaw, “Byzantine Reticulate Revetments,” 
Charisterion eis Anastasion K. Orlandon, vol. 3 (Athens 1966) 
10-22. A. Pasadaios, He keramoplastikos diakosmos ton byzan- 
tinon kierton tes Konstantinoupoleos (Athens 1973). P.L. Vo- 
cotopoulos, “The Concealed Course Technique,” JOB 28 
(1979) 247-60. G.M. Velenis, Hermeneia tou exoterikou dia- 


kosmou ste byzantine architektonike (Thessalonike 1984). 
~8.C, 


BRIDE SHOWS are reported to have been or- 
ganized on several occasions at the initiative of 
the empress-mother to select suitable wives for 
imperial princes. Commissioners were sent 
throughout the empire to find candidates who 
resembled an imperial ideal, which was enshrined 
in a picture (avraton), and met specific measure- 
ments. Usually three candidates became finalists 
in this Byz. “Judgment of Paris,” held in the 
imperial palace, when the young emperor-elect 
presented a golden apple or ring to his chosen 
lady. In 788 Empress IRENE persuaded CONSTAN- 
TINE VI to select Maria of Amnia, the grand- 
daughter of PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL; in 807 
Theophano, already married and hurriedly di- 
vorced, was chosen for STAURAKIOS; in 830 TIES 
PHILOS encountered Kassia and chose Tuero- 
DORA; in 855 the same Theodora, as empress, 
imposed Eudokia of Dekapolis on Micuagx III; 
and in 881 Basi I selected pious THEOPHANO for 
his son Leo VI. An otherwise unattested bride 
show is recorded in the vita of St. [RENE OF Cury- 
SOBALANTON. It has been argued that bride shows, 
in contrast with the foreign marriage alliances of 
the 8th C., helped to bind powerful regional fam- 
ilies to Constantinople. Recently, however, schol- 
ars such as P. Speck (Kaiser Konstantin Vi, 1 [Mun- 


324 | BRIDGES 


ich 1978] 203—08) and L. Rydén (Eranos 83 [1985] 
175-91) have cast doubts on the historicity of the 
bride show; Rydén suggests that it is a literary 
topos of the gth or 10th C., which reappears in 
the 14th-C. romance of BELTHANDROS AND CHRY- 
SANTZA. The custom of the bride show is also 
found in the medieval West and in 17th-C. Russia. 

ur. W.T. Treadgold, “The Bride-shows of the Byz- 


antine Emperors,” Byzantion 49 (1979) 395-413. Hunger, 
Grundlagenforschung, pt.XVII (1965), 150-58. —J.H. 


BRIDGES (sing. yégupa). Crossing RIVERS, esp. 
those that were wide or had rapid currents, cre- 
ated difficulties for travelers and military expe- 
ditions. In cases of urgent necessity pontoon 
bridges (of boats bound together) were con- 
structed; long logs laid over the boats provided 
flooring for the roadway (An.Komn. 2:137.17- 
1g). In 636 Herakleios built this sort of bridge 
over the Bosporos (Stratos, Byzantium, 2:139). 
The Byz. inherited the technique of bridge con- 


struction from the Romans. They erected bridges 
of stone, brick, and/or timber set in concrete; the 
arches rested on piers (the same technique as used 
for AquEDUCTS). The bridge near Limyra in Lycia, 
360 m long, consists of 28 arches and seems to be 
lower than regular Roman bridges (W. Wurster, 
J. Ganzert, AA [1978] 288-304). The approach 
to bridges was sometimes fortified with towers. 
During the late Roman period several grandiose 
projects were executed: the bridge over the Dan- 
ube constructed by Constantine I between Oescus 
and SucipAva was 2,437 m long. Many bridges 
are named in the TABULA PEUTINGERIANA. Pro- 
kopios mentions some bridges built by Justinian 
I; that over the Sangarios is still standing. Later 
sources mention various bridges (Zompe over the 
river Sangarios, one near Kosmidion, a bridge in 
Adrianople passing over three streams, etc.) as 
well as smaller gephyria (Lavra 3, no.1 46.40); it is, 
however, not clear which of these bridges were 
actually of Roman construction. Bridgelike con- 


Brinces. Justinianic bridge. Built over the Sangarios River in Bithynia; 6th C. 








traptions were used to assault the walls of besieged 
towns (e.g., An.Komn. 1:153.20-22; Nik.Chon. 
623.6162). A special tax called gephyrosis was 
imposed in the 11th C. (Lavra 1, nos. 38.38, 48.36) 
for the maintenance and repair of bridges. In the 
12th C. the Kosmosoteira monastery (see BERA) 
was obliged to maintain two local stone bridges; 
in this connection the typikon of Kosmosoteira 
stresses that bridges are useful to many people. 

In Christian metaphor gephyra served as an ep- 
ithet for any person, action, or institution bridg- 
ing this world and heaven: for example, the Mother 
of God (e.g., pseudo-Sophronios, PG 87.3:3968C), 
Christ’s descent into Hell, John’s baptism, and 
prayer. 

ur. H. Hellenkemper, LMA 2:730f. P. Gazzola, Ponti 
romani, vol. 2 (Florence 1963). D. Tudor, Les ponts romains 
du Bas-Danube (Bucharest 1974) 1835—70. Kazhdan, “Iz eko- 
nomiteskoj Zizni,” 178, n.48. T. Totev, “Novootkrit most 
na Tiča viiv Vůrbičkija prochod,” Archeologija 11 (1969), 
no.4, 25—28. M. Whitby, “Justinian’s Bridge over the San- 
garius and the Date of Procopius’ De Aedificis,” JHS 105 
(1985) 129-48. ~ALK. 


BRIGANDAGE (Anoreia), ROBBERY Carried out 
usually by members of lawless bands, often accom- 
panied class struggle and military operations; Bar- 
tusis (infra) hypothesized that in the 14th C. brig- 
ands were primarily soldiers. Revolts of military 
contingents, such as the CATALAN GRAND COM- 
PANY, Often led to looting, arson, RAPE, and so 
forth, as did urban riots and political upheavals, 
as for instance Alexios I Komnenos’s capture of 
Constantinople in 1081. Feuds of local lords (e.g., 
those described in the Perra) led to grave damage 
of peasants’ property. In turn, brigandage could 
be used by peasants for self-defense in their strug- 
gle with the pynator for land; in some cases the 
peasants were supported by ethnic groups (the 
Vlachs, Cumans, etc.) settled in the area. Byz. 
historical tradition described other ethnic groups 
(e.g., the Isaurians) as particularly inclined toward 
brigandage, but such statements were often ex- 
aggerated. The poeticized image of the brigand 
(APELATES) penetrated into folklore and thence 
into the epic of Dicenes AxriTas, who was de- 
scribed as victorious over the apelatai. Church 
fathers and hagiographers equated brigands with 
demons (G.J.M. Bartelink, VigChr 21 [1967] 12— 
24), but at the same time hagiography described 
some reformed robbers as living in extreme piety. 


BRINGAS, JOSEPH $25 


Prracy, another form of brigandage, was a real 
scourge for maritime commerce and the inhabi- 
tants of coastal areas. 

Lit. F.M. de Robertis, “Interdizione dell’ ‘usus equorum’ 
e lotta al banditismo in alcune costituzioni dell Basso im- 
pero,” Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 40 (1974) 67-98. 
M. Bartusis, “Brigandage in the Late Byzantine Empire,” 
Byzantion 51 (1981) 386—409. -A.K. 


BRINDISI (Bpevrýoov), city in southern APULIA 
with a splendid harbor; terminus of the ancient 
Via Appia, a primary point of departure for the 
East, and a center of trade with Dalmatia and the 
eastern Mediterranean. During the war against 
Totila in the mid-6th C., the Byz. general John 
(nephew of Vitalian) conquered Brindisi and used 
it as a center of operations in southern Italy. The 
Lombards took Brindisi in the second half of the 
7th C.; it formed the southernmost point of the 
duchy of BenevenTO. Brindisi suffered from Arab 
attacks and was destroyed in 838. At the end of 
the 1oth C. Byz. reestablished its administration 
in Brindisi and ca.1000 the patriarch of Constan- 
tinople elevated it to an archbishopric. 

The Norman Robert Guiscard occupied Brin- 
disi in 1071, but the Byz. continued trying to 
recapture it until the 1150s. Brindisi was the port 
of departure for Norman expeditions against Byz. 
and for the Crusades. The church of Brindisi was 
under the patronage of the papacy—in 1089 Pope 
Urban II dedicated the city’s cathedral—but the 
Greek rite and Orthodox communities remained 
in the city, as did the Jews. Brindisi was a primary 
center for the manufacture of PROTO-MAIOLICA 
pottery. 

uit. P. de Leo, LMA 2:693f. A. de Leo, Dell’ origine del 
rito greco nella chiesa di Brindisi (Brindisi 1974). I. Dujéev, 


“Un brindisino ambasciatore in Bulgaria all’ inizio del 1200,” 
Familiare ’82 (Brindisi 1982) 105-11. -A.K. 


BRINGAS, JOSEPH, high official under Con- 
STANTINE VII and Romanos II; died 965 in mon- 
astery of the Asekretis, in Pythia (Bithynia). Eu- 
nuch, patrikios, and praepositus, Bringas (Bpiyyas) 
was promoted by Constantine to the posts of sa- 
kellarios and droungarios of the fleet (TheophCont 
445.6—10); as parakoimomenos he administered the 
empire under Romanos. An adversary of the mil- 
itary aristocracy, he quashed the scheme of the 
nobles to give the throne to the magistros Basil 


326 | BRONTOLOGION 


Peteinos (Skyl. 250f) and zealously opposed Ni- 
KEPHOROS (II) PHoxas. Romanos left Bringas at 
the head of the state (15 Mar.—15 Aug. 963), but 
THEOPHANO sided with Nikephoros Phokas, and 
Bası THE Noruos supported their alliance. Ni- 
kephoros pretended to obey orders and left Con- 
stantinople to join his army, but his soldiers pro- 
claimed him emperor (2 July 963) and he marched 
against the capital. An addition to De cer. (p.435— 
37) described in detail the battle for Constanti- 
nople. The population of the capital supported 
the military aristocracy and defended Bardas 
Puokas, who sought asylum in Hagia Sophia; at 
the same time Bringas gained the assistance of 
the influential guild of BAKERs who stopped selling 
bread in order to compel the poor to cease their 
resistance (g Aug. 963). At this time Basil the 
Nothos armed 3,000 servants and sent them to 
pillage the houses of Bringas’s partisans; he also 
ordered warships to sail to Abydos and join Ni- 
kephoros. Bringas had no choice but to surren- 
der. Nikephoros entered the capital and banished 
Bringas to Paphlagonia and subsequently to the 
monastery of the Asekretis near Nikomedeia 
(Janin, Églises centres 86). 


UT. Guilland, /nstitutions 1:183f. Kazhdan, Derevnja i 
gorod 388-95. Schlumberger, Phocas 258-97. -A.K. 


BRONTOLOGION (Bpovroàóyiov), a manual on 
DIVINATION by thunder. The Byz. attributed their 
brontologia to famous figures of the past, such as 
King David or HERMES TRISMEGISTOS, or to ob- 
scure Roman writers, such as Nigidius Figulus 
(W. and H.G. Gundel, Astrologumena [Wiesbaden 
1966] 137-39). In his On Portents, Jonn Lypos 
lists four brontelogia that he allegedly used: three 
are concerned primarily with political predictions, 
the fourth (ascribed to Labeon) with agrarian 
events. The church condemned brontologia as based 
on ASTROLOGY, and the Souda stated that divina- 
tion by thunder was “diabolical property.” None- 
theless, the custom was well entrenched; several 
brontologia are known both in Greek and in Old 
Slavonic translation (Gromnik), and a brontologion 
was among the books taken along on the imperial 
baggage train (De cer. 467.11). Brontologia were 
structured on the position of the sun (or the 
moon) in the zodiac and on the calendar. The 
strength and the direction of the thunder also 
had to be considered. A brontologion preserved in 


a 16th-C. MS (Milan, Ambros. A 56 sup.) de- 
scribes a series of political events, imagined or 
real: a revolt “in Egypt and among the Arabs,” 
the devastation of Cyprus, a barbarian expedition 
as far as Chalcedon (perhaps a reference to Igor’s 
expedition of g41), the absence of any king in 
“Comania” and Alania, the Crusade of 1147. This 
brontologion is attributed to “Leo the Wise” (ie. 
Emp. Leo VI) but should be dated to the 12th C. 
As late as the 15th C. Kritoboulos observed that 
many people believed that thunder, lightning, 
and the wandering orbits of stars revealed the 
future. 

LIT. M.A. Andreeva, “Politi¢eskij i obščestvennyj ele- 
ment vizantijsko-slavjanskich gadatel’nych knig,” BS 2 (1930) 
59-67. Eadem, “K istorii vizantijsko-slavjanskich gadatel’- 


nych knig,” BS 5 (1933/34) 126-29, 134-53. Koukoules, 
Bios 1.2:218f. —F.R.T., A.K. 


BRONZE (xaAxds), the term used in Byz. as in 
classical Greece to designate both pure copper 
and its alloys with tin or with zinc (brass). The 
location and exploitation of copper MINES from 
the 4th to the 15th C. is somewhat a matter of 
speculation. Bronze could be considered a semi- 
precious metal: Eusebios of Caesarea (Eusebios, 
VC 3.50.2) praises a church ornamented with gold, 
bronze, and “other very expensive materials,” while 
Prokopios (Buildings 1.2.4) speaks of the best bronze 
as being softer in color than pure gold and in 
quality not much inferior to silver. 

Colossal monuments of bronze included the 
ANEMODOULION at Constantinople (set up between 
379 and 395) and the 6,o00-pound cross erected 
by Eudocia at Jerusalem (Jean Rufus, Plérophories, 
PO 8 [1912], ch.11). Bronze statues of emperors, 
charioteers, etc. are recorded as late as the 7th C. 
(AnthGr 16.46—47), but only that of Leo I (?) (= 
Colossus of Barletta: U. Peschlow in Studien Deich- 
mann 1:21—33) survives relatively intact. A medi- 
eval deployment of bronze on a large scale was 
the revetment of an obelisk in the HIPPODROME 
in Constantinople by Constantine VII. Among the 
few other monumental uses of bronze after the 
gth C. were cast church poors, with incised dec- 
oration and silver inlay or chrysography, as well 
as doors of sheet metal with repoussé decoration. 
The doors of S. Paolo fuori le mura, Rome, bear 
the names of the founder (chytes) and the artist 
who manufactured and decorated them. The se- 
bastokrator Isaac Komnenos transferred a bronze 


grill (kangellon) from the Chora monastery to his 
Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteria at BERA to 
separate his tomb from the rest of the narthex. 
Rare decorative bronzes of the ioth and 11th C. 
include the water-spouting troughs of fountains 
(L. Bouras, DChAE* 8 [1975—76] 88f). 

In addition to their use on monuments and for 
decoration, copper and bronze were employed 
for functional purposes, for example, for coins, 
surgical instruments, LITURGICAL VESSELS, roof tiles, 
armor, and esp. for Lamps. Numerous bronze 
objects were used in the household (see Toots 
AND HousEHOLD FitTincs). An inventory of 1142 
lists (in addition to iron tools) bronze BELLS, ves- 
sels, caldrons, etc. (Pantel., no.7.28—29). Domestic 
bronzes (chalkomaia), some of them tinned, in- 
clude ewers, basins, pans, and various COOKING 
wares (Koukoules, Bios 2.2:g9-101, 105). Byz. 
inventories from the 11th C. often refer to various 
LIGHTING devices of cast bronze, such as cande- 
labra (manoualia), candlesticks, polykandela, lamps, 
lanterns, /amnai (bronze beams with candlehold- 
ers), and choroz (polygonal frames for the suspen- 
sion of lights) as well as CENSERS; some such de- 
vices of the qth to 14th C. survive to this day. 
Bronze was also employed for ICONS, cast or in 
sheet metal, votive CROWNS, pectoral crosses, AMU- 
LETS, BELT FITTINGS, Cone SEALS, and stamps as 
well as for ordinary JEWELRY. Keys, Locks, and 
fittings for CASKETS were often cast in bronze as 
were STEELYARDS, various weights and measures, 
and astrological instruments such as the ASTRO- 
LABE, 

Large numbers of cast bronze household ob- 
jects (ewers, caldrons, etc.) made in Byz., and 
mistakenly called “Coptic,” have been found out- 
side the empire, in 6th- and yth-C. burials 
throughout western Europe. 

The scientific work that has been carried out 
on Byz. bronze (that is, copper alloy) objects has 
been largely restricted to those made between the 
4th and 7th C. The results reveal a varying of 
alloys to suit manufacturing techniques. Some cast 
items from this period excavated at Sardis (e.g., 
censers, crosses, buckles, chains, etc.}, which have 
been analyzed for their metallic composition, were 
found to be of a four-part (quaternary) alloy of 
copper, tin, zinc, and lead; other objects, such as 
cooking vessels made of sheet metal, were of nearly 
pure copper (J.C. Waldbaum, Metalwork from Sar- 
dis [Cambridge, Mass., 1983] 175-77). Other 


BRUMALIA | 327 


hammered objects, such as a group of 6th-C. 
ornamented siruLas found elsewhere, are made 
of brass, that is, copper and zinc (M.M. Mango et 
al., Antiquity 63 [1989] 308). The shift from the 
manufacture of bronze (copper and tin) to that 
of brass, which started in the Roman period and 
increased by the 7th C., has been explained in 
terms of the loss of the Spanish and British tin 
mines by the 5th C. (R. Bruce-Mitford, The Sutton 
Hoo Ship Burial, vol. 3 [London 1983] 945-61). 
But tin may still have been available in the Taurus 
Mountain mines, and 1oth- and 11th-C. tinned 
copper polykandela, lamps, patens, chalices, and 
other objects, made apparently in imitation of 
silver, have been found in Asia Minor and the 
vicinity of Antioch. 


LIT. V.H. Elbern, “Alltaglisches aus Byzanz,” Alte und 


moderne Kunst 26 (1981) 13—15. DOCat 1:30—-68. 
-M.M.M., L.Ph.B. 


BRUMALIA (BpovjcAta), the festival of Diony- 
sos, which was celebrated from 24 Nov. to the 
winter solstice. The Brumalia marked the end of 
the wine cycle, when the liquid from the grapes 
crushed during the September harvest had fer- 
mented and was ready to be poured into jars for 
consumption. Carousing and merriment accom- 
panied the rituals, which included the invocation 
of Dionysos. In his treatise On the Months (ed. 
Wuensch, 174.11—-31), Jonn Lypos notes the sur- 
vival of the cult in the 6th C.: the viticulturalists 
would sacrifice a goat to Dionysos because the 
animal ate and destroyed vines. Canon 62 of the 
Council in TRULLO imposed a six-year excom- 
munication on Christians who celebrated the Bru- 
malia. The canon also condemned mumming and 
the donning of comic, satyric, and tragic masks, 
another Brumalian feature (Trombley, “Trullo” 
5). Nevertheless, the imperial court celebrated the 
Brumalia. Stephen, the author of the vita of Ste- 
phen the Younger, condemns Constantine V as a 
“friend of demons” for his participation in the 
festival. In the time of Constantine VII Porphy- 
rogennetos the Brumalia consisted of acclama- 
tions for the emperor and a ceremony wishing 
him a long reign; on these occasions the emperor 
handed out APOKOMBIA, bags of gold, to various 
officials (De cer. 601.6—20, 606.4-—607.14). The 
popular celebration of the Brumalia persisted un- 
til at least the 12th C. (I. Rochow, Kho 60 [1978] 


328 BRYAS 





Bryas. Ruins at Küçükyalı. These ruins are thought to be those of the 9th-C. palace at Bryas. 


487f). Christopher of Mytilene notes the sending 
of small cakes (pemmata) as gifts at the Brumalia, 
and Theodore Prodromos mentions festivities on 
the day of cosmic joy of the Brumalia, but the 
religious character of these acts is unknown. 

uit. J.-R. Crawford, “De Bruma et brumalibus festis,” 
BZ 23 (1920) 365-96. Koukoules, Bios 2.1:25-29. Lawson, 
Folklore 221-32. M. Nilsson, “Studien zur Vorgeschichte 
des Weinachtsfestes,” Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft 1g 
(1916-19) 62-64, 80-94. —F.R.T. 


BRYAS (Bpvas, mod. Maltepe), Asiatic suburb of 
Constantinople, opposite the Princes’ ISLANDS. It 
was the site of a palace built by Emp. Theophilos 
ca.837 in imitation of Arab palaces described to 
him by Jonn VII Grammatixos on the latter’s 
return from his embassy to Baghdad. The only 
modification of the Arab model consisted in the 
addition of two chapels, one next to the emperor’s 
bedchamber, the other, of triconch form, in the 
forecourt. The palace has been plausibly identi- 
fied with a standing ruin at Küçükyalı, between 


Bostanci and Maltepe, that recalls the layout of 
princely Arab residences. 

tir. K. Lehmann-Hartleben, “Archaeologisch-epigra- 
phisches aus Konstantinopel und Umgebung,” BNJbb 3 
(1922) 103-06. R. Janin, “La banlieue asiatique de Con- 
stantinople,” EO 22 (1923) 199-95. S. Eyice, “Bryas sarayı,” 
Belleten 23 (1959) 79—111. Idem, “Quatre édifices inédits 
ou mal connus,” CahArch 10 (1959) 245-50. -C.M. 


BRYENNIOS (Bpvévvios, fem. Bpvévvioora), a 
noble Byz. lineage. Etymology of the name re- 
mains unclear; according to E. Trapp, it derived 
from bryo, “to abound” (JOB 19 [1970] 293). 
Bryennioi are known from the gth C. onward: 
Theoktistos was sent by Michael II as strategos of 
Peloponnesos (De adm. imp. 50.g—12); another 
Bryennios, strategos of Dalmatia, is attested from 
a gth-C. seal (Schlumberger, Sig. 205f). Through- 
out the ioth C. they are not known. When the 
Bryennioi reappear in the mid-11th C., their re- 
lation to the gth-C. Bryennioi is unclear: Atta- 
leiates considered them a family of lower origin 
than the Boraneiarar. Like their predecessors, 


BRYENNIOS | 329 


GENEALOGY OF THE BRYENNIOS FAMILY IN THE 
ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES 


Nikephoros, 
ethnarches 


Nikephoros BRYENNIOS, 


usurper 


Nikephoros BRYENNIOS, m. 
caesar 


Alexios, 
megas doux 
m. Kata of Georgia 


Nikephoros 
Komnenos 


Andronikos, 
governor of 
Thessalonike 


Nikephoros 


son 


the 11th-C. Bryennioi were military commanders: 
Nikephoros, from Adrianople, served as eth- 
narch, commander of foreign mercenaries; he 
participated in a rebellion against Empress THEO- 
DORA and was exiled; in 1057 he joined another 
aristocratic revolt and was captured and blinded. 
His son (also Nikephoros) Bryennios unsuccess- 
fully tried to usurp the throne in 1077 (see BRYEN- 
NIOS, NIKEPHOROS); another son, John, supported 
his brother’s revolt and was appointed domestikos 
ton scholon; after the revolt, however, the Varan- 
gians arrested and murdered him. Nikephoros’s 
son (according to Zonaras) or grandson (accord- 
ing to Anna Komnene), the caesar Nikephoros 
Bryennios, was a general and historian (see 
BRYENNIOS, NikePHOROS). Another Bryennios 
served ca.1100 as doux of Thebes. 

Caesar Nikephoros married Anna KOMNENE; 
some of their descendants bore the patronyms 
Komnenos and Doukas. They were primarily mil- 
itary comanders: John Doukas commanded both 
in Italy and against the Seljuks; his brother Al- 
exios Bryennios, megas doux in 1156, was called 
the anthypatos of Hellas by Michael Choniates and 
praised as protector of the poor (Mich.Akom. 
1:337.8—g). He is probably distinct from another 


John Doukas 
m. (1) Theodora 
m. (2) unknown 


m. Anna, 
kouropatatissa 


John, 
domestikos 
ton scholon 


Helena, sister of 
a Tarchanciotes 


son m. 


Anna KOMNENE daughter m. Marianos Maurokatakalon 


Irene Doukaina daughter 


Alexios, 
sebastos? 


son daughter 





Alexios Bryennios, doux of Dyrrachion and Ohrid, 
an addressee of George TORNIKIOS in the 11508 
(Darrouzés, Tornikés 162—66). Andronikos, son of 
the megas doux Alexios, served as governor of 
Thessalonike; involved in a plot against Isaac I, 
he was arrested and blinded; his son attempted a 
revolt but was also blinded. Joseph Bryennios, 
sebastos and the emperor’s gambros, was a general 
in the 1160s. Only Nikephoros Komnenos, John 
Doukas’s son, held a civil position: he was tem- 
porarily the functionary in charge of petitions (efi 
ton deeseon). 

Several Bryennioi occupied important posts in 
the later period: George was megas droungarios in 
1328, and Michael was commandant of Pamphi- 
lon in Lhrace (1342). At this ume the Bryennioi 
were also active in the church, diplomatic service, 
and intellectual life: besides the philosopher Jo- 
seph Bryennios and writer Manuel Bryennios, a 
scribe Gregory Bryennios from ‘Thessalonike 
copied translations of Thomas AQurnas in 1432 
(PLP, nos. 3241—62). (See BRYENNIOS, JOSEPH, 
and BRYENNIOS, MANUEL; see also genealogical 
table.) 


irr. Winkelmann, Quellenstudien 165f. ~ALK. 


330 BRYENNIOS, JOSEPH 


BRYENNIOS, JOSEPH, monk, writer, and 
teacher; born ca.1350, died before 1438, probably 
1430/1. A fervent supporter of Orthodoxy, 
Bryennios lived for 20 years (ca.1382—1402) in 
Venetian-occupied Crete as preacher and mis- 
sionary. He spent most of his remaining years in 
Constantinople at the monasteries of Stoudios 
(ca.1402—06) and Charsianeites (1416—27). In 1406 
Patr. MATTHEW I sent him to Cyprus as topoteretes 
to try to negotiate the administrative union of the 
Cypriot church with that of Constantinople, but 
his mission proved fruitless. In his later years he 
served as court preacher and official spokesman 
against UNION OF THE CHURCHES with Rome, play- 
ing an important role in 1422 in discussions with 
a Latin delegation to Constantinople (G. Patacsi, 
Kleronomia 5 [1973] 73—96). 

Bryennios composed a considerable number of 
theological treatises defending Orthodox doctrine 
on the Holy Trinity and Procession of the Holy 
Spirit. He supported the Palamite argument that 
the light of Tagor was uncreated. Other works 
include a dialogue with a Muslim (A. Argyriou, 
EEBS 35 [1966/7] 141—95), in which Bryennios 
praised the tolerance of Islam and the virtue of 
some Muslims; he argued that the decline of Byz. 
was divine punishment for the sins of the Byz. 
He corresponded with John CHorTAsMmeENOs, Ni- 
cholas KasBasiLas, Demetrios Kypones, and Emp. 
Manuel II, among others. Mark EuGeNIKOsS wrote 
his epitaph. 

ED. loseph monachou tou Bryenniou ta heurethenta, ed. E. 
Boulgares, T. Mandakases, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1768-84). 

uit. N.B. Tomadakes, Syllabos byzantinen meleton kai kei- 


menon (Athens 1961) 4g1~611. Loenertz, Calecas g5—105. 
PLP, 10.3257. ~A.M.T. 


BRYENNIOS, MANUEL, Byz. scholar and pos- 
sibly a music theorist; fl. Constantinople ca.1300. 
Although academically eccentric, he instructed the 
statesman Theodore METOCHITES in mathematics, 
astronomy, and probably music (a didactic poem 
by Theodore reflects Bryennios’s teaching). His 
doctrines on mathematics and astronomy are to 
be found in a letter to Maximos PLANoupEs and 
in scholia to MSS of Ptolemy’s Almagest. 

The only surviving work attributed to Bryen- 
nios is the three-volume Harmonika, based on an- 
cient Greek tradition. The author treats his ma- 
terial more independently and carries his 


conclusions further than his sources, however. 
The neo-Pythagorean numerological theory of 
music is Bryennios’s most important source (more 
for facts than for metaphysical speculation). Other 
sources are Nicomachus of Gerasa, Aristides 
Quintilianus, Theon of Smyrna, and, above all, 
Claudius Ptolemy for his theory of the eight éonoi, 
the “shadings” of the tetrachords, and the mon- 
ochord and its division. 

Bryennios also drew extensively on the empiri- 
cist school of Aristoxenos (4th C. B.c.). The first 
section of the treatise is based largely on this 
school; the second, however, is founded on neo- 
Pythagorean tradition and concludes with a com- 
parison of the divisions of the tetrachords. The 
third section unites the Pythagorean and Aristo- 
xenian traditions and culminates in a theory for 
constructing melodies. One section deals with the 
Byz. ecclesiastical Moves and associates them with 
the ancient systems of transposition (tonot, tropot); 
this section is illustrated by the musical practice 
of Bryennios’s own time. 

Bryennios’s treatise is the most comprehensive 
surviving codification of Byz. musical scholarship. 
Associated with the growing interest in mathe- 
matics in the early Palaiologan period, it con- 
tributed to the rediscovery of ancient music the- 
ory. The late Byz. Empire and the Italian 
Renaissance valued it highly: 46 MSS from before 
1600 and two early Latin translations (1497 and 
1555) survive. 


ED. Opera mathematica, ed. J. Wallis, vol. 3 (Oxford 1699) 


357-508. , 
ut. H. Reimann, “Zur Geschichte und Theorie der 


byzantinischen Musik, 4: Die Theorie des Manuel Bryen- 
nios,” Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft 5 (1889) 335- 
44, 373-95. G-H. Jonker, The Harmonies of Manuel Bryennios 
(Groningen 1970). PLP, no.3260. ~D.E.C. 


BRYENNIOS, NIKEPHOROS, 11th-C. usurper. 
Bryennios was a general and magistros who fought 
at the battle of Mantzikert (1071), served as a doux 
of Bulgaria in 1072—73, and was later governor 
of Dyrrachion. In 1077 he headed a revolt against 
Michael VII, the center of which was located in 
Adrianople, but lost to NikepHoros III Bota- 
NEIATES in the competition for the throne. Bryen- 
nios refused to accept the title of caesar and 
continued his rebellion, but he was then defeated 
by Alexios Komnenos (the future ALExios I) and 


blinded. Zonaras accused Alexios of this deed, but 
other historians do not support his version. Ni- 
kephoros II] returned to Bryennios all his prop- 
erties and granted him new honors and lands 
(Bryen. 285.1—3). Despite his blindness, in 1094/5 
Bryennios was in charge of defending Adrianople 
against the Cumans and a rebel who claimed to 
be a member of the Diocenes family (Leo or 
Constantine?) and a son of Romanos IV; even 
though Bryennios belonged to an aristocratic family 
inclined to rebellion, he declined Diogenes’ pro- 
posal of an alliance. 

ur. A. Carile, “La ‘Hyle historias’ del cesare Niceforo 
Briennio,” Aevum 43 (1969) 235-82. -~A.K. 


BRYENNIOS, NIKEPHOROS THE YOUNGER, 
historian and general; born Adrianople? ca.1064 
(A. Carile, Aevum 42 [1968] 436) or ca.1080, died 
Constantinople ca.1196/7. He was either the son 
(A. Carile, Aevum 38 [1964] 74-83) or grandson 
(S. Wittek-De Jongh, Byzantion 23 [1953] 463-65; 
P, Gautier, infra 20—24) of his namesake, the rebel 
of 1077/8. Bryennios married Anna KOMNENE 
ca.1097, participated in Alexios I’s campaigns, 
and became caesar ca.1111. In 1118 IRENE Dou- 
KAINA and Anna Komnene unsuccessfully tried to 
proclaim him Alexios’s successor. Although in dis- 
favor with John I, Bryennios still participated in 
the emperor’s expedition to Antioch, after which 
he died. 

His unfinished memoirs, the so-called Historical 
Material (Hyle historias), were written after 1118 
and describe the period 1070-79. He presents 
events not as a history of emperors, but as the 
power struggle of the mightiest families (the 
Komnenoi, Doukai, and Bryennioi); under the 
screen of a polite eulogy of Alexios is veiled crit- 
icism, whereas Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder 
is an unquestionable hero. Aristocratic traits (no- 
ble origin, wealth, martial prowess) are presented 
as positive values. In their structure, Bryennios’s 
memoirs are a forerunner of the ROMANCE, with 
the core of the tale being the marriage of Alexios 
and Irene after they overcame obstacles. 

ED. Histoire, ed. P. Gautier (Brussels 1975), with Fr. tr, 

Lit. Hunger, Lit. 1:394~—400. J. Seger, Byzantinische His- 
toriker des 10. und rr. Jahrhunderts I. Nikephoros Bryennios 
(Munich 1888). A. Carile, “La ‘Hyle historias’ del cesare 


Niceforo Briennio,” Aevum 43 (1969) 56-87, 235-82. 
~A.K. 


BUILDING INDUSTRY 331 


BUDGET. Evaluations of the Byz. budget are 
speculative and arbitrary because of lack of evi- 
dence. Yet in recent publications one finds figures 
that are not too contradictory: 900,000 solidi in 
the 6th C. (Hendy); 1,700,000 nomismata by the 
end of the 8th; 3,300,000 nomismata in the middle 
of the gth (Treadgold); 1,000,000 half-pure hy- 
perpyra in the 14th (Hendy). Fiscal revenue de- 
rived mainly from TAXATION on land (70—95 per- 
cent) and COMMERCE AND TRADE; voluntary 
contributions of wealthy citizens ceased after the 
7th C. Regular major expenditures were salaries 
for members of the armed forces, the administra- 
tion (less important), and dignitaries (largely self- 
financed) and cash outlays for philanthropic in- 
stitutions. Public works were also self-financed 
through corvées; largess, such as the consulship, 
became occasional. Extraordinary expenditures, 
such as major campaigns or tributes, were dealt 
with either by spending accumulated reserves or 
by imposing extraordinary taxes and levies. Part 
of the payments were made in silk textiles, mainly 
those produced by the imperial workshops. 

uit. W.T. Treadgold, The Byzantine State Finances in the 


Eighth and Ninth Centuries (New York 1982). Hendy, Econ- 
omy 1597-227. -N.O. 


BUILDING INDUSTRY. Builders formed teams 
or companies. According to the vita of Symeon 
the Stylite the Younger, Isaurian MASONS lived in 
communities, caring for those team members who 
had lost their health while working. The Book of 
the Eparch does not consider the technitai or ARTI- 
SANS a guild but a temporary association that 
included craftsmen of various professions: CAR- 
PENTERS, masons, workers in gypsum, etc. Such a 
team of technitat is described in the vita of Ger- 
manos of Kosinitza: they were hired to build a 
church and signed a contract (homologia) accord- 
ing to which they were io be paid 100 goid coins 
upon completion of the work (AASS May 3:9*). 
In Basil. 15.1.39 (and schol. 1 to this passage) an 
ergolabos, or manager, served as intermediary be- 
tween the owner and the workers. He was paid 
by the owner and erected the building using his 
own materials. In the Book of the Eparch, on the 
other hand, there is no distinction between ergo- 
laboi and technitat and the owner is to supply the 
materials. The terms are also used synonymously 


332 | BULGARIA 


in vita A of ATHANASIOS or ATHOS (ed. Noret, 
par.234.14—21). 

The textbooks of MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS Con- 
tain some data on the organization of construction 
work: the builder is called mastores or technites; 
sometimes he appears with his APPRENTICES 
(mathetades); the building of a house takes 6—50 
days; the builder receives 20 asproi per day but 
owes the owner 30 asproi for each day he does 
not work; in one hypothetical problem the builder 
is awarded 1,000 asproi for the entire job (A. 
Kazhdan, VizVrem 26 [1965] 281f). 

Large undertakings, such as the building of 
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople or repairs on the 
aqueduct of Valens, required hundreds of work- 
ers who labored under the supervision of govern- 
mental officials. Some construction jobs were 
completed by the army and, in the form of KAS- 
TROKTISIA, by the local population. The stages of 
a church’s construction—the transport of stone 
by hand and on a luge, its cutting, the making of 
mortar, the feeding of the artisans, and the build- 
ing’s dedication to the Virgin—are shown on the 
cornice of a 1oth—11th-C. church at Korogo in 
Georgia (N. Thierry in AAPA 2 [1987] 321-29). 

LIT. Rudakov, Kultura 142f. Bk. of Eparch 257-65. Oi- 
konomides, Hommes d'affaires i111. Smetanin, Viz.obstestvo 
84—86. M. Bartusis, “State Demands for Building and Re- 


pairing Fortifications in Late Byzantium and Medieval Ser- 
bia,” BS 49 (1988) 205-12. —A.K., A.C. 


BULGARIA, state in the northern Balkans. 
Founded in 681 by Asparucn, Bulgaria included 
former Roman territory between the Danube, the 
Black Sea, the Balkan range, and the river Iskiir. 
It was populated by Slavs, Butcars, Vlachs, and 
some remaining Greek inhabitants. The capital 
was established at Priska. The Slav and Bulgar 
occupation led to the deurbanization of the region 
and the expulsion of the Christian church with its 
hierarchy built upon urban foundations. The fo- 
cal point of domestic development in the late 7th— 
gth C. was the union of Slavs and Bulgars into a 
single ethnos that used the Slavic language, a 
Bulgar administrative system, and the Greek al- 
phabet for the PRoTO-BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS. 
This unity was reinforced by the christianization 
of the country by 864/5. 

Even though Bulgaria profited from the defeat 
of the Avars by Charlemagne and extended its 
power to the northwest as far as the river Theiss, 


Bulgarian northern policy was primarily defen- 
sive: Bulgaria had to protect its northern frontier 
from the Germans, Hungarians, Pechenegs and 
other steppe tribes, the Rus’, and later the Tatars. 
Bulgaria’s policy in the south was more active, 
and Bulgarians were often involved in Byz. af- 
fairs, sometimes as allies (TERVEL supported Jus- 
tinian II), sometimes as dangerous adversaries 
(esp. under Krum and SYMEON OF BULGARIA). The 
periods of war were interrupted by peace treaties 
(the 30-year treaty under Omurrac), and some- 
times Byz. managed to exercise considerable in- 
fluence on Bulgaria, as happened in the reign of 
Boris 1. 

Despite the arrival in 885 of pupils of Con- 
STANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER and METHODIOS who 
brought both the Slavic alphabet and incipient 
Slavic literature and liturgy, Byz. administrative 
and cultural influence on Bulgaria increased from 
the end of the gth C. onward. Bulgarian rulers 
accepted Byz. imperial and ceremonial titulature 
(basileus for the former khan, patriarch for the 
archbishop, etc.); the new capital, Prestav, har- 
bored a significant artisan population; and a sub- 
stantial selection of Greek theological literature 
was translated into CyurcH SLavonic. Trade and 
intermarriage (e.g., Tsar PeTer and Maria, Ro- 
manos l's granddaughter) helped consolidate Bul- 
garo-Byz. links. 

From the second half of the 10th C. Byz. began 
to gain the upper hand in the Balkans. After the 
plan to subjugate Bulgaria with the assistance of 
SvjaToscav of Kiev had miscarried, John I Tzim- 
iskes evicted Svjatoslav from Bulgaria, annexed a 
substantial part of the country, and abolished the 
autocephalous Bulgarian patriarchate. The strug- 
gle of the Komeroroutor and SaMUEL OF BUL- 
GARIA against Basil II, despite temporary success, 
was lost; by 1018 the whole of Bulgaria had been 
incorporated into Byz. and formed several 
themes—Bulgaria, Paradounavon, Dyrrachion, etc. 

The imposition of the “Byz. yoke” strengthened 
the Byz. impact on Bulgaria. The Byz. system of 
taxation was extended to the new themes, along 
with Byz. secular and ecclesiastical administration 
and Byz. forms of peasant dependence (PAROIKOI, 
etc.). Intensified trade and the mass penetration 
of Byz. coinage accompanied the development of 
urban life. On the other hand, the Bulgarian 
aristocracy entered the ranks of the Byz. ruling 
class; Bulgarian topics were treated in Byz. liter- 


GEE 


26° 30° 




















2 
K 
es 
ie 
cn 


a 


HUNiGARIAN 
* Asprokastron’ 


yi ndd 


Pinos 4, Chili | 


Noviodunum “2.C-Pacuiul | 











oe di oare 
P A | 
Singidunum ; Histria 
eBranidev 
Axiopolis 
ATomis | 4ae 
Danube Yorostolon sKallatis 
Abritus ePliska 
*Nikopolis Markianopolisy 
Lovgé P laf ama 
Tiimoyo A a -&  Nesebtir | BLACK 
ie (Mesembria) , 

Anchialos g- SEA 
OVE a R Em Philippopoli ponen 
mas | : ne aa O NB E | 

~o 

CITIES OF ; } | 
B LG RI S = PENA ARETE ee Bosporos | 

I | A A f - : Lae Maan 
f : re Tia i oo i . i Constantinople 

9 ie eae as = lp p 

SERBIA ihs Oe ap ae 
9 exes) PTL MARMARA 77 

AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS 7 a a. oD 


0 Miles 100 Dardanelles 
pepepepe 


5 a ay ASIA MINOR” : 


eatG tap, Skene E E aruupasiar LUIH UL 1UCUOIORY, 
such as the BocomiL heresy, gained a strong hold 
in Byz. The Byz. domination over Bulgaria was 
several times challenged in the 11th C. (revolts of 
Dejan and George Vorrecn, the Bogomil rebel- 
lion in 1086), In 1185 a new revolt broke out, 
and by 1188 the weakened Byz. government had 
recognized the independence of Bulgaria north 
of the Balkan range, with its capital in TURNOVO. 
The Bulgarian victory at ARKADIOPOLIS in 1193 
led to the annexation of much of central Thrace. 
A new Bulgaria emerged, usually called the Sec- 
ond Bulgarian Empire. 

At first (ander KaLojan, BORIL, and JOHN ASEN 
Il) Bulgaria profited from the disarray resulting 
from the Fourth Crusade to occupy more of Thrace 
and most of Macedonia, and after the Bulgarian 
victory over Epiros at KLOKOTNICA in 1230 ex- 
tended its rule to the Adriatic at Dyrrachion. The 
marriage of John Asen’s daughter to Theodore 
II Laskaris of Nicaea and the creation of a Bul- 
garian patriarchate in 1235 mark the apogee of 
Bulgarian power. This zenith was of short dura- 
tion: the state faced serious domestic and inter- 
national problems. The country lacked economic 
unity. The towns on the Danube, such as Vipin, 
were more connected with central Europe, those 
on the Black Sea were involved in Italian trade, 
and western Bulgaria tended toward Dubrovnik. 
While ca.1200 Bulgaria profited from alliance with 
the Cumans, later the Tatar settlement in the 
steppe created a serious menace, heightened by 
constant conflicts with Byz. and Serbia and esp. 
by the Ottoman invasion of the 14th C. The 
internal instability found its expression in revolts, 
such as the mutiny of IvajLo. By the end of the 
13th C. only northeastern Bulgaria recognized 
Tsar Georgij Terter I. For a short period THEo- 
DORE SVETOSLAV, MICHAEL III SiSman, and Ivan 
ALEXANDER reunited Bulgaria, and the country, 
despite certain military losses, enjoyed relative 
peace and prosperity. From 1370 onward, how- 
ever, the increasing encroachment of the Otto- 
mans on the Balkans threatened the very exis- 
tence of Bulgaria. In 1373 Bulgaria became a 
virtual Ottoman vassal, and in 1393 Murap I 
invaded and annexed it. 

Of all the Slavic countries Bulgaria was the 
closest to Byz. Their interrelationship was very 
complex, ranging from military rivalry to trade 
connections (Bulgaria exporting to Constantino- 


pte Hax and cattle) to religious and cultural ex- 
change; some Greek regions were absorbed by 
Bulgaria and for almost two centuries Bulgaria 
was incorporated by Byz. The Bulgarian state was 
formed both under Byz. impact and in a constant 
resistance to the threat of “hellenization.” The 
material interpenetration did not abolish mutual 
mistrust, and political alliance was sporadic and 
short-lived. On the other hand, Bulgaria trans- 
mitted Byz. civilization to other Orthodox peo- 
ples, particularly Rumanians and Muscovite Rus- 
sia (in the 14th C.). The absorption of Byz. culture 
was selective. The literature and ideology of Byz. 
Christianity, both in its learned and its popular 
form, were taken over (see BULGARIAN LITERA- 
TURE), as were the Byz. chroniclers’ picture of 
world history, a simplified version of Byz. civil 
and canon law, and some popular nonreligious 
literature such as the ALEXANDER ROMANCE. What 
was rejected was learned and classicizing literature 
and thought, including philosophy and science, 
which Bulgarian society neither needed nor 
understood. It was this filtered Byz. culture that 
was passed on to the non-Greek Orthodox world. 

LIT. R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria (Berkeley 1975). 
V.N. Zlatarski, Istorija na btilgarskaia diriava prez srednite 
vekove, 3 vols. (Sofia 1918—40). P. Mutaftiev, Istorija na 
bilgarskija narod, vol. 2 (Sofia 1944). D. Angelov, Obrazuvane 
na bilgarskata narodnost? (Sofia 1981). G.G. Litavrin, Bol- 
garija i Vizantija v XI—-XH vu. (Moscow 1960; Bulgarian tr., 
Sofia 1987). S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian 
Empire (London 1930). L. Dujéev et al., Histoire de la Bulgarie 
{Roanne 1977) 1-244. V. Gjuzelev, Udilista, skriptori, bibli- 


oteki i znanya v Biilgarya, XIII—XIV vek (Sofia 1985). 
-R.B. 


BULGARIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE. 
The First Bulgarian Empire was founded on ter- 
ritory rich in Roman and Byz. remains. These 
and other sources were used to create an art 
designed to serve the national and religious needs 
of the new state. The earliest administrative cen- 
ter, PLiska, was laid out as a double fortress, an 
architectural solution also adopted at the second 
capital, Great PresLav. The most unusual mon- 
ument from this period is the large relief of a 
horseman carved in the cliff above the religious 
center of Madara. Most likely carved in 705 and 
probably representing Khan Tervet, the relief is 
surrounded by contemporary and later Greek in- 
scriptions of rulers’ names. The iconography—-a 
horseman holding aloft a cup, with a lion below 


and a dog running behind—bears close resem- 
blance to rock-cut reliefs of Sasanian Persia. But 
the bold, monumental style, with the figure and 
the background rendered as two parallel planes, 
is typical of Bulgarian sculpture from this period 
and continues into the ioth C. at nearby Preslav 
and Abradaka. 

Bulgarian ceramic TILE decoration may also be 
Near Eastern in influence. Tiles—both flat tiles 
and semicircular cornice pieces, large and small— 
were specially made for use as wall revetment. 
Some tile images, such as a 2o-tile icon of St. 
Theodore from Sofia and a group of smaller, 
single-tile icons from Tuzlaliik, depict saints, 
though the majority are decorated with floral and 
geometric motifs. Many have been found in situ, 
adorning the floors and dado zones of small mon- 
astery churches around Preslav (the earliest dat- 
able example comes from the Round Church of 
Preslav, probably built before 907). Similar tile 
decoration is found in Constantinople as well, and 
probably derives from Arabic antecedents. It is 
possible that ceramic decoration was used in large 
quantities in and around Preslav even before its 
widespread use in Constantinople. 

The Round Church at Preslav is a good ex- 
ample of the eclectic use of sources typical of 
much Bulgarian art of the early empire. The form 
of the church—a domed rotunda with an interior 
two-tiered colonnade preceded by an atrium that 
is enclosed by walls with niches and columns—has 
been likened to ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE, while 
the use of mosaic decoration shows Byz. influence. 
The structure may in fact reflect late Roman Bap- 
TISTERY forms, underscoring one of the main 
functions of the church in the newly converted 
realm. Its round form may also indicate it was 
intended to serve as a palace chapel. 

Byz. culture was to be the decisive influence on 
Bulgarian art during the 11th and 12th C., when 
the territory came under Byz. hegemony (cf. the 
frescoes of the ossuary of the monastery of PE- 
TRITZOS). By the time Bulgarian independence 
was won, Byz. culture had become the single ma- 
jor source for artistic creation. 

The art of the Second Bulgarian Empire shows 
a resurgence of architecture and painting. Dona- 
tions by nobles include the churches on Trapezitsa 
Hill in TUrnovo and the Tower of Hreljo in the 
Rua monastery. Two-story churches, which were 
used for burial and whose structure served to 


level uneven terrain, may have derived from Byz. 
or Caucasian prototypes but became a popular 
local type of church plan. Other churches are 
elaborate variants of Palaiologan architectural 
forms: in the 14th-C. churches of MESEMBRIA, for 
example, stone, brick, and ceramic inserts com- 
bine to produce a rich, textilelike patterning of 
the exterior quite unrelated to the internal divi- 
sions of the church (e.g., St. John Aleitourgetos). 

Painting of the Second Empire shows two ten- 
dencies. Many monuments rely on Byz. models of 
the 11th and 12th C., introduced during the pe- 
riod of Byz. rule (e.g., Bojana). Other fresco 
ensembles and icons show more awareness of con- 
temporary art in Constantinople. This is especially 
true of the royal commissions by Tsar IVAN ALEX- 
ANDER. The rock-cut “Curkvata” at Ivanovo was 
decorated by Bulgarian artists in the most up-to- 
date Palaiologan style; bottom-heavy figures in 
twisted postures are placed in front of elaborate 
architectural facades. The flat ceiling of this hum- 
ble church, which served a hesychast monastic 
community, is given an unusual treatment: copy- 
ing the wall decoration, the ceiling is laid out with 
small scenes in square frames. Manuscript paint- 
ing also tended to copy Byz. models, both contem- 
porary and older; the Gospels of Ivan Alexander 
(London, B.L. Add. 39627, dated 1355/6) has the 
format of a FRIEZE GosPEL, and the portraits it 
contains of the tsar and his family are clad in 
Byz.-style imperial costume. The Chronicle of Con- 
stantine Manasses (Vat. slav. 2, ca.1345) copies a 
Byz. illustrated chronicle, adapting traditional 
scenes to illustrate the passages on Bulgarian his- 
tory written expressly for this book. Icon painting 
(e.g., the late 13th-C. St. George, Plovdiv State 
Gallery no.486) also reflects contemporary Byz. 
Palaiologan style. 

Lit. S. Vaklinov, Formtrane na starobiilgarskata kultura VI— 
XI vek (Sofia 1977). K. Mijatev, Die mittelalterliche Baukunst 
in Bulgarien (Sofia 1974). A. Grabar, La peinture religieuse 
en Buigarie, 2 vols. (Paris 1928). Istorija na Biilgarskoto izo- 
brazitelno izkustvo (Sofia 1976). E. Bakalova, “Society and 


Art in Bulgaria in the Fourteenth Century,” BBulg 8 (1986) 
17-72. -E.C.S. 


BULGARIAN LITERATURE. Although a num- 
ber of inscriptions in Greek and a few Proto- 
BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS written in Greek char- 
acters survive from before the conversion of 
Bulgaria, and there is evidence that both the Proto- 


336 | BULGARIAN LITERATURE 


Bulgarians (Bulgars) and the Slavs were ac- 
quainted with writing, Bulgarian literature is a 
product of the christianization of the country. 
When the pupils of CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSO- 
PHER and Meruopios, expelled from Moravia, 
reached Bulgaria in 885, bringing with them 
translations of the Scriptures and of the liturgy, 
they found the ground prepared for the devel- 
opment of literature in Cyurcu SLavonic. There 
had already been 20 years of missionary activity 
by Greek and Roman clergy. Tsar Boris I was 
anxious to avoid too close dependence of the 
Bulgarian church on Byz. Furthermore, a gen- 
eration of young Bulgarians, including the future 
tsar SYMEON OF BuLcariA, had studied in Con- 
stantinople and brought some familiarity with Byz. 
literary culture back with them. 

From their first arrival, the newcomers received 
royal patronage and encouragement on a grand 
scale. Schools were established in monasteries in 
Preslav and Ohrid for the training of Slavonic 
clergy and the translation or composition of the 
literature necessary for a Christian and civilized 
society. The beginning of Bulgarian literature can 
be dated with great precision to the second half 
of the 880s. Translation was the first priority. 
Among the earliest works translated by KONSTAN- 
TIN OF Preslav and others were select homilies of 
Athanasios of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzos, 
Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and John of 
Damascus, which provided an introduction to the- 
ology. Translations of the chronicles of MALALAs, 
Patr. NIKEPHOROS I, and GEORGE HAMARTOLOS 
familiarized Bulgarians with a historical process 
which was at the same time a process of salvation. 
The Christian Topography of Kosmas INpiko- 
PLEUSTES furnished geographical information in 
a theological framework. The practice of trans- 
lation provided a laboratory of language and style, 
in which experimentation with different genres 
flourished and the flexibility and expressiveness 
of Slavonic developed. With this end in mind, the 
short treatise of George CHorrososkos, On Fig- 
ures of Speech, was translated in the late gth or 
early ioth C. 

Original writing went hand in hand with trans- 
lation. Unknown authors wrote Lives, panegyrics, 
and akolouthiai on Constantine the Philosopher 
and Methodios, KLIMENT OF OHRID and NAUM OF 
OHRID. JOHN THE ExarcH and Konstantin of 


Preslav combined material translated or adapted 
from Greek with much original matter. KOSMAS 
THE PRIEST applied Byz. theological concepts to 
the elucidation of specifically Bulgarian problems 
arising out of the spread of the BocomiLs and 
displayed a capacity for sharp social criticism. 
Poetry was written, both in Byz. 12-syllable me- 
ter, such as the anonymous enkomion of Tsar Sy- 
meon, and in the complex accentual rhythms of 
the Byz. liturgy, as in the kanon on St. Demetrios. 
A treatise on church music surviving in a single 
GLracoLiric MS may well be connected with the 
development of liturgical hymns in the late gth 
C.; it was written in Preslav or Ohrid. 

Along with the “official” literature of the Byz. 
church, the Bulgarians took over and translated 
apocryphal and apocalyptic texts, such as the Vi- 
sion of Isaiah. These provided a model for original 
compositions expressing Bulgarian aspirations and 
fears, such as the Story of the Cross by Jeremiah 
the Priest (10th C.) or the Thessalonican legend 
of the baptism of the Bulgarians. Both the Ortho- 
dox and sectarians, esp. the Bogomils, used such 
texts extensively; 25 apocryphal texts figure in the 
IZBORNIK of 1073. 

What was not translated, adapted, or imitated 
in this period of the development of Bulgarian 
literature was the classicizing secular literature of 
the Byz., which must have seemed irrelevant and 
incomprehensible to Bulgarian readers and lis- 
teners. Thus Byz. literature and culture was fil- 
tered in its transmission to Bulgaria in the gth 
and ioth C. 

The piecemeal conquest of Bulgaria by the Byz. 
between 971 and 1018 destroyed the social and 
political structure that had fostered Bulgarian lit- 
erature. Royal patronage, which had been neces- 
sary for the origin and rapid growth of Bulgarian 
literature, ceased. Monasteries, however, pro- 
vided both a demand for and a supply of saints’ 
Lives, such as the earliest Life of St. JoHN oF RILA, 
written before 1183. A number of apocryphal 
writings, sometimes of Bogomil inspiration, prob- 
ably date from the period of Byz. rule. 

Now Bulgarian literature began to have some 
influence on Byz. hagiography. THEOPHYLAKTOS 
of Ohrid wrote a Life of his predecessor Kliment 
that evidently drew on Slavonic sources. The pro- 
tokouropalates George Skyiirzes, who had served 
as strategos of a Bulgarian province, wrote a Greek 


BULGARIAN TREATY, ANONYMOUS TREATISE ON THE | 337 


Life of St. John of Rila, which survives only in a 
13th- or 14th-C. Slavonic translation. It may have 
been intended as a response to the pro-Bulgarian 
tone of the earlier Slavonic Life. 

The restoration of Bulgarian independence in 
1186 did not at once lead to a revival of Bulgarian 
literature. Feuding between ruling groups, threats 
from the Latin Empire of the Crusaders, and the 
general social and political instability of the coun- 
try in the 13th C. were not conducive to literary 
production. Little literature survives from the pe- 
riod, apart from minor hagiographical texts and 
the Synodikon of Tsar Borit, which contains, 
along with traditional Byz. material, accounts of 
the Bulgarian church council of 1211 and of the 
restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate, as well 
as panegyrics on Bulgarian rulers and church- 
men. 

In the 14th C. the encouragement of literature 
by successive church leaders, in particular Teo- 
dosije, superior of Kilifarevo monastery (died 
1363), and Evrimy or TURNovo, together with 
the patronage of Tsar IvAN ALEXANDER, stimu- 
lated a remarkable literary and cultural revival, 
centered in monasteries in the Turnovo region. 
Many new translations were made from Greek, 
including the Kephalaia (Chapters) of the hesy- 
chast GREGORY SINaltTEs, an anthology of sermons 
of John Chrysostom, and the Chronicle of Con- 
stantine Manasses. Evtimi of Turnovo composed 
Lives of Bulgarian saints, liturgical texts, and dog- 
matic treatises. His close friend Kiprian, an eccle- 
siastical diplomat of wide experience and for 17 
years metropolitan of Moscow, wrote Lives of 
Russian saints, letters on dogma and church dis- 
cipline, a synaxarion for the Russian church that 
included many Bulgarian and Serbian saints, and 
perhaps the first index of prohibited books. More 
than any other of his time he furthered the spread 
of southern Slavic and Byz. literary models and 
techniques in Serbia and Russia. KONSTANTIN 
Kostrenecxi, who migrated to Serbia in 1410, 
wrote a Life of Stefan Lazarević and translated 
Greek patristic texts. Grigorij CAMBLAK, who mi- 
grated first to Serbia and then to Kiev, wrote 
many hagiographical works, liturgical composi- 
tions, and sermons. Ioasar oF Vidin included in 
his panegyric of St. Philothea much information 
on the Bulgaria of his time. Among the many 
minor and often anonymous works surviving from 


the 14th and early 15th C. are a short Bulgarian 
chronicle, letters on religious problems addressed 
to Evtimi of Ttrnovo, and a verse panegyric on 
Tsar Ivan Alexander. 

The literature of this period is marked by the 
influence, both in matter and in form, of contem- 
porary Byz. literature. HesycHaSM won strong 
and immediate support among most Bulgarian 
clergy and monks. A rhetorical, poetic, and often 
pompously inflated style was reflective of contem- 
porary Byz. taste. At the same time, we sometimes 
find lively descriptions of Bulgarian society and 
life. Had not the Turkish conquest destroyed the 
structures of Bulgarian society, Bulgarian litera- 
ture might well have flourished. As things were, 
it provided a stimulus and a model for the liter- 
ature of Serbia, Rumania, and above all Russia. 

LIT. P. Dinekov et al., /storija na bilgarskata literatura, I: 
Starobiilgarskata literatura (Soha 1982). Idem, Pochvala na 
starata biilgarska literatura (Sofia 1979). Idem, “Uber die 
Anfange der bulgarischen Literatur,” International Journal 
of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 3 (1960) 109-21. I. Dujéev, 
Iz starata bilgarska kniznina, 2 vols. (Sofia 1943). M. Murko, 
Geschichte der älteren siidslavischen Literaturen (Leipzig 1908). 
E. Georgiev, Literaturata na Viorata biilgarska diriava. Půrva 
čast: Literatura na XHI vek (Sofia 1977). P. Rusev et al., 


Ttirnouska kniiouna skola, vol. 2 (Sofia 1980). A. Davidov et 
al., Tiirnouska knizouna škola, vol. 4 (Sofia 1985). -R.B. 


BULGARIAN TREATY, ANONYMOUS TREA- 
TISE ON THE, conventional title of a speech 
preserved in a single MS (Vat. gr. 483 of the 13th 
or 14th C.) and dedicated to the signing of the 
peace treaty with the Bulgarians in October 927. 
The speech contains a survey of historical events: 
Leo VI is highly praised; then the author men- 
tions a revolt (apostasia); the assault of the archon 
(SYMEON OF BuLrcaria), who was crowned by the 
“helmet of darkness” (NicHOLAS I MystiKos); and 
the elevation of the new Moses (Romanos J), raised 
up out of the water to extinguish the flames of 
war. The text is full of classical references and 
obscure allusions, some of which are explained in 
red ink in the margins by the hand of the same 
scribe. Various scholars have suggested the fol- 
lowing possible authors of the treatise: Nicholas 
Mystikos (F. Uspenskij in Letopis 2 [1894] 121), 
ARETHAS OF CAESAREA (M. Sangin, Istorik-Marksist 
[1939] no.3, 177), NikeTas Macistros (J. Dar- 
rouzés, REB 18 [1960] 126), and Theodore 
Dapunopates (I. Dujéev, DOP 32 [1978] 252f). 


sso | DULUANS, LUKRKIU 


However, the most recent editor, Stauridou-Za- 
phraka, rejects all these identifications (infra 351— 
55): 

Ep. A. Stauridou-Zaphraka, “Ho anonymos logos ‘Epi 


te ton Boulgaron symbasei,’” Byzantina 8 (1976) 343-406. 
~A.K. 


BULGARS, TURKIC, also Proto-Bulgarians, Pra- 
Bulgarians, a pastoral people, originally living in 
Central Asia. Swept westward in the great move- 
ment of steppe peoples that brought the Huns 
and later the Avars to Europe, some Bulgar tribes 
settled in Pannonia, where they were dominated 
by the Avars and took part in their campaigns 
against the Franks, Lombards, and Byz. In the 
“th C. many of these Pannonian Bulgars settled 
in Italy, in Lombardy, the Rimini-Osimo area, and 
the region of Benevento. The main body of the 
Bulgar tribes, dwelling north of the Azov Sea and 
the river Kuban, were dominated by the Western 
Turkic khaganate from the mid-6th C. onward. 
In 632, profiting from divisions among their Turkic 
rulers, these Bulgars revolted successfully and 
formed a powerful confederation of Bulgar and 
related tribes known as Great Bulgaria, led by 
Kuvrat. Herakleios, seeking a reliable ally to block 
the Khazar advance westward, concluded a treaty 
with Kuvrat. 

After Kuvrat died, Great Bulgaria broke up 
under Khazar pressure. Some tribes migrated to 
the Volga-Kama region, some probably joined 
their kinsmen in Pannonia, some remained under 
Khazar rule, and some, led by AspaRucH, mi- 
grated westward to the area between the Dnieper 
and the Danube delta. In 681 Asparuch and his 
followers invaded Byz. territory south of the Dan- 
ube and established the First Bulgarian Empire. 
About the same time a group of Pannonian Bul- 
gars and their Slav and Greek subjects led by 
Kouber migrated to northern Macedonia; Byz. 
authorities recognized their presence there. Both 
Bulgar groups had long been in contact with 
agricultural peoples and had largely given up 
their pastoral way of life. They quickly mingled 
with the Slavs among whom they settled, becom- 
ing a single people called Bulgarians. By the end 
of the gth C. the Bulgars had probably ceased to 
exist as a separate ethnic and linguistic group. 
(See also PROTO-BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS.) 


LIT. V. BeSevliev, Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgar- 
ischen Geschichte (Amsterdam 1981). Idem, Purvebilganite: 


Bit i kultura (Sofia 1981). V. Gjuzelev, The Protobulgarians: 
Pre-History of Asparouhian Bulgaria (Sofia 1979). P. Petrov, 
Obrazuvane na biilgurskata diiriava (Sofia 1981). A. Stojnev, 
Svetogledtit na Prabiilgarite (Sofia 1985). N. Mavrodinov, Le 
trésor protobulgare de Nagyszentmiklés (Budapest 1943). O. 
Pritsak, Die bulgarische Fiirstentiste und die Sprache der Proto- 
bulgaren (Wiesbaden 1955). Problemi na prabilgarskata istorija 
i kultura, II meidunarodna srešča po prabiilgarska archeologia, 
Sumen 1986 (Sofia 1989). ~R.B. 


BUREAUCRACY. Byz. was governed by the Em- 
PEROR and administered by a corps of officials. 
The Byz. did not restrict the ruling class to a 
Greek version of the Western oratores and bella- 
tores, clergy and knights, but regularly regarded 
officials as a separate category of the elite, often 
described as synkletskoi, SENATORS (Kazhdan, 
Gosp.klass. 66—70). In the broad sense of the term, 
bureaucracy also encompassed military com- 
manders and ecciesiastical functionaries. We do 
not have figures to determine the size of the 
bureaucracy, although the number of officials was 
larger than in any other medieval European so- 
ciety. Very approximate data can be drawn from 
the early 5th-C. NOTITIA DIGNITATUM and the 
Kletoralogion of PuiLorHeos. Around 40o, there 
were 103 main offices of the central and pro- 
vincial administration of the eastern part of the 
empire, both military and civil, and more than 
260 subaltern offices (the number of officials should 
be larger since many offices presupposed several 
functionaries simultaneously); ca.goo, there were 
59 main and about 500 subaltern offices, despite 
a drastic contraction of imperial territory. 

The main spheres of administrative activity, be- 
sides ecclesiastical, were military, fiscal, and ju- 
dicial—this categorization provided by chrysobulls 
from the end of the 11th C. PROVINCIAL ADMIN- 
ISTRATION was in the hands of either military 
commanders or JUDGES, while DIPLOMACY was not 
consistently separated from the general adminis- 
tration. A significant role was assigned to various 
imperial chanceries whose function was the com- 
position of documents and the handling of cor- 
respondence addressed to the basileus. After the 
abolition of the office of the PRAETORIAN PREFECT 
no functionary presided over the whole executive 
activity; the MESAZON Or PARADYNASTEVON who 
tended to assume this role remained a semi-official 
imperial favorite. 

There were neither social nor educational re- 
quirements for recruitment of civil servants—even 


illiterate officials are known. Epucation, how- 
ever, did provide one avenue of entrance, while 
children of officials had a better chance of obtain- 
ing administrative positions. By the 12th C. a 
pattern emerges in which military commanders 
or fiscal or judicial functionaries predominate in 
certain families, despite the absence of a heredi- 
tary system of TITLES or OFFICES. The combination 
of land ownership and imperial service was typi- 
cal, esp. among the military elite, even though the 
government tried to prohibit the STRATEGOI from 
acquiring lands within their districts. Civil admin- 
istrators originated more often than military com- 
manders from families engaged in commerce; 
they were more likely to be connected with an 
intellectual milieu and the higher cLercy. 

A typical trait of Byz. bureaucracy was a close 
connection between the state government and the 
emperor’s household. The difference between the 
two was ill defined, and the spheres of authority 
of the emperor’s treasury and of the state financial 
bureau were barely distinguishable. Accordingly, 
the personnel of the imperial household, includ- 
ing EUNUCHS, was often assigned state functions, 
both civil and military. Until the end of the 11th 
C., the imperial household was considered to be 
a section of the state administration, and courtiers 
were included in the state hierarchy of the TAk- 
TIKA. The Komnenoi tried to reverse the system 
and treated the state as the patrimony of the 
ruling dynasty; relatives of the emperor not only 
actually obtained high positions in the bureau- 
cracy but also assumed the highest titles by right 
of consanguinity. A patrimonial element became 
entrenched in the Palaiologan period. The 14th- 
C. bureaucracy described by pseudo-Kopinos is 
based on the principle of consanguinity/affinity 
and on a post at court rather than on state service. 

A position in the bureaucracy was seen as pres- 
tigious; it was characterized, esp. from the 12th 
C. onward, by terms of dependence (on the em- 
peror) such as DOULOS or OIKEIOS; it was strictly 
contrasted with private service (A. Kazhdan, RE- 
SEE 7 [1969] 469—73). Public service was re- 
warded by salary (in a direct form or as a part of 
a province’s revenues), by gifts from the emperor 
on feastdays, by donations of land or incorporeal 
rights (PRONOIA, CHARISTIKION, etc.), and, finally, 
by sportulae (see SYNETHEIAI). 

Texts preserve manifold complaints concerning 
malpractice of officials, esp. tax collectors (coer- 


BUREAUCRACY | 339 


cion, bribery, theft, biased judgment). It is impor- 
tant to remember, however, that historians and 
hagiographers record primarily exceptional cases, 
and that the administrative machine could func- 
tion effectively, although centralization had its 
negative features—the apparatus was expensive 
and clumsy, decision making took place in Con- 
stantinople, competition between officials could 
easily grow into intrigues and cabals, and bureau- 
cratic omnipotence opened broad opportunities 
for personal gain. 

Modern scholars, particularly J.B. Bury and F. 
Dölger, have considered the Byz. bureaucracy as 
a coherent system with a well-defined division of 
functions, which drew upon the late Roman ad- 
ministration so that new offices smoothly replaced 
the old ones. This picture is idealized and simpli- 
fied; the bureaucracy was often in a state of con- 
fusion with the result that the same term might 
designate various offices, different departments 
might fulfill identical functions, SEKRETA might 
combine responsibilities of completely different 
kinds, and rivalry penetrated the whole state ma- 
chinery. Direct connection with the Roman system 
is illusory and based primarily on the deceptive 
similarity of terms. It is quite probable that around 
the 7th C. the bureaucracy underwent a profound 
transformation that cannot, however, be ex- 
plained by reform or a series of reforms; the main 
features of the gradual change were replacement 
of the PREFECTURE by the system of LOGOTHESIA, 
introduction of THEMES, and the decline of Mu- 
NICIPAL ADMINISTRATION. The struggle for cen- 
tralization was won by the emperors of the gth 
and 1oth C. The resistance of themes was crushed, 
the army of TAGMATA created, and an orderly 
hierarchy established. The 11th C. witnessed the 
triumph of the centralized administration of the 
civil bureaucracy that soon revealed its negative 
features. The Komnenoi tried to rebuild the bu- 
reaucracy on the patrimonial basis that, after a 
reaction under Andronikos I and the Angeloi, 
was revived by the Laskarids. The small state of 
the Palaiologoi yielded to decentralizing tenden- 
cies; the administration in Constantinople merged 
with the court, and in the provinces local forces 
achieved administrative independence. 


uit. A. Guillou, La civilisation byzantine (Paris 1974) 103- 
95. T.F. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society (Law- 
rence, Kans., 1971). J.B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative 
System in the Ninth Century (London 1911), with an index by 


M. Gregoriou-loannidou in EEPASPTA 10 (1968) 165-240. 
G. Weiss, Ostrimische Beamte im Spiegel der Schriften des Mi- 
chael Psellos (Munich 1973). A. Hohlweg, Beiträge zur Ver- 
waltungsgeschichte des Oströmischen Reiches unter den Komnenen 
(Munich 1965). W. Kaegi, “Some Perspectives on Byzantine 
Bureaucracy,” in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bu- 
reaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson, R. Biggs 
(Chicago 1987) 151-59. —A.K. 


BURGUNDIANS (Bovupyouliwves), a Germanic 
tribe that crossed the Rhine in 406 and settled in 
the middle Rhineland. In 443, following their 
defeat by the Huns, AETIUS resettled them in the 
Rhone-Saéne valleys (Burgundy) and eastern 
Switzerland. The kingdom of Burgundy, by virtue 
of its rich Roman heritage, well-entrenched Gallo- 
Roman aristocracy, and proximity to Italy, was 
the most romanized of all the barbarian states. 
Although the Burgundians were Arian, relations 
with the orthodox Gallo-Roman clergy were such 
that Avitus, bishop of Vienna, was permitted by 
King Gundobad to convert his son and successor 
Sigismund to orthodoxy in 516. At least three 
Burgundian kings were granted an official title 
by Eastern emperors, perhaps magisier utriusque 
militiae per Gallias. Eastern influence in Burgundy 
is evident in the presence of 5th-C. churches ded- 
icated to Sts. Kosmas and Damianos, Christopher, 
and George. The Greek TRISAGION was also intro- 
duced into the Western Mass by way of Burgundy 
in the early 6th C. Burgundy was overrun by the 
Franks under Clovis in 534. The Franks sent a 
contingent of Burgundians to support the Ostro- 
goths in their struggle against Justinian I’s forces 
in Italy. Tiberios I tried to intervene in Burgun- 
dian politics in order to secure Burgundian sup- 
port against the LomparpDs in Italy, but failed. 
uT. W. Goffart, “Byzantine Policy in the West under 
Tiberius H and Maurice,” Traditio 13 (1957) 73—118. J. 
Richard, Histoire de la Bourgogne (Toulouse 1978) 90—130. 
Thompson, Romans & Barbarians 23—37. H. Rosenberg, 
“Bishop Avitus of Vienna and the Burgundian Kingdom,” 


Journal of the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance As- 
sociation 4 (1982) 1-12. —R.B.H. 


BURGUNDIO OF PISA, jurist, diplomat, Latin 
translator of Greek texts; born ca.1110, died 30 
Oct. 1193. On 10 Apr. 1136 Burgundio appeared 
at Constantinople as an interpreter (along with 
Moses OF BERGAMO) at the theological disputation 
of ANseELM of Havelberg, Lothar Is ambassador 
to Emp. John H Komnenos, with Niketas, met- 


ropolitan of Nikomedeia. His career as a Pisan 
jurist (1140-74) is well documented. From 7 Nov. 
1168 to g Nov. 1171 he helped head an embassy 
to Emp. Manuel I intended to restore Pisa’s com- 
petitive position with her commercial rivals at 
Constantinople (Reg 1, no.1499). Burgundio's 
theological translations comprise Chrysostom’s 
Homilies on Matthew (finished on 2g Nov. 1151 for 
Pope Eugenius III from a MS supplied by the 
Latin patriarch of Antioch); part of John of Da- 
mascus’s Fountain of Knowledge, or Pege gnoseos 
(1153 or 1154); Nemesios (ca.1164 or 1165; ded- 
icated to Frederick 1); and Chrysostom’s Homilies 
on John (begun during the embassy from two MSS 
loaned by Byz. monasteries; finished 1179). He 
also translated Galen’s On the Sects (1185; dedi- 
cated probably to Henry VI), Greek passages of 
the Digest of Justinian, and the Geoponika. His 
annotations occur in Greek MSS Florence, Laur. 
74.5, 74.18, 74.25, 74.30, and Paris, B.N. gr. 1849. 
Burgundio reproduced the Greek as closely as 
possible but shows semantic flexibility for individ- 
ual words; his versions shed light on the Byz. 
transmission of these works. 
ED. See R. Durling, LMA 2:1097f, for list of ed. 


_ Lit. P. Classen, Burgundio von Pisa: Richter, Gesandter, 
Ubersetzer (Heidelberg 1974). —M.McC. 


BURIAL (rah). Although practices varied in 
different areas, it was common in warm countries 
to bury the deceased on the first day after death. 
Following FUNERAL preparations, the ceremony at 
the roMp—including prayers, incense, and the 
EPITAPHJOS oration—centered on saying farewell 
to the departed and praying for his salvation and 
the pardon of his sins. The majority of people 
were buried in CEMETERIES, which were located 
outside of a city, town, or village. Some corpses 
were buried with valuables, which made their 
tombs liable to GRAVE-ROBBING. 

Although a law of 381 (Cod.Theod. IX 17.6) 
prohibited the practice of burials in churches, it 
continued for clerics, distinguished monks, em- 
perors, and influential laymen and their families. 
MAUSOLEUMS and MARTYRIA were erected to com- 
memorate some imperial family members or the 
most venerated martyrs. Three distinct types of 
burials are to be found in Byz. churches from 
early Christian times on: ARCOSOLIA, tombs in the 
pavement, and sarcopuaci. All these types are 


found in church porches, narthexes, naves, chapels, 
PAREKKLESIA, burial chambers, and cryprs. The 
burial sites were frequently reserved by individ- 
uals during their lifetime; for example, in the 
13th-C. typikon for the Lips MONASTERY in Con- 
stantinople, Empress Theodora prescribed the 
placement of her tomb as well as those of her 
family in various locations in the narthex and the 
nave of the church. 

After the burial relatives of the deceased ob- 
served a period of mourning, during which, on 
the third, ninth, and fortieth day, they commem- 
orated and prayed for the soul of the departed 
and prepared KOLLYBA. 

Lit. N.P. Ševčenko, C.S. Snively, D. Abrahamse, N.B. 
Teteriatnikov, and S. Ćurčić in GOrTAR 29 (1984) 115-95. 
J Kyriakakis, “Byzantine Burial Customs,” GOrTAR 19 
(1974) 37—72. A. Rush, Death and Burial in Christian Anti- 
quity (Washington, D.C., 1941). -N.T., Ap.K. 


BURNING BUSH, a theophany to Moses on Mt. 
Sinar (Ex 3:1—6). Pilgrims such as EGERIA (1.2— 
2.7) visited the site, and the monastery of St. 
CATHERINE reportedly was built there. The mir- 
acle was depicted early, for example, at the syn- 
agogue at Dura Euroros, at S. Maria Maggiore 
at Rome (432-40), and at S. Vitale at Ravenna 
(ca.540). In and after the oth C. it is often in- 
cluded with the scene of Moses receiving the Law, 
since both accounts are connected with Mt. Sinai. 
In the Paris Psatrer and the Bible of Leo Sa- 
KELLARIOS, for example, the burning bush is rep- 
resented halfway up the mountain. The Exodus 
account was read both at vespers and in the liturgy 
of the feast of the Annunciation, and the burning 
bush was already treated as a type of the Virgin 
by Gregory of Nyssa (PG 44:332D), a theme de- 
veloped in later homilies and prayers. Images of 
the Virgin or Virgin and Child within the burning 
bush are found in Palaiologan art, for example, 
in a cycle of such prefigurations in the parekklesion 
of the CHORA MONASTERY. 


Lit. M.Q. Smith, LCI 1:510f. S. Der Nersessian in Un- 
derwood, Kariye Djami 4:336—38. —].H.L., C.B.T. 


BUSTA GALLORUM (BovorayadAwpayv, lit. 
“tombs of the Gauls”), site on the via Flaminia, 
between Rome and Ravenna, near Tadinae (H.N. 
Roisle, RE supp. 14 [1974] 749-58, 799-809). 
Here, at the end of June/early July 552, NARSES 


crushed Tora and thereby decisively broke the 
resistance of the Ostrogoths, marking the begin- 
ning of the end of their organized fighting ability. 
The Byz. enjoyed two-to-one numerical superi- 
ority, using Lombards, Herulians, and other bar- 
barian infantry. The battle began with a single 
combat won by Anzalas, a retainer of Narses. 
Waiting for a troop of 2,000 mounted soldiers, 
Totila started a display of riding skill aimed at 
delaying the fight. Narses deployed his army in 
the shape of a crescent with foederati in the center 
and archers on the flanks. The Ostrogoths tried 
to smash the center but met a storm of arrows 
from the flanks. Prokopios, the only source for 
the battle, ascribes to Totila the order to use not 
bows but spears only (Wars 8:32.6). The unex- 
pected counterattack of Roman cavalry finally 
compelled the Ostrogoths to retreat; 6,000 of 
them fell in battle, and many others who had 
surrendered were massacred. Totila, mortally 
wounded, fled. 

uir. H.N. Roisle in F. Altheim, Geschichte der Hunnen, 
vol. 5 (Berlin 1962) 363—77- H. Delbrück, History of the Art 


of War, vol. 2 (Westport, Conn., 1980} 351-61. 
~W.E.K., A.K. 


BUTCHER. In the late Roman and Byz. eras a 
distinct terminology was used for dealers in and 
butchers of swine and merchants/butchers of other 
kinds of Livestock (primarily cattle and SHEEP). 
A law of 419 (Cod. Theod. XIV 4.10), for example, 
united the separate guilds of swine merchants 
(suarii) and cattle merchants (pecuaru). In Egypt 
the pork butcher (chotromageiros) was often a sep- 
arate tradesman (e.g., P.Cair.Masp. H 67164.3). 
The term makeilarios (cattle butcher) appears sev- 
eral times in late Roman inscriptions from Kory- 
kos (MAMA 3, nos. 280, 538, and possibly 388); 
one of these inscriptions commemorates George 
makellarios logarites, perhaps a treasurer of the 
butchers’ guild. 

The ioth-C. Book of the Eparch (chs. 15—16) 
divides the butchers/merchants into two guilds, 
the makellarioi and the choiremporot (swine mer- 
chants); the makellarioi were strictly prohibited 
from buying swine and storing pork. At this time 
the makellariot and chotremporoi served numerous 
functions, purchasing the animals, slaughtering 
them, and cutting up and selling their meat; in 
contrast the late Roman suarz and pecuarn were 
middlemen who bought animals from stockbreed- 


ers and sold them to the actual butchers (lanii). 
Theophanes the Confessor (Theoph. 225.8—9) 
used the term kreopoles for the tradesman who 
both slaughtered animals and sold the meat. 

Butchers in Constantinople were required to 
operate in authorized markets—Strategion and 
Tauros. They were forbidden to go to Nikome- 
deia or other nearby towns to receive delivery of 
sheep or to buy swine outside these markets; 
makellariot were, however, allowed to travel be- 
yond the Sangarios River in order to purchase 
animals for a lower price. Makellarioi had to set 
prices under the supervision of the eparch; they 
received the heads, feet, and entrails of the butch- 
ered animals as their profit but had to sell the 
remainder according to the fixed price. 

A few seals of butchers survive. An 8th-C. seal 
of the makellarios Anastasios (Zacos, Seals 1, no.735) 
implies that butchers could have administrative 
functions. There is also a 1oth-C. seal of the 
makellarios Leo (Zacos, Seals 2, n0.g33). A guild of 
butchers probably existed in is5th-C. Thessalo- 
nike; in any case, a protomakellarios is attested there 
(S. Kougeas, BZ 23 [1920] 145.10, 146.39). The 
functions of the guild at this time, however, seem 
to have expanded, so that a protomakellarios in 
Constantinople also dealt in wool (Oikonomides, 
Hommes d'affaires 111). There is evidence of a 
struggle in Constantinople in the Palaiologan pe- 
riod over market privileges: in 1320 a Venetian 
bailo protested the prohibition on Venetian meat 
and fish dealers in the capital’s meat market 
(Matschke, Fortschritt 96). 

LIT. Stöckle, Zünfte 42—45. Bk. of Eparch 222-931. A. 
Graeber, Untersuchungen zum späitrömischen Korporationswesen 
(Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York 1983) g0—97. 

-ALK. 
BYTHOS (Bu@0s), PERSONIFICATION of the Depths 
of the Sea, occurring most commonly in repre- 
sentations of the CROSSING OF THE RED SEA. By- 
thos is usually shown as a powerful naked male 
pulling Pharaoh from his horse into the water. 
Unknown in Early Christian imagery, he appears 
from the 1oth C. in PsALTER illustration and the 
Ocrateucus. In the Bible of Leo SAKELLARIOS 
this figure is identified as Pontos, the Sea. (See 
also TTHALASSA.) ~A.C. 


BYZACENA (Buocaris xwpa in antiquity). Un- 
der Diocletian, southern AFRICA PROCONSULARIS 
was formed into a new province known as Valeria 


Byzacena. Byzacena was a major producer of ag- 
ricultural goods from imperial and private do- 
mains situated on the eastern coast (Sahel) and 
near important inland towns such as SuUFETULA 
(Sbeitla) and Thelepte. In 442 Valentinian HI 
ceded Byzacena to the VANDALS. In the late 5th 
and early 6th C. much of southern Byzacena fell 
under the control of Mauri tribes. Following the 
Justinianic reconquest, Byzacena was ruled by both 
civil and military governors. The province was the 
scene of frequent warfare between the Byz. and 
Mauri until ca.571. Byzacena continued, however, 
to export oil to Constantinople and other parts of 
the Mediterranean, although in evidently reduced 
volume. Surveys conducted around Sufetula and 
Cillium (Kasserine) show a decline in rural settle- 
ment in the 6th and 7th C. Byzacena was invaded 
by the Arabs in 647 and again in 665 and 669. In 
670 a permanent Arab presence was established 
at Qayrawan. By the 680s the province was con- 
sidered lost by Byz. authorities. 

The ecclesiastical province of Byzacena did not 
emerge before the mid-4th C. Donatists predom- 
inated in the mountainous regions, Orthodox in 
the plains and coast; unlike Numipia, Byzacena 
was not torn by conflicts between the two sects. 
Byzacena was, however, a center of Orthodox 
resistance to the Arian Vandals and at the fore- 
front of African opposition in the THREE CHAP- 
TERS controversy. Byzacena was also involved in 
opposition to MONOTHELETISM, which crystallized 
in the brief revolt (646-47) of the exarch GRE- 
GORY. 

LIT. A, Chastagnol, “Les gouverneurs de Byzacéne et de 
Tripolitaine,” AntAfr 1 (1967) 119-34. Pringle, Defence. 
J.-M. Lassére, “La Byzacéne méridionale au milieu du Vie 
s. apC d’après la Johannide de Corippus,” Pallas 31 (1984) 
163-78. R.B. Hitchner, “The Kasserine Archaeological 
Survey,” AntAfr 24 (1988) 7—41. —R.B.H. 


BYZANTINE ERA, a system of computation of 
world CHRONOLOGY devised by the 7th C. Its ele- 
ments are noticeable in the CHRONICON PASCHALE 
written in the 630s. In 638/g the monk and priest 
George elaborated its principles in a treatise on 
the computation of Easter (F. Diekamp, BZ 9 
[1900] 24—32); it is difficult to decide whether he 
was the same priest and hegoumenos George to 
whom Maximos the Confessor dispatched a letter 
(PG 91:56-61) at approximately the same time. 
George’s point of departure was the observation 


that according to the ALEXANDRIAN ERA the sun 
had to be created on the fourth day of its course 
and the moon in its full phase, already on the 
fifteenth day of its course. To eliminate this con- 
tradiction George made a shift of 16 years and 
concluded that the Creation took place not 5,492 
but 5,508 years before the birth of Christ. Only 
by the end of the 1oth C. did this system of dating 
become prevalent, although sporadic use of it in 
ecclesiastical documents can be found earlier, e.g., 
in 691 (V. BeneSevic, Syntagma XIV titulorum [St. 
Petersburg 1906; rp. Leipzig 1974] 145.17—19). 
The era began originally on 21 Mar., but later 
(gth/10th C.) was shifted to 1 Sept. 

To convert a Byz. Era date to an a.D. date, 
where commencement of year is 21 Mar., subtract 
5:507 for dates between ı Jan. and 20 Mar., but 
5,508 for dates between 21 Mar. and 31 Dec.; 
where commencement of year is 1 Sept., subtract 
5,508 for dates between 1 Jan. and 31 Aug., but 
5.509 for dates between 1 Sept. and 31 Dec. 


ur. Grumel, Chronologie g8—128. —B.C., A.K. 


BYZANTINE RITE, the liturgical system of the 
Byz. Orthodox church, comprising the sacra- 
MENTS; the HOURS and viciLs; the liturgical YEAR 
with its CALENDAR of FEASTS, FASTS, and saints’ 
days; and a variety of lesser AKOLOUTHIAI (bless- 
ings, ENKAINIA, EXORCISMS, monastic investiture, 
etc.), all codified in LITURGICAL BOOKS. 
Renowned for the sumptuousness of its cere- 
monial and for its rich liturgical symbolism, the 
Byz. rite—in part the heritage of the imperial 
splendors of Constantinople—is actually a hybrid 
of Constantinopolitan and Palestinian rites grad- 
ually synthesized over the course of the gth—14th 
C. Its history can be divided into four phases: 
“palaeo-Byz.” (late Roman), imperial, Stoudite, 
and neo-Sabaitic. Antioch was the major center of 
liturgical diffusion in the prefecture of Oriens, 
and with several early bishops of Byzantion com- 
ing from Antioch or its environs, the early Con- 
stantinopolitan ASMATIKE AKOLOUTHIA and liturgy 
of the Eucharist, esp. the ANAPHORA, bear Anti- 
ochene traits. In the 6th—7th C., esp. under Jus- 
tinian I with the construction of Hacia SOPHIA, 
the Byz. rite became “imperial,” acquiring great 
ritual splendor and theological explicitation, the 
latter the result of the contemporary Christolog- 
ical controversies; new feasts, the creed, and sev- 


eral new chants (TRISAGION, MONOGENES, CHE- 
ROUBIKON) were added at this time. 

By the gth—1oth C. the church of Constanti- 
nople had evolved its complete liturgical system, 
codified in the TyPiKon OF THE GREAT CHURCH. 
The monastic victory over [CONOCLASM resulted 
in the gradual monasticization of the LITURGY, 
esp. the adoption by THEODORE oF SroupIos of 
Palestinian monastic usages for the hours, which 
initiated an eventual fusion of Constantinopolitan 
and Palestinian liturgical books. The monks of 
Stroupios gradually combined the HOROLOGION of 
the imported Palestinian office of St. Sabas with 
the EUCHOLOGION of the Great Church to create 
the hybrid “Stoudite” office: Palestinian monastic 
psalmody and hymns merged with the litanies and 
prayers of the Constantinopolitan asmatike ako- 
louthta. This period is characterized by a massive 
infusion of new liturgical poetry into the offices, 
monastic compositions from both Palestine and 
Constantinople, and their gathering into new an- 
thologies (OKTOECHOS, TRIODION, PENTEKOSTARI- 
ON, MENAION). It is in this period that the first 
STOUDITE TYPIKA appear to regulate the use of 
these new “propers.” 

Meanwhile, the Byz. rite was spreading to the 
patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru- 
salem, as these churches, weakened successively 
by the Monophysite schism, the Islamic conquests, 
and later the Crusades, gradually abandoned their 
own liturgies in favor of the Byz. rite. This pro- 
cess, already observable in MSS of the gth C., was 
fostered esp. by Theodore BALSAMON and was 
more or less complete in Alexandria and Antioch 
by the end of the 13th C., though the Liturgy of 
St. James remained in use longer in the patriar- 
chate of Jerusalem (C. Charon [Korolevskij} in 
Chrysostomika [Rome 1908] 473—718; J. Nasrallah, 
OrChr 71 [1987] 156-81). 

The Stoudite office, adopted throughout the 
Byz. monastic world, underwent further Sabaitic 
influence in Palestine. The result, codified in the 
SABAITIC TYPIKA, was adopted on Mt. Athos, where 
it received its final form under Patr. PHILOTHEOS 
Koxkinos. This “neo-Sabaitic” rite was to spread 
further in the wake of the reform movement 
under the patriarchate of Philotheos, even replac- 
ing the asmatike akolouthia everywhere but Thes- 
salonike. By the end of the empire the Byz. rite 
was in use throughout the Orthodox world and 
Sabaitic typika in force everywhere except south- 


344 BYZANTION 


ern Italy and Rus’, which still retained Stoudite 
usages. 

uit. M. Arranz, “Les grandes étapes de la liturgie by- 
zantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie,” Liturgie de Uéglise parti- 
culiére et liturgie de léglise universelle (Rome 1976) 43-72. 
Taft, “Bibl. of Hours,” nos. 40, 45f, 49, 52, 71, 132. Taft, 
“Mount Athos,” 179-94. -R.F.T. 


BYZANTION (Bvtávriov, also Bulavris), name 
of a Megarian colony at the southern mouth of 
the Bosroros, reportedly founded ca.660 B.C. 
The word is of Thracian origin; cf. the town of 
Bizye, the river Barbyses, etc. Ancient and Byz. 
legends considered a certain Byzas (the son of the 
nymph Semestre or a legendary Thracian king) 
as the founder of the city, sometimes together 
with the mythical Antes. The Parastaseis syntomoi 
chronikai often refers to “the days of Byzas and 
Antes” (e.g., Parastaseis 100.17); a combination of 
these two names must explain the toponym Byz- 
Ant-ion. 

Constantine I chose Byzantion as the site of his 
residence, transformed gradually into a new cap- 
ital. Byz. authors through the 15th C. (e.g., Douk. 
43-9) used the name Byzantion for their capital, 
although the official designation was CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE (Gr. Konstantinoupolis, “the city of Con- 
stantine”). The Byz. never extended the name 
Byzantion to their empire, which was termed “of 
the Rhomaioi”; for them the Byzantioi were the 
inhabitants of the capital. The term Byzantine Em- 
pire was coined by 16th-C. humanists. 

Layout and Monuments. Seeing that Byzantion 
was absorbed into Constantinople without any 
radical replanning, its layout influenced that of 
the new city and many of its buildings survived 
into the Byz. period. The ancient city walls, re- 
nowned for their strength, described an arc from 
the Golden Horn to the Propontis, passing a short 
distance east of what was to be Constantine’s 
Forum. Demolished by Septimius Severus in 195- 
g6, they were rebuilt in the second half of the grd 
C., probably along the same line. The acropolis 
of Byzantion, on the site of the present Seraglio, 
contained the main temples, which were still 
standing in the 6th C. Two fortified harbors lay 
within the walls on the shore of the Golden Horn. 
Next to them was an agora (later the Strategion). 
A second agora, called TETRASTOON, is repre- 
sented by the open space south of Hacia SOPHIA, 
later the AUGUSTAION. From there a colonnaded 


street, ascribed to Severus, led westward to the 
city gate. The theater, amphitheater (in the region 
of MANGANA), the baths of Achilles and ZEuxrP- 
pos, the aqueduct of Hadrian, and possibly the 
HrppopromeE were further features of the ancient 
city that survived into the Middle Ages. The cem- 
etery of Byzantion lay west of the city walls. The 
archaeological remains of Byzantion are very 
meager except for a good number of inscriptions. 
Lit. J. Miller, RE 3 (1899) 1116~50. V.P. Nevskaja, Byzanz 
in der klassischen und hellenistischen Epoche (Leipzig 1955). H. 
Merle, Die Geschichte der Städte Byzantion und Kalchedon (Kiel 
1916). Dagron, CP imaginaire 62-69. P.A. Dethier, A.D. 
Mordtmann, Epigraphik von Byzantion und Constantinopolis 


{=DenkWien 13] (Vienna 1864). N. Firath, Les stèles funér- 
aires de Byzance gréco-romaine (Paris 1964). -C.M., A.K. 


BYZANTIUM, or Byzantine Empire, conven- 
tional name of a medieval state that existed for 
more than one thousand years. It can be viewed 
as a continuation of the Roman Empire inasmuch 
as its legal and administrative systems retained 
numerous Roman features; at the same time, it 
underwent significant transformations, evolving 
into a Christian and primarily Greek-speaking 
state centered on the Balkans and eastern Medi- 
terranean. The Byz. themselves called their state 
the Roman Empire (basileia ton Rhomaton) rather 
than Byzantium, applying the name BYZANTION 
only to their capital, renamed CONSTANTINOPLE. 
Byzantium as a term for the state was introduced 
into scholarship only in the 16th C. by Hierony- 
mus Wolf (1516-80). 

Since there is no act formally proclaiming the 
inauguration of Byz., no revolution abolishing the 
“ancient regime,” the date of its beginning re- 
mains under discussion; most scholars prefer the 
date of 324 (or 330), when Constantinople was 
founded by CONSTANTINE | THE GREAT, Or 395, 
when the Roman Empire was divided between the 
sons of THeoDosios I. It is easier to set a precise 
date for the end of Byz.; it ceased to exist in 1453 
when Constantinople was captured by the OTTO- 
MANS, although some remnants of the empire (the 
despotate of Morea, the empire of TREBIZOND) 
retained their independence until 1460 and 1461, 
respectively. 

The population was multinational; after the loss 
of the eastern provinces to the Arabs in the 7th 
C., it was composed primarily of Greeks, Arme- 
nians, and Slavs. Its size is hard to estimate: J.C. 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: AN OVERVIEW 345 


Russell (TAPAS 48.3 [1958] 93) proposed about 
10.7 million inhabitants for Asia Minor and the 
Balkans ca.600 (see DEMOGRAPHY). Greek was the 
official LanGuaGE from the 7th C. onward, al- 
though many ethnic minorities kept their own 
languages. The principal religion was Orthodox 
Christianity, but Armenians, Jews, and Muslims 
observed their own rites. Constantinople, which 
was founded as the emperor's residence, became 
the capital by the 5th C. and remained the center 
of administration, culture, and cult until the end 
of the empire except for a short period of Latin 
occupation (1204—61), when the capital was moved 
to NICAEA. 

Geography of the Empire. Byz. territory was 
constantly in flux: originally encircling the entire 
MEDITERRANEAN SEA (extending over an area of 
more than 1,000,000 sq km in 560), it shrank first 
to a State occupying only the Balkans and north- 
eastern Mediterranean, then to a state surround- 
ing the AEGEAN Sega, and finally to a tiny domain 
on the Bosporos. For much of its history the 
Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor were its nu- 
cleus, supplying basic foodstuffs and manpower. 
This region is characterized by mountainous ter- 
rain (major ranges are the Haimos or BALKANS, 
Ruopore, Taygetos, Pontic and Armenian ranges, 
the Taurus) with vast plateaus (e.g., CAPPADOCIA) 
and relatively few valleys; the rivers, save for the 
DanuBE and EUPHRATES on its frontiers, are not 
major waterways, and are open to navigation only 
in their lower reaches. This landscape, tending to 
separate one region from another, strongly con- 
trasts with the politically unified structure of the 
empire. Indented coastlines and numerous is- 
lands provided harbors and formed convenient 
“stepping stones” from Constantinople to Crete 
and from the western Balkans to Italy; however, 
as the empire’s political authority over the Medi- 
terranean region diminished, its merchants lost 
their monopoly on COMMERCE and yielded first to 
the Arabs and then to the Italians. 

The empire possessed a variety of climatic and 
agricultural zones: regions with hot weather, suit- 
able for growing cotton and palm trees; typically 
moderate Mediterranean areas producing olives 
and grapes; northern valleys rich in grain; moun- 
tainous plateaus providing pasture for flocks. This 
diversity of cLrmaTe contributed to the develop- 
ment of TRANSHUMANCE on varying scales. There 
is no evidence for climatic change in the Byz. 


period. The issue of erosion has been much de- 
bated: there is no doubt that many harbors silted 
up and coastlines changed with the deposit of 
alluvium, but this may have been the result of 
commercial negligence rather than the cause of 
decreasing economic activity. 

uit. Tabula imperii byzantini, vol. 1— (Vienna 1976—-). J. 
Koder, Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner (Graz-Vienna-Cologne 
1984). A. Guillou, La civilisation byzantine (Paris 1974) 19— 
100. A. Philippson, Das byzantinische Reich als geographische 
Erscheinung (Leiden 1939). O. Maull, “Der Einfluss geogra- 
phischer Faktoren auf die Geschichte des byzantinischen 
Reiches,” SüdostF 21 (1962) 2-21. -A.K. 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF. This article is 
composed of an introductory overview of period- 
ization, followed by six essays on the major divi- 
sions of Byz. history. 


AN OvERVIEW. The separation of Byz. history 
into periods, like any historical periodization, is 
one artificially imposed by scholars. The most 
broadly used periodization is the tripartite divi- 
sion into early, middle, and late periods. This 
system has, however, two substantial shortcom- 
ings: first of all, it is based not on actual historical 
developments, but on the dubious philosophical 
premise that three is a magical figure; second, 
there is no common consensus concerning the 
borderlines between particular periods. The con- 
ventional system of periodization places the be- 
ginning of Byz. history either in the early 4th C. 
with the foundation of CONSTANTINOPLE by Con- 
STANTINE I THE GREAT or at the end of that 
century with the division of the empire into East- 
ern and Western halves under the sons of Theo- 
dosios I, ARKADIOS and Honorius. There is much 
less agreement about what marks the end of the 
“early Byzantine” period (and, accordingly, the 
beginning of the “middle Byzantine” period); it 
has been variously dated to 565 (death of Justi- 
NIAN I), 610 (accession of HERAKLEIOS), 717 (be- 
ginning of the IsauRIAN DYNASTY), and 843 (de- 
feat of Iconoclasm and the TRIUMPH OF 
OrtHopoxy). For the end of the middle Byz- 
antine period scholars have usually chosen either 
1071 (battle of MANTZIKERT) or 1204 (capture of 
Constantinople by the Latins). The “late Byz- 
antine” period is traditionally dated from 1204 
(or 1261, the recovery of Constantinople by the 
Byz.) to 1453, when Constantinople fell to the 
Turks. 


346 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: An OVERVIEW 


The following historical survey does not at- 
tempt to establish precise boundaries between pe- 
riods based upon specific political events; instead, 
this scheme for the most part uses vaguer, ap- 
proximate dates corresponding to internal devel- 
opments rather than to changes imposed from 
without. Thus, the proposed framework repre- 
sents a more elaborate periodization than the tra- 
ditional tripartite division while carrying the ac- 
knowledgment that it, too, represents an artificial 
scheme. 

Period of the Late Roman Empire (4th—mid- 
7th C.) dubbed “Protobyzantine” by Lemerle 
(Agr.Hist. 1-26). The application of the term 
“Byzantine” to this period is debatable, since the 
empire of this time preserved the main features 
of ancient urban society and remained a Mediter- 
ranean state par excellence. The issue is further 
confused by the fact that some scholars refer to 
papyri of the 6th and 7th C. as “late Byzantine,” 
and that likewise the final period of Byz. rule in 
Syria and Palestine (6th—7th C.) may be termed 
“late Byzantine.” 

Period of the “Dark Ages” (mid-7th C. to ca.800/ 
850) is characterized by the crisis of ancient city 
life, aggravated by serious territorial losses and 
cultural decline. Sometimes it is called the “period 
of Iconoclasm,” even though the two phenomena 
do not fully coincide chronologically; moreover, 
the concept of Iconoclasm does not cover all the 
changes that Byz. society underwent during this 
time. No more fortunate is the attempt to describe 
this period as one of Slavic penetration into the 
empire, which allegedly caused an essential re- 
structuring of the Byz. economy and administra- 
tion. In the first half of the gth C. occurred the 
first stages of the process of recovery and consol- 
idation that was to characterize the next period. 

Age of Recovery and Consolidation (ca.800/ 
850—1000), sometimes called the period of the 
“Macedonian renaissance” or of ENCYCLOPEDISM. 
The latter term is more appropriate, although it 
refers only to cultural developments. During this 
period the “classic” form of the Byz. centralized 
and “totalitarian” state was established, and ideo- 
logical and cultural uniformity was superimposed 
upon society. At the end of this period Byz. 
launched a series of offensive wars and managed 
to recover some of its territory in the east and the 
Balkans. 


Period of “Westernization” and the Empire of 
Nicaea (ca.1000—1261), divided into two unequal 
parts by the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth 
Crusade in 1204. Characteristic traits of this pe- 
riod are the rise of provincial towns and of a 
semifeudal nobility, developments that were ac- 
companied by a cultural flowering that is here 
called “pre-Renaissance” (the traditional term is 
“Komnenian renaissance”). Byz. took substantial 
steps toward “westernizing” its economy, social 
structure, and government, and despite religious 
friction was close to becoming a member of the 
European community of feudal states. The catas- 
trophe of 1204 seems to have had no radical 
impact on the economic and social development 
of Byz.; the political pattern changed, however, 
and the centralized empire was replaced by a 
group of independent entities (the empires of 
Nicaea and TREBIZOND, the despotate of Eprros, 
the Latin Empire with its vassal states). 

“Empire of the Straits” (1261—1453). Under 
the Palaiologan dynasty Byz. was a minor state 
whose territory continued to shrink under the 
blows inflicted by the Latins (esp. the CATALAN 
Grand Company), Serbs, and Otromans. The 
desperate situation was aggravated by socioeco- 
nomic factors—the growth of semifeudal forces, 
the increasing urbanization of western Europe, 
and the growing economic dependence of Byz. 
on the Italian republics of Venice, Genoa, and 
Pisa. The Byz. retained nevertheless the illusion 
of being a universal empire, while in the West 
national states were emerging as the dominant 
political form. The government and esp. the church 
could not reconcile their universal claims with the 
political realities. Byz. was unable to normalize 
relations with either the Turks or the West, nor 
could it unite the divided powers of eastern Eu- 
rope to resist the Turkish onslaught. 


uit. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New 
Brunswick, N.J. , 1969). A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine 
Empire (Madison, Wisc., 1952). The Cambridge Medieval His- 
tory, vol. 4.1-2, ed. J.M. Hussey (Cambridge 1966). R. 
Browning, The Byzantine Empire (New York 1980). Istorija 
Vizantii, 3 vols. (Moscow 1967). G. Weiss, Byzanz (Munich 
1986). L. Bréhier, Le monde byzantin, 4 vols. (Paris 1969- 
70). Historia tou Hellenikou ethnous, ed. G. Christophilopou- 
los, I. Mpastias, vols. 7-9 (Athens 1978—79). A. Ducellier, 
M. Kaplan, et al., Byzance et le monde orthodoxe (Paris 1986). 
D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Empire, 
500—1453 (London 1971). C. Foss, P. Magdalino, Rome and 
Byzantium (Oxford 1977). C. Mango, Byzantium: The Empire 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: Late ROMAN EMPIRE | 347 


ATLANTIC 
OCEAN 


CORSIC Rome, 


ae x 

es 

ig Sh 
"AL, 





: A wig T | 7 

aso’ l e 
© N BYZACENA S 

nB 


Mee AL 


- ROMAN EMPIRE 
IN THE 4th CENTURY 


Lad . 5 


of New Rome (New York 1980). D. Geanakoplos, Byzantium: 
Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes 
(Chicago 1984). ~A.K. 


Lare ROMAN EMPIRE (4th—mid-7th C.). The 
beginning of the late Roman Empire can be placed 
ca.300. By that time DiocLeTiaNn, through a series 
of administrative and economic reforms, man- 
aged to quell the so-called crisis of the grd C., 
during which the empire was beset by internal 
problems such as impoverishment of the popu- 
lace, decline of military power, economic and 
monetary instability, and frequent rebellions and 
depositions of the emperor, as well as the increas- 
ing external threat from Germanic tribes and 
SASANIAN Persia. The system of the TETRARCHY 
established by Diocletian was effective during his 
20-year rule but upon his retirement disinte- 
grated, After long power struggles CONSTANTINE 
I THE Great emerged victorious in 324. Constan- 


| E A \ PALESTINI $ F 
1 Jerusalem ee ie 
l 


Lig 
FHEBATIS 


ay 





tine’s policy of toleration of Christianity and his 
foundation of a new imperial residence in the 
East, CONSTANTINOPLE, were both significant events 
that began the process of transformation of the 
Roman Empire into the Byz. Empire. 

For a century and a half, until 476, there con- 
tinued to be emperors in both the Eastern and 
Western halves of the empire. The rulers in Con- 
stantinople managed to avert the threat of the 
Germanic tribes by diplomacy and accommoda- 
tion (settling some Germans as FOEDERATI) but 
observed cold-bloodedly (and perhaps even insti- 
gated) the barbarian advance into the territory of 
the Western Empire: Ataric sacked Rome in 410, 
and later in the 5th C. the OsTROGOTHS overran 
Italy, the VistGoTHs took Spain, and the VANDALS 
North Africa. In 476 the power of the last West- 
ern emperor in Italy, ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS, was 
abolished, although Jutius Neros continued for 


348 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: LATE Roman EMPIRE 


lay ede | 
OCEAN 


AR a, 
ig” CARTHAGO 
3 RESETE 
; \.BYZACENA 
\. 


ee te, 


sanon Boundaries of the Empire before Justinian 
i mena. Boundaries after Justitian’s conquests 


OP oF _ | CRIME, = 
5 Cheon 7 e 

Meee -PLACK \SEA 
MOESIA 


San 


Trebizond 


BYZANTINE EMPIRE 


Ree. 
$ g t 


a few more years (until 480) as claimant to the 
Western throne. Nevertheless, the first Germanic 
kingdoms on Roman territory were Roman-ori- 
ented and, with certain exceptions, ready to ac- 
knowledge the theoretical sovereignty of Constan- 
tinople. Moreover, in the 6th C. the generals of 
Justinian I were able to recover some of the 
Western lands lost to the barbarians, reestablish- 
ing Constantinople’s control over Italy, North Af- 
rica, and southeastern Spain. 

By the end of the 6th C., however, much of 
Italy was again lost to the empire, when it was 
overrun by the Lomsarbs. Also at the end of the 
6th C. the Avars and Siavs began to break through 
Roman defense lines in the Balkans and to pen- 
etrate as far south as the Peloponnesos. The threat 
of the rival Sasanian Empire was contained until 
the early 7th C., when the Persians briefly took 
Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. HERAKLEIOS’s recov- 
ery of the Holy Land for the Byz. (629) was short- 
lived; within a decade, the Aragss, newly con- 
verted to Islam, had emerged as the dominant 
power in the Near East, and Byzantium lost its 
eastern provinces permanently. 

The EMPERORS of this period, who originated 


-INTHE 6th CENTURY > oo 





primarily from the northern Balkans (Thrace and 
Illyricum), were sometimes of humble back- 
ground (Justin I was a peasant, Anastasios I an 
official, Valens and Leo I were military com- 
manders of mid-rank, Phokas a soldier) or ques- 
tionable descent (Constantine 1 was the son of a 
concubine, Zeno of an Isaurian chieftain). They 
rarely served as active generals, Julian, Theodo- 
sios I, and Herakleios being evident exceptions. 
Most rulers remained in Constantinople (Theo- 
dosios II, Anastasios I, Justinian 1); their policies 
were open to the influence of strong empresses 
(e.g., Pulcheria, Ariadne, Theodora, Martina) as 
well as of EUNUCHS and lawyers. Emperors tried 
to stabilize the throne in two ways: on the one 
hand, there were attempts to establish a collegi- 
ality of power (the tetrarchy, the institution of co- 
emperors, the system of equal rulers in Rome and 
Constantinople); on the other hand, an effort was 
made to build up hereditary power (Constantine 
I—Constantius II]—Julian from 324 to 363, Theo- 
dosios I—Arkadios—Theodosios 11 from 379 to 
450). The establishment of dynasties was thwarted, 
however, by the failure of some of the most suc- 
cessful emperors to produce heirs or by the rivalry 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: LATE Roman EMPIRE 349 


of their sons by different wives; thus, Constantius 
l}, Julian, Theodosios I, Marcian, Zeno, Anas- 
tasios I, and Justinian I all died childless, and the 
deaths of Constantine and Herakleios were fol- 
lowed by power struggles among relatives. In some 
cases successors to the throne were adopted sons 
(Tiberios I), nephews (Justinian I, Justin I), sons- 
in-law (Maurice), or husbands of the late em- 
peror’s widow (Anastasios) or sister (Marcian). 

In the 4th and sth C. the empire retained the 
major features of antiquity: it was still a Mediter- 
ranean state bound together not only by political 
but also by economic, cultural, and linguistic unity. 
The city and villa formed the cornerstones of the 
late Roman economy; trade flourished through- 
out the Mediterranean, and commercial routes 
over land and sea connected the empire with the 
remote areas of Ethiopia, India, and the territo- 
ries beyond the Danube. However, from the 6th 
C. onward, an economic decline of the PoLis can 
be traced, primarily in cities of small and medium 
size. Larger cities (such as Alexandria, Antioch, 
and Carthage) continued to flourish; their role as 
administrative centers contributed much to the 
urban prosperity. Imperial residences played a 
special role: in the West, Rome preserved the 
place of honor as the former capital of the empire, 
but the court moved away—to Milan and then to 
Ravenna. In the East, Constantinople, inaugu- 
rated in 330, became the capital by the mid-5th 
C., superseding all its administrative, economic, 
and ecclesiastical rivals, such as Nikomedeia, Nais- 
sos, Ephesus, and Alexandria. 

By the mid-7th C., however, the urban system 
was in a state of crisis, both in the areas vulnerable 
to enemy invasions and in the regions that re- 
mained relatively safe from hostile attack. Changes 
in the countryside are difficult to interpret, since 
the evidence is contradictory. On the one hand, 
it is thought that from the 4th C. onward, the 
colonate (see COLON) began to assume the traits 
of personal dependency; by certain scholars this 
trend is even equated with medieval serfdom. On 
the other hand, both archaeological data and doc- 
umentary material indicate that villagers (at least 
in certain regions) became more prosperous and 
independent. The aristocracy also changed in 
character: both the municipal and senatorial ar- 
istocracies (basically hereditary) were replaced (esp. 
in the East) by a new type of officialdom, seeking 
and depending on imperial favor. 


The administrative structure of the empire was 
a substantial concern of the authorities; various 
emperors, esp. Diocletian, Constantine I, and Jus- 
tinian I, tried to organize and reorganize central 
and provincial administration, the army, the sys- 
tem of taxation, and court life. Reforms were 
introduced and abolished, laws promulgated, and 
voluminous law books (CopEx THEODOSIANUS, 
Corpus Juris Civitis) compiled. The main direc- 
tions of change were as follows: the reinforcement 
of the central BUREAUCRACY, whose leaders, such 
as the PRAETORIAN PREFECT and MAGISTER OFFI- 
CIORUM, played a decisive part in the administra- 
tion; the increasing impact of court ceremonial 
on all aspects of life; the restructuring of the army 
so that the defensive forces (including the LIMES 
and the troops of the foederati) acquired a predom- 
inant role; the gradual replacement of municipal 
bodies by provincial governors (duces, prefects) 
and their staffs. Of momentous importance were 
the shifts in provincial organization: initial at- 
tempts to combine military and civil power in the 
same hands were succeeded by the separation of 
power; finally, by the end of the 6th C., EXAR- 
CHATES were created, and the way was paved for 
the introduction of the THEME organization. 

The period of the 4th—7th C. saw the firm 
establishment of Chalcedonian Christianity as the 
official religion of the empire. Major PATRIAR- 
CHATES were organized at Alexandria, Antioch, 
Jerusalem, and Constantinople, and a series of 
ecumenical COUNCILS sought to define Christian 
doctrine. Monasticism, which had its beginnings 
in the desert, became an urban phenomenon as 
well; the accumulation of property by monasteries 
meant that these institutions began to play an 
increasing role in the economy. 

Ancient scholarship and oratory, education, and 
forms of entertainment continued in the late Ro- 
man period. Many intellectuals spoke both Greek 
and Latin; rhetorical skill reached its peak in 
works of writers such as Libanios and John Chry- 
sostom,; libraries, universities, and theaters still 
functioned; and philosophers commented on and 
developed ancient doctrines. Nevertheless, pro- 
found changes took place in the sphere of culture: 
local ethnic traditions (Egyptian, Thracian, etc.) 
were revived; local literatures (e.g., Syriac, Cop- 
Tic) emerged; the role of urban professionals 
(teachers, medical doctors) diminished; and by the 
mid-6th C. in the East, Greek became the pre- 


350 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “Dark AGES” 


dominant language of law and administration as 
well as of literature. The most important feature 
of late Roman culture was the increasing influence 
of Christianity. Although pagan scholarship and 
literature had their exponents up to the 6th C., 
Christianity dominated both institutionally, through 
its churches, monasteries, and philanthropic or- 
ganizations, and ideologically, attracting the tra- 
ditional intelligentsia and implanting its values 
and ideals of behavior. With the triumph of Chris- 
tianity, new literary forms, such as the homily, 
hymn, and saint’s vita emerged, as did new genres 
of art and architecture. 

By the end of this period, society and culture 
were far from being uniform. The Germanic con- 
quests in the West in the 5th C. led not only to 
political division but also to a widening economic 
and cultural breach: the West became more and 
more latinized, while the East preserved a multi- 
lingual pattern with Greek as the language of 
administration. The pre-feudal landed aristocracy 
in the West, based on a system of estates and 
lineage, became increasingly independent, while 
in the East both the bureaucracy and nuclear 
family were more significant factors. The crisis of 
urbanism affected the West more strongly, and 
in the 6th C. the decline of ancient civilization was 
more evident there than in the eastern portion of 
the empire, which was gradually being trans- 
formed into Byzantium. In the East disputes took 
place between pagans and Christians, between 
numerous groups within Christianity (Arians, 
Monophysites, Nestorians, Neo-Chalcedonians), 
and between ethnic communities (attacks were 
launched against the Germanic foederati, the Isau- 
rians, Samaritans, etc.). Scholarly issues were hotly 
debated, among others Aristotelian and Platonic 
world views as well as such religio-cultural topics 
as the legitimacy of the theater, the hippodrome, 
and divorce. Circus FACTIONS, which were nor- 
mally the mouthpiece of the fans of the hippo- 
drome, could proclaim political slogans at mo- 
ments of crisis and thus produced an illusion of 
bipartisan political structure. The involvement of 
the state in theological discussions, esp. in church 
councils, however, prepared the climate for the 
medieval concept of “one state, one dogma.” 


uit. T.D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Con- 
stantine (Cambridge, Mass.~London 1982). E. Stein, Histoire 
du Bas-Empire, vol. 1 (Paris 1959), vol. 2 (Paris-Brussels 
1949). P. Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge 


1978). Aik. Christophilopoulou, Byzantine History 1: 324. 
610 (Amsterdam 1986). A. Pigantol, L'Empire chrétien (325. 
395) (Paris 1972). W.E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of 
Rome (Princeton 1968}. —A.K., A.M.T., T.E.G, 


“DARK AGES” (mid-7th C. to ca.800/850), 
During this period, which includes the Isaurian 
and AmoriaN dynasties, the empire suffered great 
territorial losses but eventually restructured its 
administration and stabilized its borders. The pe- 
riod witnessed far-reaching societal transforma- 
tions and, near its close, the beginnings of a sus- 
tained economic and cultural revival. 

During the 7th and 8th C. the ArasBs (UMayyap 
CALIPHATE, ‘ABBASID CALIPHATE) permanently 
occupied Byz. territory from Syria to Spain, ended 
Byz. naval hegemony in the eastern Mediterra- 
nean, and twice besieged Constantinople 
(Mu‘Awiya, MASLAMA). Although the caliphs HA- 
RUN AL-RaSHip and Mu‘rasim invaded Byz. ter- 
ritory, by the goth C. the empire had retained Asia 
Minor and stabilized a no man’s land running 
between Syria and Armenia. At the same time 
Byz. cultural influence on the Arabs was consid- 
erable, esp. under caliph Ma’mtn. In the 7th C. 
the BuLcars under Asparucu established them- 
selves south of the Danube, but through skillful 
diplomacy and military campaigns (e.g., Constan- 
tine V’s defeat of TELERIG at LirHosoria) Byz. 
held on to Thrace and occasionally used the Bul- 
gars as allies (TERVEL). KruM attacked Constanti- 
nople in 811, but Omurrac made peace and ac- 
celerated the Bulgars’ entry into the Byz. cultural 
sphere, which culminated in the conversion of 
Borris I and the reign of his son SYMEON OF 
Buxcaria. In Italy Byz. could not prevent the 
advance of the Lomparps, who took RAVENNA in 
751, nor of the Franks, who ultimately laid claim 
to the imperial title itself (CHARLEMAGNE, LOUIS 
I) and became the new secular protectors of the 
PAPACY. 

External pressures on Byz. accelerated signifi- 
cant internal political, economic, and social changes 
that definitively transformed late antique civiliza- 
tion into the medieval Greek world. Many scholars 
(esp. Sjuzjumov and, most recently, Weiss) believe 
that the transition from late antiquity to the so- 
called middle Byzantine period was marked by a 
continuity of ideas and institutions. Yet mounting 
archaeological and numismatic evidence supports 
the view (advocated by Kazhdan as well as by Foss 
and Ch. Bouras) that during the 7th and 8th C. 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “DARK ACES” 351 


the Eastern Roman polis underwent a severe crisis 
that disrupted the traditions of urban life. Many 
cities in Thrace, Greece, and Asia Minor ceased 
to exist or survived only as bishoprics (e.g., Na- 
ziaNZos). Those that did survive were often drast- 
ically reduced in size or relocated altogether 
(EPHESUS). Most commonly, the population aban- 
doned the traditional urban site to cluster in or 
around a fortified KASTRON on a nearby hill. 

The breakdown of late antique urban life had 
a harmful effect on Byz. culture and also trans- 
formed everyday life by producing a shift from 
“open” to “closed” modes of social expression. 
Tertiary schools (universities) disappeared by the 
end of the 7th C. Original literary production in 
the 7th and 8th C. was apparently negligible. 
Ecclesiastical disputes stimulated theology, but the 
greatest Christian writer of the age, JOHN or Da- 
mascus, lived in Arab territory. Few artistic works— 
icons, mosaics, churches—can be attributed to the 
period. In architecture, the ancient HOUSE with its 
interior courtyards, galleries, and fountains now 
became a tight maze of small functional rooms. 
In town planning, broad boulevards and open 
squares disappeared in favor of small streets with 
limited open space. Churches replaced traditional 
urban assembly spaces such as BATHS and THE- 
ATERS. 

Great changes were also underway in economic 
and social relations, although the scantiness of 
literary evidence leaves many details unclear. The 
tradition of private property ownership in cities 
appears to have yielded to a notion of supreme 
state ownership of property (see STATE PROP- 
ERTY). The BARTER ECONOMY became more im- 
portant, although it still remained secondary to 
the monetary economy. Traditional late Roman 
social categories such as the hereditary nobility, 
urban aristocracy, dependent peasantry, and slaves 
declined significantly and were largely replaced 
by the nobility of the main urban centers (esp. 
Constantinople), provincial civil and military ad- 
ministrators, and an increasingly uniform rural 
population, although the appearance of powerful 
families (e.g., SKLEROS) in the gth C. signaled the 
revival of a hereditary aristocracy. The THEME 
system contributed to this development by in- 
creasing the body of moderate landholders and 
free peasants. Legal texts such as the FARMER'S 
Law and hagiographical sources reveal the de- 
cline of large landed estates and the rise of free- 


holders, along with an increasing reliance on com- 
munal landownership, the abolition of compulsory 
peasant service, and the introduction of free 
movement. 

The loss to the Arabs of rival cities like Alex- 
andria and Antioch made Constantinople the cen- 
ter of the empire, and successive emperors insti- 
tuted reforms aimed at strengthening the capital's 
often precarious hold on the periphery. The Arab 
and Bulgar attacks stimulated a radical restruc- 
turing of PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION. The themes 
became the foundation of efforts to retain Byz. 
territory and then to reassert control over recap- 
tured lands. By the mid-gth C. there were more 
than 20 themes in Asia Minor, Greece, the Ae- 
gean, and the Balkans as well as KLEIsOURa! along 
the Arab frontier and KLIMATA in Crimea. This 
marked a decisive break with late Roman admin- 
istration by transferring civil authority to military 
representatives, although the thematic system was 
also a source of instability, since it put powerful 
armies under individual commanders. Serious re- 
volts originated in the themes (SaBorios, BAR- 
DANES TOURKOS, THOMAS THE SLAV), and more 
than one STRATEGOS became emperor (Leontios, 
Philippikos, Leo IH, Arrapaspos, Michael II). 
Efforts to reform the military, including reliance 
on small units like the pROuNGOs and the BANDON 
and increases in soldiers’ landholdings and wages, 
made the army more flexible and professional. 

Changes in central civil administration made 
the court bureaucracy increasingly important in 
running state affairs. Several bureaucrats became 
emperor (Anastasios II, Theodosios III, Nikepho- 
ros I) or were proclaimed emperor in coup at- 
tempts (ARSABER). A key development was the 
emergence of chief bureaus—there were 13 by 
842—and the growing influence of the post of 
LOGOTHETES. The most important official became 
the LOGOTHETES TCU DROMOL, many of whom 
(STAURAKIOS, AETIOS, THEOKTISTOS) exercised 
great authority under weak rulers and during 
regencies (IRENE, THEODORA). 

The primary legislative aim of the emperors 
was to maintain order in a turbulent world (No- 
MOS STRATIOTIKOS, EcLoca). This imperial insis- 
tence on unity and uniformity extended to reli- 
gious affairs. Constans II tried to quell disputes 
over MONOTHELETISM by promulgating his Typos 
and punishing proponents of Orthodoxy (Pope 
MARTIN I, MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR), and Justi- 





352 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: AGE oF RECOVERY AND CONSOLIDATION 


nian [I convened the Council in TRULLO to estab- 
lish religious uniformity and eliminate pagan cus- 
toms. In the 8th and gth C. the attempt by several 
emperors to impose [CONOCLASM on a reluctant 
population ultimately failed. The court instituted 
numerous fiscal reforms aimed at revitalizing the 
economy and increasing the state’s tax revenues. 
Many are attributed to Nikephoros I, but on the 
whole he merely formally systematized already 
existing measures. Most notably, the hearth tax 
(KAPNIKON) was extended to PAROIKOI belonging 
to the growing number of ecclesiastical establish- 
ments; the VILLAGE COMMUNITY became collec- 
tively responsible for its members’ taxes (ALLELEN- 
GYon); and the POLL Tax may have been separated 
from the land tax and applied to all taxpayers. 
Such reforms allowed Constantinople to benefit 
from an economic recovery that is discernible 
from the late 8th C.; state revenues apparently 
doubled between 780 and 850. 

By the early gth C. a cultural revival was also 
underway, stimulated by a growing economy and 
the reemergence of wealthy patrons. Historiog- 
raphy reappears with the works of THEOPHANES 
THE CONFESSOR and Patr. NikepHoros I. Kassia 
was a famous poet of the period. The emperor 
Theophilos launched an ambitious building pro- 
gram in the capital. The breadth of knowledge 
displayed by scholars such as Leo THE MATHE- 
MATICIAN and the foundation of the school in the 
MAGNAURA (THEOKTISTOS, Barpas) testify to the 
reinvigoration of Byz. secular learning. By this 
tme Byz. culture was primarily Greek: Latin was 
little known or used. 

LIT. A.N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 5 vols. 
(Amsterdam 1968-80). W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Re- 
vival, 780—842 (Stanford, Calif., 1988). —P.A.H. 

AGE OF RECOVERY AND CONSOLIDATION 
(ca.800/850—1000). This period approximately 
coincides with that of the MACEDONIAN DYNASTY. 
The intense desire to perpetuate the dynasty is 
seen in Leo VI's series of four marriages in the 
attempt to produce a male heir (TETRAGAMY OF 
Leo VI) and in the eventual accession to sole 
power of CONSTANTINE VI] PORPHYROGENNETOS 
and Basi H after the throne was usurped by 
strong civilian and military figures during the 
period of their minority (Romanos I LEKAPENOS, 
NIKEPHOROS I] PHOKAS, JOHN I TZIMISKES). 

The centralization achieved through Constan- 
tinople’s economic revival, the predominance of 


the civilian aristocracy, and the slow development 
of a new “knightlike” army permitted Byz. to stop 
the Arab invasions in the mid-gth C. and to go 
on the offensive from the mid-1oth C. The suc- 
cesses of John Kourxouas, Nikephoros II Phokas, 
and John I Tzimiskes led to the Byz. reconquest 
of Syria and Crete; Bulgaria, a mighty rival ca.goo, 
had to surrender to John I and was eventually 
annexed in 1018 under Basil I; Rus’ became an 
ally. Although Byz. recognized Orro I only as 
“emperor of the Franks,” the Byzantino-German 
alliance was strengthened by Byz. political and 
cultural influence. The economic revival that had 
begun in the first half of the gth C., primarily in 
Constantinople and the Aegean coastlands, ex- 
panded farther: numismatic and archaeological 
evidence shows a gradual recovery in the 1oth C. 
throughout Greece and Asia Minor at sites that 
had lain wholly or partially devastated in the pre- 
vious period. Constantinople, however, remained 
the central point of trade and manufacture, its 
position unrivaled even by large cities such as 
THESSALONIKE and EPHESUS. 

Nor did the growth of private and ecclesiastical 
landownership yet challenge the state; although 
some stable clans (SKLEROS, Doukas, PHOKAs, 
Kourkovuas) appeared by the 1oth C., the state 
managed to check them and restrict their wealth, 
partly by bestowing upon the rural community 
the right of PRoTIMEsIS. Most aristocratic families 
served the government loyally, and aristocratic 
generals were primarily responsible for winning 
the glorious victories of the period. Another fac- 
tor in Byz. military success was the restructuring 
of the army, whereby the heavily armed profes- 
sional KATAPHRAKTOI replaced the irregular con- 
tingents of thematic troops. Even when rebellious, 
the military aristocrats sought the support of Con- 
stantinople and strove to acquire the throne, not 
to create independent princedoms. 

In 843 the government of THEOporRA restored 
the veneration of icons, but the monks who had 
led the resistance to Iconoclasm did not gain much. 
Strong monastic communities of working breth- 
ren—the ideal of THEODORE OF STOUDIOs—gave 
way to individualistically structured Lavras and 
small monasteries dependent on state grants in 
kind and money (soLemnia); the ideal of the poor 
brotherhood became very popular, and Nikepho- 
ros If Phokas supported it by restricting monastic 
landownership and by rewarding recently founded 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: PERIOD or “WESTERNIZATION” 353 


communities on Mt. ATHos, which in their early 
stages renounced property. The role of monas- 
teries in intellectual life declined: Byz. culture, 
which was controlled by monks in the first half of 
the gth C., became increasingly secular after 850: 
after GEORGE HAMARTOLOS, not one significant 
Byz. writer was a monk until SYMEON THE THEO- 
LOGIAN. 

Arguably, the state (personified in the emperor) 
benefited most from Iconoclasm and its after- 
math. The Byz. church was made subject to im- 

erial power. MICHAEL III disparaged the patriar- 
chal office in Constantinople: the patriarchs, 
regardless of their personal qualities, became 
puppets in the hands of the emperor (among the 
deposed patriarchs of the period were IGNATIOS, 
Puotios, NicHowas I Mystrixos, and Eurnymros). 
Twice the patriarchate was awarded to members 
of the imperial family (Stephen, brother of Leo 
VI; THEOPHYLAKTOS, son of Romanos I). Only in 
the second half of the 10th C. was the patriar- 
chate, under PoLyeuKTos, strong and indepen- 
dent enough to influence imperial policy. 

The imperial court and the officialdom of the 
capital assumed a fundamental role in the con- 
solidation and reorganization of the empire. The 
concept of order (Taxis) prevailed in the admin- 
istrative and ideological activity of the time: the 
TAKTIKA (a literary genre typical of the period 
from the mid-gth C. to the late 10th C.) aimed at 
shaping the imperial administrative machine, 
mostly in its ceremonial functions; two surviving 
treatises on TAXATION, although not precisely dated, 
may best be assigned to the 1oth or early 11th C. 
Writers from Leo VI to Nikephoros Ouranos 
produced a number of military textbooks (STRA- 
TEGIKA); this genre also disappears after 1000. 
The outlines of an ideal imperial system were 
drafted in the milieu of Constantine VII in books 
on the themes (DE THEMATIBUS), the goals of 
diplomacy (DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO), and the 
ceremonies of the imperial court (DE CEREMONUS). 
The law underwent “purification” as well: BasiL 
I and Leo VI drafted or promulgated a series of 
legal books based on the formulas of Roman law 
(PROCHIRON, EPANAGOGE, BASILIKA). 

Imperial regulations were extended through- 
out the empire: not only did imperial estates in- 
crease, but the state proclaimed its supreme right 
over all the lands of the empire; taxpayers were 
divided into several special categories according 


to their rents and services—sTRaTIOTAI! of differ- 
ent sorts, EXKOUSSATOI of the promos, ordinary 
peasants. The government attempted to stabilize 
the categories it imposed on the population: 10th- 
C. legislation, from Romanos | onward, aimed at 
preserving the village community, making a peas- 
ant responsible for his neighbor's taxes and pro- 
hibiting him from “fleeing” his village; the mem- 
bers of the community were also obliged to arm 
a soldier, if he lacked the means to buy a horse 
or weapons. The state developed the principle of 
JUST PRICE, prohibiting the unfair pricing of land. 
The state even attempted to abolish usury, but 
when Basil I’s measures failed, Leo V1 was com- 
pelled to rescind them. The state also tended to 
regulate trade activity, promulgating the Book oF 
THE EPARCH. 

Regulation also encompassed ecclesiastical rit- 
ual and cultural life. Church architecture ac- 
quired a greater homogeneity in form and scale 
ca.goo, the liturgy became more uniform, and 
SYMEON METAPHRASTES produced a monumental 
collection of saints’ Lives for ecclesiastical feasts. 
The task of collecting the ancient heritage was 
emphasized: the Greek classics were transmitted, 
collections of the most important fragments were 
compiled (including the Geoponixa), and Photios 
in the BIBLIOTHECA surveyed significant works of 
ancient and early Byz. authors. Several LEXIKA 
were published, among them the Soupa. 

The period was doubtless one of political suc- 
cess and expansion. Its accompanying cultural 
upsurge is often called the Macedonian renais- 
sance, though a more proper term would be EN- 
CYCLOPEDISM, meaning here the tendency to col- 
lect and set in order both Greek and Roman 
traditions. Little that is original is to be found in 
the numerous works produced during the period. 

LIT. R. Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries: A.D. 
610 to ro7r (London 1966). A. Toynbee, Constantine Por. 
phyrogenitus and his World (London 1973). N.G. Popov, 


Oéerki po graidanskoj istorii za vremja Makedonskoj dinastii 
(Moscow 1913). ~A.K. 


PERIOD OF “WESTERNIZATION” (ca.1000— 
1204). This era began with the victories of BasIL 
II, witnessed a collapse before the Turks and 
NORMANS in 1071, a partial revival under the 
KOMNENIAN DYNASTY, a weakening under the AN- 
GELOI, and concluded with a seemingly fatal blow 
from the Fourth CRUSADE. 

From Basil Ils reign onward, the system of 


354 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: PERIOD OF “WESTERNIZATION’”” 


H Pto NIAN IR 
Priormina 


A Syracuse 


BYZANTINE EMPIRE 
circa 1025 


mormon Boundaries circa 1O25 
Midira didóóóita Acquisitions after 1025. 


SEA 
OF r (azor A 





SS a ae es a me 


great estates everywhere expanded. By the 12th 
C. most peasants were apparently dependent PA- 
ROIKOI on government, ecclesiastical, or private 
property. Cities grew: Constantinople was still in 
the forefront in the 11th C., but such provincial 
centers as “THESSALONIKE, TREBIZOND, ARTZE, 
CORINTH, and THEBES competed successfully; 1 2th- 
C. Theban silk was superior to that of Constanti- 
nople. In the capital, a vigorous middle class ap- 
peared; it overthrew MicHareL V. The military 
crises of the late 11th C. forced Arexios I Kom- 
NENOS to give extensive privileges—similar to those 
received by the Rus’ in the 10th C.—to VENICE 
and Pisa in return for naval assistance; GENOA 
later obtained similar grants. Using their exemp- 
tions from customs dues, Italian merchants ex- 
ploited the Byz. economy in the 12th C., arousing 
imperial and popular opposition in Constantino- 
ple. While magnates increased their properties 
where possible, they also sought lucrative govern- 
ment appointments in Constantinople. The Kom- 
nenoi secured the support of military-magnate 
families (Douxkal, PALaAroLoGol, KONTOSTE- 
PHANOL, and dozens more) through intermar- 
riage, and an aristocracy based on ties of kinship 
developed. Whether this social structure (depen- 





dent peasantry, militarized aristocracy) constitutes 
a “feudal” society remains debatable. 

The emperors, esp. Alexios I Komnenos and 
his successors, zealously defended Orthodoxy 
against popular and intellectual heretics, includ- 
ing the BoGomILs, Jonn IraLos, and DEMETRIOS 
or Lampe. The rulers selected and supplanted 
patriarchs and members of the higher clergy; 
MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS, Kosmas I, and Dosi- 
theos were among those deposed. Yet the ability 
of the secular clergy to oppose the emperor in- 
creased: Patr. ALEXIOS Sroupires helped over- 
throw Michael V, Keroularios contrived the 
downfall of Michael VI, clerics such as LEO OF 
CHALCEDON seriously embarrassed Alexios I by 
opposing his appropriation of church treasures, 
and the metropolitans of MANUEL I resisted his 
effort to ease the conversion of Muslims to Chris- 
tianity. Above all, in 1054 Keroularios overrode 
CONSTANTINE IX and forced a scHism with the 
Western church. 

Under Turkish pressure, the focus of monas- 
ticism shifted westward, although centers in CaP- 
PADOCIA continued to flourish. CurisTODOULOS 
founded the monastery of St. John on PATMOS; 
Jonn IH Komnenos and his wife Irene established 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: PERIOD or “WESTERNIZATION” | 355 





MEDITERRANEAN | 
i 


i 


the PANTOKRATOR MONASTERY in Constantinople. 
As the empire became more open to foreigners, 
ethnic monasteries developed within its bound- 
aries: Gregory PAKOURIANOS founded PETRITZOS 
for Georgians in Byz. Bulgaria; STEFAN NEMANJA 
established Hitanpar for Serbs on Mt. Athos. 
Latin monasteries included an Amalfitan one on 
Mt. Athos and a Venetian one in Constantinople. 
Cenobitic life within monasteries declined in favor 
of individual monks’ rights to own property and 
support themselves. In Constantinople “holy men,” 
practicing eccentric forms of asceticism, were pa- 
tronized by wealthy ladies and criticized by intel- 
lectuals. While monasteries expanded their landed 
wealth, many, mismanaged, fell into decay; a so- 
lution was sought in the CHARISTIKION. 

In the 11th C., bureaucrats such as JOHN THE 
ORPHANOTROPHOS and NIKEPHORITZES domi- 
nated weak emperors; many of these officials were 
eunuchs. Scholars such as Michael PseLLos and 
Patr. CONSTANTINE IJ] LercHoubEs also achieved 
influential positions. The 11th C. allegedly wit- 
nessed a conflict between the bureaucrats, with 
their candidates for the throne (Romanos III, 
Constantine IX, MiıcHaEL VII), and the landed- 
magnate generals with their candidates (Leo Tor- 


BYZANTINE EMPIRE 
„UNDER THE KOMNENOI 


Approx. boundaries under 
Alexios I (circa 1118} 
Changes under John H 
(circa 1343) 
J Expansion under 
cgilanuel I (clea 1180) 


CYPRUS P 





NIKIOS, Isaac I Komnenos, Alexios I). Psellos, an 
acute observer, was aware of the conflict between 
bureaucrats and military officers, but neither group 
seems solid or cohesive: the bureaucrats formed 
factions around personalities and policies, while 
the army was split into rival Anatolian and Eu- 
ropean wings. Emperors such as Isaac I Komne- 
nos and CONSTANTINE X Doukas, who came from 
military backgrounds, were unable to free them- 
selves from the traditional policies of the bureau- 
crats. With the accession of Alexios I, the govern- 
ment became dominated by imperial relatives; 
eunuchs lost importance. 

Recruitment and leadership of the army posed 
difficulties. Military service formerly required of 
landholders was frequently converted into taxa- 
tion. From the 1040s, foreign mercenaries filled 
the ranks; sources specify Turks of various sorts, 
VARANGIANS, Normans, and other Westerners, in- 
cluding Anglo-Saxon refugees. Under John H 
and Manuel, EXKOUSSEIA was conferred upon cer- 
tain landowners, and some of them were granted 
charisttkion and pRonota; Westerners could be- 
come LIZIOI and receive grants similar to Western 
fiefs. In the 11th C., mercenaries such as ROUSSEL 
DE BAILLEUL attained leadership, but after 1081 


356 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: EMPIRE or NICAEA 


commanders of this sort were few. In the 11th 
C., officers were either court eunuchs or landed 
magnates; in the 12th, usually aristocrats linked 
to the Komnenoi or Angeloi. Despite periodic 
revivals, the navy could not be maintained; the 
effort to use Venetian, Pisan, and Genoese fleets 
ultimately failed. In 1204, Danes and Anglo-Sax- 
ons led the defense of Constantinople. 

In the 11th C., Constantinople witnessed an 
intellectual flowering, chiefly among representa- 
tives of the middle class. Psellos revived interest 
in Plato, Neoplatonism, and their application to 
Christianity; in the 12th C., Tzerzes and EUSTA- 
THIOS OF THESSALONIKE enhanced the study of 
classical philology, Constantine IX established a 
law school for John Xrpuizinos, while making 
Psellos “chief of the philosophers” (HyPATOS TON 
PHILOSOPHON), a position that gave him some su- 
pervision over secular instruction in Constanti- 
nople. The application of formal logic to theology 
by John Italos and Eusrratios oF Nicaga alarmed 
Alexios I; instruction was placed under the patri- 
arch’s control. Later, the hypates ton philosophon 
was ordered to exercise an academic censorship. 
In the writing of history (Psellos, Anna KOMNENE, 
Niketas CHONIATES) and literature (Theodore 
Propromos, Eustathios of Thessalonike}, conven- 
tional ways of depicting people and objects gave 
way to some elements of “naturalism” and at- 
tempts to show the complexity of human charac- 
ter. 

Basil Il’s victories over ARABS and BULGARIANS 
brought the empire a period of relative external 
peace, which permitted such rulers as Constantine 
IX to rely on the bureaucrats and repress the 
magnates and army. The fall of Barr to the Nor- 
mans and the Turkish triumph at the battle of 
Mantzikert (1071) discredited the regime of the 
civilians, allowing independent Armenian states 
to appear in Ciicia and ultimately permitting 
Alexios I to seize the throne. The first three 
Komnenian emperors provided a century of sta- 
bility; the army was rebuilt and the new aristoc- 
racy strengthened the throne, but concessions to 
the Italians undermined the economy. Alexios I 
repelled Norman and PECHENEG invasions of the 
Balkans; with the help of the First Crusade, he 
recovered coastal Anatolia. John II and Manuel 
fought with mixed success against Crusaders, 
HUNGARIANS, SERBS, and Turks. Manuel’s defeat 
at MyRIOKEPHALON (1176) and weak rulers after 


1180 stopped the Byz. drive into Anatolia. An. 
DRONIKOS I sought to establish his power by blood- 
ily suppressing the aristocracy, but he failed to 
reinvigorate the Byz. state. Cyprus, occupied by 
the rebel Isaac Komnenos, was later taken by 
Ricnarp I Lionneart. The Angeloi emperors, 
Isaac I] and Avextos III, failed to meet the many 
challenges that confronted them. Civilian aristo- 
crats, displacing the military aristocracy of the 
Komnenoi, dissipated the empire’s resources. Circa 
1186, the Bulgarians and VLacus established the 
Second Bulgarian Empire, while the Serbs gained 
their independence. In addition to these ethnic 
movements, rebels appeared, striving for separa- 
tist regimes: Theodore MANKAPHAS at Philadel- 
phia, Leo Scouros of Nauplia, Alexios and Davip 
KOMNENOS in Pontos. When the Fourth Crusade 
conquered Constantinople in 1204 and estab- 
lished the Latin Empire, the Byz. empire was 
already partially dismembered. That Byz. re- 
covered was due to its regional strength in the 
successor states at TREBIZOND, NICAEA, and Epi- 
ROS. 

ur. M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A Po- 
litical History (London—New York 1984). N. Skabalanovit, 
Vizantyjskoe gosudarstve i cerkov’ v XI veke (St. Petersburg 
1884). P. Lemerle, Cing études sur le Xle siècle byzantin (Paris 
1977). F. Chalandon, Les Comnéne, 2 vols. (Paris 1900—12; 


rp. New York n.d.). C. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 
1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968). ~C.M.B. 


EMPIRE OF NicaEa (1204-61). The most suc- 
cessful of the three Greek successor states that 
emerged after the fall of Constantinople to the 
Fourth Crusade in 1204, the Nicaean Empire was 
founded by THropore I Laskaris. Its core com- 
prised the coastlands of western Asia Minor, 
stretching in an arc from the Paphlagonian coast 
to the southwestern tip of Asia Minor, where the 
river Indos (Dalaman Cay) formed the frontier 
with the Turks. Despite Turkish pressure along 
these frontiers, the Nicaean AKRITAI were more 
than able to hold their own. The Nicaean lands 
in Asia Minor formed two distinct blocks: a north- 
ern region around Nicaea, the official capital, 
and the western coastlands, where in the hills 
behind Smyrna Jonn III Vatatzes established 
his residence at NyMpHaron. This area formed 
the hub of the Nicaean Empire. The treasury was 
housed at Magnesia, while Smyrna became the 
main naval base. Nicaea remained the residence 
of the patriarchs, but the emperors rarely visited 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: EMPIRE of NICAEA 


it except for their coronations. The choice of 
Nymphaion as a residence brought the emperors 
of Nicaea clear advantages. It provided a good 
yantage point for surveying the Turkish frontier, 
and it was in the heart of a very fertile region, 
where imperial and aristocratic estates were con- 
centrated. Once Nicaean armies began campaign- 
ing regularly in Europe it was better placed than 
Nicaea, for it was situated on a shorter and more 
direct route to the straits of KALLIPOLIS. 

At one level, the history of the Nicaean Empire 
revolves around the ultimately successful struggle 
to restore the seat of empire to Constantinople. 
Recognizing the Greeks of the despotate of Eri- 
ros and the Bulgarians as serious competitors, 
the emperors of Nicaea realized that they must 
establish their authority in Thrace and Macedonia 
if they were to have a real chance of recovering 
Constantinople from the Latins. John III out- 
maneuvered his rivals and was able to gain control 
over northern Greece because his authority was 
based on an effective system of government and 
he had at his disposal a greater range of resources 
than any of his opponents. He built up the im- 
perial domains and by careful management in- 
creased their profits. The incubus of a bloated 
and inefficient bureaucracy was swept away with 


357 


the loss of Constantinople. In its place the Nicaean 
emperors created an inexpensive and efficient 
administration centered on the imperial house- 
hold, in which the aristocracy had an acknowl- 
edged place. John III carefully supervised the 
fiscal administration. The fiscal surveys, always 
one of the strengths of Byz. government, were 
continued. The administrative and financial 
strength of the Nicaean Empire was reflected in 
the substantial armies it kept in the field and in 
its navy, which secured the islands along the Asia 
Minor coast. 

Another source of strength was the presence of 
the ecumenical patriarch at Nicaea. The period 
was by and large one of cooperation between 
emperor and patriarch. The emperors could nor- 
mally rely on the patriarchs for moral support. 
The patriarchal presence also gave the Nicaean 
rulers a role on the international stage that none 
of their rivals could match: there were a number 
of rounds of negotiations with papal representa- 
tives over the UNION OF THE CHURCHES; an alli- 
ance was concluded with Frepericx I] Honen- 
STAUFEN; and Nicaea became the acknowledged 
center of the Orthodox world. In 1220 the Ser- 
bian church turned for recognition of its auton- 
omy to Nicaea. In 1235 Patr. GERMANOS II con- 


| | 
hace sols 





” EMPIRE 


F NICAEA 


\ 
| ae: a : 
sos Trebizond 


qe 
if wa 


EMPIRE OF TRE 





Ay 


“ MEDITERRA 


i Latin Empire 


i 7 Saba Miles 
of Constantinople and its fiefs = 


km 





NEANSEA 


200 


Fae ee SS 


306 


358 | BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “EMPIRE OF THE STRAITS” 


ferred patriarchal rank on the head of the 
Bulgarian church. In both cases a primacy of 
honor was reserved for the Nicaean emperor and 
patriarch. 

At another level, these examples show how 
changes long underway in Byz. crystallized during 
the period of exile. The recognition of the auton- 
omy of the Orthodox church in Serbia and Bul- 
garia set the seal on their political independence. 
Although the Nicaeans were unwilling to make 
similar concessions to the Greeks of Epiros, the 
princes of the house of Komnenos Doukas were 
granted the rank of pespores, thus reconciling 
their autonomous status with Nicaean claims to 
overlordship. Devolution of authority also oc- 
curred within the Nicaean Empire. The policy of 
granting EXKOUSSEIA to the great monastic and 
aristocratic estates was continued and extended 
into regions where they had been rare before 
1204; the same is true of the pronora. In the 
European provinces the Nicaean emperors issued 
a series of chrysobulls to the towns and cities, thus 
officially conferring upon them a measure of au- 
tonomy. The period of exile saw a significant 
growth of local and aristocratic privilege, but re- 
lations between emperor and aristocracy re- 
mained good until the reign of THEODORE Il 
Laskaris, whose attack upon the aristocracy, mo- 
tivated by his desire to assert imperial autocracy, 
was doomed to failure. 

The loss of Constantinople to the Latins dealt 
a severe blow to Byz. culture. The emperors of 
Nicaea sought to revive Byz. education by creating 
a palace school. A concerted effort was made to 
collect and copy manuscripts. Byzantium’s “Hel- 
lenic” past was increasingly appreciated in intel- 
lectual circles, which added a new dimension to 
the Byz. sense of identity. It contributed to the 
way that Byzantium’s universalist claims began to 
yield to a more strongly “nationalist” feeling, best 
caught in the growing hatred of what the Latins 
stood for. When, at last, the seat of empire was 
restored to Constantinople in July 1261 by Mi- 
CHAEL VIII PALAIOLOGOS, a radical change in the 
structure and outlook of Byzantium had been 
completed. 

ut. H. Ahrweiler, “L'expérience nicéenne,” DOP 29 
(1975) 23—40. M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile 
(Oxford 1975). Idem, “Byzantine ‘Nationalism’ and the 
Nicaean Empire,” BMGS 1 (1975) 49—70. M.A. Andreeva, 


Oterki po kulture vizantijskogo dvora v XIII veke (Prague 
1927). —M.J.A. 


“EMPIRE OF THE STRAITS” (1261—1453), The 
restored “empire” of the 1260s was scarcely large 
enough to justify its name, limited as it was to the 
western coast of Asia Minor, northern Greece, 
and the southeastern Peloponnesos (with the Latin 
principality of Acara in control of the rest of 
the peninsula). The despotate of Epiros and the 
empire of TREBIZOND maintained their autono- 
mous status. Despite the recovery of its capital, 
the empire continued to shrink during the re- 
maining two centuries of its history, Although the 
diplomacy of Micuae: VIII thwarted the plans 
of CHARLES I or Anjou for conquest, later Byz. 
emperors were less successful in containing the 
expansionist policy of their northern and eastern 
neighbors. By 1340 the Orroman Turks had con- 
quered most of Asia Minor; by 1355 the Serbs, 
under STEFAN Uroš IV Dušan, controlled most 
of northern Greece, and the Turks had gained a 
foothold in Europe. Didymoteichon and Adriano- 
ple, the principal towns of Thrace, fell to the 
Ottomans in the 1360s, Thessalonike in 1387 (and 
again in 1430, after a brief period of Byz. and 
Venetian recovery). The independence of Epiros 
also ended in 1430 with the fall of Ioannina, 
Only in the Peloponnesos did the Byz. despotate 
of Morga prosper and expand {at the expense of 
the principality of Achaia); by 1430 it encom- 
passed virtually the entire peninsula. Shortly 
thereafter, however, in 1453, Meumep IT took 
Constantinople by siege (see CONSTANTINOPLE, 
SIEGE AND FALL or), and the Morea was able to 
hold out against Ottoman conquest only until 
1460. The next year Trebizond, the last Greek 
stronghold, fell. 

Numerous factors contributed to the final de- 
mise of the empire, which had already been seri- 
ously weakened by the Latin conquest of 1204. 
First of all, the restored Byz. state had to face the 
rising power of a vigorous new empire, that of 
the Ottomans, which steadily conquered Byz. ter- 
ritory and reduced Byz. to vassal status after 1371. 
The Ottomans besieged Constantinople from 1394 
to 1402; the capital was saved only by Timur’s 
defeat of the Ottoman sultan Bayezip I at the 
battle of ANKaRA in 1402. This setback to the 
Ottoman fortunes, and the ensuing civil war among 
Ottoman princes, gave the Byz. Empire a reprieve 
and enabled it to resist until 1453, although Mu- 
RAD I] did besiege the capital in 1422. 

Second, the states of western Europe provided 


BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “EMPIRE OF THE STRAITS” | 359 


jietle or no assistance to Byz., even though their 
very existence was threatened by the Turks. The 
papacy and Western rulers continued to demand 
that the Byz. emperor agree to UNION OF THE 
CHURCHES in exchange for military assistance. 
Twice the Byz. agreed to these conditions, at the 
Council of Lyons in 1274 and at the Council of 
FERRARA-FLORENCE in 1439; the promised West- 
ern aid either never materialized or was ineffec- 
tive. The Western crusading movement had al- 
most died out by the late 13th C.; the two crusades 


Pamibe ®- 
: Nikapalis 


Tarnovo 
e 


of the 14th and 15th C., the Crusade of NikoroLis 
(1396) and the Crusade of Varna (1444), both 
met defeat at the hands of the Turks. 

Internal problems also weakened the Byz. state 
in the 13th—15th C. Although only one dynasty, 
that of the Palaiologoi, held sway throughout the 
final period, it was not as stable as might appear. 
It is true that only eight emperors (discounting 
the brief usurpation of Andronikos IV and John 
VII) ruled during a period of igs years, for an 
average 24-year reign (ANDRONIKOS II was em- 


„BULGARIA 


Serdica 


3 o` 
Kerkyra R P 


IONIAN 
SEA 


Mescinbria®__ So; 


TURKISH EMIRATES 


Smyrna 








TERRANEAN 








Ie 


BYZANTINE EMPIRE 
circa 1350 











mna BYZANtING boundary 
in 1340 


Byzantine Empire 
circa 1350 
Ottoman and other 
Turkish Emirates 
Serbian conquests 
after 1340 


Angevin possessions 


Genoese possessions 
Possessions of the 
Hospitallers 

ie Duchy of Naxos 

Catalan possessions 





366 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “EMPIRE OF THE STRAITS” 


Emperors of Byzantium 
Ruler 


Constantine I the Great 
Constantine H 
Constans I 
Constantius II 
Julian 

Jovian 

Valens 
Theodosios I 
Arkadios 
Theodosios II 
Marcian 

Leo I 

Leo Il 

Zeno 
Basiliskos 
Anastasios I 
Justin I 
Justinian I 
Justin H 
Tiberios I 
Maurice 
Phokas 
Herakleios 


Herakleios Constantine and 
Heraklonas 


Constans H 
Constantine IV 
Justinian HH 
Leontios 

Tiberios I] 
Justinian II (second reign) 
Philippikos 
Anastasios II 
Theodosios III 
Leo III 
Constantine V 

Leo IV the Khazar 
Constantine VI 
Irene 

Nikephoros I 
Staurakios 

Michael I Rangabe 
Leo V the Armenian 
Michael II 
Theophilos 
Michael IH 

Basil I 











Reign Ruler Reign 
324-337 Leo VI 886—912 
337-340 Alexander 912—913 
337-350 Regency for Constantine VII 918—920 
337-361 Romanos I Lekapenos 920—944 
361-363 Stephen and Constantine Lekapenos 944—945 
363-364 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 945-959 
364-378 Romanos II 959-963 
379-395 Nikephoros II Phokas 963-969 
395—408 John I Tzimiskes 969—976 
408-450 Basil IT 976-1025 
450-457 Constantine VIII 1025-1028 
457-474 Romanos III Argyros 1028—1034 
473-474 Michael IV Paphlagon 1034-1041 
474-491 Michael V Kalaphates 1041—1042 
475—476 Zoe and Theodora 1042 
491—518 Constantine IX Monomachos 1042—1055 
518—527 Theodora 1055—1056 
527—565 Michael VI Stratiotikos 1056—1057 
565-578 Isaac I Komnenos 1057-1059 
578-582 Constantine X Doukas 1059—1067 
582-602 Romanos IV Diogenes 1068-1071 
602—610 Michael VII Doukas 1071—1078 
610-641 Nikephoros III Botaneiates 1078—1081 

Alexios I Komnenos 1081—1118 
641 John H Komnenos 1118-1143 
641—668 Manuel I Komnenos 1143—1180 
668-685 Alexios IT Komnenos 1180—1183 
685-695 Andronikos I Komnenos 1183—1185 
695—698 Isaac H Angelos 1185—1195 
698-705 Alexios III Angelos 1195—1203 
705—711 Isaac I] and Alexios IV Angelos 1203-1204 
711—713 Alexios V Doukas 1204 
713—715 Theodore I Laskaris 1205-1221 
715—717 John HI Vatatzes 1221—1254 
717—741 Theodore II Laskaris 1254-1258 
741-775 John IV Laskaris 1259-1261 
775—780 Michael VIII Palaiologos 1259—1282 
780-797 Andronikos II Palaiologos 1282—1328 
797—802 Michael IX Palaiologos 1294/5—1320 
8o2—811 Andronikos III Palaiologos 1328—1341 
811 John V Palaiologos 1341-1391 
811-813 John VI Kantakouzenos 134771354 
813-820 Andronikos IV Palaiologos 1376—1379 
820—829 John VII Palaiologos 1390 
829—842 Manuel II Palaiologos 1391-1425 
842-867 ( John VIH Palaiologos 1425—1448 
867—886 Constantine XI Palaiologos 1449—1453 








BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “EMPIRE or THE STRAITS” 361 


peror for 46 years, John V for 50). These figures 
are misleading, however, because the reigns of 
both emperors were severely shaken by usurpers 
and civil war. Andronikos II fought for seven 
years (1321—28) against his grandson ANDRONI- 
xos ILI before abdicating; the youthful Jonn V 
PALAIOLOGOS was challenged by Jonn VI Kan- 
TAKOUZENOS, who gained power for seven years 
after the Cıvıl WAR OF 1341—47. These civil wars 
sapped the strength of the empire, as a result of 
the devastation of agricultural land and the Byz. 
use of declining resources to fight each other 
instead of the common enemy. The Civil War of 
1341-47 esp. revealed the hostility of the lower 
classes toward the landed aristocracy, as mani- 
fested in a series of popular urban rebellions, 
most notably that of the ZeaLors in Thessalonike; 
it should be noted that all of these urban move- 
ments were ultimately unsuccessful. As rival fac- 
tions invited Serbs and Turks to take sides in the 
civil wars as allies or mercenaries, they enabled 
these dangerous foes to encroach upon Byz. ter- 
ritory. Even after forcing the abdication of Kan- 
takouzenos, John V faced a series of rebellions by 
his son Andronikos IV and grandson John VH. 
Another sign of imperial weakness was an increas- 
ing tendency for the emperor to divide his terri- 
tory among his sons, assigning them APPANAGES, 
which they ruled as autonomous princedoms. 
The state treasury was impoverished as reve- 
nues declined on account of the decrease in Byz. 
territory, the immunity from taxes of many large 
landholders and monastic estates, and the fre- 
quent inability of the local population to pay taxes 
as a result of civil war or foreign invasion. Instead 
of drawing on the military obligations of PRONOIA 
holders, the state was forced to pay for an army 
composed largely of mercenaries. On occasion the 
use of mercenaries backfired, as when the CATA- 
LAN GRAND Company turned against the empire 
when the emperor was unable to pay them. Under 
Andronikos II, the fleet was temporarily disman- 
tled as an economy measure. Gold currency, the 
HYPERPYRON, Steadily depreciated in value. Most 
COMMERCE was in the control of the Italian repub- 
lics (see Venice, GENOA), so that the Byz. state 
received few customs revenues. ANNA OF SAVOY 
had to pawn the crown jewels to Venice for a 
desperately needed loan. The empire’s remaining 
wealth lay in the hands of the great landowners. 
The empire became further divided by a num- 


ber of ecclesiastical controversies. Michael VHT’s 
usurpation of the throne from the Laskarid dy- 
nasty at Nicaea precipitated the schism (1265— 
1310) between ARSENITES, who defended the Las- 
karid cause, and Josephites, who supported the 
new Palaiologan emperor. Simultaneously Mi- 
chael alienated most of his subjects, esp. the monks, 
by his decision to agree to Union of the Churches 
at the Council of Lyons. Although he was moti- 
vated by the hope of checking Angevin aggression 
and of securing Western military aid against the 
growing power of the Turks, his policy was soon 
repudiated by his son Andronikos II. The middle 
years of the 14th C. were torn by the debate over 
HESYCHASM, which was condemned at first but 
later accepted by the church as orthodox doctrine. 
This dispute had ramifications in the political 
arena, as supporters of Gregory PAaLamMas and 
hesychasm tended to favor Kantakouzenos in the 
Civil War of 1341—47, while the regency for John 
V opposed the new doctrines of PaLaMisM. Dis- 
agreement over Union of the Churches continued 
until 1453, as the Byz. agonized over whether to 
acknowledge the primacy of the pope in the per- 
haps vain hope that they would be rewarded with 
a Western crusade against the Turks. John V 
personally converted to Catholicism, but not until 
the reign of John VIH did an emperor again dare 
to follow the policy of Michael VIH. The Union 
concluded at Florence in 1439 was rejected, how- 
ever, by the populace of Constantinople. Loukas 
Noraras reportedly stated that he would rather 
be conquered by the Turks than submit to the 
pope. 

This era of declining imperial power saw an 
increase in the prestige and authority of the Byz. 
church. The patriarchal throne was graced with 
distinguished scholars such as Grecory II or Cy- 
PRUS and Gennapios II ScHoLarios and reform- 
ers like the ascetic ATHANASIOS I. In 1312 juris- 
diction over the monasteries uf Mi. ATHOS was 
transferred to the patriarch from the emperor. 
While the empire shrank, the sway of the patri- 
arch of Constantinople was recognized in those 
lands of Asia Minor and the Balkans no longer 
under Byz. rule, as well as in Russia, and was even 
extended to LITHUANIA. MONASTICISM prospered, 
too, in the Palaiologan era; numerous monasteries 
were built or restored in Constantinople, Thes- 
salonike, and Mistra. METEORA was colonized by 
monks from Athos and soon became a new holy 


362 BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF: “Empire or THE STRAITS” 


mountain, while Athos, revitalized by the mysti- 
cism of the hesychast movement, continued to be 
a major monastic center even though the penin- 
sula suffered from the raids of Catalans and Turks. 

Letters as well as the arts flourished; a sense of 
Hellenic national identity emerged, accompanied 
by a new intensification of interest in ANTIQUITY. 
In the major cities, a small but influential elite of 
intellectuals pursued studies in classical philology, 
astronomy, and medicine; they also commissioned 
the copying of numerous MSS. Among those 
scholars most inspired by the classical tradition 
were Theodore METocuiTes and George Gemi- 
stos PLETHON. The 14th C. saw a revival of the 
genre of HAGIOGRAPHY, as monks and secular 
literati alike composed Lives of contemporary holy 
men, or rewrote the Lives of older saints. VER- 
NACULAR literature also gained greater impor- 


tance, and there was particular interest in the 
genre of ROMANCE. Greater contact with the scho- 
lasticism and humanism of Italy provided a stim- 
ulus for scholars such as Demetrios Kypones and 
Bessarion. Although Constantinople remained 
depopulated and wheatfields and vineyards still 
could be found within its walls, the restoration or 
new construction of churches and monasteries in 
the capital and at THESSALONIKE and MISTRA after 
1261 attests to the artistic vitality of the declining 
empire, esp. in the first century of the Palaiologan 
era (see under MONUMENTAL PAINTING). 


LIT. D.M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261— 
1453 (London 1972). K.P. Kyrres, To Byzantion kata ton ED! 
aiona, vol. 1 (Leukosia 1982). I. Ševčenko, “The Palaeolo- 
gan Renaissance,” in Renaissances Before the Renaissance, ed. 
W. Treadgold (Stanford, Calif., 1984) 144—223. Art et société 
à Byzance sous les Paléologues (Venice 1971). —A.M.T. 





CADASTER, land registry for the purpose of tax 
assessment. Some early cadasters are preserved 
on papyri (J. Gascou, L. MacCoull, TM 10 [1987] 
103-58). Knowledge of the Byz. cadaster in the 
1oth—12th C. is based on rules presented in the 
treatises on taxation (see TAXATION, TREATISES 
on), on four original folios preserved in Vat. gr. 
215, and on some excerpts copied in documents 
of the archives of Iveron, Lavra, and St. Pantelee- 
mon. At least after 995 (maybe earlier) a census 
(anagraphe and later apographe) was conducted pe- 
riodically (probably every 30 years), following a 
geographical pattern defined by the administra- 
tive circumscriptions of the provinces from the 
larger to the smaller (theme, dioikesis, enoria or 
archontia, hypotage). The results were inscribed in 
the Kopikes of the province (the “boxes,” ARKLAI) 
and duplicates were kept in the appropriate bu- 
reau in Constantinople (GENIKON, stratiotikon [see 
LOGOTHETES TOU STRATIOTIKOU]). Each identifi- 
able piece of land occupied a separate line (sTI- 
cHOS) in the cadaster with the name of its owner 
(and taxpayer) or its successive owners added 
piecemeal, sometimes between the lines; there was 
also an indication of any temporary modifications 
of the land’s fiscal burden and the amount of the 
tax payable at the right end of the line (akrosti- 
chon). A copy of the kodix (isokodikon; registers 
with that name were created by Basil II) was seen 
as a necessary proof of ownership. The taxpayer 
received a PRAKTIKON, i.€., an act signed and sealed 
by the official enumerating his (eventually scat- 
tered) properties and their fiscal obligations. ‘The 
geographical cadaster does not reappear in the 
rgth—15th C.; it seems to have been replaced by 
the thesis or megale apographike thesis, which in- 
cluded copies of the praktika delivered by every 
surveyor (APOGRAPHEUS) of the province. (See LAND 
SURVEY.) 


LIT. Svoronos, Cadastre. N. Oikonomides in Dionys. 141f. 
-N.O. 


CAESAR (kxaicap), a piGniTy formerly applied 
to the emperor himself, was used under Diocle- 


363 


tian to designate a junior emperor who stood 
under an augustus and did not possess charis- 
matic qualities (A. Arnaldi, Rrvista italiana di num- 
ısmatica 83 [1981] 75—86). Until the 11th C. caesar 
remained the highest title reserved primarily for 
the emperor’s sons, albeit with several exceptions: 
BARDAS was caesar under his nephew Michael III, 
Nikephoros II made his father Bardas Phokas a 
caesar, Michael IV did the same for his namesake 
and nephew. The assertion of Patr. Nikephoros I 
VEL the emperor’s cloak and the title of caesar 1s 
proved by the evidence of seals (Zacos, Seals 1, 
no.2672). The ceremony of elevation of a caesar 
is described in the De ceremonus (De cer. bk.1, 
ch.43). The insignia of the caesar was a crown 
without a cross. Alexios I lowered the rank of 
caesar, placing it below sebastokrator. In pseudo- 
Koprinos the caesar occupies the rank between 
sebastokrator and megas domestikos; from the 14th 
C., however, the title was conferred primarily on 
foreign princes, such as caesars of Vlachia, of 
Thessaly, or of Serbia. 

According to Gy. Moravesik (ZRVI 8.1 [1963] 
229-36), the Slavic word tsar was derived not 
from the Byz. title but from the Latin designation 
for the emperor, probably in the 6th/7th C. 

LIT. Guilland, Institutions 2:25~43. Bury, Adm. System 96. 


B. Ferjanti¢, “Sevastokratori i kesari u Srpskom carstvu,” 
ZbFilozFak 11 (1970) 255—6869. -A.K. 


CAESAREA (Kaioáperaæ, mod. Kayseri), metrop- 
olis of Cappapocia. When its enthusiastic Chris- 
tians destroyed pagan tempies, kmp. Julian de- 
prived Caesarea of municipal status, but it soon 
recovered to flourish under St. BASIL THE GREAT. 
Caesarea was a great military base with imperial 
factories of weapons and textiles to supply the 
frontier. Justinian I replaced its ancient walls, 
which included fields, gardens, and pasture within 
their circuit, with a shorter, more defensible ram- 
part. Although Caesarea resisted Chosroes I in 
575, Chosroes II took and burned it in 611. 
Nevertheless, its size and wealth impressed the 


364 | CAESAREA MARITIMA 


Arabs when they first attacked it in 646; they 
captured it temporarily in 726. Caesarea was first 
part of the ARMENIAKON theme, then of Cappa- 
poci, and finally, under Leo VI, of CHARSIANON. 
Caesarea was an important military base in the 
1oth—11th C.; John KourKouas was stationed 
there, and NikepHoros II PHoxas and Bardas 
PHokas, whose revolt the city supported, were 
proclaimed emperor in Caesarea. Turkish bands 
attacked it in 1067 and 1073; the Danismendids 
conquered Caesarea in 1092; at the time of the 
First Crusade it was a ruin. Except for some 
sections of its city walls, which may be Justinianic, 
the Byz. remains of Caesarea have perished. Cae- 
sarea was an ecclesiastical metropolis in the 4th 
C. Before 431 it won precedence over Ephesus, 
and when the patriarchate of Constantinople was 
definitively established, Caesarea became its sec- 
ond see, its archbishop entitled PROTOTHRONOS. 


ur. TIB 2:193—96. A. Gabriel, Monuments turcs d’Anatolie, 
vol. 1 (Paris 1931) 6—30. —C.F. 


CAESAREA MARITIMA, port in Palestine and 
the capital city of Palestina I. Until 451 the arch- 
bishopric of Caesarea (Karadpeta) stood higher 
in the ecclesiastical hierarchy than Jerusalem, but 
the Council of Chalcedon subjugated it to Jeru- 
salem. Extensive archaeological excavations have 
revealed an expansion of the city from the 4th to 
6th C. Two aqueducts were restored in 385 and 
ca.526, and the main harbor was revitalized be- 
tween 501 and 518. In the 6th C. streets were 
refurbished, including a north-south thorough- 
fare perhaps 17.5 m wide (R. Wiemken, K. Holum, 
BASOR 244 [1981] 27-41). Interregional trade 
prospered at Caesarea: whereas in the end C. 80 
percent of the fine pottery found at the site came 
from northern Syria, in the 5th—6th C. 36 percent 
originated in Asia Minor, 32 percent in Cyprus, 
and 17 percent in North Africa (J. Riley, BASOR 
218 [1975] 52f). 

From literary sources we know that a hippo- 
drome functioned at Caesarea in the mid-qth C. 
and probably into the 6th C. (J. Humphrey, BA- 
SOR 213 [1974] 44). The city was a major cultural 
center: EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA organized a theo- 
logical school there; according to Isidore of Se- 
ville, its library contained 30,000 books. Many 
churches are mentioned in the sources: ca.484 
Zeno rebuilt the Church of St. Prokopios; the vita 


of Anastasios the Persian (died 628) describes 
several churches that continued to function under 
the Persian occupation of 604—28 (W. Kaegi, IEJ 
28 [1978] 177-81). 

The city fell to the Arabs in 640 or 641/2. Its 
capture was regarded in Muslim sources as the 
zenith of Arab military success in Palestine. Leg- 
end has it that Caesarea had 930,000 defenders 
against 17,000 Arab besiegers (M. Sharon in £7? 
4:841). Under the Arabs, Caesarea ceased to be a 
major port and became the center of an agricul- 
tural area. The traditional opinion that the cam. 
paign of John I Tzimiskes in 975 reached Cae. 
sarea was refuted by J. Starr (Archiv orientálni 8 
[1936] 94f). On 17 May 1101 it was taken by the 
Crusaders, who retained it until 1187; thereafter 
the city was the target of countless raids, fre- 
quently changed hands, and soon declined. 

LIT. J. Ringel, Césarée de Palestine (Paris 1975). Studies in 
the History of Caesarea Maritima, ed. C. Fritsch (Missoula, 
Mont., 1975). L. Levine, Roman Caesarea (Jerusalem 1975). 
L. Levine, E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 
1976, 1979 (Jerusalem 1986). K. Holum et al., King Herod’s 


Dream: Caesarea by the Sea (New York~London 1988). 
-M.M.M., K.G.H, 


CAESAROPAPISM, conventional term for the 
allegedly unlimited power of the Byz. EMPEROR 
over the church, including unilateral intervention 
in doctrinal questions ordinarily reserved to eccle- 
siastical authority. By passively submitting to this 
system of imperial protective tutelage, the 
Church—it has been suggested—lost its own sphere 
of competence and essential independence; it be- 
came, in effect, an adjunct of the state bureau- 
cracy. 

The term has been rejected by most scholars as 
a misleading and inaccurate interpretation of Byz. 
political reality. First, not a single Byz. emperor 
tried to act as “pope” or patriarch, whereas the 
bishop of Rome did on occasion assume the role 
of caesar. Second, the actual relationship between 
the imperium and sacerdotium cannot be character- 
ized as a simple subordination of the latter. On 
the one hand, some emperors described them- 
selves as episkopoi ton ektos, “supervisors (bishops) 
of external [things of the church],” and indeed 
they controlled the material resources of the church 
(lands, incomes, dependent peasantry); they even 
confiscated holy vessels in cases of state emer- 
gency. Emperors controlled the staffing of the 


higher levels of the church hierarchy, including 
appointment and deposition of patriarchs and 
bishops. They enjoyed limited liturgical privi- 
leges. Their intervention in internal church af- 
fairs was less significant: only a few emperors 
(Justinian I, Manuel I) attempted to impose their 
theological views on the church, although others 
were active during the disputes over Iconoclasm 
or the debate over the Union of the Churches; 
the emperors or their representatives, however, 
usually presided over ecumenical councils. On the 
other hand, the church insistently defended its 
ideological independence, including canon law; 
developed (in the Epanagoge) the theory of two 
correlated powers (the emperor’s and the patri- 
arch’s); and even proclaimed, in some ecclesio- 
logical treatises, that the power of the bishop is 
higher than that of the emperor. In certain situ- 
ations the church administration controlled and 
judged secular functionaries. Finally, the clergy 
and monks possessed enormous economic wealth 
and wielded ideological influence over broad strata 
of the population, so that the church was capable 
of blocking governmental decisions. In sum, the 
term caesaropapism altogether exaggerates the 
degree of actual control of the church by the state. 

ur. D.J. Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byz- 
antine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of Cae- 
saropapism,” ChHist 34 (1965) 381-403. J.-M. Sansterre, 
“Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie ‘césaro- 
papiste, ” Byzantion 42 (1972) 131-95. 532-94. H.-G. Beck, 
Das byzantinische Jahrtausend (Munich 1978) 33—108. S. Run- 


ciman, The Byzantine Theocracy (Cambridge 1977). 
—A.P., A.K. 


CAFFARO., See ANNALES [ANUENSES. 


CAIN AND ABEL (Kdiv, “ABed), the sons of 
ADAM AND Eve. Their offerings (Gen 4:3-5) and 
Abel’s death at the hands of his brother acquired 
Christological and eucharistic undertones already 
apparent in the New Testament (e.g., Heb 12:24) 
and explored in great detail by exegetes such as 
Cyril of Alexandria (PG 69:33B—44D), who jux- 
taposed the righteous Abel with Christ. John 
Chrysostom, quoting Hebrews 12:1, discusses Abel 
as a martyr (Sur la providence de Dieu, ed. A.-M. 
Malingrey [Paris 1961] 236, ch.19.5). Abel’s gifts 
are cited in the Proskomide prayer of the liturgy 
attributed to St. Basil (Brightman, Liturgies 320; 
Taft, Great Entrance 365). 


CALABRIA 365 


Representation in Art. At S. Vitale at RAVENNA, 
a mosaic pairs Melchizedek’s offering with Abel's, 
with clear eucharistic significance (DACL 1.1:62). 
More extensive pre-Iconoclastic representations 
are implied by the mosaics of S. Marco in Venice, 
based on the Cotton Genesis, and by the Octa- 
TEUCHS. Cain and Abel also appear with Adam 
and Eve on a group of ivory caskets and occasion- 
ally in such contexts as the illustrated homilies of 


JAMES OF KoxkinosapHos. Abel often appears in 


the ANASTASIS. 


LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 3:717--22. G. Henderson, LCI t:5— 
10. A. Ulrich, Kain und Abel in der Kunst: Untersuchungen 
zur Ikonographie und Auslegungsgeschichte (Bamberg 1981) 
51-73. -J-H.L., C.B.T. 


CALABRIA (Kaħaßpia), region in southern It- 
aly. Under Diocletian Calabria and Aputia formed 
a single province administered by a corrector. Until 
ca.680 the name Calabria was applied to all of 
southern Italy, including Apulia and Bruttium 
but, after a significant part of this region had 
been conquered by the Lombards, Calabria came 
to designate the former province of Bruttium in 
the toe of Italy (M. Schipa, Archivio Storico per le 
province Napoletane 20 [1895] 23-47). The capital 
of Calabria was REGGIO-CALABRIA. 

Originally under the jurisdiction of the exar- 
chate of Ravenna, ca.7oo Calabria formed part of 
the duchy of Sicily (cf. TAKTIKON of Uspenskij). 
After Sicily fell to the Arabs (by goz), Calabria 
became a theme: Falkenhausen (Dominazione 30) 
maintains that this occurred between 938 and 956, 
whereas A. Pertusi (Byzantino-Sicula 2 [1975] 427f), 
referring to a series of Calabrian strategoi begin- 
ning with Eustathios ca.gi7 (Skyl. 263.47—48), 
suggests an earlier date. Possibly the Byz. did not 
acknowledge the loss of Sicily and considered 
Calabria as “Sicily.” Sigillography provides evi- 
dence about the Byz. administration of Calabria: 
in the 8th C. it had a RHAIKTOR (Zacos, Seals 1, 
no.1477); in the gth C. a doux; and a seal of the 
10th C. belonged to a certain Pothos, “tourmarches 
of Calabria and strategos of Sicily.” 

In the late gth and 10th C. Calabria was con- 
tested between Byz. and the Arabs. Nikephoros 
Phokas the Elder (died ca.goo) secured Byz. power 
in the area, but at the end of the 10th C. the Arab 
threat again became serious. Otto Is expedition 
against the Arabs in 982 was a failure, but Byz. 


366 CALENDAR 


generals retained contro! over Calabria. Finally in 
1060 the Normans occupied the region. 

Calabria was strongly influenced by eastern 
(Greek) customs, culture, and dialect. The Greek 
ecclesiastical and cultural impact increased in the 
10th C., after the Arab occupation of Sicily, when 
many Greeks, esp. monks, emigrated from there 
to southern Italy. In the ecclesiastical notitia of 
g20-~80 the “eparchia Kalabrias” is listed, with SANTA 
SEVERINA as its metropolitan see (Notitiae CP, 
no.8.51). Several monasteries are known from the 
documents of the 11th C.: St. Nikodemos near 
Mammola, St. Leontios of Stito (S. Borsari, Il 
monachesimo bizantino nella Sicilia e nell’ltalia meri- 
dionale prenormanne [Naples 1963] 65). The Greek 
Orthodox population in the region was sizable: 
several saints of the Greek church (NEILOS OF 
Rossano, ELIAS SPELEOTES, ELIAS THE YOUNGER, 
PHANTINOS THE YOUNGER) were born or settled in 
Calabria, and Greek books were copied by local 
scribes. Greek saints’ Lives reflect a Byz. cultural 
world in the region (Wickham, /taly 157). Silk 
manufacture developed in Calabria under the Byz. 
impact. Greek language and culture survived there 
even after the Norman conquest; in the 14th C. 
an eminent Byz. theologian, BARLAAM, originated 
from Seminara in Calabria. 

ur. Calabria bizantina (Reggio-Calabria 1974, 1977, 1083, 
1986). Atti del 4° Congresso storico calabrese (Naples 196g). F. 
Lacava Zipparo, Demimazone bizantina e cwilté basihana nella 


Calabria prenormana (Reggio-Calabria 1977). 
—A.K., R.B.H. 


CALENDAR. See CHRONOLOGY. 


CALENDAR, CHURCH, a codification of the 
liturgical YEAR in two lists, both arranged chro- 
nologically. One, the kanonarton, lists the feasts of 
the lunar or paschal cycle, the mobile feasts that 
vary in date depending on when Easter falls. The 
other, the SYNAXARION, is a list of the fixed feasts 
and saints’ days. The calendar was based on the 
365 dates of the Julian solar calendar, but with 
the days of the month numbered continuously, 
rather than according to the Roman system in- 
volving Nones, Ides, and Kalends. 

From 313 to 462, the cycle of fixed feasts began 
on 23 Sept. with the feast of the Conception of 
John the Baptist, the first Gospel mystery prepar- 
ing for the Nativity of Jesus. After 462 it followed 


the civil year and began 1 Sept., the start of the 
INDICTION. By the 8th C., the 1 Sept. New Year’s 
day had acquired liturgical status with its own 
lections, and the feast of the BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN, 
celebrated on 8 Sept., gradually diminished the 
importance of the Baptist feast as the start of the 
fixed cycle (Grumel, Chronologie 192—203), though 
the latter is still called “the new year [day]” in the 
TYPIKON OF THE GREAT CHURCH (Mateos, Typicon 
1:42, 54f). 

Church calendars began to develop in the 4th 
C. from primitive lists of MARTYRS (saints’ days 
originate in the general custom of venerating the 
dead on the anniversary of their death), of com- 
memorations and lections. Though the earliest 
developed calendars are the Jerusalem LECTION- 
ARIES of the gth—8th C., and there was much 
borrowing of feasts from church to church, the 
Constantinopolitan cathedral calendar is basically 
an independent tradition. It was not just a local 
usage that later spread far afield: this calendar 
was conceived from the start as a calendar for the 
whole of Byz. Fixed between 650 and 750, most 
likely before 700, it was used in all quarters of 
the empire by the gth C., probably owing to the 
liturgical legislation of the Council in TRULLO 
(Ehrhard, Überlieferung 1:28-33). 

Ehrhard divides extant calendar MSS of the 
gth—ı5th C. into four types, according to their 
relative completeness. The final cathedral form 
of the calendar is transmitted to us in the Typekon 
of the Great Church. Its history, however, still re- 
mains to be written; it will have to be traced on 
the basis of liturgical books, feasts, saints’ days, 
and sermon collections. 

ur. A. Baumstark, “Das Typikon der Patmos-Hand- 
schrift 266 und die altkonstantinopolitanische Gottes- 
dienstordnung,” Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewtssenschaft 6 (1926) 
g8—111.S. Salaville, “La formation du calendrier liturgique 


byzantin d’après les recherches critiques de Mgr Ehrhard,” 
EphLit 50 (1936) 312-23. -R.F.T. 


CALENDAR CYCLES. This genre of HAGIO- 
GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION depicted either the por- 
trait or the martyrdom of one saint after another, 
arranged according to the date of his celebration 
in the church CALENDAR. The cycle could also 
include representations of the Great FEASTS on 
the appropriate day of the year. 

Martyrological cycles may have existed already 
by the 8th C. (Life of Tarasios by Ignatios, ed. 


Heikel, 419-16, tr. W. Wolska-Conus, REB 38 
[1980] 248-50; PHotios, hom.17, ed. Laourdas, 
170.17-21). Basil I is known to have included 
scenes of martyrdom in the decoration of a por- 
tico of the Nea Exxcesia (Vira BasILu 928.2—8). 
But there is no indication whether either of these 
lost examples actually followed the sequence of 
the church calendar. 

The earliest and most important surviving cycle 
of this kind is the MENOLOGION oF Basix II. Its 
miniatures were copied in the mid-11th C., this 
time to accompany a true MENOLOGION, the texts 
in this particular group of MSS being modified 
versions of the lives of the saints composed by 
SYMEON METAPHRASTES (F. Halkin, Le ménologe 
impérial de Baltimore [Brussels 1985]). Each of these 
texts concludes with a prayer for the well-being 
of the emperor, perhaps (but by no means surely) 
Michael IV. 

A set of 11th-C. icons from Sinai preserves a 
calendar cycle of this type, and literary equivalents 
can be found in the contemporary metrical cal- 
endars, sets of jingles listing each saint and his 
manner of death composed by CHRISTOPHER OF 
MYTILENE and Theodore Propromos (cf. E. Fol- 
lieri, I calendari in metro innografico di Cristoforo 
Mutileneo [Brussels 1980]). Fresco versions appear 
first in the 13th C., and then only in churches in 
Thessalonike, Serbia, and Bulgaria, most of them 
royal foundations. The only other MS calendar 
cycle is a princely commission of the early 14th 
C. (Oxford, Bodl. gr. th. f.1, Hutter, CBM, vol. 
2,no.1); here as with the frescoes, no text, other 
than verse captions, accompanies the miniatures. 
The context in which these various martyrological 
cycles are found suggests that they may have 
originated in monumental painting; the signifi- 
cance of their imperial connections remains to be 
explored. 

Though many Gospel Lectionary MSS include 
calendar notices, only very rarely are these notices 
accompanied by images (cf. Vat. gr. 1156 and 
Athos, Dion. 587, both MSS of the 11th C.) 
Where they do exist, the images are as laconic as 
the notices themselves, consisting mainly of a se- 
ries of saintly portraits. This type of “portrait” 
calendar cycle apparently represents a separate 
tradition from the martyrological one of the Basil 
Menologion and its successors; it recurs on an- 
other set of Sinai icons, but never in monumental 
painting. 


CALENDS 367 


ur. P. Mijović, Menolog (Belgrade 1973). S. Der Ner- 
sessian, “Moskovskij Menologij,” Vizantija, Iuinye Slavjane t 
Dreunjaja Rus’, Zapadnaja Evropa (Moscow 1973) 94-111. 
K. Weitzmann, “Icon Programs of the 12th and 13th cen- 
turies on Sinai,” DChAE* 12 (1984) 63—116. -N.P.S. 


CALENDAR OF 354, also referred to as the 
Chronographer of 354, an almanac drawn up 
from a large variety of both Christian and pagan 
documents, including consular fasti, tables of Ro- 
man festivals, a secular chronicle of Roman his- 
tory, the regionaries of the city of Rome, Easter 
tables, and lists of bishops and martyrs. The var- 
ious fragmented MSS, when collated, recreate what 
seems to be the oldest extant Roman Christian 
calendar; Mommsen (unaware of an unillustrated 
MS at St. Gall, not pointed out until 1953) derived 
them all from the lost Carolingian Codex Luxem- 
bergiensis. The calendar throws together all man- 
ner of information, from key religious and secular 
items to such trivia as famous Roman gluttons. 

The greatest interest and value comported by 
this calendar derives from the illustrations, made 
for his patron Valentine by the artist Furius 
Dionysius Filocalus, who also was calligrapher of 
the poems of Pope Damasus (366-84). The 26 
illustrations, preserved in 17th-C. drawings based 
on the Carolingian copy, form a gallery of astro- 
logical and political emblems appropriated for 
Christian purposes: no other visual document 
provides so immediate or broad an impression of 
mid-qth-C. beliefs and official imagery. The utility 
and accuracy of the pictures is assured by com- 
parison with other Late Antique works. The LAR- 
cess of Constans II] and the PERSONIFICATIONS of 
great Cities are subjects found on silver; those of 
the MonTHS are repeated in floor mosaics and 
represent the tradition inherited by Byz. artists. 

ED. Chronica minora, pt.1, ed. T. Mommsen in MGH 
AuctAnt g.1 (Berlin 1892) 13-148. ; 

vir. H. Stern, Le Catendrier de 354: Etude sur son texte et 
ses illustrations (Paris 1953). T. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schrif- 
ten 7 (Berlin 1909) 536-79. M.R. Salzman, “The Represen- 


tation of April in the Calendar of 354,” AJA 88 (1984) 43- 
50. ~B.B., A.C. 


CALENDS (Kadaévéat), a calendar custom mark- 
ing the Roman new year; it was celebrated during 
the first four days of January. Libanios and John 
Chrysostom describe the Calends in detail (e.g., 
the decoration of house doors with laurel wreaths). 
Gregory of Nazianzos condemned this custom, 


368 | CALENDZICHA 


and a law of 395 prohibited the pagan celebration 
of holidays (Cod. Theod. II 8.22). The Calends gave 
rise to festive processions where participants got 
drunk, wore animal costumes, distributed gifts in 
specie (kalandika), and banged on doors in the 
middle of the night. Chrysostom refers to this as 
“a procession of demons in the agorai” (PG 
48:954.4—5). Christian clerics viewed the Calends, 
which fell during the 12 days between Christmas 
and Epiphany, as a continuation of the ethos of 
the BruMaLiA and the pagan cult practices asso- 
ciated with it. The mummers of the Calends gave 
rise to popular tales about demons called kalhikan- 
tzaroi. The Council in TRULLO prescribed a six- 
year excommunication for participation in the 
Calends, but the practices went on at least until 
the time of Balsamon, who describes the mum- 
mery. 


uit. Koukoules, Bios 2.1:19-19. Trombley, “Trullo” 5. 
Lawson, Folklore 221~29. —F.R.T. 


CALENDZICHA. See EUGENIKOS, MANUEL. 


CAMBLAK, GRIGORIJ, Bulgarian churchman 
and writer; born Tūrnovo ca.1365, died Kiev 1419. 
Although a member of an aristocratic Bulgarian 
family of Byz. origin (see TZAMBLAKON), it is now 
considered doubtful that he was the nephew of 
Metr. Kiprian of Kiev and Moscow (D. Obolen- 
sky, DOP 32 [1978] 80f). He was educated in 
Ttirnovo, where he studied with Patr. Evrimy 
(whose panegyric he later wrote), on Mt. Athos, 
and in Constantinople. Patr. MarTHEw I of Con- 
stantinople sent him on a mission to Suceava in 
Moldavia ca. 1402-03. He then served as superior 
of the Dečani monastery in Serbia ca.1403—06. In 
1406 Kiprian summoned Camblak to Moscow, but 
he turned back on news of the latter’s death. He 
moved to Kiev ca.1409, and in 1415 local bishops 
elected Camblak metropolitan as the result of 
Lithuanian pressure; he was, however, excom- 
municated by Constantinople and Moscow. In Feb. 
1418, shortly before his death, he attended the 
Council of Constance, where he allegedly made 
a speech in favor of church unity under the 
pope. 

Camblak wrote a wide range of hagiographical, 
homiletic, and liturgical works in Slavonic; many 
are still unpublished. His Razkaz (ed. in Kaluzni- 


acki, infra 432-36) on the translation of the relics 
of St. Petka (Paraskeve) is rich in historical infor- 
mation, esp. about the Ottoman invasion of Bul. 
garia. He was a stylish and powerful writer, with 
a marked interest in personality. As an ecclesias- 
tical politician he found himself involved in con- 
flicts of power with which he was unfit by tem- 
perament and training to deal. 

ED. Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius, ed. Ẹ, 
Katluzniacki (Vienna 1901). Pohvalno slovo za Evtimij, ed, P, 
Rusev et al. (Sofia 1971). A. Davidov et al., Zitie na Stefan 
Dečanski ot Grigorij Camblak (Sofia 1983). See also list in 
Heppell, infra. 

LiT. M. Heppeli, The Ecclesiastical Career of Gregory Cam- 
blak (London 1979). A.I. Jacimirskij, Grigorij Camblak (St. 
Petersburg 1904). K.S. Mečev, Grigorij Camblak (Sofia 1969). 
G. Pùrvev, “Konstancijat stibor (1414—1418) i učastieto na 
Grigorij Camblak v nego,” in Tiirnouska knižovna škola, ed. 
P. Rusev et al., vol. 2 (Sofia 1980) 484—500. —R.B. 


CAMELS (sing. xaundos), common BEASTS OF 
BURDEN and a source of meat and of bone for 
carving throughout much of Syria and Egypt. In 
North Africa they were also used for plowing and 
pulling carts. Camels were envisaged as pack an- 
imals for the army in the SrRATEGIKON OF MAUR- 
ick. A workshop of camel saddles in Damascus is 
mentioned in the vita of Elias of Heliopolis (ed. 
A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, PPS6b 19.3 [1907] 
48.2—5). Camels are also attested in 14th-C. Greece: 
John VI Kantakouzenos had them on his estates 
(Kantak. 2:185.8). Camel drivers (kamelarioi) were 
considered persons of the lowest standing: the De 
administrando imperio attributes such a station to 
MUHAMMAD. To be paraded through the streets 
on the back of a camel was a form of humiliation 
in Constantinople: under Justinian I, persecuted 
astrologers suffered this punishment (Prokopios, 
SH 11.37); in a similar fashion the deposed An- 
dronikos I Komnenos was led through the capital 
on a “mangy camel” in the 12th C. 

In art, the camel frequently denotes an Egyp- 
tian setting: an attribute of St. Menas or of the 
Joseph story, as on the cathedra of MaxiMian. 
Attesting to their ordinariness, camels normally 
appear in CREATION scenes and in images of Adam 
naming the animals. A mosaic in the GREAT PAL- 
ACE depicts two boys riding on a camel. 

uit. E. Demougeot, “Le chameau et l'Afrique du Nord 
romaine,” Annales ESC 15 (1960) 209-47. R.S. Bagnall, 


“The Camel, the Wagon and the Donkey in Later Roman 
Egypt,” BASP 22 (1985) 1-6. -A.M.T., A.C. 


CAMEO, ornament made from a precious or 
semiprecious stone, usually with two or more lay- 
ers of different colors. The subject is carved in 
relief on the often translucent upper layer, while 
the lower layer forms the base. This distinguishes 
cameos from stones carved in INTAGLIO. The qual- 
ity of carving in Byz. cameos is not as high, gen- 
erally, as in Roman examples. Stones favored in 
Byz. were carnelian, chalcedony, heliotrope, hae- 
matite, jasper, lapis lazuli, sardonyx, and rock 
crystal. Secular cameos often displayed portraits. 
Christian examples may depict the Virgin, Jesus, 
a scene from his life, or the bust of a saint. 
Although some Byz. cameos bear an inscription, 
it is usually not contemporary with the scene or 
figure. For this reason as well as the stone’s port- 
ability and intrinsic value, it is difficult to deter- 
mine the date and provenance of cameos, al- 
though comparison with coins and seals can be 
helpful. One firmly dated 11th-C. example in 
London is of serpentine or green jasper, with a 
contemporary inscription that names Nikephoros 
(HI) Botaneiates (Rice, Art of Byz., pl.150). Cameos 
were often mounted to be worn around the neck 
as ENKOLPIA Or AMULETS. GLASS PASTE CAMEOS 
were made in imitation of hardstone cameos. 

uit. A. Bank, Prikladnoe iskusstvo Vizantij IX-XII vv. 
(Moscow 1978) 115-46. H. Wentzel, “Datierte und datier- 
bare byzantinische Kameen,” in Festschrift Friedrich Winkler 
{Berlin 1959) 9-21. W.F. Volbach, J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, 


Byzanz und der christliche Osten (Berlin 1968) 202f. 
-S.D.C., AC. 


CAMP (a&mAynxrov, from Lat. applicatum). The lo- 
cation, construction, and security of the marching 
camp were of vital concern to Byz. campaign 
armies, and nearly every STRATEGIKON contains a 
section on encampments. The most thorough de- 
scription of a temporary camp is given by the 
toth-C. DE RE MILITARI (ed. Dennis, Military Trea- 
tises 246-75), which instructs the surveyors pre- 
ceding the army to locate campsites on level ter- 
rain with sufficient water supply nearby. The army 
camped in a square, keeping the infantry around 
the outside, the cavalry and supply train within. 
The commander’s tent and his retinue were in 
the center. Roads, entered by gates set up in the 
outer defenses, bisected the camp from north to 
south and from east to west. The distinctly Byz. 
plan of a square camp crossed by intersecting 
roads thus differs from the earlier Roman rectan- 


CAMPANIA 369 


gular plan based on the T-shaped intersection of 
the via praetoria/principalts and is first attested in 
the 6th C. 

To protect the camp, the strategika recom- 
mended digging a trench with the earth heaped 
up along the inner lip to form a rampart; the 
infantry might then fix their spears in the earth 
and hang or lean their shields upon them to make 
a shield-cover or palisade. John I Tzimiskes’ army 
fortified their camp in this manner before Doro- 
stolon in 971 (Leo Diac. 142.1-143.6); Yahya of 
Antioch states that the ditch and shield palisade 
around the camp of Romanos IH Argyros during 
the Syrian campaign of 1030 reflected “the usual 
practice of the Greeks in their camps” (M. Canard, 
REB 19 [1961] 305f). A well-protected camp en- 
abled an army to resist attack and organize a 
counterattack, as when in 1068 Romanos IV Di- 
ogenes’ men first held off and then defeated an 
Arab army that had attacked their encampment 
(Attal. 113.8-114.22). 

LIT. Ju. Kulakovskij, “Vizantijskij lager’ konca X veka,” 
VizVrem 10 (1903) 63—90. R. Grosse, “Das rémisch- 
byzantinische Marschlager vom 4.-10. Jahrhundert,” BZ 22 
{1913} go—121. H. von Petrikovits, Die Innenbauten römischer 
Legionslager während der Prinupatszeit (Opladen 1975) 114f. 
V. Kučma, “Iz istorii vizantijskogo voennogo iskusstva na 


rubeze IX-X vv. Lagernoe ustrojstvo," ADSV 10 (1979) 
259-62. ~E.M. 


CAMPANIA (Kapzravia), a region south of Rome 
comprising the cities of Capua, Nares, Nola, and 
BENEVENTO. The GariGLiano is one of the im- 
portant rivers in the area. From the reign of 
Diocletian onward, Campania was considered to 
encompass Latium as well, and according to Pro- 
kopios (Wars 5.15.22) Campania stretched to the 
city of Tarracina. In Western terminology the 
name Campania was applied to two districts: Nea- 
politan Campania, forming a part of the duchy 
of Benevento, and the section included in the 
territory of the papacy. 

Campania was administered by a corrector, who 
from 333 had the high title of consularis. With 
rich land close to Rome, Campania played an 
important role during Justinian I’s reconquest of 
Italy in the 6th C.; when ToTILA captured Rome, 
he resettled Roman senators in Campania. Cam- 
pania had many senatorial estates. The presence 
of senators accounts, in part, for the continued 
spending (moribund in most other parts of Italy) 
by patroni on secular construction in the province 


370 | CANA 


during the 4th and early 5th C. Statues to gov- 
ernors and patroni also continued to be erected. 
Governors promoted secular building activity in 
Campania in the same period. The military and 
financial crisis precipitated by the Visigothic in- 
vasions, more than Christianity, is the probable 
cause for the decline in construction of secular 
monuments in the 5th C. On the other hand, 
Paulinus of Nola’s construction of a church at 
Fondi in Campania is possible evidence of a re- 
direction from secular to ecclesiastical building by 
the senatorial aristocracy residing in Campania. 

In 553/4 the Franks penetrated the province 
(Agath. 40.16). After the 6th C. the name Cam- 
pania rarely appears in Greek sources, but in the 
12th C. the TrmMarion (53.19) still mentions Kam- 
panoi and Italian merchants visiting the fair in 
Thessalonike. Because of Arab raids a complex 
trading pattern emerged between Byz., the Arabs, 
and the West, with Campania serving as a western 
apex. 

uit. D. Whitehouse, “Raiders and Invaders: The Roman 
Campagna in the First Millennium A.D.,” Papers in Italian 
Archaeology 4 (Oxford 1985) 207-13. Wickham, /taly 147- 
51, 1958, 164f. Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity 23— 
25, 67f, 230-35. —A.K., R.B.H. 


CANA (Kaveé), town in Galilee where Christ is 
said to have worked his first miracle, turning 
water into wine during a wedding feast (see CANA, 
MARRIAGE AT). Near Nazareth, its precise location 
has not been established. According to Jerome 
(Eusebios, Onomastikon 117:7) it was a “town of 
Gentiles” (oppidum gentium). Two sites preserve the 
ancient name: Kafr Kanna east of Nazareth, where 
remains of a Byz. synagogue were discovered, and 
Khirbat Kanna north of Nazareth. Many early 
pilgrims (PIACENZA PiLGRiM, Willibald [see Hu- 
GEBURC], EPIPHANIOS HAGIOPOLITES) mention 
Cana. The objects of veneration were the couch 
on which Christ reclined, a waterpot, and the 
spring at which the pot was filled. In the 12th C. 
only a small kastellion existed at Cana (John Pho- 
kas in PPS6 8.2 [1889] 6.29~-30), but pilgrims, 
such as DANuL IGUMEN, continued to mention it. 

ut. Abel, Géographie 2:412f. Wilkinson, Pilgrims 153. B. 


Bagatti, Antichi villaggi cristiani di Galilea (Jerusalem 1971) 
42-48. ~-G.V., Z.U.M. 


CANA, MARRIAGE AT. Popular already in CAT- 
ACOMB imagery, Christ’s conversion of water into 


wine during the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2:3- 
10) had a twofold significance: as Christ’s first 
miracle, revealing his Godhead, and as an antici- 
pation of the Eucuarist. Both meanings are made 
clear at Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, RAvENNA, where 
this scene (wine) and the FEEDING OF THE MUL- 
TITUDE (bread) open the miracle cycle, facing the 
Last Supper (see Lorp’s Supper) across the bema. 
From the 4th C. (silver reliquary in Milan—Vol- 
bach, Early Christian Art, pl.111) through the 14th 
C. (CHora), Cana is regularly juxtaposed with the 
Feeding of the Multitude; a similar eucharistic 
message appears in the Parma Gospels (Lazarev, 
Storia, fig.241), where Cana and the Miraculous 
Draught of Fishes accompany the Last Supper, 
which has bread baskets like those of the Feeding 
of the Multitude. Early images included simply 
Christ, the jars, and servants; Mary and the feast- 
ing wedding party were added in the 6th C. The 
wedding feast dominates the scene thereafter. Al- 
though found in Gospel Books and mural cycles, 
Cana does not appear in illuminated lectionaries. 

uit. Grabar, Martyrium 2:244—54. Underwood, Kariye 
Djami 4:280—84. W. Kuhn, “Die Darstellung des Kanawun- 
ders im Zeitalter Justinians,” in Tortulae: Studien zu altchrist- 


lichen und byzantinischen Monumenten (Rome 1966) 200—15. 
-A.WL. 


CANDLEMAKER (xnpova(A)apuos). There was 
no Roman guild of candlemakers. The role of 
this profession evidently increased around the 7th 
C., when the ancient ceramic LAMP was replaced 
by the canpLe. The word keroullarios appears in 
the 7th-C. Miracles of St. ARTemros (ed. A. Papa- 
dopoulos-Kerameus, 27.1); in the gth C. Theo- 
phanes (Theoph. 487.31) speaks of a well-to-do 
keroullarios who worked in the Forum; a severe 
fire in the Forum in 931 destroyed the shops of 
furriers and candlemakers, keropoleia (TheophCont 
420.19—16). 

According to the Book of the Eparch, keroullariot 
bought wax and olive oil (in part from churches) 
and sold candles in their shops, which, because of 
precautions against fire, had to be separated from 
each other by a prescribed distance (30 orgyiat); 
only for the workshops near Hagia Sophia was an 
exception made. The production of candles, esp. 
for great festivities, required elaborate skill: a 
14th-C. source (pseudo-Kod. 1g1.g—16) describes 
a Christmas procession candle (lampas), the top of 
which was colored with cinnabar and the middle 





CANDLES 371 


Cana, MARRIAGE AT. The Marriage at Cana; fresco, 14th C. Church of St. Nicholas 
Orphanos, Thessalonike. 


part adorned with golden leaves that bore red 
roundels with inscribed crosses. 


LIT. Stéckle, Ziinfte 38f. Bk. of Eparch 208-11.  -A.K. 


CANDLES (sing. knpiov, knpds) were used exten- 
sively in both everyday and ecclesiastical LIGHTING 
in Byz. The ancient Greeks did not make much 
use of candles, but the Romans employed them, 
as well as torches, for festive processions and 
funeral services; their houses were illuminated 
with Lamps made of clay or metal. There are 
reasons to suppose that in the 7th C. the practice 
changed and that candles began to replace lamps: 
first of all, very few clay lamps are found in 
excavations of post-yth-C. strata, although literary 
texts continue to speak of oil lamps; secondly, the 
profession of CANDLEMAKER (keroularios) is known 
from the 7th C. onward; finally, the term kerion, 


which in classical texts means honeycomb, ac- 
quired the meaning of candle and is used to form 
compound words such as keroprates (candle mer- 
chant) or keropoleion (candle workshop). Another 
word, lampas, which in classical vocabulary had 
designated torch or lamp, was used for larger 
candles (Clugnet, Dictionnaire 81, 89f). Late Ro- 
man candles were produced of both tallow and 
wax (F. Cabrol, DACL 3.2:1613); the BOOK OF THE 
EpaRCH (11:3—4) stipulates that the candlemaker 
could use wax and olive oi] but not fat. Candles 
of inferior quality had no wicks (pinat). Sources 
mention the use of candles for processions (e.g., 
the vita of Eusebios of Alexandria, PG 86:309A), 
imperial ceremonies, and liturgy, but there is no 
information on candles in everyday life, save for 
the prohibition on light in individual cells of some 
monasteries; nor do we have any data on the price 
of candles. 


372 | CANICATTINI BAGNI TREASURE 


Liturgical Candles. In worship, candles were 
used, with oil lamps, for both practical and sym- 
bolic purposes. Christians, who saw Jesus and his 
salvation as LIGHT and the candle as the image of 
the eternal light (PG 87:3985C), used candles 
from the 4th C. onward at funerals, at VESPERS, 
in processions, at EPIPHANY and the Easter viGiL, 
and eventually also at BAPTISM, UNCTION, etc. 

Typical of Byz. ritual and private devotion was 
the honorific use of candles. Candles of varying 
sizes were kept burning on the iconostasis, by 
tombs, and before icons and other venerated im- 
ages inside churches (see, e.g., P. Gautier, REB 
32 [1974] 97.152, 39.165, 47.282). The patriarch 
was accompanied in procession by candles, a prac- 
tice borrowed from court ceremonial, and em- 
peror and patriarch offered obeisance with can- 
dies and INCENSE at the opening of services. 
Liturgical candles evolved into the two episcopal 
candelabra: the triple-branch ¢trikerion in honor of 
the Trinity and the double-branched dikerion for 
the two natures of Christ, with which the bishop 
bestowed solemn blessings. 

uit. Taft, “Pontifical Liturgy” 107—110. C. Mango, “Ad- 


dendum to the Report on Everyday Life,” JOB 32.1 (1982) 
255f. Koukoules, Bios 2.2 (1948) g1. -R.F.T., A.K. 


CANICATTINI BAGNI TREASURE. See PLATE, 
DOMESTIC SILVER AND GOLD. 


CANON. For legal term, see Canon Law; CAN- 
ons. For hymnographic term, see KANON. 


CANONIZATION (davaxypvéts), official ecclesi- 
astical acknowledgment and proclamation of the 
sanctity of an individual by the patriarch and 
synod of Constantinople. Although the term is 
sometimes loosely used by scholars for the period 
prior to the 13th C., canonization in Byz. appears 
to have been a development of the Palaiologan 
period. From the earliest centuries of Christianity, 
holy men and women were popularly revered as 
SAINTS, commemorated on their feastdays, cele- 
brated in hagiography, and represented in sacred 
images; the faithful prayed to them for interces- 
sion and sought healing from the relics at their 
shrines. This recognition of a person's sanctity is 
properly termed anagnorisis. In the West, official 
papal canonization began in the late roth C.; the 


earliest example in Byz. seems to be that of Patr. 
ARSENIOS in the late 13th C. In the 14th C. at 
least eight cases of canonization are attested, in- 
cluding Patr. ArHanasios I, Meletios the Confes- 
sor (died 1286), and Gregory Patamas (cf. Reg- 
Patr, fasc. 5, nos. 2132, 2540; 6, no.2681a). Among 
the prerequisites for canonization were popular 
veneration, evidence of miracles, and creation of 
an iconic and hagiographic tradition. 

uT. R. Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood in the Early 
Palaiologan Period,” in Byz. Saint 67-87. A.-M. Talbot, 


Faith Healing in Late Byzantium (Brookline, Mass., 1983) 21— 
30. ~A.M.T. 


CANON LAW, in a broad sense, is the totality of 
legal regulations concerning church life. In its 
narrow (formal) sense, it is the totality of the rules 
that derive from church authorities. Because of 
the great importance of the church, canon law in 
Byz. was of an importance equal to secular law 
(see Law, Civit). There did not develop a strict 
separation of the two spheres of law as in the 
Latin West. 

Byz. canon law, static and adverse to all inno- 
vations, did not undergo any significant develop- 
ment. The history of Byz. canon law (in its narrow 
sense) falls into three periods: that of the coun- 
cits (4th C.-second half of the gth C.), that of 
the patriarchs (second half of the gth C.—11ith 
C.), and that of the canonists (1eth—15th C.) 

From the 4th C. come the most important sources 
by far: the CANONS issued by church councils. The 
canons of some councils were being assembled 
and arranged in chronological order by the 5th 
C. at the latest; these collections were supple- 
mented and partly replaced—by the 6th C.—with 
“systematic” collections (organized according to 
subject matter) such as the SyNAGOGE OF Firry 
TiTLEs and the NOMOKANONES. Excerpts from the 
writings of church fathers (including the so-called 
APOSTOLIC CANONS) were also introduced into 
these collections. The bulk of the sources that 
became the recognized basis for ecclesiastical law 
was already established in the 6th C. and given 
the authority of an ecumenical council in 691 by 
the Council in TRuLLo (canon 2), which repu- 
diated in particular the ApostoLic CONSTITU- 
tions. These canons (which form the basis of 
canon law in its narrow sense) were considered to 
be, in principle, immutable. 

The Constantinople council of 879-80 led by 


Patr. Photios was the last council that issued gen- 
erally recognized canons; from then on the corpus 
of canons was supplemented by occasional pre- 
scriptions of individual patriarchs, mostly with the 
participation of their ENDEMOUSA SYNODOS. In the 
MSS these prescriptions constitute variously com- 
posed appendices to the collections of canons. 
Only certain prescriptions, in particular those 
dealing with marriage law, acquired an authority 
comparable to that of the canons. 

The chronologically arranged canons were pro- 
vided with continuous commentaries in the 12th 
C. by Alexios ArisTenos, John Zonaras, and 
Theodore BaLsamMon; these commentaries, esp. 
those of Balsamon, took certain other sources into 
account as well. Byz. canon law studies—which 
originated in the 11th C., peaked in the 12th C., 
and flourished once more in the 14th C.—pro- 
duced compendia, in particular the Syntagma kata 
stoicheion of Matthew BLasTares and the Epitome 
canonum of Constantine HARMENOPOULOS as well 
as works on particular problems in the form of 
treatises and EROTAPOKRISEIS (NIKETAS OF HERA- 
KLEIA, JOHN IV (V) Oxertes of Antioch, Michael 
Choumnos, NIKETAS OF ANKYRA, NIKETAS “or Ma- 
RONEIA,” BasiL OF OnRuD). Finally, the judicial 
decisions of ecclesiastical authorities such as John 
APOKAUKOS, Demetrios CHOMATENOS, and the en- 
demousa synodos of the patriarchs of Constantino- 
ple, whose register for the 14th C. is almost com- 
pletely preserved, belong to the sources of canon 
law in its narrow sense. 

Sources of canon law in its broad sense are the 
imperial laws regarding church life; these are of 
great importance because individual emperors, in 
particular, CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT, JUSTINIAN 
I, and Leo VI, issued large numbers of legal 
prescriptions involving ecclesiastical matters, which, 
on the whole, were respected by the church. Laws 
derived from the Corpus Juris CiviLis were com- 
piled in special collections (see, e.g., COLLECTIO 
TRIPARTITA) Or integrated into works based on the 
canons (the nomokanones, the commentary of Bal- 
samon, the Syntagma kata stoicheton of Blastares). 

Even if some collections of canon law are not 
arranged either chronologically or alphabetically, 


but according to content (esp. the Nemokanon of 


Fourteen Titles), it is impossible to assert that a 
“system” of canon law was ever developed in Byz. 
This was done only in modern times and one can 
now (following Christophilopoulos) divide church 


CANON LAW | 373 


law into five sections according to content: a gen- 
eral section, constitution, administration, penal- 
ties, and judicial procedure. 

1. To the general section belong the concept of 
canon law (including its distinction from secular 
law, ethics, and theology); the relationship of the 
church to the state as well as to dissenters (Jews, 
Muslims, Latins, and heretics, like Manichaeans 
and Paulicians); and the sources of canon law and 
their interpretation (see OIKONOMIA). 

2. To the constitution of the church belong the 
regulations concerning its members (who have 
been received into it through baptism): the laity, 
clergy, and monks as well as the prescriptions 
concerning the organs of ecclesiastical administra- 
tion—the councils, endemousa synodos, patriarchs, 
metropolitans, bishops, and monasteries. 

3. The administration of the church includes 
the rules for the sacraments, esp. marriage, and 
for religious education as well as the laws regard- 
ing church property (see PROPERTY, SACRED), in- 
cluding the income of the clergy. 

4. Ecclesiastical penal law deals—both generally 
and in particular—with ecclesiastical offenses such 
as apostasy, HERESY, SCHISM, SIMONY, and SACRI- 
LEGE as well as with ecclesiastical penalties such as 
EXCOMMUNICATION, deposition and ANATHEMA (see 
also EPITIMION, PENANCE). 

5. Finally, the ecclesiastical judicial process (see 
TRIAL, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) before the ecclesi- 
astical courts (see Court, Law) forms a part of 
canon law. 

Byz. canon law was not “law” in the modern 
sense of the term: neither in substance nor in 
procedure was the uniformity of the handling of 
norms ever vouchsafed, because there was never 
an institutionalized legal education of the clerics 
concerned with the application of “law” and be- 
cause the notion of an ubiquitous validity of legal 
norms (the “concept of the legal state”) was com- 
pletely absent. In several areas (e.g., that of pen- 
ance) canon law was not clearly divided from 
ethics or theology; this is due to the fact that the 
most important producers of the norms of canon 
law, namely the councils and the church fathers, 
also determined the codes of ethics and the theo- 
logical dogmas. 

Research into Byz. canon law began in the West 
in the 16th C.; in the 16th and 17th C., Bonefi- 
dius, Voellus, Justellus, and Beveregius in partic- 
ular produced a series of notable editions of canon 


374 CANONS 


law sources. These studies were taken up again 
in the second half of the igth C. by J.B. Pitra and 
at the beginning of the 2oth C. by V.N. Beneševič. 
The documents of the endemousa synodos of the 
patriarchs of Constantinople (RegPatr) have been 
the subject of research since ca.1930 by the French 
Assumptionists. 

Systematic studies on canon law have been pur- 
sued since the second half of the 1gth C., mainly 
in Orthodox lands (above all in Greece and, until 
the revolution of 1917, in Russia) where Byz. 
canon law was still largely valid. While this so- 
called inner legal history has received consider- 
able attention, the area of the sources (so-called 
outer legal history) is still insufficiently re- 
searched: most texts still lack a classification of 
the MS tradition and a critical edition. 

tir. N. van der Wal, J.H-A. Lokin, Historiae iuris graeco- 
romani delineatio (Groningen 1985). S.N. Troianos, Oi peges 


tou byzantinou dikaiou (Athens-Komotini 1986). Idem, Pa- 
radoseis ekklesiastikou dikaiou? (Athens-Komotini 1984). N. 


Milaš, Pravoslavno crkveno pravo” (Belgrade 1926). P.L Pan- 
agiotakos, Systema tou ekklestastekou dikaiou kata ten en Helladi 
ischyn autou, vols. 3~4 (Athens 1962, 1957). A-P. Chris- 
tophilopoulos, Hellenzkon ekklesiastikon dikaion® (Athens 


1965). ~AS. 


CANONS (xavoves), term that in Roman law was 
used synonymously with regulae, rules, but that 
eventually acquired a technical meaning as the 
body of ecclesiastical law or of its individual reg- 
ulations. As canonical were recognized the rulings 
of several councils, both ecumenical (Nicaea of 
325, Constantinople of 381, Ephesus, Chalcedon, 
Trullo, Nicaea of 787) and local (esp. Ankyra, 
Gangra, Serdica) as well as the precepts of several 
authoritative church fathers (Basil the Great, Gre- 
gory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzos, Amphilo- 
chios of Ikonion, Cyril of Alexandria, Tarasios, 
and others). 

Canons covered broad areas of CANON LAW— 
ecclesiastical structure, church discipline, norms 
of morality and behavior, liturgy, etc. Zonaras (PG 
137:509D) distinguishes “the investigation of 
dogma and decisions (psephot)” from formal can- 
ons that should, according to Balsamon, bear the 
signatures of emperors and “fathers” (PG 
137:509A). In theory, canons had to be approved 
“by the common volition and unanimous desire” 
(Mansi 11:933D) of the council participants. Can- 
ons were considered to be “divine,” “saintly,” or 
“holy.” Justinian I emphasized the importance of 


canons: thus, in his novel 131 of 545 he endowed 
the canons of the first four ecumenical councils 
with the validity of imperial legislation. 

ED. P.-P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique, 4 vols. 
(Grottaferrata 1962—64). 

LIT. L. Wenger, Canon in den römischen Rechtsquellen und 


in den Papyri (Vienna-Leipzig 1942) 83—166. E. Schwartz, 
Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4 (Berlin 1960) 159—275. -A.K. 


CANON TABLES, a system of concordance to 
the Gospels devised by Eusesios OF CAESAREA. 
His letter to Karpianos, often included with the 
ten tables, explained their use. Numbered sections 
of Gospels were accompanied by a red number, 
corresponding to one of the tables, in which sim- 
ilar passages in other Gospels were listed. Euse- 
bios’s original design, preserved in certain 10th- 
C. MSS, spread the ten tables over seven pages. 
In the ioth C., Constantinopolitan illuminators 
extended the series to ten pages and framed the 
matrix of numbers in elaborate arches. Canon 
tables enjoyed their greatest popularity and artis- 
tic success in the 11th and 12th C. Menageries of 
exotic animals and mythological creatures play on 
top of arcades, and personifications of the labors 
of the MonTHs and virtues are incorporated into 
the bases and capitals. The same themes appear 
in Georgian MSS decorated in Constantinople by 
Byz. painters. At the end of the ieth C. even 
more elaborate profusions of ornament embellish 
the tables of Decorative StyLe MSS. In the Pa- 
laiologan period, decorated canon tables are nei- 
ther as common nor elaborate as before. 

uit. C.Nordenfalk, Die spdtantiken Kanontafein (Goteborg 
1938). E. Nestle et al., Novum testamentum graece (Stuttgart 
1981) 73~78. R.S. Nelson, “Theoktistos and Associates in 


‘Twelfth-Century Constantinople,” The J. Paul Getty Museum 
Journal 15 (1987) 59—66. -R.S.N. 


CANOSCIO TREASURE, 5th(?)-C. hoard of 24 
silver objects (nine plates, four cups, nine spoons, 
a strainer, and a ladle) discovered in 1934 at 
Canoscio in Umbria and now in the cathedral 
treasury of Citta di Castello. Although the Ca- 
noscio Treasure is often described as a church 
treasure, Engemann (infra) convincingly demon- 
strated that it was for domestic use and belonged 
to a couple whose names, Aelianus and Felicitas, 
are inscribed on at least one of its objects. Most 
of the plates have small crosses at their center, 
but the lack of dedicatory inscriptions and the flat 


CAPERNAUM 375 





Canon Tas_es. Canon tables from a Gospel book (Melbourne, 710/5, fols. 3v—4r); 
12th C. Above each column stands the personification of a month (left) or of a 
virtue (right). National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne; Felton Bequest, 1959. 


profiles of the plates argue against their being 
PATENS. The two largest plates, decorated with a 
cross flanked by two lambs, represent the intro- 
duction of Christian themes into household silver. 
Although usually attributed to the 6th C., individ- 
ual objects are related to those in the 4th- or 5th- 
C. CARTHAGE TREASURE. Both these collections 
offer evidence for the intermediary stages of de- 
velopment in the types of domestic silver PLATE 
manufactured in the period between the better- 
known silver TREASURES of the 4th C. and those 
of the 6th and 7th C. 


uT. E. Giovagnoli, “Una collezione di vasi eucaristici 
scoperti a Canoscio,” RACr 12 (1935) 313-28. J. Enge- 
mann, “Anmerkungen zu spatanuken Geräten des Alltags- 
lebens,” JbAChr 15 (1972) 154-73- —M.M.M. 


CANTICLES. See PSALTER. 


CAPERNAUM (Kadapvaovp), a site in Galilee, 
identified as Tell Hum. Although Capernaum was 
the center of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, it re- 
mained only slightly touched by Christianity. Eu- 
sebios of Caesarea (Onomastikon 120.2—-4) de- 
scribed it as a village of “pagans,” and EpIPHANIOS 
of Salamis (Panarion 30.11.g—10) listed it among 
those Jewish sites where no church had been 
constructed and no Christians dwelled. Excava- 
tions discovered there the remains of a synagogue 
with buildings of the ist and the 4th—sth C. 
Pilgrims to Capernaum (EGERIA, Piacenza PIL- 
GRIM) were shown the house of the apostle Peter 
transformed into a church. This holy site is iden- 
tified as a room in a ist-C. private house, whose 
plastered walls bore Christian graffiti. Its hall be- 
came a place of worship (domus ecclesiae) in the 
4th C., and in the 5th C. an octagonal church was 
erected above it. 


376 | CAPIDAVA 


After the Arab conquest of Palestine the church 
is no longer mentioned, but pilgrims could see 
the house of John the Evangelist and the place 
where the paralytic was lowered through the roof. 
Danu IGUMEN confuses two Capernaums: one at 
the Lake of Tiberias, another near Caesarea. He 
says that Capernaum used to be a large and pop- 
ulated city but was deserted by his time; he reports 
a prophecy that the Antichrist would emerge from 
Capernaum (PPSb 3—9 [1885] 88f). 

uit. V. Corbo et al., Cafarnao, 4 vols. (Jerusalem 1972- 
75). V. Corbo, S. Loffreda, A. Spijkerman, La sinagoga di 
Cafarnao (Jerusalem 1970). V. Corbo, The House of St. Peter 


at Capharnaum (Jerusalem 1969). Wilkinson, Pilgrims 153f. 
-G.V., A.K., Z.U.M. 


CAPIDAVA (Kariôaßa), a Roman military fort 
in the Dosrupyja at a ford of the Danube, on the 
route leading to Hisrria and Tomis. Excavations 
have revealed two layers of settlement; a Roman 
castrum (or locus) existed to the early 7th C. (a coin 
of Maurice was found) and was restored several 
times, the last time probably by Anastasios I. The 
6th-C. fort was smaller than the earlier one, and 
among numerous Latin inscriptions only a few 
can be dated later than the grd C. The second 
settlement was founded in the time of John I 
Tzimiskes and can be dated by coins that reach 
the reign of Theodora. The settlement was sur- 
rounded by a wall 2 m thick and the habitations 
were semisubterranean. The objects found in the 
second layer are of poor quality, primarily ceram- 
ics that show some influence of Slavic ware (the 
potters’ stamps resemble those in Bulgaria); on 
the other hand, large clay caldrons indicate Pech- 
eneg connections. The city name is mentioned by 
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (De them. 1.60, 
ed. Pertusi p.86). 

ur. G. Florescu, R. Florescu, P. Diaconu, Capidava, 
vol. ı (Bucharest 1958). R. Florescu, N. Cheluja-Georgescu, 
“Săpăturile de la Capidava,” Pontica 7 (1974) 417-35; 8 
(1975) 77-85. ALK. 


CAPITAL (kiókpavov, Kiovoxpaviov), the crown- 
ing element of a COLUMN, a critical block that 
marks the junction of a load (e.g., of an EPISTYLE) 
and its support (the column shaft). A capital is 
also used with pilasters and piers, where it marks 
the springing of an arch or vault. During the 4th— 
5th C. most Ionic and Corinthian capitals relied 





CAPITAL. Capital; 6th C. Church of Hagia Sophia, 
Istanbul. One face of the capital bears the monogram 
of Justinian 1. 


on Roman models (J.-P. Sodini, 10 IntCongChr- 
Arch, vol. 1 [Thessalonike 1984] 207-78). Corin- 
thian, with ACANTHUS decoration, was the domi- 
nant form and the source of inspiration for most 
other types: the Composite capital; the “Theo- 
dosian” with its characteristic fine-toothed acan- 
thus; the windblown acanthus capital; and the 
two-zone capital in which animal or bird PRO- 
TOMES surmount a zone with acanthus leaves or 
basket pattern. 

Byz. arcades, however, demanded more com- 
pact capitals. Adopting the IMPOST BLOCK, the 
IMPOST CAPITAL had fully emerged by ca.530, fol- 
lowed by two variants: the kettle and fold capitals, 
marked by a preference for stylized floral orna- 
ment and undercutting (Orlandos, Palaiochr. basi- 
like 2:325-37). 

Already ca.550 the production of new capitals 
dropped dramatically and the use of spouta be- 
came a common practice. Rare new forms after 
the gth C. include the Corinthian-impost capitals 
in the Church of the Theotokos at Hosios Loukas 
(H. Buchwald, ArtB 48 [1966] 152), impost capi- 


CAPITATIO-JUGATIO 377 


tals with busts of angels, and the Palaiologan im- 
post capitals with busts of saints as at the church 
of the CHORA MONASTERY. 








LIT. R. Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien: Beiträge zu einer Ge- 
schichte des spätantiken Kapitelis im Osten vom vierten bis ins 
siebente Jahrhundert (Berlin-Leipzig 1936). W.E. Betsch, “The 
History, Production and Distribution of the Late Antique 
Capital in Constantinople” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsyl- 
vania, 1977). F.W. Deichmann, Corpus der Kapitelle der Kirche 
von San Marco zu Venedig (Wiesbaden 1981). Grabar, Sculp- 
lures 1 65—67. Grabar, Sculptures IH 26—28, 1391—36. E.D. 
Maguire, “A Revolution in Northern Justinianic Capital 
Design,” ByzF 14 (1989) 59-74. Eadem, “Range and Rep- 
ertory in Capital Design,” DOP 41 (1987) 351—61. 

—L.Ph.B., W.L. 


CAPITANATA, territory in northern Apulia that 
comprises, roughly, the modern Italian province 
of Foggia. The name, which appears first in the 
1ith-C. Chronicle of Leo Marsicanus (MGH SS 
34:261), derives from KATEPANO. In fact, during 
the first quarter of the 11th C. the katepano had 
reorganized the area, repopulating it with people 
from neighboring Lombard counties, and found- 
ing and fortifying new cities such as Civitate, 
Dragonara, Torre Fiorentina, and Troia. Troia’s 
act of foundation, by Basil Boroannes (1019), has 
been preserved. The population and the local 
officials were predominantly Latin-speaking Lom- 
bards; the bishop of Troia was directly subject to 
the Holy See. The territory was intended as a line 
of defense against invaders from the north; the 
Normans occupied it in the mid-11th C. 





An 


5); 
i 
i 


t 
‘es 
iN 
È 


LIT. J.-M. Martin, “Une frontière artificielle: la Capitan- 
ate italienne,” 14 CEB, vol. 2 (Bucharest 1975) 379-85. 


Q -V vF. 


by 


pig 4 


4 

¢ 
CAPITATIO-JUGATIO (fvyoxédador or kepa- 
Aóčvyov), FISCAL SYSTEM related to Diocletian’s 
reforms; its exact nature is unclear, in spite of 
long and heated discussions. It ensured a fair 
distribution among individual taxpayers of the 
ANNONA, the total amount of which was fixed by 
the authorities at various levels, from the PRAE- 
TORIAN PREFECT down to the provincial governor. 
The distribution was made by taking into account 
some established shares of tax liability, called Jucum 
(for land) and caput (for humans, animals, etc.), 





Capita. Byzantine Capitals. (a) Corinthian with acan- 
thus decoration; (b) Composite; (c) Windblown acan- 
thus; (d) Two-zone. 





378 | CAPPADOCIA 


which were estimated as having equal value. Some 
scholars (Piganiol, Ostrogorsky) saw in the system 
a combination of POLL TAX and land tax, conclud- 
ing that a jugum could not be taxed unless it had 
a corresponding caput and vice versa; conse- 
quently they related the system to the state’s effort 
to bind peasants by law to the land that they 
cultivated. This theory has been broadly criticized. 

LIT. Ostrogorsky, History qof. Jones, LRE 448-56. J. 
Karayannopulos, “Die iugatio-capitatio-Frage und die Bin- 
dung der Agrarbevélkerung an die Scholle,” in Actes du 
Vile Congrés de la Fédération Internationale des Associations 
d'Etudes Classiques, vol. 2 (Budapest 1984) 59-72. Idem, 
“Die Theorie A. Piganiols über die Iugatio-Capitatio und 
die neueren Auffassungen über die Entwicklung der sozi- 
alen und finanzwirtschaftlichen Institutionen in Byzanz,” 
BNJbb 19 (1966) 324-49. -N.O. 


CAPPADOCIA (Karaégoxia), the hilly and 
mountainous region of central Asia Minor 
stretching from the Pontic mountains to the Tau- 
rus and from the Salt Lake to the Euphrates. 
Except for a few fertile plains (the best around 
Melitene), Cappadocia is not very productive and 
never supported a large population or extensive 
urban life. In antiquity, it had only three cities— 
CAESAREA, MELITENE, and Tyana; the emperor 
owned most of the land and its population was 
his tenants. Cappadocia is rich in minerals and 
was famed for cattle, sheep, and esp. horses. It 
gained importance from its command of the main 
highways across Anatolia and from its proximity 
to the frontier. 

The wars of the grd C. depleted the population. 
Diocletian reduced the area of Cappadocia by 
forming the provinces of Armenia from its east- 
ern regions. The remaining area, with its capital 
at Caesarea, was assigned to the diocese of Pon- 
ros. Hannibalianus, nephew of Constantine I, 
however, was briefly king (rex regum) of Cappa- 
docia, Pontos, and Armenia (335—37). When Con- 
stantine confiscated the treasures of the temples, 
the imperial estates grew. They became the domus 
divina per Cappadociam; their revenues supported 
the imperial bedchamber. In 371, Valens de- 
tached the southern half, making a new province, 
Cappadocia II, with its capital at Tyana. 

The writings of the CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS pro- 
vide considerable information about Cappadocia 
in the late 4th C., a time of great prosperity. After 
363, when the region east of the Euphrates was 
ceded to Persia, Cappadocia gained in strategic 


importance and became more exposed. Tzannoi, 
Isaurians, and Huns ravaged Cappadocia in the 
5th C., provoking a program of fortification con- 
tinued by Justinian I, who rebuilt Caesarea and 
established a new fortified center at Moxissos. 
Vainly hoping to repress widespread civil distur- 
bance and revolts by imperial tenants, he ap- 
pointed a proconsul with full civil and military 
powers in 535, but the old system was restored by 
553. The Persians destroyed SeBasTeta in 575 and 
Caesarea in 611, introducing a period of great 
turmoil. 

Arab attacks began with the temporary capture 
of Caesarea in 646 and intensified after they gained 
control of the Cilician Gates and Tyana in 708. 
The long wars led to major changes: the country 
was covered with strong, usually remote for- 
tresses; large areas, esp. in the east, were depop- 
ulated; and Slavs were transported from the Bal- 
kans to strengthen the defenses. 

In the regime of THEMES, Cappadocia was di- 
vided between ANATOLIKON and ARMENIAKON. 
When these were reduced in the early gth C., the 
two new themes of CHarsianon and Cappadocia 
occupied the ancient geographical area, which 
continued to bear the name Cappadocia for un- 
official and ecclesiastical purposes. In Byz. admin- 
istrative parlance, however, Cappadocia came to 
denote a smaller area, the highly exposed south- 
ern region. First mentioned (by Ibn Khurdadh- 
beh) as a KLEISOURA of Anatolikon, it became a 
separate theme by ca.830. It extended from the 
Taurus to the Halys and had its headquarters at 
Korone in the mountains above the main invasion 
route of the Arabs. Its strategos, who drew a salary 
of 20 pounds of gold, commanded 4,000 men 
and numerous fortresses. Leo VI extended Cap- 
padocia to the northwest by adding the region 
adjacent to the Salt Lake. 

In the mid-gth C., the Paulicians attacked from 
their base of TEPHRIKE just east of the frontier. 
That threat was removed in 878, but Arab raids 
continued until the capture of Melitene by the 
Byz. in 934 and the displacement of the frontier 
eastward brought renewed security. Major prob- 
lems remained, however: notably depopulation 
from the long wars and the concomitant growth 
of the estates of the military aristocracy, many of 
whom were Cappadocian. Syrian and Armenian 
settlers helped to repopulate the country. The 
increasing power of the magnates sparked a series 


of revolts led by Bardas PHoxas and Bardas SKLE- 
ros that spread from Cappadocia to afflict most 
of Anatolia from 963 to g8q. After finally gaining 
control, Basil II moved against the Cappadocian 
aristocracy, confiscating the wealth of such fami- 
lies as the Mareinor. He gained victories in the 
east and then annexed much of Armenia; in com- 
pensation, Armenian princes and their followers 
received lands and offices in Cappadocia. Large 
parts of the country became Armenian, and hos- 
tility between the newcomers and the native pop- 
ulation grew. In 1057, the deteriorating military 
situation produced by increasing Turkish attacks 
provoked Bryennios, general of Cappadocia, to 
revolt. In the same year the Turks destroyed 
Melitene and in 1059 Sebasteia; defense of such 
cities had long been neglected. After the devas- 
tation of Caesarea in 1067, Romanos IV strove to 
restore the military situation in Cappadocia and 
the east. In 1071, he passed through Cappadocia 
en route to the fatal battle of Mantzikert, after 
which Cappadocia was permanently lost to the 
empire. A province of Cappadocia is last men- 
tioned in 1081, when Alexios I summoned the 
toparches of “Cappadocia and Choma” to Constan- 
tinople (An.Komn. 1:1391.16-17). This probably 
indicates either that imperial authority had sur- 
vived in the westernmost parts of Cappadocia or 
that the name, perhaps together with troops, had 
been moved into Phrygia. 


uit. TIB 2. F. Hild, Das byzantinische Strassensystem in 
Kappadokien (Vienna 1977). —-CF. 


Monuments of Cappadocia. Few churches built 
during the 4th~—7th C. have survived in the prov- 
ince (M. Restle, Studien zur frithbyzantinischen Ar- 
chitektur Kappadokiens [Vienna 1979]). The region 
is best known for the ROCK-CUT CHURCHES AND 
DWELLINGS carved into its soft volcanic tuff hills. 
Large 6th—~7th-C. congregational basilicas in the 
cliffs at Çavuşin and Aveilar survive, but most of 
the datable rock-cut monuments are small mo- 
nastic chapels, often associated with cells, mills, 
winepresses, and refectories. Chapels that have 
been ascribed dates before 843—and sometimes 
much earlier—include Ioakeim and Anna and 
Niketas the Stylite in Kızıl Çukur and St. Basil at 
Sinassos (N. Thierry, RSBS 1 (1981] 205-28). The 
greatest period of artistic productivity, however, 
occurred between the cessation of major Arab 
attacks on Anatolia and the SELJUK conquest, re- 


CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS | 379 


flecting the popularity of the region as a monastic 
center in the roth and first half of the 11th C. 
Among the most important datable fresco cycles 
from this period are those found in Ayvalı Kilise 
or the Church of St. John (913-20), GÜLLÜ DERE; 
Tavşanlı Kilise (913-20); the Old Church of To- 
kalı Kilise and Kılıçlar Kilise in GÖREME, each 
associated with a series inappropriately named the 
“Archaic Group”; the Great Pigeon House of Ça- 
vuşin (963-69) and the New Church of Tokalı 
Kilise (mid-1oth C.) in Göreme; Direkli Kilise 
(976—1025) and St. Michael (1025—28) near the 
Hasan Dač; Esxi Gümüş near Niğde; St. Barbara 
(1006 or 1021) and Karabaş Kilise (1060-61) in 
SoGaANLI; and the CoLUMN CHURCHES (mid-11th 
C.?). In their architectural form, programs, and 
painting style, these chapels reflect the tension 
between metropolitan cultural hegemony and lo- 
cal artistic tradition. 

ur. Jerphanion, Églises rupestres. Thierry, Nouvelles églises. 
Restle, Wall Painting. L. Rodley, Cave Monastertes of Byz- 
antine Cappadocia (Cambridge 1985). N. Thierry, Haut moyen- 
age en Cappadoce: Les églises de la région de Çavuşin (Paris 
1983). ~-AJ.W. 


CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS, BASIL THE GREAT, 
GREGORY or Nazianzos, and GREGORY or Nyssa, 
the three church fathers who combatted ARIAN- 
IsM in the 4th C. and were later considered the 
highest ecclesiastical authority. AMPHILOCHIOS OF 
IkONION is sometimes included in this group. Basil 
was the great organizer of men and institutions, 
Gregory of Nazianzos the great orator and poet, 
and Gregory of Nyssa the profound and subtle 
philosopher. Together they are best regarded as 
masters of compromise and synthesis in their ad- 
aptations of Plato and OrIGEN to the Orthodoxy 
of ATHANASIOS of Alexandria. Their trinitarian 
definitions paved the way for the Council of 
Cuatcepon. Basil established and clarified the 
distinction between the one ousia (see SUBSTANCE) 
and three HYPOSTASES in support of the concept 
of Homoousios. Gregory of Nazianzos developed 
the properties and mutual relationships of the 
three divine persons within the Trinity. Gregory 
of Nyssa emphasized the divinity and consubstan- 
tiality of the Holy Spirit. 

The Cappadocians also departed from Origen- 
ist notions of SIN, SALVATION, and TIME. In their 
view, sin is more a product of human weakness 
and succumbing to temptation than the result of 


380 CAPUA 


ORIGINAL SIN. Salvation is attained by penitence, 
confession, the contemplation and understanding 
of the divine, and the final reconciliation of sin- 
ners with God after the temporary punishment 
of hell. Much of this comports their efforts to 
define and distinguish time from eternity, another 
major departure from Origen; the concept of 
diastema was developed to separate divine from 
created time (B. Otis, S/P 12 [Berlin 1976] 327- 
57), a notion put forth to substantiate their the- 
ories of man’s fall and redemption. Apart from 
theological matters, the Cappadocians responded 
directly to the social issues of their day, with all 
three denouncing chariot racing, a particular ob- 
session of Cappadocia, as a source of unrest and 
riot (J.H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses [London 
1986] 528). 

tir. B. Otis, “Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent Sys- 
tem,” DOP 12 (1958) 95-124. R. Gregg, Consolation Philos- 
ophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories 
(Philadelphia 1975). T.A. Kopecek, “The Social Class of 
the Cappadocian Fathers,” ChHist 42 (1973) 453-66. C.B. 
Ashanin, “Christian Humanism of the Cappadocian Fa- 
thers,” PBR 6 (1987) 44—52. R. Teja, Organización económica 


y social de Capadocia en el siglo IV, segun los padres Capadocios 
(Salamanca 1974). ~B.B. 


CAPUA (Keava), city in Campania. Some re- 
mains of late Roman Capua survive: an amphi- 
theater (converted to a fortress in the late gth C.), 
bath, and Mithraeum. The Vandal Gaiseric sacked 
and destroyed Capua in 456. In 594 it was taken 
by the Lombards. Thereafter Capua was at first 
under the rule of the duchy of Benevento, and 
Duke Arechis II (758-87) may have constructed 
a church there (CHRONICON SALERNITATUM 17.11; 
Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity 84). Capua 
gained independence in the gth C. Sometime be- 
fore 808, abbot Josue of S. Vincenzo al Volturno 
received permission from King Louis (later Emp. 
Louis the Pious) to destroy a “very ancient tem- 
ple.” Ward-Perkins (ibid. 206) thinks this proves 
continued government control (presumably Caro- 
lingian) over ruined secular buildings in Italy after 
800. The rulers of Capua acquired the title of 
princes ca.goo. At this time the city had to struggle 
against the Arabs, but the Muslim danger was 
eliminated at the battle of GARIGLIANO in 915. 
The Byz. impact on Capua was less significant 
than on neighboring Benevento; a Byz. attempt 
to seize Capua ca.8q91 failed; the Byz. expedition 
of 934 was but an armed embassy; the expedition 


of 956 ended with a token submission; and the 
activity of the £alepano Basil Boioannes in Capua 
in 1026 was short-lived. German influence in the 
1oth C. was exerted through their vassal Paldolf 
I Capodiferro (Ironhead) of Salerno (961-81), 
who succeeded in unifying the vast Lombard lands 
in southern Italy around Capua. In 966 Pope 
John XIII elevated the church of Capua to the 
rank of metropolis. Capua still flourished in the 
first half of the 11th C., when Paldolf IV managed 
temporarily to annex NAPLES, GAETA, and Mon- 
TECASSINO, but the Normans captured the strong- 
hold of Capua after a long siege (1058-62), and 
the principality became part of the Norman state. 

LIT. I. Di Resta, Capua medievale (Naples 1983). G.A, 


Loud, Church and Society in the Norman Principality of Capua 
(Oxford 1985) 26-37. ~A.K., R.B.H. 


CAPUT (Lat. “head”), technical term introduced 
in the FISCAL SYSTEM with Diocletian’s reforms and 
having three possible meanings: an individual 
“heading” in the tax register; an unsecured (be- 
cause it did not consist of land) share of tax 
assessment, equivalent to the JuGuM; a human or 
animal component in the formula of assessment. 
Basically, the caput seems to be a unit of account 
used within the system of CAPITATIO-JUGATIO for 
taxing humans or animals working on land. Ac- 
cording to Gotfart (infra 35), the concept of caput 
dropped out of the codes; the Syro-ROMAN LAW- 
BOOK is silent about it, while the jugum continued 
to figure in the laws, at least until the 6th C. As 
the assessment was gradually considered to be 
based on land alone, the caput disintegrated and 
the tenant of land was eventually bound to the 
soil, so as to be kept on the roll of taxpayers. 


LIT. W. Goffart, Caput and Colonate (Toronto 1974). 


CARBONE, Italian monastery dedicated to St. 
Elias and St. Anastasios the Persian; founded at 
the end of the 1oth C. by Loukas Karbounes in a 
wild mountain region of the Basilicata, probably 
under the influence of St. Sabas the Younger. 
While Loukas was active primarily in Armentum, 
his successors, seeking a refuge from the Arabs, 
retired to Carbone; nonetheless, one of its supe- 
riors, Menas, was captured by them. After the 
Norman conquest of southern Italy Carbone 
flourished under the patronage of the feudal fam- 


ily of Chiaromonte. Greek monks continued to 
reside in Carbone until the 16th C. 

Despite two fires (in 1174 and 1432) part of the 
monastic archive survives, including eight Greek 
documents of 1007-61. Among them are wills 
containing descriptions of their possessions drafted 
by Basil (Blasios) in 1041; Loukas II, a superior 
of Carbone (1059); and Gemma, widow of Nike- 
phoros, chartoularios and topoteretes of Taranto; 
also preserved is a sigillion of ARGYROS, son of 
Melo, of 1053, which describes a mutiny against 
the emperor led by “the impious archbishop [of 
Taranto] and his accomplices.” 

uit, G. Robinson, History and Cartulary of the Greek Mon- 
astery of St. Elias and St. Anastasius of Carbone, 3 vols. (Rome 


1928-30). M. Petta, “Codici del Monastero di S, Elia di 
Carbone,” VetChr g (1972) 151-71. -A.K. 


CARIA (Kapia), district of southwestern Asia Mi- 
nor, south of the Meander River. Caria has a long 
indented coastline with many harbors, chains of 
forested mountains, and fertile interior valleys. It 
became a separate province ca.305, with APHRO- 
DISIAS as its capital; the governor was a praeses 
until the 6th C., then a consularis (1. Ševčenko in 
Synthronon [Paris 1968] 29-41). In 536 Justinian 
I assigned Caria to the quaestura exercitus, together 
with Scythia, Moesia, the Aegean islands, and 
Cyprus; its purpose was evidently to assure sup- 
plies, esp. timber, to the Danube armies. JOHN OF 
EpHesus, in his mission to the pagans of Caria 
and neighboring provinces in 542, claimed to 
have made 80,000 converts; paganism was still 
strong in the mountain regions. Caria became 
part of the theme of KIBYRRHAIOTAI, but is men- 
tioned as a province as late as 722, when it appears 
as belonging to the apotheke of Asia, Caria, the 
islands, and the Hellespont organized to supply 
the army (Hendy, Economy 656-60). Later uses of 
the term refer to the geographic area or to the 
ecclesiastical province, which lasted until the end 
of Byz. rule (late 13th C.). Caria is also the Byz. 
name for APHRODISIAS. 


LIT. Jones, LRE 43, 482f, 939. ~C.F. 


CARICATURE, a deliberately distorted picture 
of individuals or groups created for satirical pur- 
poses. In late antiquity and Byz. it was directed 
at both domestic and foreign enemies. EUNAPIOS 
OF SARDIS (fr.78, FHG 4:49) relates how an eparch 


CARMEN CONTRA PAGANOS 381 


of Rome set up in the middle of the “Stadium” a 
picture on panels mocking the barbarians who 
flee the threatening Hanp or Gop; the picture 
was accompanied by a written commentary. Leg- 
ends again accompanied the best-known incident 
of caricature in Byz. history: according to NIKETAS 
Davip PAPHLAGON, minutes of a council opposed 
to Patr. Icnatros were illustrated by Gregory As- 
BESTAS with colored images identifying Ignatios 
as “the devil,” “the abomination of desolation” (cf. 
Mt 24:15), etc. Some contemporary marginal 
Psaurers had illustrations that caricatured the 
enemies of Israel. The Ziphites of Psalms 53 and 
72:9 are depicted almost literally with their “mouths 
set against heaven” while their “tongues go through 
the earth.” The Hebrews who reproached Moses 
are represented with Silenus-heads and exagger- 
ated Semitic features (Dufrenne, Lilustration I, 
fol.1o6v), while Iconoclasts such as Jonn VH 
GRAMMATIKOS are shown with the wild hair nor- 
mally associated with the DEVIL (Séepkina, Mini- 
atjury, fols. 51v, 67r). In the 12th C., Eustathios 
of Thessalonike was ridiculed in a sketch that 
circulated in the city (Eust. Thess., Opuscula 98.42- 
64). Gregoras (Greg. 1:258.24—259.4) again de- 
scribes the use of caricature in politics: enemies 
of Patr. Athanasios I painted on the base of the 
patriarchal throne a picture of Christ and behind 
him Andronikos II bridled and led by the patri- 
arch “as a charioteer leads a horse.” —A.C., A.K. 


CARIČIN GRAD. See JUSTINIANA PRIMA. 


CARMEN CONTRA PAGANOS, 4th- or 5th-C. 
work, also known as Carmen adversus Flavianum, 
that survives only in one copy attached to a MS 
of PrupENtius and consists of 122 hexameters 
written in difficult Latin, often ungrammatical 
and unmetrical. Its target is an unnamed prefect 
who restored paganism at Rome, offended God, 
and duly perished miserably. The equation of this 
villain by T. Mommsen with Virius Nicomachus 
Fiavianus (died Sept. 394) still remains the most 
plausible; a rival theory, however, offers Gabinius 
Barbarus Pompeianus, prefect at Rome in 408/g 
when besieged by Alaric, who after permitting 
pagan ceremonies was lynched in a food riot. 
Either way, the poem can be connected with the 
last attempts at a pagan revival in the West. Its 
theme and biting tone recall the pseudo-Cyprian 


382 CARNIVAL 


Carmen against a renegade Christian senator and 
the Carmen ad Antonium contained in two MSS of 
Pau.inus of Nola and thought by some to be his. 
A recent theory (F. Dolbeau, REAug 27 [1981] 
38—43) suggests that Pope Damasus (366-84) might 
have written the Carmen Contra Paganos. 

ED. T. Mommsen, “Carmen Codicis Parisini 8084,” Hermes 
4 (1870) 350-63. G. Manganaro, Nuevo Didaskaleion 11 
(1961) 23—45. Eng. tr. B. Croke, J. Harries, Religious Con- 
flict in Fourth-Century Rome (Sydney 1982) 79—83. 

LIT. L.C. Ruggini, “Il paganesimo romano tra religione 
e politica (384~394 d.C.): per una reinterpretazione del 
‘Carmen contra paganos, ” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei 
Lincei, Memorie, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche® 
23 (Rome 1979) 1-143. J-F. Matthews, “The Historical 
Setting of the ‘Carmen contra Paganos’ (Cod. Par. Lat. 
8084),” Historia 19 (1970) 4684—79. F.M. Clover, “The New 
Assessment of the Carmen Contra Paganos,” in Bonner 
Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1982/3 (Bonn 1985) 163—768. D. 
Shanzer, “The Anonymous Carmen contra paganos and 
the Date and Identity of the Centorist Proba,” REAug 32 
(1986) 232-48. —B.B. 


CARNIVAL, in the strict sense of the three-day 
festivity preceding Lent, left no trace in Byz. 
sources; on the contrary, Lent was preceded by 
weeks of partial abstinence (those of apokreos and 
tyrophagos) that, according to Theodore of Stou- 
dios (PG 99:1700B), were established to remind 
Christians of monastic order (taxis) or of “the new 
and spotless society.” The Byz. did celebrate car- 
nivals in the broader sense, however, as semi- 
pagan feasts that embodied sensual festivities; they 
expressed themselves primarily in masked proces- 
sions and coarse jokes, often with sexual over- 
tones. The elements of carnival were reflected in 
pagan festivities such as LupERCALIA and BrRu- 
MALIA. CHRISTOPHER OF MyTILENE describes a 
procession of masked students of the school of 
NOTARIES on the feast of St. Markianos and Mar- 
tyrios; one of them was disguised as the emperor. 
Carnival entertainment sometimes had a parodic 
character, as at the court of Michael III: there, 
fake liturgies were performed to the accompani- 
ment of lyres (kitharai) and a certain Grillos was 
installed as a bogus patriarch surrounded by eleven 
“metropolitans,” all in gilded holy vestments; Mi- 
chael himself played the part of the “proedros of 
Koloneia” (TheophCont 200.15-201.17). Canon law 
discouraged acting in costume, prohibited laymen 
from masquerading as monks and clerics, and 
clerics from disguising themselves as soldiers or 
animals (PG 137:729D). Canonists lamented that 


on some saints’ days pious women had to stay 
away from church for fear of being accosted by 
excessively boisterous merrymakers (PG 138: 
245D—248B). 

LIT. JaN. Ljubarskij, “Der Kaiser als Mime,” JOB 3 
(1987) 41-46. ~ALK. 


CAROLDO, GIAN GIACOMO, Venetian official 
and historian; born ca.1480, died 3 June 1538. 
Caroldo’s numerous and delicate diplomatic mis- 
sions included one to the sultan in Constantinople 
(relazione of 30 Sept. 1503 in Marino Sanudo the 
Younger’s Diari 5 [Venice 1881] 449-68); from 
1520 he occupied a key position in the Venetian 
chancellery. From that date until 1532 Caroldo 
worked on a Historia Veneta, whose initial part (to 
1280) derives chiefly from Andrea Danporo. The 
independent final section (1280—1382), however, 
makes extensive use of archival records available 
to Caroldo and sheds valuable light, for example, 
on Byz.-Venetian relations, connections with Rus- 
sia, the conflict between John V and John VI, the 
cession of Tenedos, and the pawning of the Byz. 
crown jewels. The Historia is largely unpublished 
and survives in three different redactions, two of 
which exist in partially autograph MSS. 

ED. J. Chrysostomides, “Studies on the Chronicle of Ca- 
roldo with Special Reference to the History of Byzantium 
from 1370 to 1377,” OrChrP 35 (196g) 123-82. 

LIT. A. Carile, “Caroido, Gian Giacomo,” Dizionario bio- 
grafico degli Italiani 29 (1977) 514-17. Idem, La cronachistica 
Veneziana (secoli XIII-XVI) di fronte alla spartizione della Ro- 


mania nel 1204 (Florence 1969) 158f. Karayannopulos-Weiss, 
Quellenkunde 2:526F. ~M.McC, 


CARPENTER (réxtwv, Aentrovpyós, čvàovpyós). 
The terms for ARTISANS working in woop, includ- 
ing the combined form tekton leptourgos, are com- 
mon in papyri (Fikhman, Egipet 28f). PALLADIOS 
(Hist.Laus., ed. Butler, 94.7—9) saw in a monastery 
in Panos 15 tailors, 14 fullers, 7 smiths, and only 
4 tektones, which shows a relatively unimportant 
role for carpentry in this monastery. In his opin- 
ion (100.6—7) tektonike or carpentry was a profes- 
sion that should be learned in boyhood. Various 
carpenters—iektones, leptourgot, and, distinct from 
them, builders or o:kodomoi—worked in the Stou- 
dios monastery in Constantinople (Dobroklonski, 
Feodor 413). It seems that by the 10th C. the 
distinction between the carpenter, MASON, and 
builder became vague. Soupa (ed. Adler, 4:517, 


no.251) equates tekton with technites and conceives 
of him as a craftsman working on both stone and 
wood. In the Book of the Eparch, lepiourgoi appear 
in the chapter on technitat together with masons 
(marmariot) and workers in gypsum. In the vita of 
loannikios the Great (AASS Nov. 2.1:407C), tek- 
tonema is the designing of the building to be con- 
structed by technitat. Tektones do not appear in 
later acts of Athos, but the term xylourgos is known 
(e.g., Lavra 1, no.63.5, App. L. 12). 

Because of the disappearance of most artifacts 
of woop, carpenters are better known to philology 
than to archaeology, yet it is self-evident that 
woodworkers supplied the framework, joists, and 
tie beams of public and private buildings; ceilings 
such as that in the church of St. Catherine’s mon- 
astery at Sinai; and BEMAS, AMBOS, and benches. 
Their role in SHIPBUILDING and the construction 
of vehicles was even larger. Various carpenters’ 
TOOLS are named by Theodore of Stoudios, the 
Geoponika, and Eustathios of Thessalonike (Kazh- 
dan, Derevnja i gorod 234): one-edged ax, adze, 
saw, auger, plumbline, plane, square, even a wood- 
turning lathe (dinos). 

The word leptourgia meant skillful craftsman- 
ship and was applied to the Creation (GEORGE OF 
Pisipia, Hexaem. 12°70, 1505), whereas Anastasios 
of Sinai (ed. J. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum 
historia, vol. 2 [Rome 1868] 259.15) speaks of the 
demon’s “tektones and followers,” and Niketas 
Choniates (Nik.Chon. 258.14, 301.23) uses the 
term tekton only metaphorically as schemer or 
contriver. 


LIT. Rudakov, Kultura 143. Koukoules, Bios 2.1 (1948) 
207. Sodini, “L’artisanat urbain,” 86—88. —A.K., A.C. 


CARPETS (sing. rays) or rugs designated in 
antiquity any kind of woven material used to cover 
floors, beds, walls, or apertures of doors (H. Schroff 
in RE 2.R. 4 [1932] 2251). This broad range of 
functions was preserved in Byz., and various car- 
petlike hangings (bela) played an important role 
in court ceremonial, concealing the emperor from 
the eyes of laymen (Treitinger, Kaiseridee 55f). In 
the opinion of Basil the Great (PG 31:288C), 
covering walls with carpets was a sign of excessive 
luxury; likewise John Chrysostom (PG 55:5 10.47) 
considered that carpets on the Hoor were as typ- 
ical of the rich house as throngs of slaves and 
tables glittering with gold. According to Asterios 


CART 383 


of Amaseia (PG 40:168A), wall carpets were some- 
times covered with images of hunters, animals, 
and rocks. In the gth C. the rich widow DANeELIs 
sent to Constantinople woolen carpets to cover 
the whole floor of the NEA EKKLESIA; precious 
stones were woven into the carpets so that they 
resembled a mosaic (TheephCont 319.14—20). More 
modest was the carpet on which Epiphanios, friend 
of St. Andrew the Fool, slept on the floor (PG 
111:705AB). Since pious people used carpets for 
kneeling in prayer, a new term, epeuchion (“prayer 
rug”), was created by the 12th C. for carpets. 
Some carpets were produced in Constantinople 
or the Peloponnesos; Demetrios CHOMATENOS (ed. 
Pitra, 6:542.29) mentions a type of carpet that the 
local people called tzerga. Some carpets were 
brought from Alexandria or Armenia; esp. fa- 
mous for carpet production was Persia, and Hera- 
kleios seized precious carpets in Dastagerd. 


Lit. Koukoules, Bios 2.2:85—88. J. Ebersolt, Les arts somp- 
tuaires de Byzance (Paris 1923) 11, 1475. ~Ap.K., AK. 


CARPIGNANO SALENTINO (Kapauidve), city 
in southern Apulia, Italy; site of the cave-church 
of Ss. Marina and Cristina, famous for its dated 
frescoes. According to A. Jacob (AttiLinc Rendiconti® 
37 [1983] 41—64), inscriptions identify the paint- 
ers as Theophylaktos (959) and Eustathios (1020). 
H. Belting (DOP 28 [1974] 12—14) argues that the 
style of the earlier artist derives from late gth-C. 
Constantinople, while that of Eustathios is a copy 
of Theophylaktos’s work rather than a reflection 
of Byz, painting in the early 11th C. The church, 
long in use as a funeral chapel, also contains a 
long Greek metrical inscription on the death of a 
child and his father, a spatharios (between 1055 
and 1075—A. Jacob, RSBN 20—21 [1983—84] 103— 
22). 

ut. C.D. Fonseca et al., Gli insediamenti rupestri medioevali 
nel Basso Salento (Galatina 1979) 59-75- -V.v.F., A.C. 


CART (duaéa). Unlike the light chariot pulled 
by Horses that was employed for CHARIOT RACES 
and solemn processions, the cart was a heavy 
vehicle dragged by oxen and used for everyday 
business; grain and other foodstuffs were trans- 
ported in carts (vita of Eustratios, gth-C. hegou- 
menos of the Abgas monastery, ed. Papadopoulos- 
Kerameus, Analekta 4:387.6-9), and a peasant 
might visit a fair in a cart (Synax.CP 720.34). The 


384 CARTAGENA 


Codex Theodosianus (Cod.Theod. VIII 5.48) estab- 
lished the maximum weight permitted to be car- 
ried in a cart (raeda) of four wheels—g8—164 kg 
of gold and 164—327 kg of silver—but these fig- 
ures do not represent the real capacity of the cart 
(J. Béranger, MusHelv 28 [1971] 125). The an- 
cient system of harnessing was based on traction 
at the neck of the animal, with a soft collar and a 
flexible yoke to which a long pole was strapped; 
this harnessing prevented the animal from haul- 
ing big loads. Lefebvre de Noettes (infra) hypoth- 
esized that in the gth—1 oth C. the Byz. introduced 
some innovations in the ancient system of har- 
nessing, releasing the neck and transferring the 
force of traction from the neck to the chest; this 
invention allowed the partial replacement of the 
ox by the horse. 

The Byz. were acquainted with the so-called 
Wagenburg tactic (Le., surrounding a military camp 


with a line of carts), which was used by some of 


their neighbors, such as the Cumans. 


Lrt. R. Lefebvre de Noettes, “Le système d'attelage du 
cheval et du boeuf à Byzance et les conséquences de son 
emploi,” in Mél Diehl 1:183—g0. L. Bréhier, Le monde byzan- 
tin, vol. 3 (Paris 1950) 1751. -A.K., J-W.N. 


CARTAGENA. A Punic foundation on the south- 
eastern coast of Spain, it later became the site of 
the Roman colony of Nova Carthago. In 425 it 
was destroyed by the Vandals. An inscription re- 
cording the repair of the city gates by the Byz. 
magister militum of Spain, KomenTIOLOs, has led 
to the assumption that Cartagena was the capital 
of Byz. Spain, but the inscription provides no 
indication of the town’s status. Cartagena was 
seized by the Visigothic king Suinthila in 624. 


LIT. Thompson, Goths 320f, 329¢. —R.B.H. 


CARTHAGE (Kapy7éov), port in North Africa 
near modern Tunis, the largest city in the western 
Mediterranean after Rome. Under Diocletian, 
Carthage became the seat of the African diocese. 
It contained numerous churches and monasteries 
and was the focal point of many religious disputes, 
such as DONATISM, ARIANISM, the THREE CHAP- 
TERS controversy, and MONOTHELETISM. The city 
mirrored Rome in its administration, monuments, 
wealth, and spectacles. Its aristocracy formed the 
core of the landed elite of Africa and retained 
close links with Roman senatorial circles. Carthage 


was the main port for African grain and oil ex- 
ported to Rome as part of the ANNONA. It was also 
a major producer and exporter of AMPHORAS, 
Lamps, and tableware, esp. African Red Slip ware 
(see Ceramics). Under the VANDALS, there is evi- 
dence of an increase in imports of amphoras and 
other pottery forms, suggesting that the economy 
was increasingly dependent on supplies brought 
from outside Africa. Nevertheless Carthage con- 
tinued to export African agricultural products to 
Spain, Gaul, and the eastern Mediterranean. 

Literary sources emphasize the continued flour- 
ishing of Roman culture, including a certain de- 
gree of civic patronage on the part of the later 
Vandal kings. Continuity is also evident in the 
archaeological record; a number of urban villas, 
for example, show evidence of remodeling and 
refurbishment. At the same time, there is evi- 
dence that the late Roman walls, Antonine Baths, 
Via Coelestis, theater, Odeum, and the enigmatic 
circular monument or rotunda near the theater 
were allowed to fall into a state of disrepair, and 
some churches belonging to the Orthodox com- 
munity are known to have been closed. 

Following the Byz. reconquest (533), Carthage, 
renamed Carthago Justiniana, became the civil 
and military capital of the prefecture of AFRICA 
and later the seat of the Exarcu. Justinian I re- 
furbished the walls, the circular and rectangular 
harbors, and a number of churches. He also con- 
structed a fortified monastery called Mandracium, 
perhaps on the site of the civic basilica on the 
Byrsa. A mint was also established (a carryover 
from the Vandals, who minted in bronze and 
silver) to serve the monetary needs of the city, 
prefecture, and army. Justinian’s efforts at urban 
renewal were short-lived (ca.5393-60) and proba- 
bly more cosmetic than substantive, as recent ar- 
chaeological evidence shows little change in the 
character and quality of domestic life in Carthage 
from the Vandal to Byz. periods. There is also 
numismatic evidence for continuous inflation of 
the base bronze coinage throughout the 6th—7th 
C., possibly initiated by the building program and 
costly wars against the Mauri, a condition that no 
doubt drained the resources of the city. 

While clearly the center of Byz. influence in 
Africa, Carthage was also the focal point of fre- 
quent resistance to Constantinople. In 608 Hera- 
kleios, exarch of Africa, rebelled against Emp. 
Phokas, and his son, the future emperor HERA- 


KLEIOS, led the Heet of Carthage against Constan- 
tinople. Another exarch, GREGORY, proclaimed 
himself emperor, with the support of the “Ro- 
mans” (Roman Africans) and African tribes. Ur- 
ban life at Carthage declined over the course of 
the 7th C., the conditions of habitation worsened, 
and intramural burials became widespread. Trade, 
now largely with the eastern Mediterranean, was 
also decreasing (both the circular and rectangular 
harbors were out of use by ca.650). By the mid- 
yth C. production of African Red Slip ware ceased 
altogether, and mint emissions were erratic and 
small. Arab invasions after 647 contributed sig- 
nificantly to Carthage’s decline, particularly after 
the founding of Qayrawan in 670. After 645/6, 
no bishop of Carthage can be certainly identified 
and a number of churches ceased to function. 
The city was conquered by the Arabs, after several 
attempts, in 698. 

uit. Lepelley, Cié 2:11~53. L. Anselmino et al., “Car- 
tagine,” in Società romana e impero tardoantico, vol. 3, Le merci, 
gli insediamenti, ed. A. Giardina (Rome-Bari 1986) 163-95. 
J.H. Humphrey, “Phe Archaeology of Vandal and Byz- 
antine Carthage,” in New Light on Ancient Carthage, ed. J.G. 
Pedley (Ann Arbor 1980) 85-120. H.R. Hurst et al., Ex- 
cavations ai Carthage: The British Mission (Sheffield 1984). A. 
Ennabli, “La campagne internationale de sauvegarde de 
Carthage: Fouilles et recherches archéologiques 1973-1987,” 
CRAI (1987) 407-39. M. Fulford, “Economic Interdepen- 
dence among Urban Communities of the Roman Mediter- 
ranean,” World Archaeology 19.1 (1987) 58-75. F.M. Clover, 
“Carthage and the Vandals,” Excavations at Carthage 1978 
Conducted by the University of Michigan, vol. 7 (Ann Arbor 
1982) 1—22. Idem, “Felix Carthago,” DOP 40 (1986) 1-15. 
W.H.C. Frend, “The Early Christian Church in Carthage,” 
in J.H. Humphrey, Excavations at Carthage 1976 Conducted 


by the University of Michigan, vol. 2 (Ann Arbor 1977) 21- 
40. —R.B.H. 


CARTHAGE TREASURE, dated to the 4th or 
th C. and found at Carthage before 1897, is 
composed of 24 objects of domestic silver PLATE 
(1g in the British Museum and five in the Louvre) 
and seven pieces of jewelry (four gold, three carved 
gems). One plate is inscribed with the name of 
the Cresconius family, known from a comes metal- 
lorum in 365 up to the poet Fl. Cresconius Co- 
RIPPUS in the 6th C. The treasure itself, which is 
usually attributed to ca.g4o0, was thought to have 
been buried at the time of the campaign against 
the adherents of Donatism from 393 onward, or 
when the Vandal king Gaiseric took Carthage in 
439. The display of a family name in the center 
of a plate occurs also in the Canoscrio TREASURE 


CARTOGRAPHY | 385 


and compares with the use of personal mono- 
grams in the 4th-C. Esquiline Treasure (Shelton, 
Esquiline 80f) and on a long series of 6th- or 7th- 
C. plates. The beaded bowl and dolphin-handled 
ladles of the Carthage Treasure resemble those 
in the MILDENHALL TREASURE, while the covered 
bowls on raised foot find parallels on silver plate 
discovered in Italy. 

LIT. Dalton, Catalogue 79—81. A. de Ridder, Catalogue 


sommaire des bijoux antiques (Paris 1924), nos. 1921—22, 1985, 
2057-58. -M.M.M. 


CARTOGRAPHY. Ancient mapmaking reached 
its highest development with Proremy. The an- 
cient cartographic tradition, based on mathemat- 
ics and practical observation, was continued by 
Arab cartographers, whereas the major goal of 
Christian mapmakers was to reconcile practical 
knowledge with biblical data. This concern is re- 
flected in KOSMAS INDIKOPLEUSTES’ drawings, which 
though preserved only in later MSS probably de- 
rive from his original sketches. The only surviving 
late antique map is the TABULA PEUTINGERIANA 
based on ancient traditions; some maps are pre- 
served in later MSS of such late antique writers 
as ISIDORE OF SEVILLE and Macrosius. Local maps 
certainly continued to exist and were even repro- 
duced on mosaics, for example, the decorative 
MADABA MOSAIC MAP. Comparing the Madaba map 
with the itinerary of a certain Theodosios to the 
Holy Land (in the first half of the 6th C.), Y. 
Tsafrir (DOP 40 [1986] 129-45) comes to the 
conclusion that at that time there was a variety of 
pilgrim maps all differing from each other. 
Medieval Western maps of the world, the so- 
called mappae mundi, are known from the 8th C. 
on, revealing the geographic knowledge of Latin- 
speaking authors. No Byz. maps have survived, 
however, even though various texts (e.g., The Con- 
cise Measurement of the Entire Otkowmene, of uncer- 
tain date) allow one to hypothesize the existence 
of maps, which were eventually used in PORTU- 
LANS. Three extant MSS with maps of Ptolemy’s 
Geography and one MS of Srraso belong to the 
13th C. and were probably compiled under the 
direction of Maximos PLanoupes (A. Diller, Stud- 
ies in Greek Manuscript Tradition [Amsterdam 1983] 
103). A 14th-C. illustrated MS of Ptolemy, com- 
plete with maps, is preserved in Venice, Marc. gr. 
516 (Furlan, Marciana 4:31—34). In the 15th C. 


386 CASAUX DE PARCON 


italian maps, representing parts of the (former) 
Byz. Empire, were available: for example, a (mil- 
itary?) map of 1430-53 (probably of 1444) illus- 
trating the northern Balkans, from the left bank 
of the Danube to Constantinople (M. Nikolić, Zs- 
torijski časopis 29—30 [1982/3] 63-75), and a map 
of Cyprus of 1480 (A. & J. Stylianou, KyprSp 34 
[1970] 145-58). 


LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:523-27. Beazley, Geography 1:375- 
85. O.A.W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps (Ithaca, N.Y., 
1985) 167-77. Idem in The History of Cartography, ed. J.B. 
Harley, D. Woodward, vol. 1 (Chicago-London 1987) 234- 
75. A. De Smet, “Cartes manuscrites du Moyen age,” Scrip- 
torium 21 (1967) 326-35. A.D. von Brincken, “Ost- und 
Südosteuropa in der abendlandischen Kartographie des 
Spatmittelalters,” RESEE 13 (1975) 253~60. ~A.K. 


CASAUXK DE PARCON (“shared households”), 
medieval French term designating properties held 
in co-seigneurie by a Byz. archon and a Frankish 
knight. This type of fiscal arrangement is attested 
on Frankish territory in the Morea during the 
late igth and i4th C. The co-seigneurs shared 
the telos paid in cash by the dependent peasants 
of one or more villages and the right to their 
pastures. As for the DEMESNE lands, the lords held 
them privately, unaffected by the co-seigneurial 
arrangement. Casaux de parcon is an example of 


compromise and temporarily peaceful coexistence 
between Franks and Greeks in the border areas 
of the Morea motivated by political and economic 
considerations and facilitated by the Franks’ adop- 
tion of Byz. fiscal practices. 

LIT. Jacoby, Société, pt. VII (1963), 111-25. P. Topping, 
Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assizes of Romania (Phil- 
adelphia 1949) 121, n.3. ~M.B. 


CASKETS AND BOXES (@jKat, KiBwridta) in 
late antiquity were normally made of wood; met- 
als and ivory were used for pyxipEs and more 
pretentious specimens in a variety of shapes— 
oblong, cubical, or spherical, with flat, domed, or 
pyramidal lids. One of the two large silver caskets 
in the Esquitine Treasure, decorated with do- 
mestic and mythological scenes and figures, con- 
tained lotion bottles while the other probably held 
bath linen. The internal arrangements and the 
iconography (Asklepios, Hygieia, Christ’s Healing 
of the Blind) suggest that some early ivory boxes 
were used for medications. Hasty construction of 
bone- and metal-clad examples as well as pro- 
longed use mean that many have survived only as 
panels. Important examples such as the Brescia 
LipsANOTHEK, made of ivory cornerposts into which 
panels with Old and New Testament scenes are 


Caskets AND Boxes. Lid of the Veroli Casket; ivory, 10th C. Victoria and Albert 
Museum, London. Decorated with mythological scenes (l. to r., the Rape of Europa, 
Herakles playing the lyre, erotes, centaurs and dancing maenads). 





slotted, have been reconstructed. As in the case 
of metal caskets made as late as the 14th—15th C. 
(W.D. Wixom in Treasury S. Marco 201—083), the 
original function of the lipsanothek is unknown; 
suggested contents include sacred bread, incense, 
and monetary offerings. 

Equally uncertain is the function of numerous 
wooden boxes of the 1oth—1eth C., with ivory 
panels depicting scenes from Genesis, Joshua, and 
Kings (Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt., 
vol. 1, nos. 1—5, 67—98). Others, with bone panels 
representing warriors, fantastic animals, and 
puttilike manikins, framed with rosette bands, 
seem to parody classical mythology. There being 
no evidence to suggest their function, these are 
commonly supposed to have been ladies’ jewel 
boxes. This may have been true of the minority 
originally equipped with locks. 

Lit. H. Buschhausen, Die spdtrémischen Metallscrinia und 
frihchristlichen Reliquiare (Vienna 1971). Ai. Loverdou- 
Tsigarda, Osteina plakidia (Thessalonike 1986). A. Cutler, 
“On Byzantine Boxes,” JWalt 42—43 (1984—85) 32—47. J. 
Duffy, G. Vikan, “A Small Box in John Moschus,” GRBS 
24 (1983) 93-99. — M.M.M., A.C., L.Ph.B. 


ČASLAV (TleéaGdaBos in De adm. imp.), Serbian 
prince; born Bulgaria, died Serbia ca.g60. Časlav 
was the son of a Serbian prince, Klonimir, to 
whom Boris II gave a Bulgarian wife. SYMEON OF 
Buicaria used Caslav in the war against the Ser- 
bian ruler Zacharias: Caslav accompanied a Bul- 
garian army that forced Zacharias to flee to Croa- 
tia; the Bulgarians summoned Serbian zupans 
(nobles) to receive Caslav as their prince but then 
tricked them, took them captive, and pillaged the 
country. “Seven years afterwards,” relates Con- 
stantine VII (De adm. imp., 32.128), Caslav escaped 
from Bulgaria: the date is under dispute, 928/9, 
93 1/2, and 933/4 having been suggested. In any 
case the flight occurred after PETER OF BULGARIA 
concluded the treaty of 927 with Byz. Constantine 
asserts that Caslav found a devastated Serbia in- 
habited by only 50 men, “without wives and chil- 
dren, who supported themselves by hunting.” He 
gained the assistance of Romanos I by promising 
to be an imperial vassal, rallied the Serbs living in 
Croatia and Bulgaria, and created a powerful 
state rivaling Bulgaria. 

LIT. G. Ostrogorsky, “Porfirogenitova hronika srpskih 


vladara,” Istoriski časopis 1 (1948) 24—29. F. Dvornik in De 
adm, imp. 2:136. -À.K. 


CASSIAN, JOHN | 387 


CASOLE, Italian town about 2 km south of 
Orranto. The Greek monastery of S. Nicola di 
Casole (r@v KacwotvAwv) was founded at Casole in 
1098/9 by the monk Joseph under Norman pa- 
tronage. During the later Middle Ages the abbey 
was one of the most prosperous ecclesiastical in- 
stitutions in Apulia. The monastery’s reputation 
as a center of Greek learning is mostly due to its 
important library and to the presence of NicHo- 
LAS OF OTRANTO. Turks destroyed the monastery 
in 1480. Its archives and most of the MSS are 
lost; the żypikon (1173) survives but has been only 
partly edited (Dmitrievskij, Opisanie 1:795-836). 
LIT. T.Kélzer, “Zur Geschichte des Klosters S. Nicola di 
Casole,” QFItArch 65 (1985) 418-26. H. Omont, “Le Typicon 


de Saint-Nicolas di Casole près d’Otrante,” REGr 3 (1890) 
381-91. -V .v.F. 


CASSIAN, JOHN, a founder of early monasteries 
in southern Gallia and a Latin ecclesiastical writer; 
born ca.360, natione Scytha, according to GENNA- 
DIUS OF MARSEILLES, that is, probably in Scythia 
Minor, died Marseilles after 432. Cassian (Kac- 
ovavos) spent his youth in a monastery at Beth- 
lehem, then in Egypt (in Sketis). After leaving 
Egypt suddenly, ca.399, he came to Constantino- 
ple where John Chrysostom ordained him dea- 
con. After Chrysostom’s deposition, Cassian moved 
westward in 405; in Rome he formed a friendship 
with the future pope Leo I and ca.410 settled in 
Provence, where he founded twin monasteries— 
one for men (named after the local saint, Victor) 
and another for women. 

Here Cassian wrote three books in Latin. The 
frst section of the Institutions describes monastic 
life in Egypt and Palestine, including monastic 
dress; in the second part of the treatise he pre- 
sents the theory of eight vices that monks had to 
avoid; since four of them bear Greek names (gas- 
trimargia, philargyria, acedia, and cenodoxia), it is 
quite plausible that Cassian used Greek sources, 
such as Evacrios Pontixos. The second book, 
Collationes (Conferences), consists of fictitious con- 
versations with hermits (in the style of the Aro- 
PHTHEGMATA PATRUM) and is concerned with the 
superiority of the way of salvation: the Institutions 
were intended to prepare the Aesh for a virtuous 
life, while the Conferences dealt with the journey 
of the soul to the heavenly abode. Though very 
popular, the Conferences were suspected of Pela- 


388 | CASSIODORUS 


gianistic formulations and proclaimed apocryphal 
by the Western church. At the instigation of Pope 
Leo I, Cassian also compiled a refutation of Nes- 
torios entitled On the Incarnation of the Lord. 

ED. Institutions cénodbitiques, ed. J.-C. Guy (Paris 1965). 
Conférences, ed. E. Pichery, 3 vols. (Paris 1955-59). Eng. tr. 
C. Luibheid (New York-Mahwah—Toronto 1985). De in- 
carnatione Domini, ed. M. Petschenig in Corpus Scriptorum 
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 17 (1888) 233-391. 

tir. P. Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority and the Church in the 
Age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford 1978) 16g—239. O. Chad- 
wick, John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism? (Cam- 
bridge 1968). E. Schwartz, “Cassian und Nestorius,” Kon- 
zilstudien, vol. 1 (Strassburg 1914) 1-17. —T.E.G., A.K. 


CASSIODORUS, more fully, Flavius Magnus Au- 
relius Cassiodorus Senator, statesman and scholar; 
prefect of Italy (533-37) under THEODORIC THE 
Great; born Bruttium ca.q87, died Vivarium 
monastery ca.580. He was in Constantinople ca.5 50 
for unknown reasons. Returning to Italy after 
Justinian I’s reconquest, he founded and lived in 
the Calabrian VIVARIUM MONASTERY until his death. 
As an official, Cassiodorus was instrumental in 
romanizing his Gothic masters both administra- 
tively and culturally. Vivarium, though physically 
short-lived, paved the way for medieval preser- 
vation of ancient texts and the Benedictine mo- 
nastic tradition. 

Cassiodorus was as tireless a writer as organizer. 
The Institutes are a blueprint for the union of 
secular and theological study. A commentary on 
the Psalms, drawing upon AUGUSTINE, emphasizes 
allegorical interpretation, while the De anima dwells 
upon the spirituality of the soul. The Historia 
Tripartita is a 12-book arrangement of the church 
historians SOKRATES, SOZOMENOS, and THEODORET 
or CYRRHUS translated into Latin by Cassiodorus’s 
pupil Epiphanios. Principal secular works are the 
Variae, 12 books of his official correspondence 
preserving the imperial edicts that he had drawn 
up, a model for later chanceries; a Chronicle sum- 
marizing Roman history within a universal con- 
text from the time of Adam to 519; and a treatise 
on orthography. His History of the Goths is pre- 
served only in an abridged version by JoRDANES 
(B. Croke, CliPhil 82 [1987] 117~34). 

ED. PL 69-70. Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, ed. T. Momm- 
sen, in MGH AuctAnt 12 (Berlin 1894). Institutiones, ed. 
R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford 1937). Eng. tr. L.W. Jones, An 
Introduction to Divine and Human Readings (New York 1948; 


rp. 1966). The Letters of Cassiodorus, tr. T. Hodgkin (London 
1886). 


uT. J.J. O'Donnell, Cassiodorus (Berkeley 1979), rev. Av. 
Cameron, JRS 71 (1981) 183-86. Flavio Magno Aurelio 
Cassiodoro, ed. S. Leanza (Soveria Mannelli 1986). A. Mo- 
migliano, “Cassiodorus and the Italian Culture of his Time,” 
ProcBrAc 41 (1955) 207-45. S. Krautschick, Cassiodor und 
die Politik seiner Zeit (Bonn 1983). M.G. Ennis, The Vocabulary 

of the Institutions of Cassiodorus (Washington, D.C., 1939). 
—B.B. 


CASTELSEPRIO. Mural paintings discovered in 
1944 in the unprepossessing Church of S. Maria 
foris portas, outside the Roman, Byz., and Lom- 
bard fortress (castellum) of Seprium, northwest of 
Milan, have figured prominently in the attempt 
to reconstruct the history of pre-Iconoclastic mu- 
ral art in Constantinople. The paintings, very 
similar in style to MSS such as the Paris PSALTER 
and JosHuA ROLL, are apparently the work of an 
itinerant Byz. master. Their remarkable natural- 
ism first suggested a date in the 6th—7th C., though 
Weitzmann argued for the 10th. The later dating 
has been vindicated by radiocarbon analysis of the 
original roof beams, which suggests a range be- 
tween 778 (or 808?) and 952 (P. Leveto-Jabr, Gesta 
26 [1987] 17f). The murals covered the upper 
wall of the eastern apse with at least 11 scenes of 
the life of the Virgin, of which 8 survive, making 
Castelseprio an important witness to narrative 
iconographies rarely encountered in Byz. monu- 
mental painting before the 13th C. 

urr. K. Weitzmann, The Fresco Cycle of S. Maria di Castel- 
seprio (Princeton 1951). D.H. Wright, “Sources of Longo- 


bard Wall Painting,” AwiCAltMed 6.2 (Spoleto 1980) 727- 
39- -D.K. 


CASTLES. See CRUSADER CASTLES; FORTIFICA- 
TIONS; KASTRON. 


CATACOMBS, the usual term for rock-hewn 
burial grounds, which were in widespread use 
until the 6th C. Although catacombs were not the 
prerogative of any one religious group, or limited 
to a single region (witness Naples, Syracuse, and 
Alexandria), they are commonly associated with 
Christianity, under whose aegis they flourished, 
and the city of Rome, where the largest body of 
them has been discovered. From the grd C. Ro- 
man Christians largely buried their dead in extra- 
mural subterranean tombs composed of networks 
of corridors and cubicula that ranged in size from 
the small and presumably private (e.g., catacomb 


of Vibia), single-family complex to the large, mul- 
tistoried structure housing thousands of tombs, 
administered by the church (e.g., catacombs of 
Calixtus, Domitilla). In the Roman catacombs all 
classes and ages were buried, in LocuLt and AR- 
cosoLta. Tombs were often marked with a carved 
or painted inscription identifying the occupant. 
Images expressing Christian hopes of salvation 
(COMMENDATIO ANIMAE; the Goop SHEPHERD), 
painted on the walls of the catacombs and carved 
on contemporary sarcophagi, are among the ear- 
liest Christian art known. After Christianity was 
granted toleration ca.g11~—13, the architecture and 
decoration of the catacombs became quite elabo- 
rate, drawing upon forms commonly used for 
above-ground tombs. The catacombs of Rome 
ceased to be used for burials in the 6th C.; they 
continued to be visited, however, and indeed even 
embellished with works of art (e.g., catacombs of 
S. Ermete, Calixtus), though sporadically, 
throughout the Middle Ages. 

LIT. P. Testini, Le catacombe e gli antichi cimiteri cristiani 
in Roma (Bologna 1966). W. Tronzo, The Via Latina Cata- 


comb (University Park, Penn., 1986). G.B. de Rossi et al., 
inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae (Rome 1857—)}. -W.T. 


CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, band of Span- 
ish mercenaries hired by ANDRONIKOS II to fight 
the Turks in Anatolia. The Catalans were able to 
recover some Byz. territory in 1304, but after the 
assassination of their leader ROGER DE FLOR (1305) 
they turned against the Byz. Using the KALLIPOLIs 
peninsula as their base, they raided the surround- 
ing countryside for two years (1305—07). In 1307 
they moved west, plundering Thrace, Macedonia, 
and even the monasteries of Athos. In 1309 they 
ventured further south into Thessaly; in 1311 
they defeated Gautier de Brienne, duke of Ath- 
ens, at the battle of Kephissos near Thebes. Hav- 
ing thus ended Burgundian rule over Athens and 
Thebes, the Catalan mercenaries established 
themselves in the duchy of Athens. They re- 
quested the protection of the Aragonese king 
Frederick IH of Sicily (1296-1337), three of whose 
sons were in turn named dukes of Athens. Thebes, 
which served as the political and commercial cen- 
ter of the duchy, was captured by the NAVARRESE 
Company in 1379. Catalan rule over Athens lasted 
until 1388, when the city fell to the Florentine 
Nerio I AccrayuoLt. 


CATALAUNIAN FIELDS 389 


SOURCES. Ramon Muntaner. L'expedicio dels Catalans a Ori- 
ent, ed. L. Nicolau d’Olwer (Barcelona 1926). Eng. tr. Lady 
[A.] Goodenough, The Chronicle of Muntaner, 2 vols. (Lon- 
don 1920—21). A. Rubió i Lluch, Diplomatari de l'Orient 
català 1301—1409 (Barcelona 1947). 

LIT. Laiou, CP & the Latins 127—242. K.M. Setton, Ca- 
talan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388 (Cambridge, Mass., 
1948, rev. ed., London 1975). Jacoby, Société, pt.V (1966), 
78~103. ~A.M.T, 


CATALANS (Kareddvor) of northeastern Spain 
had contacts with Byz., at least from the 12th C. 
onward, through the merchants of Barcelona. The 
Catalans seem to have been involved in Manuel 
ls dynastic policy when he married his heir, Al- 
exios II, to the daughter of the king of France, 
and planned the marriage of his niece Eudokia 
with Ramon Berengar, duke of Provence and 
brother of the king of Aragon, Alfonso II (1162- 
g6). Relations intensified at the end of the 13th 
C. The confederation of Aragon and Catalonia 
was established in Sicily after the SICILIAN VESPERS 
(1282), the revolt that expelled the Angevin dy- 
nasty hostile to Byz. In 1315 Ferrando of Majorca 
landed in the western Peloponnesos, while his 
cousin Frederick, Aragonese ruler of Sicily, was 
at war with the Angevins of Naples. Ferrando was 
able, however, to keep only a part of the Morea 
for a year; he was defeated by Louis of Burgundy 
and beheaded. In the 14th C. the mercenary 
CATALAN GRAND Company had considerable im- 
pact on Byz., eventually establishing Catalan rule 
over Athens and Thebes. In 1351 Aragon-Cata- 
lonia allied with Byz. and Venice against Genoa; 
this coalition led in the following year to a suc- 
cessful but costly allied naval victory over the 
Genoese fleet in the Bosporos. The Catalan 
chronicler, Ramon Muntaner (1265—1336), pro- 
vides a valuable source for the history of relations 
between the Catalan Grand Company and Byz. 
LIT. J.N. Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms 1250-1516, 
vol. ı (Oxford 1976) 233-86, Laiou, CP & ihe Lains 187— 
242. W. Hecht, “Zur Geschichte der ‘Kaiserin’ von Mont- 
pellier, Eudoxia Komnena,” REB 26 (1968) 161-69. B. 
Berg, “The Moreote Expedition of Ferrando of Majorca 


in the Aragonese Chronicle of Morea,” Byzantion 55 (1985) 
69-90. -R.B.H. 


CATALAUNIAN FIELDS (Campi Catalaunici), 
site of a battle that occured in 451, probably on 
20 June. The battle of the Catalaunian Fields is 
also known as the battle of Châlons or of Maurica. 
After Emp. Marcian refused to pay the customary 


390 CATANIA 


tribute to the Huns in 450, ATTILA turned his 
attention to the West and invaded Gaul with a 
force of Huns and subject Germans. The magister 
militum AETIUS organized the resistance and the 
future emperor Eparcuius Avitus arranged an 
alliance with Theodoric, king of the Visigoths. 
The Romans and their allies prevented Attila from 
reaching Orléans and pursued the Huns into east- 
ern Gaul. The two armies met somewhere in what 
is now Champagne. The exact site has been sub- 
ject to considerable but futile scholarly debate. 
The battle was long contested and ended in a 
draw, although this represented a moral victory 
for the Romans; Attila reportedly prepared a 
funeral pyre rather than fall into the hands of his 
enemies. Thorismund, son of Theodoric (who 
had died in the battle), wished to pursue the 
advantage and attack the Huns. Aetius, however, 
did not want the total destruction of Hunnic power 
and persuaded the new Visigothic king to return 
home to forestall the ambitions of his brothers. 
Attila was thus allowed to slip away and to plan 
his invasion of Italy in 452. The importance of 
the battle has generally been exaggerated in his- 
torical accounts. 

ur. Bury, LRE 1:291—94. D. Jalmain, “Attila en Gaule,” 
Archeologia 206 (1985) 72—75- ~T.E.G. 


CATANIA (Karavy), city on the east coast of 
Sicily; together with the rest of the island, Catania 
belonged to the Ostrogothic state from 491. While 
Catania was under the Ostrogoths, royal permis- 
sion was given to the town to repair its walls with 
blocks fallen from the ruined amphitheater (Cas- 
SIODORUS, Variae 111.49). In 535, general Belisa- 
rios recovered the town for the Byz. without en- 
countering serious resistance. It was temporarily 
recaptured by Totila in 550; Prokopios (Wars 
7.40.21) indicates that at this time the city was 
unwalled. The town was gradually hellenized: the 
seal of the 7th-C. bishop George has a Latin 
inscription, whereas the inscriptions of 8th- and 
gth-C, seals are in Greek. 

In the gth C. the Arabs repeatedly plundered 
the environs of Catania. In goo they besieged it 
unsuccessfully, but soon thereafter they con- 
quered the city. A legend reports that George 
MANIAKES seized Catania in 1042 and took to 
Constantinople the relics of St. Agatha, who had 
supposedly been martyred at Catania; her bones 


were returned in 1126, The Normans occupied 
the city sometime in the second half of the 11th C, 

The first known bishop of Catania was Fortu- 
natus in the early 6th C. The see appears as an 
archbishopric under the authority of Constanti- 
nople in the notitia compiled between 787 and 
869. In the mid-gth C. the bishop of Catania 
Euthymios was ordained by Patr. Ignatios but 
then joined the party of Patr. Photios and was 
probably rewarded by promotion to the rank of 
metropolitan by 869. After the fall of Sicily to the 
Arabs (by goz) the title of the metropolitan of 
Catania survived: Leo of Catania participated in 
the meeting convoked by Patr. Sisinnios in Feb. 
997 (PG 119:741A), and “Katane of Sicily” is still 
listed in the notitia of the 13th C. (Notitiae CP, 
no.15.44). A Latin bishopric, however, was estab- 
lished in the city in 1086—89. The legendary vita 
of an earlier Leo or Catania describes frequent 
travel between Catania and Constantinople as well 
as the horse races in Catania; both the date and 
validity of this evidence remain disputable. 

LIT. G. Libertini, “Catania nelleta bizantina,” Archive 


storico per Sicilia orientale. Conferenza 28 (1932) 242-66. 
Laurent, Corpus 5.1:700-04. -A.K., R.B.H. 


CATECHUMENATE (from xarnxovmevor, “those 
who receive instruction”), period and discipline 
of preparation for BAPTISM. Characterized already 
ca.150 as a period of fasting, prayer, and instruc- 
tion, the catechumenate reached classic expres- 
sion ca.215 as a well-defined institution of candi- 
dates called catechumeni (Tertullian, De praescriptione 
Haereticorum 41.2, ed. R.F. Refoulé [= CChr, ser. 
lat. 1:221.4—7]). During the catechumenate, which 
normally lasted three years, the candidates were 
presented to the church leaders by Christian 
sponsors, tested, exhorted, and prayed over at 
common sessions with a teacher; they attended 
services in a special place reserved for them, but 
were dismissed before the Prayer of the Faithful, 
in which they could have no part. From the 7th 
C., church GALLERIES are often called katechou- 
mena, but by then the catechumenate was no longer 
a living institution in Byz. (R. Taft, OrChrP 42 
[1976] gorf). 

Lent brought a second, final stage, when the 
phohizomenot (“enlightened”), those destined for 
baptism at Easter, were prepared, in a crescendo 
of initiatory rites that included renunciation of 


Satan, profession of faith, stripping, blessing of 
the water, prebaptismal anointing, the bath of 
baptism by triple immersion, clothing, chrisma- 
tion or sealing, entrance into the waiting com- 
munity, kiss of peace, eucharistic offering, and 
COMMUNION, usually at the Easter vici. The 
dramatization of the ritual for maximum effect is 
revealed in the classic 4th-C. catechetical homilies 
of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, and Ambrose of Milan (E. 
Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation (Slough 
1972]; H. Riley, Christian Initiation [Washington, 
D.C., 1974). 

After the 4th C., with the enrollment of infants 
in the catechumenate and of adults with no inten- 
tion of seeking baptism in the immediate future, 
the two-stage system declined. In Constantinople, 
parents first presented their infants for admission 
to the “first catechumenate” 40 days after birth. 
Then on Monday of the fourth week of Lent, 
those to be baptized at the Easter Vigil were 
brought to the church for the prayers and exor- 
cisms that began the “second catechumenate” 
(Mateos, Typicon 2:39f). These photizomenoit were 
prayed for in a special Lrrany at all services for 
the rest of Lent. On Good Friday the patriarch 
held a catechesis for them at St. Irene, followed 
by the solemn renunciation of Satan and adher- 
ence to Christ (ibid. 78f). From at least the 8th 
C. onward, however, Byz. usage compresses all of 
this into a service immediately preceding baptism. 

ur. M. Dujarier, A History of the Catechumenate: The First 
Six Centuries (New York 1979). Arranz, “Rites d’incorpor- 
ation” 36-53. Idem, “Les sacrements,” 49 (1983) 284-302; 
50 (1984) 43-64, 372-97. RET. 


CATENAE (Lat. “chains”), scholarly term used 
from the 15th C. onward to designate the genre 
that the Byz. called “collection of exegetical frag- 
ments.” The genre was created by PROKOPIOS OF 
Gaza and survived the fall of Byz.; it expanded 
to some neighboring countries as well. Catenae 
consisted of quotations from theologians (both 
church fathers and heretical writers) attached to 
a particular verse of the Bisle and following the 
sequence of the text itself. On the basis of the 
catenae to the Psalms, Dorival (infra) divided the 
genre into two groups: the Palestinian and the 
Constantinopolitan, the latter originating between 
650 and yoo. The first type of the Palestinian 


CATHARS | 391 


group is the Prokopian model, consisting of quo- 
tations from the commentaries or homilies of Pal- 
estinian authors. The second Palestinian type is 
the chain-scholia, characterized by their brevity 
and format: they were set forth in a column 
parallel to the biblical text so that every scholion 
stood side by side with the verse commented on; 
sometimes the scribe left empty space between 
two scholia. Constantinopolitan catenae often con- 
sisted of citations from one authority—primarily 
Joun CHRysosTom, sometimes THEODORET OF 
Cyrruus; another Constantinopolitan type con- 
tained citations from the two authors and offered 
the integrated commentary of particular theolo- 
gians, rather than quotations out of context. The 
third Constantinopolitan model combined Chry- 
sostom and Theodoret with Palestinian authori- 
ties. Byz. exegetes produced catenae to the books 
of both Old Testament and New Testament (Oc- 
TATEUCH, PSALTER, Gospels, etc.). Catenae also 
exist in Christian Oriental languages (Coptic and 
Syriac). 

ED. Catenae graecae in Genesim et Exodum I, ed. F. Petit 
(Turnhout-Leuven 1986). 

LIT. M. Geerard, CPG 4:185—259. G. Dorival, “La pos- 
térité littéraire des chaînes exégétiques grecques," REB 43 


(1985) 209-26. Ch.Th. Krikones, “Peri hermeneutikon sei- 
ron ({catenae),” Byzantine 8 (1976) 89—139. —J.L, A.K. 


CATEPANATE. See KATEPANATE. 


CATHARS (from Gr. Ka@apoi, “the pure”), me- 
dieval dualist sect that flourished in Germany, 
southern France, and northern Italy. From the 
mid-12th C. onward, Byz. DUALISM exerted a 
formative influence on the Cathar movement, as 
several reliable Western documents attest. Contact 
between dualists of eastern and western Europe 
were facilitated by trade relations and by the Cru- 
sades (C. Thouzellici, RHE 4y [iys4] 859-72). 
In the second half of the 12th C. dualist mission- 
aries from the Balkans frequently visited Italy and 
France to propagate either the “absolute” or the 
“moderate” form of dualism in the local heretical 
communities. (The “absolute” dualists believed in 
two coeternal principles of good and evil, while 
the “moderate” dualists held that the evil de- 
miurge, creator of this world, was himself the 
creature of the one God.) The most prestigious 
of these visitors was Niketas, the leader of the 


392 CATHEDRA 


dualists of Constantinople, who came to preside 
over the heretical council of St. Félix de Caraman 
near Toulouse (which met probably between 1174 
and 1177), and persuaded the French Cathars to 
adopt “absolute” dualism (D. Obolensky in Oke- 
anos 489-500). The Cathars seem generally to 
have believed that their faith came from the Bal- 
kans. Thus, a group of them, condemned to the 
stake in Cologne ca.1143, declared that their re- 
ligion had its home “in Greece and certain other 
lands” (the latter expression is generally taken to 
refer to Bulgaria). The Balkan origin of Cathar- 
ism is confirmed by terminology: their name is 
Greek, and the Cathars were often known in the 
West as Bulgari, Bogri, or Bugres (hence bougre). 

The teaching of the Cathars shows striking sim- 
ilarities with the doctrines of the BoGomizs: these 
include denial of the reality of the Incarnation, 
repudiation of marriage, total opposition to the 
established church, and the belief (held by the 
“moderate” dualists) that the Devil was the son of 
God. The ritual of the Cathars was certainly influ- 
enced by that of the Bogomils. 

LIT. A. Dondaine, “Les Actes du concile Albigeois de 
Saint-Félix de Caraman,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati 
(Vatican 1946) 5:3924—55. Idem, “La hiérarchie cathare en 
Italie,” AFP 19 (1949) 280-312; 20 (1950) 234-324. B. 
Hamilton, “The Cathar Council of Saint-Félix Reconsi- 
dered,” AFP 48 (1978) 23-53. G. Semkov, “Der Einfluss 
der Bogomilen auf die Katharer,” Saeculum 32 (1981) 349— 


73. G. Rottenwéhrer, Der Katharismus, 2 vols. (Bad Honnef 
1982). -D.O. 


CATHEDRA (xaéédpa), term for a_bishop’s 
THRONE. Such seats were made of stone, wood, 
or, as in the case of the cathedra of MAXIMIAN, 
ivory. The cathedra stood in the center of the 
apse, at the top of the SYNTHRONON. It was used 
by the bishop during the liturgy and, in the early 
period, while he pronounced homilies. The bishop 
in his cathedra flanked by priests was likened to 
Christ among the Apostles. Certain cathedrae 
served strictly symbolic functions, as was the case 
with the “Sedia di S. Marco,” a 6th-C. alabaster 
throne-reliquary now in Venice (Treasury S. Marco, 
no.7). —M J. 


CATHERINE, MONASTERY OF SAINT. The 
site of the BuRNING BusH at the foot of Mt. Sinai 
(Djebel Mousa) was inhabited by the qth C. A 
church marked the locus sanctus, and monks lived 


nearby in cells, as attested by the pilgrim EGERIA 
who visited the area in 381—84. Sometime be- 
tween 548 and 565 Justinian I constructed a heavily 
fortified monastery around the shrine to protect 
the monks from Bedouin raids and for the de- 
fense of Palestine (Prokopios, Buildings 5.8.9). The 
monastery, which was and still is under the juris- 
diction of the patriarch of Jerusalem, has been 
continuously inhabited ever since. It also has strong 
ties with Cyprus and Crete, where it possesses 
METOCHIA. 

The monastery was originally called tow Batou 
(of the Burning Bush); it took the name of St. 
CATHERINE in the ioth or 11th C. after acquiring 
the relics of the Alexandrian martyr. Because of 
the monastery’s remote location, its artistic trea- 
sures escaped destruction during the period of 
Iconoclasm; hence its collection of over 2,000 
icons includes extremely rare examples of en- 
caustic painting of the 6th and 7th C. The library 
contains more than 3,000 MSS in a variety of 
languages (Greek, Arabic, Georgian, Syriac, and 
Slavic) that reflect the diversity of the monks who 
have lived at Sinai. 

Much of the 6th-C. architecture survives, in- 
cluding the fortification walls and the basilica, 
which preserves some of its original decoration 
such as the mosaic of the TRANSFIGURATION in the 
conch of the apse and fine wood carving on the 
entrance doors and ceiling beams. 

uT. G.H. Forsyth, K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of St. 
Catherine at Mt. Sinai. The Church and Fortress of Justinian. 
Plates (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1973). K. Weitzmann, The Mon- 
astery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai. The Icons. I. From the 6th 
to the roth C. (Princeton, N.J., 1976). Idem, Studies in the 
Arts at Sinai (Princeton, N.J., 1982). J. Galey, Sinai and the 
Monastery of St. Catherine (London 1979). 1. Ševčenko, “The 


Early Period of the Sinai Monastery in the Light of its 
Inscriptions,” DOP 20 (1966) 255-64. -A.M.T. 


CATHERINE OF ALEXANDRIA, saint; feast- 
days 24 and 25 Nov. Her passiones present Cath- 
erine, or Aikaterina (Aixarepiva), as a young vir- 
gin of imperial stock who successfully debated 
with pagan philosophers in Alexandria in the 
presence of Emp. Maxentius. The emperor or- 
dered Catherine to be stripped of her “imperial 
purple garb” and flogged. Although Catherine 
succeeded in converting both the empress and the 
stratopedarches Porphyrion to Christianity, Max- 
entius ordered her decapitation; instead of blood, 
milk gushed from the wound, and angels carried 


her body to Sinar. The monastery founded on 
Sinai at the site of the Burning Bush eventually 
took her name (see CATHERINE, MONASTERY OF 
Saint). Viteau (infra) hypothesized, despite the 
legendary character of the passtones, that a Chris- 
tian virgin Catherine had in fact been beheaded 
on 24 Nov. 305; he surmised also that the pro- 
totype of the passiones dates from the 6th C. or 
the first half of the 7th C. (see sharp criticism, AB 
18 [1899] 69f). The evidence for Catherine’s cult 
is late: the monk Epiphanios who visited Sinai 
ca.820 knew nothing of Catherine. The intercon- 
nection between the preserved passtones is unclear; 
one of them, an obvious forgery, names as its 
author Athanasios, tachygraphos (stenographer) and 
servant of the saint. The description of Cather- 
ine’s debate with the Alexandrian philosophers 
has passages in common with BARLAAM AND IOA- 
sAPH. The passiones were slightly reworked by Sy- 
MEON Merapurastes and also translated into Latin, 
Arabic, and other languages. 

Representation in Art. Catherine is invariably 
clad in imperial vestments (lores with thorekion, 
and crown) and holds a martyr’s cross. Her be- 
heading and the fiery death of her inquisitors 
appear in the MENOLOGION or Basix H (p.207), 
and her dispute with the rhetors in the THEODORE 
Psatrer (fol.i67r); there is a cycle of 12 scenes 
surrounding her portrait on a 12th—13th-C. icon 
on Mt. Sinai (K. Weitzmann, DCHAE* 12 [1984] 
g5f). 

SOURCES. Passions des Saints Ecaterine et Pierre d'Alexandrie, 
Barbara et Anysia, ed. J. Viteau (Paris 1897) 5—65. PG 
116:275~302. P. Peeters, “Une version arabe de la passion 
de Sainte Catherine d'Alexandrie,” AB 26 (1907) 5-32. 

LIT. BHG 30-32b. G.B. Bronzini, “La leggenda di S. 
Caterina d'Alessandria,” Memorie dell’Accademia Nazionale 
dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche® g (1960) 
257—416. E. Klostermann, E. Seeberg, Die Apologie der 
Heiligen Katharina (Berlin 1924). J. Grosdidier de Matons, 


“Un hymne inédit à Sainte Catherine d'Alexandrie,” TM 8 
(1981) 187-207. -A.K., N.P.Š. 


CATTLE. See BEASTS oF BURDEN; LIVESTOCK. 


CAUCASUS (Kavxdoos), major mountain range 
stretching some 1,200 km northwest to southeast 
from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, tradition- 
ally held to have been the natural frontier be- 
tween Europe and Asia. Because many descen- 
dants of various nomadic tribes survived in high 


CAVALRY 393 


mountain valleys, Plutarch claimed that Pompey 
needed 120 interpreters on his Caucasian cam- 
paign, and medieval Arab geographers called it 
“The Mountain of Languages.” Historically the 
Caucasus served as a barrier protecting the settled 
kingdoms to the south from northern nomads, 
and measures were repeatedly taken to control its 
two main passes: the Darial (Dar-i Alan, “Gate of 
the Alans”) near the center of the chain on the 
“Georgian Military Highway” descending to Tblisi, 
and the “Caspian Gates” on the seashore near 
Derbent. The Peace of 562 between Byz. and 
Persia stipulated that the Sasanians would garri- 
son the passes, while the empire contributed a 
subsidy. Justin I] abrogated this agreement, lead- 
ing to the resumption of the Persian war at the 
end of the Sth C. 

Though relatively impenetrable, the Caucasus 
remained a channel for both military and com- 
mercial purposes. Justinian I sought to evade the 
Persian monopoly over the siLk trade by creating 
a route running north of the Caucasus to the 
Caspian and eventually the Far East. Neverthe- 
less, fragments of silk have also been found in the 
mountains, and the later south-north trade be- 
tween the caliphate and the Rus’ was carried on 
through the passes. These same passes allowed 
Byz.’s allies, the KHazars, to attack the Arabs in 
the 8th—gth C., while in the 12th—13th C. the 
Georgian kings drew support for the unification 
of their country from the Kipchak Turkish tribes 
north of the mountains. (For map, see next page.) 

ur. T. Halasi-Kun, “The Caucasus: An Ethno-Historical 
Survey,” Studia Caucasica 1 (1963) 1-47. M.O. Kosven, 
Etnografija i istorija Kavkaza (Moscow 1961). Kavkaz (Moscow 
1966). S.T. Eremyan, “Sinunia i oborona Sasanidami Kav- 
kazskich prochodov,” Izvestija Armjanskogo filiala Akademii 
Nauk SSSR (1941). -N.G.G. 


CAVALRY (immkov, kaßaħiapıkóv) provided the 
offensive force in the Byz. army, and their tactics 
and equipment were thoroughly discussed in the 
military treatises. Their skills and tactics reflect 
the influence of the empire’s eastern enemies, 
most notably in the acquisition of the STIRRUP, 
possibly from the Avars (first mentioned in the 
sth C.), and the use of mounted archers. Books 
1—3 of the STRATEGIKON OF MauRICE describe the 
techniques of cavalry warfare developed in the 
late Roman period, stressing mobility, the impor- 
tance of reserves, and the need for individual skill 


394 CAVE CHURCHES AND DWELLINGS 


Rese ty 

? F \ SEAOFAzOV f 
CRIMEA A 
AG?” Nay 


Triutofokan 


» fo 
ay 
a 


Sebastopolis 





with both lance and bow. Cavalry tactics sought 
to combine encirclement with shock by deploying 
three units forward in an attack line and four 
behind in support, with other units on both flanks 
detailed to outflank the enemy on the right and 
prevent enemy encirclement from the left. To 
this basic pattern of cavalry deployment the 10th- 
C. STRATEGIKA show the addition of heavy KATA- 
PHRAKTO! for increased shock against enemy in- 
fantry, and a third line of reserves for protection 
against Arab skirmishers (Praecepta Milit. 3-4, pp. 
10,15-18.15). 

Cavalry warfare in the later period was influ- 
enced by Latin MERCENARIES, best illustrated by 
Manuel I Komnenos'’s eager imitation of knightly 


THE CAUCASUS REGION 


C 
3. 


Y 





tournaments (Nik.Chon. 108.53—109.88). These 
mercenaries provided the bulk of cavalrymen, 
esp. heavy cavalrymen, in Nicaean and Palaiolo- 
gan armies. 

ut. A.D.H. Bivar, “Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on 
the Euphrates Frontier,” DOP 26 (1972) 271~g1. Dagron- 
Mihăescu, Guerilla 184—g0. R.P. Lindner, “An Impact of 
the West on Comnenian Anatolia,” JOB 32.2 (1982) 207~ 
13. W. Gaitzsch, “Ein westeuropiisches Pferdegeschirr des 
späten 13. Jahrhunderts aus Pergamon,” IstMitt 37 Oe 
219-56. -E.M 


CAVE CHURCHES AND DWELLINGS. See 
Rock-cuT CHURCHES AND DWELLINGS. 


CAVUSIN. Near this village in Cappapocia are 
two important ROCK-CUT CHURCHES. The large, 
finely carved three-aisled Basilica of St. John the 
Baptist (probably 6th C.) until recently retained 
part of its impressive facade of massive rock-cut 
Ionic columns. Along with the Basilica of Dumugs 
Kadir Kilisesi in the village of Avcilar, St. John 
the Baptist is prominent among a small group of 
early rock-cut monuments surviving in the prov- 
ince. The second historically significant structure 
is the Great Pigeon House, dated to 963-69 by 
the portraits of NikepHoros I Pxoxas and his 
family in the prothesis apse. With a figure on 
horseback at the front of a row of military saints 
is an invocation on behalf of MEL1as the magistros. 
Portraits (presumably of donors) at the feet of a 
colossal St. Michael at the east end of the north 
wall are almost entirely obliterated. The church 
was decorated with an elaborate Christological 
cycle largely dependent on the program of Tokalı 
Kilise in GOREME Valley. 


uit. Jerphanion, Églises rupestres 2:511—50. N. Thierry, 
Haul Moyen-âge en Cappadoce: Les églises de la région de 
Çavuşin, vol. ı (Paris 1983). Eadem, “La basilique Saint- 
Jean-Baptiste de Çavuşin,” BullSocAntFr (1972) 199-213. 
L. Rodley, “The Pigeon House Church, Çavuşin,” JÖB 33 
(1983) 301—390- -AJ.W. 


CEFALÙ, village on the north coast of Sicily. The 
cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul is a T-shaped 
basilica of largely French design, decorated in the 
apse and presbytery with mosaics. It was founded 
in 1131 as the burial church of King Rocer II, 
but he seems to have lost interest in it; his por- 
phyry sarcophagus eventually was transferred to 
Palermo cathedral and concomitantly the mosaic 
decoration was abandoned after the completion 
of the program in the presbytery. The mosaics in 
the apse (bust of the PANTOKRATOR in the conch, 
Virgin with archangels and apostles on the wall 
below) are dated to 1148 by inscription. Because 
the craft had no local tradition in Sicily, it is 
assumed that these first mosaics were executed by 
Byz. artisans. Those in the presbytery (angels in 
the vault, and standing prophets and saints) are 
ascribed to Sicilian pupils. 


MT. Mostra di documente e testimonianze figurative della ba- 
silica ruggeriana di Cefalù (Palermo 1982). Demus, Norman 
Sicily 3—24. F. Basile, L'architettura della Sicilia normanna 
(Catania 1975) 87—91. -D.K. 


CELIBACY 395 


CEIONIUS, a Roman aristocratic family that the 
Historia Augusta credits with royal descent. Ac- 
tually, the founder of the family’s fortune, Ceion- 
ius Rufus Volusianus, was not noble but rose 
through his own political achievements and a good 
marriage (T.D. Barnes, JRS 65 [1975] 46f). He 
prospered under Diocletian and Maxentius and 
retained a high position after Constantine I's vic- 
tory; he was prefect of Rome in 313-15, but 
thereafter fell into disgrace. Nonetheless, his son, 
Ceionius Rufius Albinus, was prefect of Rome in 
335-37; Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, named also 
Lampadius, prefect of Rome in 365, may well 
have been Albinus’s son. His building activity 
proved burdensome for the local population and 
caused a riot in Rome, during which his house 
was destroyed. The farnily was still influential in 
the first half of the 5th C., when its representatives 
occupied posts such as comes rerum privatarum, 
quaestor, and prefect of Rome. The family owned 
estates in Italy and Africa and, unlike the Anicn, 
supported paganism; Publius Ceionius Julianus 
was a maternal uncle of Emp. Julian; under his 
nephew he served as comes Orientis and zealously 
persecuted Christians in Antioch. Another mem- 
ber of the family, Rufus Antonius Agrypnius 
Volusianus, loyal to paganism, discussed the doc- 
trine of the Incarnation with Augustine (Mat- 
thews, Aristocracies 353). Some Ceionti, however, 
married Christian women, and St. MELANIA THE 
YOuNGER was related to the family. The Ceionii 
disappeared soon after 440. 


LIT. O. Seeck, RE 3 (1899) 1858-66. PLRE 1:1137-38. 
-A.K. 


CELIBACY (åyauiæ) was extolled by St. Paul and 
the church fathers, but was not considered as 
prescribed by God (John Chrysostom, PG 
63:602.1 1—12). Only some radical dissidents/dual- 
ists (Chron. Pasch. 486.6—8) insisted on mandatory 
celibacy for laymen. Clerical celibacy was viewed 
as a matter of personal choice rather than a pre- 
requisite for ordination. Except in the case of 
monks and nuns, no universal law excluded clerics 
from marriage. In the West, the Council of Elvira 
(beginning of the 4th C.) required, for the first 
time, the obligatory celibacy of the higher clergy, 
whereas the East remained reluctant to take this 
step: the First Council of Nicaea, under the pres- 
sure of the monk Paphnoutios, a victim of Diocle- 


396 | CEMETERY 


tian’s persecutions and a Strict ascetic, repudiated 
a proposal that would have made celibacy com- 
pulsory for all clergy. The development in the 
East was not uniform: in 4th-C. Asia Minor even 
a bishop could be a married man, whereas in 
North Africa, Synesios of Cyrene as a special 
privilege received a dispensation from abandon- 
ing his wife when he became a bishop; in Thes- 
saly, at the time of Sokrates (HE 5:22.50), an 
ordinary cleric was forbidden to sleep with his 
wife after ordination. In 528 Justinian I prohib- 
ited marriages of bishops, having particularly 
stressed the significance of this regulation—bish- 
ops should not bequeath their property to their 
relatives, but to the church and the poor (Cod. 
Just. 1 3.41). 

The Council in Trullo defined the rules that 
remained in effect throughout the entire Byz. 
period: the lower clergy could marry after ordi- 
nation; priests, deacons, and subdeacons could 
retain their wives if they had married before or- 
dination; married men elevated to the bishopric 
had to sever their marital bonds and their wives 
had to go to convents. The marital status of Byz. 
middle clergy was one of the serious points in the 
conflict between the Western and Eastern churches 
from the 11th C. onward, esp. after the Latin 
conquest of Orthodox territories, since the Greek 
priests were not required to be celibate. 

tir. C. Knetes, “Ordination and Matrimony in the East- 
ern Orthodox Church,” JThSt 11 (1910) 348-400, 481— 
513. J. Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective (New 
York 1970) 52-60. R. Gryson, Les origines du célibat ecclé- 
siastique du premier au septième siècle (Gembloux 1970). B. 
Kötting, Der Zölibat in der alten Kirche? (Münster in West- 


falen 1970). E. Papagiannes, Oikonomika tou engamou klerou 
sto Byzantio (Athens 1986). ~A.P., A.K. 


CEMETERY (korunThpiov, lit. “sleeping place [for 
the dead]”). John Chrysostom, in his homily On 
the Name of the Cemetery (PG 49:393.33—36), de- 
clares that the place was named koimeterion to show 
that buried persons are not dead but asleep. 
Tombstones of the 4th—6th C. regularly refer to 
an individual burial as koimeterion. Christian cem- 
eteries were both subterranean (CATACOMBS) and 
above ground (areae). Even though some apotro- 
paic symbols have been discovered in mid-qth-C. 
Christian cemeteries (N. Hamparjumian in Hom- 
mages è Maarten J. Vermaseren, vol. 1 (Leiden 1978] 
473-77), pagans were refused burial there. Areae 


were located outside city walls; Basiticas began 
to be erected there from the late 4th C. onward, 
as did MAUSOLEUMS and MARTYRIA. 

TomsBs were commonly built of tiles or rubble 
masonry, often with vaults. Simple graves were 
often covered with plastered pseudo-vaults that 
were visible above the ground. Lamps were left 
burning at graves, and relatives and friends ap- 
parently gathered at tombs for memorial meals 
and celebrations. In the 6th—7th C. cemeteries 
began to invade the central areas of cities, includ- 
ing the ancient marketplaces. The Byz. also bur- 
ied their dead in hypogaea, or subterranean vaulted 
chambers, esp. in Constantinople (Miiller-Wiener, 
Bildlexikon 219-22). These varied from single 
rooms to multilevel structures where SARCOPHAGI 
were separated by walls decorated with frescoes, 

Most cemeteries were made up of simple inter- 
ments with burials regularly oriented so that heads 
were at the west. In many areas simple tile-lined 
graves were covered with mounded dirt that was 
then sealed with a coat of plaster. Even though 
an edict of 381 (Ced.Theod. 1X 17.6) prohibited 
BURIAL in churches, the custom was well estab- 
lished, esp. for saints, emperors, and influential 
persons. Even in monastic cemeteries no equality 
obtained: the typikon of the 12th-C. KECHARITO- 
MENE NUNNERY (117.1727—31) provides that sep- 
arate burial plots (stataraia) be assigned to supe- 
riors, nuns of the higher rank (megaloschema), 
regular nuns, and servants. 

The inscriptions from late Roman necropolises 
constitute a highly important source of social in- 
formation: those from Korykos, for example, 
suggest flourishing mercantile activity in the gth- 
6th-C. city (A. Gurevié, VDI [1955] no.1, 127- 
35); inscriptions from the so-called cemetery of 
Sts. Mark, Marcellianus, and Damasus in Rome 
(ca.331—406) show that this was the graveyard of 
ordinary people with an average LIFE EXPECTANCY 
of 20.75 years (P. Saint-Roch, RACr 5g [1983] 
411-23). Cemeteries can also elucidate the history 
of barbarian invasions (e.g., AVAR necropolises in 
Pannonia); in the Balkans, Slavs were frequently 
interred in the ruins of earlier churches. Despite 
a common misconception, and although to a lesser 
extent than in classical burials, Byz. cemeteries 
commonly contained grave goods, including jew- 
elry and vessels for wine and oil presumably used 
to prepare the body for interment. 


tir. H. Leclercq, DACL 3.2:1625—-58. C. Snively, “Cem- 
etery Churches of the Early Byzantine Period in Eastern 
Illyricum,” GOrThR 29 (1984) 117-24. The Circus and a 
Byzantine Cemetery at Carthage, ed. J.H. Humphrey, vol. 1 
(Ann Arbor 1989) 179-936. = —-N.E.L., A.K., A.C., T.E.G. 


CENOBITIC MONASTICISM. See Kornosion; 
MONASTICISM. 


CENSER (@vytarnpiov, Ovutaros), a vessel de- 
signed to contain glowing coals on which INCENSE 
was strewn; they were meant either to be set on 
a horizontal surface (standing censers) or to be 
swung by chains (hanging censers). Even though 
the LIBER PONTIFICALIS ascribes to Constantine I 
the donation of gold censers to the Lateran basil- 
ica and St. Peter’s, it is doubtful that they came 
into ecclesiastical use before the very end of the 
4th C. They were used (mainly by deacons) for 
censing the altar, the Gospel, and the elements of 
the Eucharist. Censers were also employed in a 
secular context to show honor to a great person 
and in private devotions (e.g., censing a site after 
an earthquake). It is hypothesized that incense 
burners found at Sardis were used to deodorize 
dye shops (J.S. Crawford, The Byzantine Shops at 
Sardis (Cambridge, Mass., 1990] 15). Although the 
vast majority of surviving examples are in cast 
bronze, several examples in hammered silver are 
known, including those in the Sion and the Cy- 
PRUS TREASURES, and another in the Metropolitan 
Museum (Mango, Silver, no.85). 

Until the 8th C., hanging censers consisted of 
a cubical, polygonal, or cylindrical cup, sometimes 
accompanied by an openwork cover (DOCat 1, 
nos. 45—49). The most popular type is chalice- 
shaped with a low foot and decorated with Gospel 
scenes in relief. This type, with more than 50 
surviving examples, appears to have remained in 
use well after Iconoclasm (Age of Spirit., nos. 563— 
64). After the gth C. a new type of standing censer 
(katzen, katzi{on)) appears, with a shallow bowl and 
long flat handle, often decorated with the repre- 
sentation of the patron saint of a church (Isskustvo 
Vizantit 2, no.570). Such objects are recorded in 
church inventories from the 11th C. onward (e.g., 
Pantel., nos. 7.12, 49), most of gilded or plain 
silver, but also of bronze. The katzi may have been 
used esp. in a funerary context. Censers often 


CENTAUR 397 


appear in representations of DEACON saints, im- 
ages of the Dormition, the MyrrRopHorol, and 
in scenes of the procession of venerated icons (A. 
Grabar, CahArch 25 [1976] 145, figs. 1—2). 

Symbolically censers were perceived as images 
of Christs humanity and accordingly the epithet 
“womb of the censer” was applied to the Virgin 
(pseudo-Basil, Hist. mystagog., ch.42, ed. F.E. 
Brightman, JThSt 9 [1908] 388.1—3). Metaphori- 
cally, the tongue of a person praising a martyr 
could be called a censer (John Chrysostom, PG 
50:583.39). 

LT. H. Leclercq, DACL 5:21—33. C. Billod, “Les encen- 


soirs en argent d'époque protobyzantine,” in Kanon: Fest- 
schrift E. Berger (Basel 1988) 336-70. —L.Ph.B., A.K. 


CENSUS RECORD. See CaDASTER. 


CENTAUR, zoomorphic mythological figure, half 
man and half horse. Byz. historians and lexicog- 
raphers collected general information on the cen- 
taurs (Prokopios, Buildings 4.3.11-13; GEORGE THE 
SYNKELLOS 191.16—17). An ancient proverb, 
“meaningless like a centaur” (cf. Souda 3:483.11), 
is explained by Eustathios of Thessalonike (Eust. 
Comm. Il. 1:160.16-17 [= section 102.27—28]). In 
Byz. literature the centaur is used as a metaphor 
for excellence in hunting and horsemanship 
(Genes. 89.72—74; Nikephoros BASILAKES, Ora- 
tiones 32.26-—28). The church fathers considered 
the centaur as yet another absurd instance of 
pagan religion (e.g., Athanasios of Alexandria, 
PG 25:44B) and characterized as “centaurlike” 
the Monophysite doctrine of Severos of Antioch, 
which introduced two different incomplete na- 
tures in one person (George of Pisidia, PG 
g2:1625A). In the 10th C. Bası Evacuistos (R. 
Cantarella, BZ 26 [1926} 25.3~g) ridiculed Chei- 
ron, half centaur and half horse [sic], the legend- 
ary teacher of Achilles; similarly Constantine VII 
(TheophCont 220.4) was skeptical of the educa- 
tional abilities of Cheiron and referred to him as 
mixanthropos (half man, half brute). 

Youthful and aged centaurs playing musical 
instruments appear, along with EROTES, as images 
of abandon—often in their traditional role of mo- 
lesting Lapith women—on numerous CASKETS AND 
BOXES (Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt. 
I, nos. 21, 24, 26, 27). Purely decoratively, they 


398 CENTO 


adorn the headpieces of 11th- and 1 2th-C. Gospel 
books. -P.A.A., A.C. 


CENTO (Lat. for “garment made of patchwork,” 
Gr. kévrpæv), also Homerokentron (Anth.Gr. 9:381), 
a pastiche composed of borrowed lines (primarily 
from Homer). The composition of centos was a 
sort of literary game aimed at the creation of new 
associations, often parodical and even obscene. 
The practice originated in antiquity (both Greek 
and Roman) and is mentioned by Epiphanios of 
Salamis. Eustathios of Thessalonike (Eust.Comm.IL 
4:757f) explains that the term was derived from 
a word designating a young shoot grafted onto 
another plant and was applied to a cloth of many 
colors (kentonion as a kind of garment appears in 
Apophthegmata patrum, PG 65:412D). Latin centos 
were based on Vergil: in the 4th C. Proba, a noble 
Roman lady, produced centos “to the glory of 
Christ.” Greek centos were esp. popular in the 
5th C.: a certain Leo the Philosopher compiled a 
12-line cento on Hero and Leander, another cento 
on Echo, etc. The empress ATHENAIS-EUDOKIA 
tried to use these techniques for religious poetry 
and composed the Life of Christ in borrowed 
Homeric hexameters, probably in imitation of 
Proba. Compilation was not restricted to Homer’s 
verses, however; the CHRISTOS PASCHON is actually 
a cento, one third of which consists of lines taken 
from ancient tragedians; a similar technique was 
used for CATENAE and FLORILEGIA. 


ur. Hunger, Lif. 2:g8-107. F. Ermini, H centone di Proba 
e la poesia centonaria latina (Rome 1909). —A.K. 


CENTRAL ASIA, a somewhat vague geographical- 
historical term, here defined as the extensive re- 
gion north and east of the Amu Darya (Oxus) 
River, consisting of the inhospitable steppes of 
Turkestan and Mongolia that lead to northern 
China. It was the great domain of the Altaic 
nomadic peoples and at the same time a part of 
the great caravan SILK ROUTE between Chinese 
and Islamic civilization. Here Buddhism, Mani- 
chaeanism, Shamanism, and Christianity often 
followed the great merchant caravans from the 
southwest to the east. After the great empires of 
the Gök Turks, the Uighurs, and finally the Kirghiz 
Turks in Mongolia, they were displaced there by 
the Mongols in the ioth C. To the west various 


Turkic groups (at least five identifiable groups) 
pressed ultimately onto the borders of Islam in 
Khurasan and Transoxiana. It was here that by 
the ioth C. they began to convert to Islam and to 
enter fully into the scene of political chaos and 
decline in the classical Islamic world. Certainly 
the most spectacular description of this steppe 
society is that preserved by the Arab, Ibn Fadlan, 
who traversed frigid Turkestan in a great caravan 
in g22. 

Relations with Byzantium. Material objects 
found in Central Asia indicate that there were 
(indirect?) connections between the late Roman 
Empire and this area. Thus in Old Merv was 
excavated a building, oval in plan, that evidently 
housed a Christian community (G. Dresvjanskaja 
in Trudy Juino-Turkmenistanskoj archeologiceskoj 
kompleksnoj ekspedicii 15 [AshShabad 1974] 155- 
81); ampullae of St. Menas produced near Alex- 
andria penetrated into Central Asia (B. Staviskij 
in Drevnij Vostok 1 [Moscow 1975] 299-307); Ro- 
man coins of the 6th C. as well as their imitations 
and a medallion with the portrait of Justinian I 
(M. Masson in Obdstestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane 
16.7 [1972] 29—38) have also been found. One of 
the routes from the late Roman Empire to CHINA 
went through Central Asia; in the 6th—7th C. 
imperial envoys visited it, trying to engage its 
population in an alliance against Iran. After the 
Arab conquest of Iran, Byz. links with Ceniral 
Asia were severed. 

LIT. V.V. Barthold, Four Studies on the History of Central 
Asia, 3 vols. (Leiden 1956—62). R. Grousset, The Empire of 
the Steppes. A History of Central Asia (New Brunswick, N.J., 
1970). M. Masson, “K voprosu o vzaimootnoSenijach Vi- 
zantii i Srednej Azii po dannym numizmatiki,” Trudy Sredne- 
aziatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 23 (1951) 91—104. 

v 


” 


CERAMIC ARCHITECTURAL DECORA- 
TION. Polychrome ceramic ornament with vit- 
reous glazes was widely used on façades and in- 
terior walls as well as on templon screens and icon 
frames from the late gth to the 14th C. Though 
normally set between courses of brick, shallow 
bowls, plates, and TILES could be inserted at focal 
points in elaborate brick patterns, around window 
frames, or even inserted into ashlar blocks. Among 
pieces specifically made for architectural use (for 
example, at TEKFUR SARAYI) were small tubes, 
their mouths pinched to form a cross, tapering to 
a long stem to facilitate bonding in the wall. 


Lit. A. Pasadaios, Ho keramoplastehos diakosmos ton byzan- 
tinon kterion tes Konstantinoupoleos (Athens 1973). World Ce- 
ramics, ed. R.J. Charleston (New York 1968) 102-04, figs. 
303, 306, 308. A.H.S. Megaw, “Glazed Bowls in Byzantine 
Churches,” DChAE* 4 (1964-5) 145-62. 9 -K.M.K., W.L. 


CERAMICS. The Greek word keppa (pl.) des- 
ignated all kinds of vessets and pots. John Chry- 
sostom (PG 62:349.28—2g) speaks of golden kera- 
mia; usually, however, the term and related ones 
referred to earthenware products, both pottery 
and TILES. Potters were called kerameis; they were 
evidently professionals, although the Book of the 
Eparch does not list a potters’ guild and in general 
they are infrequently mentioned in written sources. 
The word was applied metaphorically to God as 
demiurge, and Romanos THE MELODE (Hymnes, 
vol. 4, no.33.10.6) speaks of “the potter of the 
world” who washes clean the foot of the clay 
vessel, 

Earthenware dishes were considered of lower 
quality than golden and silver vessels: RABBULA 
of Edessa is said to have ordered his clergy to 
dispose of their silver dishes and replace them 
with ceramic ones. Byz. pottery was manufactured 
on potter’s wheels (trochoi) and fired in KILNs. The 
vessels varied in size and shape and were used for 
transport, storage, cooking, and eating. The prin- 
cipal functional types of Byz. ceramics in the 1oth— 
igth C. were pithoi (usually embedded into the 
earth) for storage; AMPHORAS for transport and 
storage; flat-bottomed pots with globular bodies 
and long-necked jugs usually with one or two 
handles; chafing dishes—deep bowls set on a ven- 
tilated stand with a compartment containing live 
coals to keep food warm; table dishes—bowls and 
broad shallow plates; small, usually two-handled 
cups; stemmed goblets; and flasks (including pil- 
grim flasks). Vessels ranged from elaborately dec- 
orated luxury products of fine clay, well-turned 
and glazed and painted, to crudely manufactured 
utilitarian wares. 

Ceramics were produced in both towns and 
villages: the author of the GEOPONIKa (85.20) de- 
scribes the potter as the most necessary craftsman 
in the countryside; in 952 the Lavra monastery 
acquired for three gold coins a potter’s workshop 
located near the seashore (Lavra 1, no.4.4); by 
982 the Iveron monastery was served by a pottery 
workshop (? keramarion), also situated by the sea 
(Ivir. 1, no.4.68); Balsamon (PG 137:g29C) lists 


CERAMICS 399 





Ceramics. Ewer decorated with fantastic creatures; 13th 
C. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 


potters’ shops (kerameia) among various agricul- 
tural properties. Excavations in Carthage, Cyprus, 
Asia Minor, and Egypt have revealed many cen- 
ters of ceramic production in the late antique 
period; 1oth—13th-C. ceramics from Corinth, 
Athens, and Cherson are relatively well studied, 
but Anatolian wares are not as well known. Con- 
stantinople is considered to have been a great 
center for the manufacture of pottery; R. Steven- 
son (in Great Palace, 1st Report 47£) concluded that 
pottery production in Constantinople declined by 
the 12th C. (at the end of the 12th C. 70 percent 
of the finds were ordinary mugs of coarse fabric). 
Ceramic production in Corinth, however, flour- 
ished in the 11th and 12th C.; in temporary de- 
cline after the Norman invasion of 1147, it re- 
covered by the end of the 12th C. and prospered 
in the 13th C. 

Ceramics were produced for both local use and 
export: North African pottery (mostly from Car- 
thage) has been found in many areas, including 
the Crimea. It is quite plausible that some of the 
glazed pottery discovered in Cherson was im- 
ported from Constantinople (esp. in the gth and 


400 | CEREMONY 


roth C.) and provincial centers such as Corinth 
and Thessalonike (in the 11th and 12th C.); after 
the 12th C. Byz. exports to Cherson ceased (A. 
Jakobson, Srednevekovyj Chersones [Moscow- 
Leningrad 1950] 223f). 

Byz. pottery developed in an unbroken tradi- 
tion from the wares of late antiquity. In the 4th 
to 6th C. fine pottery was generally covered with 
red slip and often stamped, sometimes with fi- 
gural decoration or Christian motifs; African Red 
Slip Ware (manufactured at Carthage) and Pho- 
kaian Ware (Asia Minor) were apparently the 
most prominent and were imitated at many local 
kilns. Large storage/transport amphoras were 
manufactured throughout the empire. 

In the course of the 7th C. important changes 
took place in pottery manufacture and use, as 
local wares, frequently of inferior quality, took 
the place of imported wares, while vitreous glazed 
wares replaced the red-slipped fabrics of late an- 
tiquity. Constantinople and its vicinity seem to 
have been the major source of these new glazed 
wares. The earliest of these had a monochrome 
lead glaze (usually yellow or greenish-yellow) ap- 
plied directly over the fabric, which was either 
white (producing a light-colored finished product) 
or reddish-brown (producing a darker color). By 
the oth C. at least, some of these vessels were 
stamped (impressed Ware), producing a design 
in low relief on the center of the interior; a shal- 
low bowl on a high foot (so-called “fruit stand”) 
is a common form of this ware. Another luxury 
product of the gth—12th C. was Polychrome Ware, 
in which designs (usually abstract but occasionally 
figural) were painted in various colors of glaze on 
a white fabric. 

Beginning in the 11th C. a considerable number 
of different fne wares were produced, in part to 
satisfy the desires of the new Byz. officialdom; 
most of these were inspired by the techniques and 
methods of contemporary Islamic pottery: Green 
and Brown Painted Ware, Slip-Painted Ware, Im- 
itation Luster Ware, SGraFFiro Ware, and In- 
cised Ware. Most of these used simple geometric 
designs, but motifs derived from classical reper- 
toires (e.g., RINCEAUX and running spirals) were 
not uncommon and several wares had figural dec- 
orations, sometimes people but more commonly 
fish, animals, and birds. Oriental motifs, esp. 
pseudo-Kufic, were common on several wares. 
Most of these fine wares continued into the 13th 


C. and beyond, as represented by Zeuxippos WARE 
and so-called Aegean Ware. Otherwise, political 
fragmentation and greater foreign influence led 
to a localization of ceramic production. Italian 
pottery, esp. Proro-Marouica, came to replace 
Byz. wares as the preferred luxury pottery, al- 
though locally produced Byz. pottery continued 
to be made. 

Coarse wares, including COOKING WARE, jugs, 
and other kitchen vessels, present a continuous 
line of development from antiquity to the end of 
the Byz. period; most of these were locally pro- 
duced. Many coarse wares were partially or fully 
covered with a yellow glaze, giving them a char- 
acteristic brown color (usually called Brown Glazed 
Ware); this was often used for cooking pots and 
small vessels as well as chafing dishes and was 
sometimes decorated with molded figures, occa- 
sionally of an obscene character. Most of these 
cannot be precisely dated. In addition to crockery 
and tiles, clay was also used to produce BRICKS, 
LAMPS, children’s TOYS, CENSERS, and simple icons 
with images of saints (J. Ebersolt, Byzantion 6 
[1931] 5596). 

Despite the pioneering work of D. Talbot Rice 
and others earlier in the century, the study of 
Byz. pottery is still well behind that of other pe- 
riods in the history of the Mediterranean, in part 
because of a lack of interest and in part because 
of the paucity of stratigraphically excavated Byz. 
sites necessary to the elucidation of ceramic 
chronologies. Pottery from critical periods, such 
as the “dark age” of the 7th—8th C. and the 14th- 
15th C., is poorly known and little studied. Megaw 
and Jones (infra) have made an important begin- 
ning in the identification of individual wares and 
their distribution. 

LIT. Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, ed. V. Déroche, 
J-M. Spieser (Paris 1989). A.H.S. Megaw, R.E. Jones, “Byz- 
antine and Allied Pottery: A Contribution by Chemical 
Analysis to Problems of Origin and Distribution,” BSA 78 
(1983) 235-63. C.H. Morgan, The Byzantine Pottery [Corinth 
11] (Cambridge, Mass., 1942). T.S. MacKay, “More Byz- 
anune and Frankish Pottery from Corinth,” Hesperia 36 
(1967) 249-320. D. Talbot Rice, Byzantine Glazed Pottery 
(Oxford 1930). A.L. Jakobson, “Srednevekovaja polivnaja 
keramika kak istoriteskoe javlenie,” VizVrem 39 (1978) 148- 


59. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 204-21. Koukoules, Bios 
2.1:196f. -T.E.G., A.K. 


CEREMONY (karaoraots, rages). Symbolic ges- 
tures, usually public and assembled into rituals, 


marked important moments in Byz. life. Cere- 
mony flourished at all social levels, from the Byz. 
infant’s baptismal liturgy and procession, to the 
promotion of the patrikios. It was, however, the 
ceremony that shaped the public life of the em- 
peror, projected his power and LEGITIMACY, and 
defined his relations to the church, army, senate, 
and people that concretized the imperial idea in 
a way essential to Byz. Roman IMPERIAL CULT 
contributed to the content of ceremony, which 
took the Hippodrome, Hagia Sophia, and palaces 
and monuments of Constantinople as its main 
theaters. The high officials who stage-managed 
ceremonies—successively, the magistros, the prae- 
positus assisted by the epi tes katastaseos, the proto- 
vestiarites assisted by the primtkerios tes aules—relied 
on specialized treatises to design ceremonial tra- 
ditional in appearance yet flexible in its details 
and adhering to the ideal of Taxis. PETER PATRI- 
Kios, the Kleiorologion of PHrLoTHEOS, DE CERE- 
MONIIS, and pseudo-Kopinos suggest that cere- 
monial innovation and recording peaked in the 
6th, gth—1oth, and 14th C. 

Depending on the period, ACCLAMATION, COR- 
ONATION, SHIELD-RAISING, and ANOINTING inau- 
gurated a reign; a PROCESSION, AUDIENCE, Or PRO- 
Kypsis manifested the emperor in the PURPLE and 
with INSIGNIA; he was adored with PROSKYNESIS. 
PROFECTIO and ADVENTUS heralded his departure 
from and return to the capital, while TRIUMPHS 
signaled his victorious return from battle; all al- 
lowed or forced Byz. crrizeNs to display their 
loyalty and PATRIOTISM. The pervasive and spec- 
tacular PROPAGANDA of imperial ceremony cap- 
tured the Byz. imagination, leaving manifold traces 
in art and literature, and fascinated foreigners 
like LIUTPRAND OF CREMONA. 





uit. O. Treitinger, Die ostrimische Kaiser- und Reichsidee 
nach ihrer Gestaltung im héfischen Zeremoniell (Jena 1938; rp. 
Darmstadt 1956). M. McCormick, “Analyzing Imperial 
Ceremonies,” JOB 35 (1985) 1-20. -M.McC. 

Representation in Art. In their representations 
of these ceremonies the Byz. placed the same 
emphasis on the majesty of the imperial power. 
Thus, depictions of historical ceremonial events 
such as military triumphs, coronations, marriages, 
official receptions, etc., focus on imperial ideology 
in preference to fuller historical detail; these im- 
ages have a specific and limited visual language 
that conveys the most significant act of the cere- 
mony without reference to time or, in most cases, 


CEREMONY 401 





to place. The ceremonial events were commem- 
orated in wall paintings and mosaics in public 
places and patace buildings as well as on more 
private objects such as MSS, ivory plaques, and 
silver vessels. 

The formal or compositional principles are gen- 
erally the same as those governing the perfor- 
mance of these ceremonies: SYMMETRY, hierarchy, 
and FRONTALITY. These principles are used to 
focus attention on the emperor and to define the 
status of others in relation to him. In the images, 
this system of presentation is made immediately 
apparent by limiting secondary figures and elim- 
inating the audience, as well as, for example, by 
marking hierarchy through color or through var- 
iations in the sizes of figures. 

Little survives of all these representations, par- 
ticularly of the monumental images. The types of 
ceremony commonly depicted in Roman art (PRO- 
FECTIO, ADLOCUTIO, LARGESS, etc.), still found in 
some of the early monuments such as the ARCH 
or CONSTANTINE in Rome, do not survive much 
beyond the Justinianic period. A notable example 
from the 6th C. is to be found in the mosaics of 
San Vitale, Ravenna, which show Justinian I and 
Theodora participating in a liturgical ceremony. 
Although a specific emperor, Justinian, is shown 
with a specific bishop, Maximian, the procession 
remains generic enough to be any liturgical 
procession requiring the presence of the emperor, 
such as the later ceremonial entry of the emperor 
and patriarch into Hagia Sophia on the great feast 
days. 

Another ceremony, which can be inferred from 
the silver Missorium of Theodosios I (for ill., see 
Prates, DispLay), is the distribution of offices by 
the emperor, a ceremony that took place in the 
palace. In this depiction, Theodosios is enthroned 
in the center under an arch, just as he would have 
been seated in the palace under the arch of the 
apse in the throne room. He is flanked by his two 
co-emperors, who are placed in secondary posi- 
tions. The emperor hands to an official of much 
smaller size the diptych listing the duties of his 
office. Although the emperor is handing out the 
tablets, his action is hardly noticeable. The em- 
phasis is on his person and his successful rule, 
implied by the PERSONIFICATION of Abundance at 
the emperor's feet. 

In an 11th-C. miniature (Paris, B.N. Coisl. 79, 
fol.gr—for ill., see EMPEROR) there is a represen- 














402 | CERNJACHOVO 





tation of an enthroned emperor with his admin- 
istrators. He is in the center of the composition. 
Two officials, again much smaller in size, stand 
on each side. The hierarchy and symmetrical re- 
lationship of the figures to each other express the 
ceremonial configurations of official meetings of 
the emperor. The figure standing on the em- 
peror’s right side and closest to him wears fancier 
dress than others in attendance; the fact, too, that 
his hands are not covered, as are those of the 
others, is a sign of his more privileged position 
vis-a-vis the emperor. 

These representations, although based on court 
protocol, are removed from the specificity of one 
historical moment. This has been achieved in dif- 
ferent ways: sometimes, as in the Missorium, 
through the addition of another, allegorical di- 
mension; sometimes through the lack of any ref- 
erence to a spatial setting, as in the miniature. 
The presence of Christ in such images works in 
a similar way. In the representation of Romanos 
IV?) and Eudokia on an ivory plaque in Paris in 
the Cabinet des Médailles, for example, Christ is 
crowning the imperial couple. It is not clear from 
the composition alone if this is a depiction of their 
wedding, coronation, both, or of the idea of in- 
vestiture. It appears that such representations were 
neant to be more encompassing by containing all 
three and possibly even more readings, and did 
not limit their meaning or message to one histor- 
ical moment. 

Another such example is the representation of 
Basi II in a Venice psalter MS. The image shows 
Basil in military dress being presented with a 
crown by Christ and a lance by an angel. His 
defeated enemies are at his feet. This scene may 
have been created after a particular military 
triumph. The accompanying poem, however, does 
not mention a specific victory, instead stressing 
Basil’s triumphant divine rule and power. 

A second category of depictions of ceremonies 
is found within a narrative context. These images 
show events from the past rather than contem- 
porary times. They are found in MSS like the 
MENOLOGION OF Basix H or the Madrid MS of 
John Sxyzirzes. In the Menologion the painters 
depict ecclesiastical ceremonies in which the em- 
peror is participating; in the Skylitzes they illus- 
trate imperial ceremonies described in the Chron- 
icle. The compositions of these representations are 
also different. The narrative moves from left to 




















right like a written text and does not follow the 
compositional principles outlined above. For ex- 
ample, in the Menologion on 26 Jan., a day com- 
memorating an earthquake, the patriarch and the 
emperor, accompanied by clergy and citizens car- 
rying candles, walk through the city in a peniten- 
tial procession. The barefooted and simply dressed 
emperor, the candles, and the censer refer to a 
specific ceremony that must have taken place on 
that day. The depiction of the translation of the 
relics of John Chrysostom is another such ex- 
ample. Theodosios II and Patr. Proklos, who holds 
a candle and the Gospels, are shown receiving the 
body in front of the Church of the Holy Apostles. 
A representation of a similar event, the translation 
of the relics of St. Stephen on the ivory plaque in 
Trier, shows Theodosios II at the head of the 
procession and PULCHERIA receiving them in front 
of the newly built church. 

In the Madrid Skylitzes a number of ceremonies 
are depicted: receptions of ambassadors, bap- 
tisms, coronations, marriages, proclamations of 
emperors, and triumphal processions. Grabar- 
Manoussacas, Skylitzés, no.968, for example, shows 
the triumphal entry of Nikephoros I] Phokas on 
horseback into Constantinople. A large group of 
musicians playing cymbals and trumpets is wel- 
coming him. The ceremony of SHIELD-RAISING is 
represented twice. These are the only two illus- 
trations of this ceremony in Byz. art that represent 
Byz. historical figures; all others show Old Tes- 
tament kings. Leo Tornikios (ibid., no.561) is pro- 
claimed emperor by his rebel supporters, an event 
that we know took place as depicted. Another 
page (ibid., no.2) shows Michael I and Leo V 
raised together on the shield, with Michael placing 
his hand on the head of Leo, whom he has chosen 
as co-emperor. This depiction is not historically 
correct, since the coronation and raising on the 
shield never occurred simultaneously, but was 
presumably chosen to emphasize the new order 
of imperial rule. 

LIT. A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin (Paris 1936). 
Idem, “Pseudo-Codinos et les cérémonies de la Cour byz- 
antine au XIVe siècle,” in Art et Société à Byzance sous les 
Paléologues (Venice 1971) 195—221. S. MacCormack, Art 


and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1981). M. Mc- 
Cormick, Eternal Victory (Cambridge 1986). IK. 


CERNJACHOVO, the name of a culture in the 
Ukraine (2nd C. 4.p.—ca.400), known from ar- 


chaeological excavations, first discovered and 
studied in 1899. The designation is derived from 
the agricultural settlement excavated in the village 
of Cernjachiv (Kaharlyk region, Kiev district) on 
the middle South Bug River. This culture was 
spread over an area extending in a north-south 
direction from the sources of the Dniester and 
South Bug to the Danube delta (including Mol- 
davia) and the Dnieper estuary. To the north it 
extended along a line that went from the upper 
West Bug (a tributary of the Vistula), across the 
region that later became Kiev, to the upper Siv- 
ers’ kyj Donec’, and traversed the Dnieper river 
bend, but it did not reach the Crimea. 

The Cernjachovo settlements, of which over 
2,500 are known at present, are scattered along 
the rivers. Two groups are distinguishable, the 
larger settlements (2—3 km long, covering 35-45 
hectares), and the smaller ones (300—400 m long, 
covering 3—4 hectares); in both groups semisub- 
terranean dwellings coexist with subterranean. 
More than 350 burial grounds have been exca- 
vated, showing evidence of mixed burial rites, 
though inhumation seems to have prevailed. 
Characteristic is the production of gray and black 
pottery of high quality, iron tools, and metal or- 
naments; amphoras, terra sigillata, small lamps, 
buckles, and coins were exported to the Romans. 

By a.D. 400 life in all Cernjachovo settlements 
came to an abrupt end, which scholars at present 
connect with the Hunnic invasion. Animated de- 
bate still continues concerning the ethnic com- 
position of the Cernjachovo culture. The Slavic 
hypothesis (until recently highly favored) is grad- 
ually being abandoned. There is good reason to 
identify some bearers of this culture with the 
Ostrogoths in the Ukrainian “Mesopotamia” 
(Gothic Oium) described by JORDANES. 

uT. V.D. Baran, Černjachivs’ka kultura (Kiev 1981). Z. 


Váňa, The World of the Ancient Slavs (London 1983). 
~O-P. 


CERNOMEN, BATTLE OF. See MARICA, BAT- 
TLE OF. 


CEYLON (TazpoBavn, mod. Sri Lanka), called 
Sinhala by its inhabitants during the Middle Ages. 
Archaeological investigations of the island have 
not been extensive and are of limited value; some 
hoards of 5th-6th-C. Byz. bronze coins and imi- 


CHALCEDON 403 








tations have been found. Kosmas [NDIKO- 
PLEUSTES, who describes the island’s location cor- 
rectly as being east of southern India, claims that 
Byz. merchants traded there and that a Christian 
community lived on the island. Its noteworthy 
export was the Ayakinthos, a blue gem, perhaps the 
sapphire. Ceylon may have been involved in the 
SPICE trade and perhaps served as a clearinghouse 
for products from Southeast Asia. Byz. merchants 
participated in the trade directly, but not exclu- 
sively: Axumite, South Arabian, and South Asian 
ships are also known to have sailed to and from 
Ceylon. The preferred transit points inside the 
Byz. Empire were the Red Sea ports, esp. Klysma. 
Partly to protect the Red Sea shipping lanes from 
Persian interference, Justin I forged an alliance 
with Axum. The Persian occupation of South Ara- 
bia in 599 and the subsequent conquest of the 
Red Sea littoral by the Arabs effectively closed 
this route to direct participation in Far East trade 
by Byz. merchants. 

uit. H.W. Codrington, Ceylon Coins and Currency (Col- 
ombo 1924; rp. Colombo 1975). J. Sull, “Roman Coins 


Found in Ceylon,” Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royai 
Asiatic Society 19 (1907) 161-88. -D.W. 


CHAIRS. See FURNITURE. 


CHALCEDON (Xadxndav, now Kadıköy), city of 
BITHYNIA, located directly across the Bosporos 
from Constantinople. Chalcedon was perma- 
nently overshadowed by the nearby capital, but it 
did benefit in the 4th and 5th C. from the gen- 
erosity of imperial dignitaries who enlarged its 
harbor and built palaces and churches in the 
vicinity. Chalcedon was taken by the Persians in 
615, and 626 and by the Arabs during their attacks 
on Constantinople. It was the main camp for the 
First, Second, and Fourth Crusades before their 
further advances. Chalcedon fell to the Ottomans 
in 1350. 

The Byz. remains of Chalcedon have disap- 
peared: they consisted of a palace, a hippodrome, 
and numerous churches. Most notable was that of 
St. EUPHEMIA, built outside the walls in the qth C. 
and seat of the Council of 451 (see CHALCEDON, 
Counci. of). It contained the circular domed 
shrine of the saint, from whose tomb was said to 
issue a miraculous flow of blood, and was deco- 
rated with paintings showing scenes from her life. 


404 CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF 


It was destroyed by the Persians. The suburbs of 
Chalcedon contained the important monastic cen- 
ters of RoupHINIANAI and Mt. AUXENTIOs. Origi- 
nally a suffragan bishopric of NrkOMEDEIA, Chal- 
cedon became an independent metropolis in 451. 


Liv. Janin, Églises centres 31—60. Janin, CP byz. 4g3f. 
-C.F. 


CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF, the fourth ecu- 
menical council, held in the Church of St. Eu- 
PHEMIA OF CHALCEDON (8-31 Oct. 451). About 
350 bishops attended its sessions, primarily those 
from the East. The leading roles at the council 
were played by the representatives of the imperial 
couple (Marcian and PuLcHERIA) as well as Pas- 
chinus, the legate of Pope Leo I, to whom the 
Egyptian bishops stood in opposition. The council 
was intended to answer the Christological ques- 
tion raised by Eutycues after the Council of 
Epuesus (431). Chalcedon defined Christ’s two 
natures as inviolably united without confusion, 
division, separation, or change, in one person or 
hypostasis. This negative formula, distinguishing 
precisely between nature and person, was clearly 
aimed at the teaching of Nesrorios and Eutyches. 
Doctrinally, it rejected neither the Council of 431 
at Ephesus nor Cyrit of Alexandria. Still, the 
definition acknowledging Christ “in two na- 
tures’—grounded on the Nicene faith, Cyril, and 
the Tome of Pope Leo I—was viewed by Egypt 
as a betrayal of strict Cyrillian Christology. This 
conviction, along with the council's condemnation 
of Dioskoros and Eutyches and cancellation of 
the “Robber” Council of Ephesus of 449 (see 
under EpHEsus, CounciLs or)—decisive blows to 
Alexandria’s ecclesiastical and theological hege- 
mony—were to cause the Monophysite schism. 

Chalcedon also granted patriarchal status to 
Constantinople by enlarging its territorial juris- 
diction to include the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, 
and Thrace and by confirming its existing hon- 
orary primacy after Rome (canon 28). Constanti- 
nople also received the right to hear appeals from 
regional METROPOLITANS (canons g, 17) and to 
consecrate the metropolitans of the three dioceses 
under its jurisdiction. Finally, because monasti- 
cism had become a serious urban problem by 
expanding into the cities, it was decided (for the 
first time in the history of Christian asceticism) to 
bring every monastery under the direct jurisdic- 
tion of its local bishop (canon 4). 














SOURCE. Acta—ACO Tom.H, vols. i-vi. Partial Fr. tr., A,- 
J. Festugiére, Actes du Concile de Chaicédoine: Sessions Lil~VI 
(La définition de la foi) (Geneva 1983). 

LIT. Grillmeier-Bacht, Chalkedon, 3 vols. P. Stockmeier, 
“Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Probleme der Forschung,” 
Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie 29 (1982) 
140-56. R.V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London 
1953). J. Meyendorff, “La primauté romaine dans la tra- 
dition canonique jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine,” Istina 4 
(1957) 463-82. P.T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the 
East (451-553) (Leiden 1979). ~A.P, 


CHALDEAN ORACLES (Xaddaixa Adyar), a work 
that has been lost and is now known only in 
fragments, written in bad hexameters. The ora- 
cles purport to be revelations from the gods. The 
Souda ascribes the authorship of the oracles to 
two Julians—the father, surnamed the Chaldean, 
and his son “the Theurge,” who allegedly were 
active at the end of the 2nd C. The philosophical 
system of the Chaldean Oracles is dualistic, con- 
trasting the world of the Intelligibies with evil 
Matter. The Chaldean deity is triune: it comprises 
the Paternal Intellect, an impenetrable monad; 
the Second Intellect, dyadic, since it unites the 
physical world created by it with the intelligible 
monad; and the Cosmic Soul that is identified as 
HEKATE of Greek mythology. The human mind, 
a spark of the divine Intellect, must “empty” itself, 
that is, purge itself of evil Matter, in order to 
ascend to the god. 

The Chaldean Oracles became popular with the 
late Neoplatonists (esp. PorpHyry). Emp. Julian 
wrote a treatise on the Chaldean Oracles (ed. R. 
Majercik {Leiden—New York 1989]). [AMBLICHOS 
used them to develop the concept of theurgy, 
magical influence upon the supernatural world. 
Later Psellos and Plethon referred to the Chal- 
dean Oracles. 

ED. Oracles chaldaiques, ed. E. des Places (Paris 1971). 


ur. H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy® (Paris 1978); 
rev. of ist ed. by E.R. Dodds, HThR 54 (1961) 263-73. 
-A.K 


CHALDIA (Xadéia), a THEME of northeastern 
Asia Minor. It appears as a TOURMA of the AR- 
MENIAKON Ca.800, then as a separate ducatus in 
824 and as a theme by ca.84o. Its status at that 
time is unclear: strategoi are known from the gth- 
1ıth C., and doukes from the 8th to 10th (Oiko- 
nomides, Listes 349, 354). According to Arab 
geographers, Chaldia had an army of 10,000 and 


six fortresses; its strategos had a salary of 10 pounds 
of gold and an equivalent amount from the local 
KOMMERKION. Chaldia comprised the eastern part 
of Pontos with the interior valleys; its capital was 
TREBIZOND. Its strategic but remote location gave 
it importance for trade and the military—it was a 
base of support for THOMAS THE SLav, but was 


virtually independent under the Gabrades in 1075- | 


1140. As part of the empire of Trebizond, Chaldia 
denoted a more restricted area south of the wa- 
tershed of the Pontic mountains, astride the major 
routes to the interior. Chaldia was dominated by 
local families and only loosely controlled by Tre- 
bizond. Its defensible location enabled Chaldia to 
maintain its independence until 1479. The area 
is rich in remains of Byz. churches and fortresses, 
among them the oldest church in the Pontos, at 
Leri (probably 6th C.). 


uit. Bryer-Winfield, Pontes 299-318. -C.F. 


CHALICE (ornpiov), a LITURGICAL VESSEL for 
holding the wine of the Eucuarist, which in the 
so-called church history ascribed to Patr. Germa- 
nos I (ed. N. Borgia ch.39, p.31.17—29) is com- 
pared with the vessel used to collect Christ’s blood 
at the Crucifixion and the crater used at the Last 
Supper. Attested from at least the 4th C., the 
earliest form of the chalice is uncertain: the 4th- 
C. Durobrivae Treasure has two types of cup: one 
with two handles and resting on a foot and two 
others without feet. Silver chalices surviving from 
the 6th C. onward have a large cup on a flared 
foot usually with a knob; occasionally they have 
two handles. The cup usually has a dedicatory 
inscription around the rim and sometimes figural 
decoration below. Although elaborate chalices of 
gold, or studded with or carved from precious 
stones, are known from literary sources of the 
4th—7th C., none survives. The chalice often forms 
a set with the PATEN (deskopoterion) in written sources. 

Many important post-gth-C. chalices continue 
to have a tall, flared foot with a knob; others are 
made with a low foot and a pair of handles (kra- 
teres). Elaborate examples incorporate cups of 
semiprecious stone, rock crystal, or glass, mounted 
in gilded silver, ornamented with enamels, pearls, 
and other materials. Eucharistic inscriptions 
sometimes appear around the lip, while dedica- 
tory inscriptions are limited to the foot. Medieval 
church INVENTORIES mostly refer to chalices of 





CHALKE 405 




















Cua ice. Chalice of Emp. Romanos (II?). Treasury of 
San Marco, Venice. The sardonyx body of the chalice 
is an antique bowl dating from the Ist C. Bc to Ist C. 
AD. The enamel panels and metal base were added to 
the bowl in the 10th C. Visible are the enamel busts of 
saints and patriarchs. 


gilded silver, occasionally with repoussé decora- 
tion (MM 2:566.19). Some display a DeEsis com- 
position (Pantel., no.7.13), others crosses and stars 
(P. Gautier, REB 39 [1981] 91.1209; REB 43 [1985] 
155-103). Ordinary chalices were of beaten bronze, 
usually tinned. A 14th-C. chalice with monograms 
of MANUEL KANTAKOUZENOS consists of a cup of 
jasper mounted in gilded silver but lacks the 
enamels, stones, and pearls of earlier examples 
(Bréhier, Sculpture, pl.L-XX1). 

Lit. Mango, Silver 68—77, 251-53. A. Grabar in H.R. 
Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco (Florence 1971), nos. 40— 


66. Treasury S. Marco 110f, 129-40, 156-67. 
—M.M.M., L.Ph.B. 


CHALKE (XaAx), main entrance vestibule of 
the Great PALACE of Constantinople, so named 
either for the gilded bronze tiles of its roof or for 
its bronze portals. The earliest attested building 
was put up by the architect Aitherios under Ana- 
stasios I (AnthGr 9:656). Burned down in the 

















406 | CHALKE, ISLAND OF 


Nixa REVOLT, it was rebuilt by Justinian I as a 
rectangular structure with four engaged piers 
supporting a central dome. The ceiling was dec- 
orated with mosaics representing the emperor’s 
victories over the Goths and Vandals, with the 
imperial couple surrounded by a cortége of sen- 
ators placed in the center (Prokopios, Buildings 
1.10.12—19). The Chalke or its dependencies be- 
came a PRISON in the 7th—8th C. Basil I repaired 
the building and turned it into a law court 
(TheophCont 250). 

On the facade of the Chalke, above the main 
door, was an icon of CHRIST CHALKITES, shown 
standing full-length on a footstool. Its origins are 
obscure. Its removal by Leo III in 726 or 730 was 
the first public act of imperial IconocLasm. Re- 
stored by Irene ca.787, it was once again removed 
by Leo V and replaced by a cross. Soon after 843 
the icon, in mosaic, was set up again by the painter 
LAZAROS. 

When the palace was enclosed by a less exten- 
sive circuit wall by Nikephoros II Phokas, the 
Chalke lost its importance as a vestibule. A small 
chapel dedicated to Christ Chalkites, built next to 
it by Romanos I, was reconstructed on a larger 
scale by John I Tzimiskes, who endowed it with 
relics and was himself buried there. The chapel, 
situated on an elevated platform, survived until 
1804. Drawings and plans of the 18th C. help to 
place the chapel about 100 m south of the south- 
east corner of Hagia Sophia. The Chalke itself, 
robbed of its bronze doors by Isaac II, is not 
mentioned after 1200. 

tir. C. Mango, The Brazen House: A Study of the Vestibule 


of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople (Copenhagen 1959). 
Guilland, Topographie 1:7-33. -C.M 


CHALKE, ISLAND OF. See Princes’ ISLANDS. 


CHALKIDIKE (Xadxktéexy), peninsula in the 
northwestern Aegean, terminating to the south 
with the three promontories of (west to east) Kas- 
sandra (Pallene), Longos, and Arnos. The area is 
among the best known from the Byz. world be- 
cause of the surviving documents from the mon- 
asteries of Mt. Athos (see ArHos, Acts OF), which 
owned many of the villages in the peninsula. The 
territory is hilly and wooded with a moderate 
climate suitable for growing grapes, grain, and 


fruit trees. Excavation at various sites has revealed 
a period of prosperity during late antiquity, fol- 
lowed by violent destruction in the 7th C. (e.g., 
O. Alexandre, ArchDelt 29.2 [1973-74] 674~77). 
Part of the theme of THESSALONIKE, the Chalki- 
dike was divided into several katepanates; there 
were Cities at OLYNTHOS, KASSANDREIA, and HIER- 
issos. The CATALAN GRAND ComPany ravaged the 
Chalkidike in 1807—09; excavation near Torone 
may show destruction from this period (N. Niko- 
nanos, ArchDelt 29.2 [1973-74] 770f, 776). 

LIT. J. Lefort, Villages de Macédoine: 1. La Chaletdigque 


occidentale (Paris 1982). G.I. Theocharides, “Kalamaria (Apo 
ten historian tes Byzantines Chalkidikes),” Makedonika 17 


(1977) 259-97- -T.E.G. 


CHALKIS (Xaìkíis). Several cities in the ancient 
and medieval Mediterranean world bore this name, 
most notably two cities in Syria and Greece. 


CHALKIS AD BELUM (Syr. Qenneshrin, Ar. Qin- 
nasrīn), a city in northern SYRIA 1, lying in a fertile 
plain surrounded by the limestone massif of Be- 
lus. It should be distinguished from the monas- 
tery of Qenneshre at Europos. A caravan stop on 
roads from ANTIOCH and Berroia, Chalkis was 
also strategically situated as part of the LIMES to 
which it gave its name. After Chosroes I extorted 
200 pounds of gold from Chalkis in 540 (Proko- 
pios, Wars 2.12.1—5), Justinian I had its city walls 
rebuilt (Prokopios, Buildings 2.11.8—9) in 550 by 
ISIDORE THE YOUNGER, as confirmed by two extant 
inscriptions (IGLSyr 2, nos. 348-49). Nearby, in 
554, the Ghassanids won a decisive victory over 
the Lakhmid ALaMuNDaRUS. Chalkis was under 
Persian rule ca.608/g—28 and taken by the Arabs 
in 636-37 after an unsuccessful resistance (Don- 
ner, Conquests 149f). The Umayyads made Chalkis 
a military headquarters and capital of the district 
(jund) of Qinnasrin. Chalkis was attacked and 
sacked by the Byz. in 966, 998, and 1090. It never 
recovered from Seljuk destruction at the end of 
the 11th C., after which it served merely as an 
arsenal and caravansary. Today Chalkis is in ruins. 
Chalkis ad Belum should be distinguished from 
Chalkis under Lebanon (now Anjar in Lebanon), 
a Hellenistic settlement that did not become a 
Roman or Byz. city. 

tir. R., Mouterde, A. Poidebard, Le “Limes” de Chalcis: 


Organisation de la ste, eppi en kaute Syrie romaine (Paris 1945) 
4—9. N. Elisséef, EI* 5:124f. -M.M.M. 


CHALKHIS IN GREECE, city founded in antiquity 
on the west coast of Euboea, where the island 
comes closest to the mainland. In the 6th C. a 
movable bridge (zeugma) linked the shores of the 
strait of Euripos (Prokopios, Buildings 4.9.18—19). 
Termed a city in the Synekdemos of Hierokles 
(Hierokl. 645.6), it reappears in Constantine VII 
Porphyrogennetos (De them. 5.13—14, ed. Pertusi 
go) as an island, and as an alternative name for 
Euboea. The name Chalkis, however, was pre- 
served in the ecclesiastical hierarchy at least to the 
gth C.; a seal of a droungarios of Chalkis also 
survives (Zacos, Seals 1, no.2587). It was assumed 
(e.g., by J. Koder in TIB) that the name of Chalkis 
was replaced by that of Euripos and of Chripos/ 
Chrepos; the latter identification was rejected by 
Svoronos (Cadastre 72, n.2); the bishop of Euripos 
appears in notitiae along with the bishop of Chalkis. 
It is not impossible that the settlement of Euripos 
was founded in the gth C., after Chalkis had lost 
its urban character. 

The astron of Euripos was attacked by the 
Arabs in the 870s (TheephCont 298.8-12); when 
Skylitzes relates this episode he calls Euripos a 
polis (Skyl. 151.32). A bishop of Euripos partici- 
pated in the council of 869/70. An inscription of 
the protospatharios Theophylaktos of the end of 
the gth C. mentions the restoration of a road 
from Chalkis (E. Oberhummer, RE 3 [1899] 2086). 
In the 12th C. Euripos had a Venetian trading 
colony and a large Jewish population. At the be- 
ginning of the 13th C. a phrourion was built there 
to defend the straits (Nik.Chon. 610.92). Euripos 
was attacked by a Venetian fleet in 1171 and 
seized by Venice in 1209. In the 13th—14th C. the 
city of Chalkis, which was called NEGROPONTE by 
the Westerners, was the object of various attacks: 
by knights from Achaia in 1257/8, by Catalans in 
1317, by Turks in 1350/1. The Turks took the 
city in 1470. 

A figural floor mosaic found in the city is dated 
to the 5th C. The Church of St. Paraskeve, orig- 
inally dedicated to the Virgin, is a wooden-roofed 
three-aisled basilica. Probably constructed in the 
5th C., it was rebuilt in the 12th C. and connected 
with a monastery of the Virgin (Th. Theochares, 
Archeion Eubotkon Meleton 7 [1960] 1-23; D. Trian- 
taphyllopoulos, ibid. 16 [1970] 186-91). It was 
one of the major churches of the Frankish period. 
The surviving fortifications of the city and the 
bridge-fortress are Venetian in date; although 























CHALKOPRATEIA | 407 


they presumably have Byz. antecedents, all trace 
of these has vanished. 


LIT. TIB 1:156—58. J. Koder, Negroponte (Vienna 1973) 
43-95, 133-38. -T.E 


CHALKOKONDYLES, LAONIKOS, historian; 
born Athens ca.1423 or 1430, died ca.1490. Little 
is known of the life of Chalkokondyles 
(XadxoxovdvaAns); his father George fled to the 
Morea in 1435 after an unsuccessful coup attempt 
against the AcciajuoLl. In 1447 Chalkokondyles 
was a student of PLETHON at the court of Mistra. 
He evidently spent his life somewhere in the Ae- 
gean region. 

His history in ten books was written in the 1480s 
and covers the period 1298-1463. His purpose 
was to show “the downfall of the great empire of 
the Hellenes” and the growing power of the Turks; 
his emphasis on the rise of the Ottoman Empire 
is unusual for a Byz. historian. He had direct 
access to Turkish sources (e.g., the secretaries of 
the sultan) and provides some important infor- 
mation on early Ottoman institutions (S. Vryonis, 
Iniernaiional Journal of Middle East Studies 7 [1976] 
423-32). For Chalkokondyles the éasileus is the 
Turkish sultan; the Byz. emperor is designated as 
“basileus Hellenon.” His account of the Byz.- 
Ottoman conflict is clearly modeled on the con- 
frontation of Greeks and Persians described by 
Herodotus. The work also owes much to Thucyd- 
ides in its use of direct speeches and Attic vocab- 
ulary. Chalkokondyles inserted lengthy excur- 
suses on various peoples and countries, notably 
the Muslims, Germans, Russians, South Slavs, and 
Spaniards. Chalkokondyles had a superstitious be- 
lief in omens and oracles and recognized TYCHE 
as a force affecting historical events (C.J.G. Turner, 
BZ 57 [1964] 358-61). The weakest aspect of his 
history is the relative lack of chronologica! data. 


ve Wk Vaasa onciogicai 


ED. Laonici Chalcocondylae Historiarum Demonstrationes, ed. 
E. Darko, 2 vols, (Budapest 1922-23). 

LIT. A. Wifstrand, Laonikos Chalkokondyles, der letzte Ath- 
ener. Ein Vortrag (Lund 1972). E.B. Veselago, “Istoričeskoe 
sotinenie Laonika Chalkokondila,” VizVrem 12 (1957) 203— 
17. H. Ditten, Der Russland-Exkurs des Laonikos Chalkokon- 
dyles (Berlin 1968). Hunger, Lit. 1:485~—go. Moravcsik, By- 
zantinoturcica 1:391~-97. —A.M.T, 


CHALKOPRATEIA (XadAkorpareta, lit. “Cop- 
per Market”), quarter of Constantinople, west of 


408 | CHANCEL BARRIER 





Hacia Sopuia. It is said to have been originally 
inhabited by Jews, who had a synagogue there; 
these were allegedly expelled by Theodosios II 
and the synagogue replaced by a Church of the 
Theotokos, which is variously attributed to Em- 
press Pulcheria or to Verina. The church, of bas- 
ilical form, was repaired by Justin II and Basil I. 
Among its relics were the Virgin’s girdle (zone), 
housed in a special chapel (soros), and a mirac- 
ulous image of CHRIST ANTIPHONETES. The apse 
and parts of the north and south walls of the 
church are preserved, as is the undercroft of an 
octagonal structure north of the atrium. 

Lit. Janin, Églises CP 237-42. W. Kleiss, “Neue Befunde 
zur Chalkopratenkirche in Istanbul,” IstMitt 15 (1965) 149- 
67. Idem, “Grabungen im Bereich der Chalkopratenkirche 
in Istanbul,” IstMitt 16 (1966) 217-40. C. Mango, “Notes 
on Byzantine Monuments,” DOP 23-24 (1969—70) 369- 
92. ~C.M. 


CHANCEL BARRIER. See TEMPLON. 

















CHANCERY. Officials in Byz. corresponded either 
personally or by using an official scribe (notarios 
and, after the 12th C., grammatikos). One can speak 
of organized chanceries—i.e., bodies of secre- 
taries, scribes, and other officials responsible for 
correspondence—only when dealing with the large 
central administrations of the emperor and the 
patriarch, and, possibly, the semi-independent 
despotai (which are very poorly known). Private 
deeds could be made legally by anyone who could 
write. There were also the specialized NOTARIES, 
laymen or ecclesiastics. FORMULARIES were often 
used for drafting all kinds of documents. 

Imperial Chancery. Constantine I the Great 
created the corps of secretaries (schola notariorum) 
under the command of a primikerios. Some notari, 
called REFERENDARII, were attached to the em- 
peror’s private service; in the 5th C. appeared the 
upper category of confidential notarii, the ASE- 
KRETIS, who replaced the referendarii before the 
end of the 6th C. The role of the QUAESTOR was 
important. Reports of individuals were examined 
and eventually answered by the four scrinia (me- 
mortae, epistolarum, epistolarum graecarum, libello- 
rum). 

From the 8th C. onward, the chancery was 
directed by the PROTASEKRETIS. Assisted by the 
asekretis, some imperial notarioi, and the DEKANOS 








(?), he was responsible for the final drafting and 
preparation of original imperial acts (the draft 
was undoubtedly prepared by the office compe- 
tent in the matter). The verification of the con- 
tents (recognitio) of the documents seems to have 
been the work of the KANIKLEIOS, who also prob- 
ably added in some documents the words tradi- 
tionally written in purple (except for the em- 
peror’s autograph subscription). Drafting imperial 
documents also required the help of other offi- 
cials, esp. those with judicial competence: the 
quaestor (laws), the EPI TON DEESEON, the MYSTI- 
Kos, the mystographos. 

Some time after 1106 the protasekretis aban- 
doned the chancery. It was then manned by gram- 
matikoi and later (13th C.) by imperial notariat (who 
sometimes also acted as taboullarioi) and transla- 
tors (diermeneuiai), mostly of Latin. The direction 
of the chancery, esp. as far as foreign relations 
were concerned, fell to the LOGOTHETES TOU 
DROMOU and his pROTONOTARIOS, and, in the 19th 
C., to the megas logothetes, while the protonotarios 
remained at the head of the notarioi or grammaitkoi 
and controlled the everyday functions of the 
chancery. The real chancellor, with extended 
powers, was now and until 1453 the MESAZON, the 
“intermediary” between the emperor and all the 
others. 

Patriarchal Chancery. Initially placed under 
the guidance of the primikeries of the notartot, who 
was an archdeacon, this chancery and its activities 
in time were related to the office of the CHARTO- 
PHYLAX, who was seen as the mesazon of the patri- 
arch. The primikerios would draft the documents, 
register and authenticate outgoing acts as well as 
the minutes of the synod, issue certified copies or 
duplicate originals, and cancel previous docu- 
ments. In his secretarial functions, he was in com- 
petition with the protonotarios, who became the 
head of the chancery. Also having direct access to 
the patriarch, the protonotarios, among others, 
added to outgoing patriarchal acts some secret 
authenticity marks. The primikerios remained the 
simple dean of the patriarchal notarioi. Other im- 
portant personnel, attested from the 1oth C. on- 
ward, included the Aypomnematographos, who as- 
sisted the chartophylax, and the hieromnemon, 
responsible for ordinations. Some secrets and pro- 
cedures of the 14th-C. patriarchal chancery are 
described in the ExTHesis Nea. Certain patriar- 
chal documents were approved by the synod and 

















were thus qualified as synodikon (gramma, SE- 
MEIOMA, €tc.). 


uit. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 57—67. Oi- 
konomides, “Chancellerie” 168~73. Oikonomides, “Chan- 
cery” 310-13. Darrouzés, Offikia 296-525. Falkenhausen- 
Amelotti, “Notariato & documento,” 29-39. -N.O. 


CHANDAX (Xavéeé, from Arabic al-Khandaq 
“moat,” via Candica to Candia, which became the 
name of the whole island of Crete), mod. Hera- 
kleion on the north central coast of CRETE. 
Founded by Andalusian Muslims under Abt Hafs 
ca.827 on a site identified for the conquerors by 
a Christian monk (Genes. 33.11—-17), Chandax 
replaced the nearby ancient settlement at Knos- 
sos, which had prospered through the 7th C. It 
was the base from which the Arabs completed 
their conquest of Crete; its walls were famous for 
their size and strength (e.g., Leo Diac. 11.4-10). 
Nikephoros II Phokas besieged the city (shown in 
the Madrid Skylitzes), which capitulated on 7 Mar. 
g61; thereafter the Byz. recovered all of Crete. 
The emperor built a new fortress called Temenos 
near the Arab citadel, although the Arab walls 
continued in use (N. Platon, KretChron 6 [1952] 
439-59). After the Fourth Crusade Chandax was 
first assigned to Boniface of Montferrat, but it 
quickly passed to Venice, which held it until 1669. 

The bishop of Knossos continued to be re- 
corded in the episcopal lists instead of Chandax 
(e.g., Notitiae CP 3.241, 10.467); the bishop of 
Chandax, separate from that of Knossos, is at- 
tested only in the 12th C. (13.484). In an act of 
1206 (MM 6:151.17) the bishopric bears the dou- 
ble name “Knossos or Chandax.” 

Aside from the fortifications, there are no Byz. 
remains at Chandax. The Church of St. Titos, 
originally of Byz. date, was destroyed in an earth- 
quake. 

LIT. V. Christides, The Conquest of Crete by the Arabs (Ath- 
ens 1984) gif, 107f, 110. N. Panayotakes, “Zetemata tina 
peri tes katakteseos tes Kretes hypo ton Arabon.” KretChron 


15—16 (1961—62) 9-38. Laurent, Corpus 5.1:468—70., 
-T.E.G. 


CHANSON D’ANTIOCHE, Old French Cru- 
sader epic on the conquest and defense of Antioch 
(1098). It is generally believed to have been com- 
posed by Richard le Pèlerin, a participant in the 
First Crusade, but has survived only in the exten- 
sively revised form established before ca.1177—-81 


CHAPEL | 409 


by one Graindor d’Arras as part of a larger Cru- 
sader epic cycle. A few scholars maintain that 
Richard, Graindor, and the early version are merely 
literary fictions, or that Graindor was patron, not 
author of the work. Others have detected appar- 
ent traces of its use in contemporary Latin histo- 
rians, for example, ALBERT OF AACHEN, RAYMOND 
OF AGUILERS, Or FULCHER OF CHARTRES. The 
Chanson treats Byz. directly and in some detail 
only during the Crusaders’ stay at Constantinople 
(vol. 1, pp. 56-67) and the siege of Nicaea (vol. 
1, pp. 67—112). 

ED. La chanson d'Antioche, ed. S. Duparc-Quioc, 2 vols. 
(Paris 1976-78). 

LIT. C. Cahen, “Le premier cycle de la croisade (Antioche- 
Jérusalem-Chétifs),” Le moyen âge 63 (1957) 311-28. Les 
épopées de la Croisade, ed. K.-H. Bender (Stuttgart 1987). 
K.-H. Bender, H. Kleber, Le premier cycle de la croisade 
(Heidelberg 1987). —~M.McC. 


CHANT (fadpmdia), the general term for litur- 
gical music similar to plainsong, that is, mono- 
phonic, unaccompanied, and in free rhythm. Al- 
though the language of the Byz. church was Greek, 
Byz. chant was not a continuation of ancient Greek 
music, but constituted a new departure based to 
some extent on Eastern models. The Byz. system 
of moves differs sharply from that of the ancient 
tonoi, but is quite similar to that of the medieval 
Western church. 

Byz. chant differs from Western, however, in 
its textual basis. Whereas psalmic and other scrip- 
tural texts prevail in Latin chant, the texts of Byz. 
chant are mostly nonscriptural, although often 
modeled after the psalms or canticles. Most are 
hymns, written in metrical arrangements that often 
employ an isosyllabic principle. Furthermore, in 
the Byz. tradition, unlike the Western, music for 
the liturgical HOURS is more important than that 
for the Eucharistic liturgy. 

Chants in the early period were largely syllabic 
and were meant to be sung by the entire congre- 
gation. After ca.850 the repertory was enriched 
by florid, melismatic chants (having more than 
one note per syllable) written for professional 
choirs. 





uit. Wellesz, Music. Strunk, Essays 297—330. —D.E.C, 


CHAPEL, in Byz. terminology usually EUKTERION, 
any space equipped with a consecrated altar table 





410 | CHAPTERS 


and used for the celebration of the mass. A chapel 
is normally located within a larger complex to 
which it is related functionally, that is, as a PALACE 
CHURCH OF a PAREKKLESION (generally within a 
monastic compound). Chapels are usually small- 
scale, though this is not always a distinguishing 
criterion. Chapels accompanying larger churches 
appear in the earliest Christian monumental ar- 
chitecture and remain a common ingredient 
throughout Byz. church architecture. Chapels vary 
considerably according to their function (burial, 
commemoration, private worship), their relative 
position (ground-level or elevated; accessible from 
the narthex, naos, or sanctuary), their plans (rec- 
tangular, polygonal, trefoil, quatrefoil, cruciform, 
cross-in-square), and their structural makeup 
(roofed in wood, barrel- or groin-vaulted, domed). 
When physically connected to a larger church, 
chapels become important ingredients in articu- 
lating new CHURCH PLAN TYPES. 

uit. G. Babić, Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines: 
Fonction liturgique et programmes iconographiques (Paris 1969). 
S. Curčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels 
in Middle Byzantine Churches,” JSAH 36 (1977) 94-110. 
T. Mathews, “ ‘Private’ Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture,” 
CahArch 30 (1982) 125-98. B. Schellewald, “Zur Typologie, 
Entwicklung und Funktion von Oberraumen in Syrien, 


Armenien und Byzanz,” JbAChr 27-28 (1984-85) 171- 
218. -S.C., W.L. 











CHAPTERS (xe@dAara), collections of sayings 
(aphorisms), usually combined in centuria that 
contained about 100 aphorisms each, although 
collections of 150 chapters are also known (as in 
Palamas). The genre of chapters existed through- 
out the entire Byz. period, the last example being 
compiled by a certain Kallistos Kataphrygiotes 
ca.1400. Some centuria were written by well-known 
theologians such as Maximos the Confessor, Sy- 
meon the Theologian, Niketas Stethatos, and Gre- 
gory Palamas; other authors of chapters (John of 
Karpathos, Elias Ekdikos) are less famous. Unlike 
FLORILEGIA, chapters are the works of individuals; 
they often reflect not only traditional wisdom but 
also personal views. We do not know how they 
were created—whether as a spiritual testament or 
as part of an educational process. The aphorisms 
are assembled thematically, the topics being some- 
times more general as, for example, the theo- 
logical, “gnostic,” and practical chapters of Sy- 
meon the Theologian, or more or less specific, 
such as On Being Unborn by John of Karpathos or 








On the Unity with God and On Contemplative Life by 
Kataphrygiotes. -A.K. 


CHARAGE (xapayn), term designating minting, 
in both narrative texts (Theoph. 365.15~16; 
An.Komn. 3:136.22, 137.9) and documents (Pan- 
tel., no.2.12—13, a. 1033/4). This meaning was 
preserved in Trebizond in the 14th—15th C, 
(Dionys., nos. 4.53, 27-20), as well as in a forged 
chrysobull of Romanos I (Xerop., no.B42); a post- 
Byz. charter of donation of 1471 applies the term 
to “florins” (Lavra 3, no.173.21). A more compli- 
cated case is Manuel I’s chrysobull of 1153 (Reg. 
2, no.1390) in which charagai (pl.) are not “mint- 
ing” but rather a sort of obligation: the legislator 
speaks of various tax alleviations—KLASMATA, SYM- 
PATHEIAI, “humble” sricuo1, and “sétchot liable to 
charagai.” Svoronos (Cadastre 111) identifies cha- 
rage with CHARAGMa and thinks that the tax in this 
case was Calculated in gold coins. The archon tes 
charages is mentioned in the Kletorologion of Philo- 
theos as a functionary of the vESTIARION, which 
led Délger (Beiträge 28) to conclude that the ves- 
tiarton dealt not only with goods but also with 
minting money. The precise duties of the archon 
tes charages are not defined. 


LIT. Bury, Adm. System 96. D. Zakythinos, Le chrysobulle 
d'Alexis IH Comnéne (Paris 1932) 62—64. -A.K. 


CHARAGMA (yáépæypa) initially meant the op- 
eration of a mint, then the coined money, then 
the gold NOMISMa seen as a real coin and not as 
an accounting unit. In fiscal context, the term was 
used to specify that whenever the tax (KANON plus 
some PARAKOLOUTHEMATA) owed by a taxpayer 
amounted to a fraction of a nomisma (2/3 or 
more), he was obliged to give a (hard to come by) 
gold coin and receive his due change in silver or 
copper. In the early 12th C. and in a context of 
monetary instability, Alexios l's fiscal reform 
transformed the charagma into a means of estab- 
lishing the real amount of the tax, calculated on 
the basis of the kanon. The word survives in doc- 
uments until the end of the empire with a less 
clear meaning, indicating perhaps a secondary 
tax, or a tax on a special category of lands, or a 
term indicating the coinage in which part of the 
tax was paid. 


LIT. Svoronos, Cadastre 77—89, 110-18. Idem in Lavra 
4:159f. -N.O. 


CHARIOT MOUNTS AND HORSE FITTINGS 


CHARIDEMOS (Xapiényos), also called Peri kal- 
lous (On Beauty), a dialogue preserved under the 
name of Lucian in several MSS of the 14th—15th 
C. It consists of a conversation between two friends 
taking a stroll in the suburbs of Athens, during 
which Charidemos reports on three speeches 
praising beauty; the first two were delivered by 
men whose names are reminiscent of earlier phi- 
losophers, PHito and Aristippos (a companion of 
Socrates), the third by Charidemos. The work 
borrows extensively from the Helena of Isocrates, 
but the material is rearranged. Unlike pseudo- 
Lucian’s TIMARION and PHILopaTRIs, the Chari- 
demos does not contain contemporary allusions 
and polemics, unless we read in this way Aristip- 
pos’s emphasis on the dangers caused by the beauty 
of Helena and Hippodameia; the themes are pri- 
marily mythological and philosophical. 

The date of composition is impossible to estab- 
lish, Although the dialogue was traditionally dated 
to the grd C., Anastasi (infra, p.11) relocates it to 
“a much later time” on the very shaky basis of the 
similarity between the mythological tradition in 
the Charidemos and in Tzerzes. Anastasi evidently 
intended thereby to propose a date in the Kom- 
nenian or Palaiologan period, but Hunger (Lit. 
2:149 and n.178) erroneously inferred that the 
editor dated Charidemos to the period of the “Ma- 
cedonian Renaissance.” 

ED. Lucian, ed. M.D. Macleod, vol. 8 (Cambridge, Mass.— 
London 1967) 467—503, with Eng. tr. Incerti auctoris Char- 
idemos, ed. R. Anastasi (Bologna 1971), with Ital. tr. 


ur. R. Anastasi, “Appunti sul Charidemus,” StcGymn 18 
(1965) 259-83. -AM.T., A.K. 








CHARIOTEERS (sing. auriga, qvioxos; later 
PaKTLOvapLOS, mikporavitns), popular profes- 
sional racing drivers who competed in CHARIOT 
RACES for the victory of their FACTIONS, usually in 
light, four-horse chariots. Charioteers enjoyed 
geographic mobility, sometimes changed factional 
loyalties, and bore frequently recurring stage names 
that are well attested in circus curse tablets (defixi- 
ones) intended to jinx opponents. Their career 
began in their teens and sometimes lasted 30 years 
or more. In the 6th C., the heyday of the circus, 
Statues to champions were raised in the Hippo- 
DROME and their portraits adorned the KATHISMA; 
in the provinces their renown is recorded in floor 
mosaics sometimes bearing a driver’s name (K.M.D. 
Dunbabin, AJA 86 [1982] 65-89). Epigrams con- 


41l 


cerning these monuments survive in the GREEK 
ANTHOLOGY. 

Despite their popularity, early charioteers had 
a low social status. After the 7th C., charioteering 
seems to have been confined to Constantinople 
and its environs. Phaktionarioz (usually interpreted 
as charioteers of the Blues or Greens), heniochoi, 
and mikropanitai (those of the Reds or Whites) 
were integrated into the imperial precedence hi- 
erarchy, since they appear in the Kletorologion of 
Philotheos (Oikonomides, Listes, p.161.3, 8, 14; cf. 
p.125.5) and this presumably denotes an en- 
hanced social status. DE CEREMONIIS (bk.1, ch.69, 
ed. Vogt 2:131~—42) describes several circus cere- 
monies and procedures involving charioteers. 
Theophilos and Michael III as well as ranking 
members of their courts are themselves reported 
to have raced as charioteers. 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 3:32-40. Al. Cameron, Porphyrius 
the Chartoteer (Oxford 1973). -M.McC., A.C. 








CHARIOT MOUNTS AND HORSE FITTINGS. 
Bronze chariot mounts, formed of an orna- 
mented double ring mounted on a socket, have 
been described as rein guides or “shock absorber” 
supports; several examples attributed to the 4th 
C. have been found in Thrace, Pannonia, and 
Spain (Age of Spirit., no.331). Some chariot orna- 
ments of 6th-C. provincial governors (Theoph. 
244.28—29) were covered with gold leaf. 

Horse fittings, known from Byz. representa- 
tions in various media (e.g., 4th—8th C.—Age of 
Spirit., nos. 28, 41, 44, 80-81; 8th-11th C.—]. 
Beckwith, The Art of Constantinople [London 1961] 
figs. 73, 126; 14th C—Lazarev, Storia, fig.494), 
include bridle, collar, saddle, and sTIRRUPS as well 
as decorative pendants in the form of small BELLS 
and phalera (medallions and crescents, originally 
indicating military distinction), attached to leather 
straps or to a wood or leather saddle. Imported 
Byz. silver horse fittings (qth—5th C.) found with 
skeletons of horses in tombs at Qustul in Nubia 
include three complete bridles featuring lion- 
headed medallions, saddle pommels, and trap- 
pings composed of disks and pendants (Emery, 
infra, pls. 26—31). Similar trappings are in the 
4th-C. Esquiline Treasure from Rome (Shelton, 
Esquiline 89—91). Other horse fittings, esp. in 
bronze, have been found, for example, in the 
CONCESTI TREASURE, and three 4th-C. nosepieces, 

















IOT RACES 








412 | CHA 


incised with various scenes, originate from Italy 
(Age of Spirit., nos. 195, 215; Byzantinische Kostbar- 
keiten aus Museen, Kirchenschétzen und Bibliotheken 
der DDR [Berlin 1977], no.g2). 

tir. W.B. Emery, Nubian Treasure (London 1948) 44- 
36. W.B. Emery, L.P. Kirwan, The Royal Tombs of Ballana 


and Qustul (Cairo 1938) 251-71, pls. 55—59, 61—63. 
—M.M.M. 


CHARIOT RACES (imoSpopiat, Bewpiar imm- 
kai, Ta imma). Roman-style chariot racing was 
Byz.’s most popular spectator sport from the 4th 
to the yth C. Held at HIPPODROMES, races were 
divided into morning and afternoon sessions. Four 
teams of four horses competed. A CHARIOTEER, 
sporting the color of his Faction (Blue, Green, 
White, or Red), drove each team. Women and 
religious were discouraged from attending. 

The considerable expense of mounting chariot 
races may have been borne by the city in the 4th 
C. As circuses spread through the empire, per- 
haps along with Roman municipal institutions, the 
imperial treasury seems to have provided increas- 
ing support; this reflected general economic con- 
ditions and growing connections between the em- 
peror and the circus, as the ideology of military 
victory came to pervade and fuse with the notion 
of sporting victory. Annual races commemorated 
imperial accessions, visits, and victories. Special 
races attracted large audiences for ceremonies 
connected with emperors’ CORONATIONS, mar- 
riages, and TRIUMPHS. The races sometimes ex- 
ploded into riots, such as the Nixa REVOLT of 532 
and others that shook Byz. cities and the throne 
into the 7th C. 

After the 7th C., chariot races disappeared ex- 
cept in Constantinople; they survived there in 
diminished form as a traditional and indispens- 
able prop of the monarchy, which continued to 
use them to celebrate important political events. 
Whereas the 4th- and sth-C. state calendars of 
Philocalus (see CALENDAR OF 354) and POLEMIUS 
Sitvius reveal as many as 66 annual racing holi- 
days, each often comprising 24 daily races, De 
ceremontis records fewer than a dozen annual rac- 
ing holidays and only eight daily races in the 10th 
C. Though the popularity of chariot races in the 
11th C. is reflected in a poetic account of a day 
spent watching them (CHRISTOPHER OF MYTILENE, 
poem go, ed. Kurtz, 56—60), by the 12th C. they 
were losing ground to the new Western spectacles 
































of jousts and tournaments (see Sports); chariot 
races disappeared entirely after 1204. 

The church was hostile to chariot races, which 
had once had pagan religious overtones; gam- 
bling connected with the races and their unpre- 
dictable result stood in sharp contradiction to the 
concept of Providence (see Pronoia). Preachers 
like John Chrysostom inveighed against the sport 
as a powerful rival that lured audiences away from 
church services. Nonetheless, ecclesiastical rheto- 
ricians and hagiographers often employed literary 
imagery drawn from the hippodrome and its races. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 3:7—80. R. Guilland, “Etudes sur 
l'Hippodrome de Byzance: Les courses de I'Hippodrome,” 


BS 27 (1966) 26—40. Al. Cameron, Circus Factions (Oxford 
1976). —M.McC., A.K. 


CHARISTIKION (yapiorexy (Swped), lit. “gift of 
grace”), a system of giving monasteries to private 
persons or institutions on a conditional basis for 
a restricted period, usually a lifetime or three 
generations. The origin of charistikion is unclear. 
P. Charanis (DOP 4 [1948] 74f) found its roots in 
the agth canon of the Council in Trullo; M. 
Sjuzjumov (Uéenye zapiski Sverdlouskogo pedagogices- 
kogo instituta 4 [1948] gof) traced it to the leasing 
of temple allotments in antiquity; Beck (Kirche 
136) said it originated with Iconoclasm. The ear- 
liest mention of the charistikes typos is in an act of 
Leo VI of go8 (Proi., no.2.12); the main evidence 
comes from the 11th and 12th C. 

The beneficiary was called charistikarios as well 
aS PRONOETES, PROSTATES, and EPHOROS, all terms 
emphasizing his function as supervisor and not as 
full proprietor. The beneficiary was supposed to 
wield administrative power over the monastic lands 
without interfering in ecclesiastical affairs. The 
right of granting charistikia belonged to emperors, 
patriarchs, metropolitans, founders of monaster- 
ies (including peasants), and high-ranking state 
officials. While some scholars suggest that during 
the 11th C. and earlier charistikion and PRONOIA 
were synonymous, others distinguish the two types 
of grants by the obligation the grantee bore (with 
the charistikion, toward the object granted; with 
the pronoia, toward the grantor). Grants of chari- 
stikion provoked a serious controversy; JOHN IV 
(V) Oxeires censured the practice of giving mon- 
asteries to lay persons, while EusTATHIOS OF 
THESSALONIKE argued that it freed monks from 
temporal concerns and troubles. Charistikion be- 


came rare after 1204, though a synodal decision 
of 1317/18 deals with donations of monasteries 
kata skopon tou epimeleias axtousthai to clerics of the 
diocese of Attaleia (Hunger-Kresten, PairKP 1, 


no.53-8). 


LIT. S. Barnalides, Ho thesmos tes charistikes (doreas) ton 
monasterion eis tous Byzantinous (Thessalonike 1985). J.P. 
Thomas, “A Byzantine Ecclesiastical Reform Movement,” 
MedHum n.s. 12 (1984) 1-16. Ahrweiler, Structures, pt. VII 
(1967), 1-27. P. Gautier, “Réquisitoire du patriarche Jean 
d'Antioche contre le charisticariat,” REB 33 (1975) 77-132. 


CHARITON (Xapizwr), born in Aphrodisias; au- 
thor of Chaireas and Kallirrhoe, a ROMANCE in eight 
books written probably in the end C. Chariton is 
thus the earliest of the extant Greek novelists, 
rather than the latest as was once thought. The 
novel is given an ostensibly historical background 
at the end of the Peloponnesian War (Kallirrhoe’s 
father is the Sicilian general Hermokrates). Writ- 
ten in a clear straightforward style, it describes 
the meeting and marriage of the hero and heroine 
and the trials (false death, capture by tomb rob- 
bers, shipwrecks, etc.) that befall them after their 
separation and before they can be reunited. There 
is little evidence that the novel was widely read in 
the Greek Middle Ages, but the novelists of the 
12th C. were clearly aware of Chariton’s work, 
which influenced their choice of plot motifs. 

ED. Le Roman de Chairéas et Callirhoé, ed. G. Molinié (Paris 
1979), with Fr. tr. Chariton’s Chaireas and Callirhoe, tr. W.E. 
Blake (Ann Arbor, Mich.-London 1939). 

uir. B.P. Reardon, “Theme, Structure and Narrative in 
Chariton,” YCS 27 (1982) 1-27. Hunger, Lit. 2:123-25. 

-EMJ., MJ J. 


CHARITY. See ALMSGIVING; PHILANTHROPY. 


CHARLEMAGNE (Kadpovdos), Frankish ruler 
(768-814); born 742, died Aachen 28 Jan. 814. 
The son of Pippin III, Charlemagne became sole 
king of the Franks in 771. After conquering the 
LomMBARDS in 774 he came into direct conflict with 
Byz. interests in Italy, Ohnsorge (Konstantinopel 
und der Okzident [Darmstadt 1966] 1-28) interprets 
his assumption of the title PATRIKIOS in 775 as a 
Statement of anti-Byz. intentions. Perhaps to 
counter the revolt of E:prpros, in 78: Charle- 
magne sealed an alliance with Empress [RENE by 
engaging his daughter Rotrud to Irene’s son Con- 





CHARLEMAGNE 413 








STANTINE VI and inviting the notarios Elissaios to 
come to Aachen to teach her Byz. customs and 
Greek. The engagement ended in 787 after Char- 
lemagne invaded Italy as far as Capua and ap- 
parently refused to send Rotrud to Constantino- 
ple, although Theophanes the Confessor (Theoph. 
463.21-22) accuses Irene of breaking the engage- 
ment. The Frankish ruler further strained rela- 
tions with Byz. by refusing to endorse the acts of 
the Second Council of Nicaga in 788 and later 
by adding his name to the LIBRI CAROLINI. 

Charlemagne’s destruction of the Avars in 796 
extended his territory into central Europe. In 797 
he negotiated a treaty with Irene that affirmed 
his sway in ISTRIA and BENEVENTO and recognized 
Byz. rights in Croatia. Relations were aggravated 
again by Pope Leo III’s coronation of Charle- 
magne as imperator Romanorum on 25, Dec. 800, an 
act that reflected increasing Frankish appropria- 
tion of Byz. imperial language, symbols, and no- 
tions. Despite the coronation’s long-term signifi- 
cance, Charlemagne did not intend to create a 
Western Roman Empire: the Frankish court ar- 
gued that Irene’s dethronement of Constantine 
VI had left the throne vacant and a woman in 
charge. The Byz. court considered the coronation 
an affront but not a threat to imperial unity (J. 
Arvites, GOrThR 20 [1975] 53-70; C. Tsirpanlis, 
Byzantina 6 [1974] 345-60). Charlemagne sought 
to eliminate the awkward situation by marrying 
Irene, but negotiations in Constantinople in late 
802 were thwarted by ArTios and the coup of 
Nikephoros I. In 810 Nikephoros sent an embassy 
to the Franks requesting naval help against Dal- 
matia; Charlemagne apparently agreed to return 
Byz. possessions along the Adriatic coast in ex- 
change for recognition as imperator (ed. MGH, 
Epist. Karolini aevi 2:546-48). The treaty was fin- 
alized in 812 by Michael I: Byz. ambassadors in 
Aachen acclaimed Charlemagne basileus and be- 
gan negotiations for a marriage between Michael’s 
son Theophylaktos and a Frankish princess. The 
Byz. evidently considered Charlemagne as em- 
peror solely of the Franks and after 812 empha- 
sized the point by designating their ruler basileus 
of the RHOMaIOr, 


LIT. P. Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz 
(Sigmaringen 1985). W. Ohnsorge, “Das Kaisertum der 
Eirene und die Kaiserkrénung Karls des Grossen,” Saecu- 
lum 14 (1963) 221-47. G. Musca, “Le trattative matrimonali 
fra Carlo Magno ed Irene di Bisanzio,” Annali della Facoltà 





414 | CHARLES I OF ANJOU 














di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Bari 7 (1961) 83-127. 
A. Ostermann, Karl der Grosse und das byzantinische Reich 
(Luckau 1895). —P.A.H. 


CHARLES I OF ANJOU, king of Naples and 
Sicily (1265—85); born Mar. 1226, died Foggia, 
Italy, 7 Jan. 1285. Brother of Louis IX of France, 
Charles was an ambitious ruler who sought to 
create a Mediterranean empire and restore Latin 
domination over Byz. territory. With papal sup- 
port he defeated Manrrep of Sicily in 1266 at 
Benevento and gained control of Hohenstaufen 
possessions in southern Italy and Sicily. In 1267, 
by the Treaty of Viterbo, he joined BaLpwin II, 
WiitiaM II VILLEHARDOUIN of Achaia, and Pope 
Clement IV (1265—68) in an anti-Byz. coalition. 
In 1273 Charles married his daughter to Bald- 
win’s son, Philip of Courtenay, titular Latin em- 
peror of Constantinople. His plans for a Crusade 
against the Byz. capital were thwarted in 1274, 
however, by Michael VIIIs agreement to the Union 
of Churches at the Council of Lyons (1. Dujéev, 
Studi in memoria di p. Adiuto Putignani [Taranto 
1975] 111-25). After the accession of the pro- 
Angevin Pope Martin IV (1281—85), who excom- 
municated Michael, Charles again prepared for 
an expedition against Constantinople. In 1281 he 
cemented his alliance with Venice and Philip of 
Courtenay at Orvieto, Again his plans were foiled 
by the diplomacy of Michael, who helped instigate 
the rebellion of the SICILIAN VESPERS in 1282. 
Michael's ally, Peter III of Aragon (1276-85), 
drove Charles from Sicily. The final three years 
of the French ruler’s life were absorbed in the 
attempt to regain his Sicilian kingdom, and he 
had to renounce his projected attack on Constan- 
tinople. 

Lit. Geanakoplos, Michael Pal. 189-371. S. Runciman, 
The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge 1958) 65-256, 282~86. E.G. 


Léonard, Les Angevins de Naples (Paris 1954) 13-160. PLP, 
nO,11232. -A.M.T. 


CHARLES OF VALOIS, titular Latin emperor 
of Constantinople (1301—13); born 12 Mar. 1270, 
died 16 Dec. 1325. Son of Philip HI of France 
and Isabelle of Aragon, Charles acquired titular 
rights to the Latin Empire of Constantinople 
through his marriage to Catherine of Courtenay 
in 1301. After serving as mediator in the Angevin- 
Sicilian war and bringing about the peace of Cal- 


tabellotta (1302), Charles was free to pursue his 
ambitions for conquest of the Byz. Empire. Be- 
tween 1306 and 1308, he negotiated alliances with 
the Venetians, Serbs, and Catalans and secured 
papal support for his “crusade.” He was in a 
position to mount a formidable expedition against 
Constantinople. His plans were frustrated, how- 
ever, by the need to remain in France to help his 
brother, Philip IV, and by the Catalans’ neglect 
of their oath of fealty. After his wife’s death (1307 
or 1308) and the marriage of his daughter Cath- 
erine to PHILIP | or TARANTO, prince of Achaia, 
in 1313, Charles renounced his ambitions in the 
East, allowing his son-in-law to press the family’s 
imperial claims. Despite the significant threat that 
Charles posed for Byz., contemporary Byz. sources 
scarcely mention his plans for conquest. 

LIT. Laiou, CP & the Latins 200-20, 233-42. E. Dade, 
Versuche zur Wiedererrichtung der lateinischen Herrschaft in 


Konstantinopel (Jena 1938) 72—78, 111-18, 136-58. J. Petit, 
Charles de Valois (1270—1325) (Paris 1900). -A.M.T. 


CHARON (also Charos and Charontas), ancient 
ferryman of the dead across the River Styx or 
Acheron, He emerges in Byz. texts from the 10th 
C. onward as “night-thief of souls” (john Geo- 
metres, PG 106:949A; AcHiLLEis, ed. D.C. Hes- 
seling, 85—87), an idea that may be biblical in 
origin (Mt 24:43, 1 Th 5:2, 2 Pet 3:10). He is also 
described as black and fierce, holding the cup of 
death and a long, curved sword with which to 
sever the thread of life, a motif that connects him 
with Moira, or Fate (G. Moravcsik, SBN 3 [1931] 
45-68). From the 12th C. onward Charon is ad- 
dressed directly, sometimes engaging in dialogue 
with the bereaved; as violent bridegroom of young 
girls, despoiling their beauty; as premature culler 
of grapes or reaper of corn, esp. in the learned 
romances of the 12th C. (Niketas EUGENEIANOS, 
Drosilla and Charikles 2.173-85). Thus he is not 
merely a continuation of the ancient ferryman 
but an active agent of death, more concretely 
personified in later Byz. texts than Hapes or 
Thanatos, with clear delineation of attributes: black 
looks, cruelty, use of sword, premature reaper of 
marriage in death. 

uT. M.B. Alexiou, “Modern Greek Folklore and its Re- 
lation to the Past: The Evolution of Charos in Greek 
Tradition,” in Vryonis, Past 221-36. D.C. Hesseling, Charos 
(Leiden-Leipzig 1897). Idem, “Charos Rediens,” BZ 30 
(1929/30) 186~91. R.H. Terpening, Charon and the Crossing 
(Lewisburg 1985). ~M.B.A, 








CHARPETE (Xdpzere, now Harput), a major 
fortress of the Byz. frontier situated above the 
Arsanias River (Murad Su), east of the Euphrates. 
Under its ancient name Ziata, Charpete formed 
part of the territory conquered by Diocletian from 
the Persians in 297. It was briefly recaptured by 
the Persians in 359. At that time it was a castellum 
of sufficient size to serve as a refuge for the 
country population (Amm.Marc. 19:6.1). It be- 
came a major fortress (called Ziyad) under the 
Arabs, who controlled it from the 640s until 937, 
when Romanos | Lekapenos conquered the area 
and incorporated it into MEsopoTaMiA. Charpete 
was the base of the revolt of Bardas SKLEROs in 
g76 and remained Byz. until the battle of Man- 
tzikert (1071). It had great strategic importance 
as the main stronghold of the district of ANzi- 
TENE; it was apparently never a bishopric. The 
site contains a powerful fortress that represents 
the reduction of the late antique settlement. En- 
larged after the Byz. reconquest, it shows seven 
undated phases of construction. 

uit. J. Howard-Johnston, “Byzantine Anzitene,” in Ar- 


mies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, ed. S. 
Mitchell (Oxford 1989) 249f, 260f. -C.F. 











CHARPEZIKION (Xapzelixiov), probably to be 
identified with Carpizek Kalesi (TIB 2:86, n.260), 
center of a dwarf theme east of the Euphrates, 
first mentioned in 949 (Oikonomides, Listes 241f). 
It had an army of only 905 men and probably 
ceased to exist soon after the compilation of the 
Takttkon of Escurial (971-75), which lists the stra- 
tegos of Charpezikion between those of Tephrike 
and Romanoupolis. 




















Lit. N. Oikonomides, “L’organisation de la frontière 
orientale de Byzance aux Xe et XIe siècles et le Taktikon 
de l’Escorial,” 14 CEB, vol. 1 (Bucharest 1974) 285-302. 

-CLF. 


CHARSIANEITES MONASTERY, founded in 
Constantinople in the mid-14th C. by John (mo- 
nastic name: Job) Charsianeites (Xapotavei7ns), 
a supporter of JoHN VI KANTAKOUZENOS. It was 
dedicated to the Virgin Nea Peribleptos. Its pre- 
cise location is unknown but was probably within 
the city walls. The monastery had close ties to 
Kantakouzenos, who granted it a chrysobull, and 
spent part of his retirement there as the monk 
loasaph. Two of the monastery’s superiors be- 


CHARTOPHYLAZX 415 


came patriarchs (NEI1Los KeRAMEUS and MAT- 
THEW I); a third patriarch, GenNabIos I] Scuo- 
LARIOS, took the habit there. Patr. Matthew 
composed a testament in 1407 that describes the 
origins of the monastery and includes a typikon as 
well as a hypotyposis drafted by his two predecessors 
as hegoumenos, Mark and Neilos. Makarios MAKRES 
wrote a description of an icon of the Nativity in 
the monastic church (H. Hunger, JOB 7 [1958] 
125-40). 

sources. H. Hunger, “Das Testament des Patriarchen 
Matthaios I. (1397—1410),” BZ 51 (1958) 288—309. I.M. 
Konidares, K.A. Manaphes, “Epiteleutios boulesis kai dida- 
skalia tou oikoumenikou patriarchou Matthaiou A’ (1397- 
1410),” EEBS 45 (1981—82) 462-515. Janin, Eglises CP 
soif. ~A.M.T. 


CHARSIANON (Xapovavorv), fortress of Cap- 
padocia between Caesarea and the Halys, suppos- 
edly named for a general Charsios who fought 
the Persians under Justinian I. Its site has not 
been located. First mentioned in 638, it was cap- 
tured by the Arabs in 730 and was the scene of 
considerable hghting during the next two centu- 
ries. The fortress was the center of a district of 
the same name that became a KLEISOURA in the 
early gth C. and a separate theme, created from 
parts of BOUKELLARION, ARMENIAKON, and Cap- 
pabociA, after 863. According to Arab geogra- 
phers, Charsianon had four fortresses and an 
army of 4,000 men; the salary of the strategos was 
20 pounds of gold. Charsianon was a base of the 
landed aristocracy in the 10th C.; the Argyroi had 
their homes there and the Mareno their vast 
estates. In 1057, Charsianon supported the revolt 
of Isaac (I) Komnenos. The resettlement of GAGIK 
II there in 1045 and influx of Armenians led to 
conflicts with the local Greek nobility. Charsianon 
was lost to the Turks after the battle of Mantzikert 
in 1071. 














ur. D. Potache, “Le thème et la forteresse de Charsi- 
anon,” in Geographica Byzantina, ed. H. Ahrweiler (Paris 
1981) 107-17. I. Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Charsianon Kas- 

tron/Qal’e-i Harsanés,” Byzantion 51 (1981) 410—29. 
~CGF, 


CHARTOPHYLAX (yaprodvAaé), an ecclesias- 
tical official of Constantinople and the provinces, 
usually a DEACON, attested from the 6th C., with 
archival and notarial duties that grew in extent 
and significance with the growth of synodal trans- 








416 CHARTOULARIOS 








actions. By the ioth C. the chartophylax was head 
of the SEKRETON of the chartophylakeion and prin- 
cipal assistant to the patriarch. The importance 
of his functions far exceeded his rank in the 
hierarchy which, by the 11th C., was fourth among 
the EXOKATAKOILOI. In addition to archival and 
chancery-related duties he acted as intermediary 
between the patriarch and clergy, introducing 
clerics before the patriarch and conciliar gather- 
ings, and receiving letters sent to the patriarch. 
He examined candidates to the priesthood and 
prepared testimonials for them (Rhalles-Potles, 
Syntagma 3:440—44; 2:587). The chartophylax also 
wrote EROTAPOKRISEIS On canonical matters and 
released them in his own name. He represented 
the patriarch and, in his absence, presided over 
the synod. A prostagma (1094) of Alexios I Kom- 
nenos, confirming the chartophylax’s right to this 
position, indicates that it was not a new privilege 
but a controversial one disputed by the bishops 
of the synod (Zepos, Jus 1:649f). Theodore BAL- 
SAMON asserted, in his treatise on the functions 
and rights of the prorexpiKos and chartophylax, 
that the latter had judicial competence and pre- 
sided over a court (Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 4:530— 
41); this claim appears to have more to do with 
Balsamon’s need to bolster the office that he held 
than with the actual functions of the chartophylax. 
From the reign of Andronikos I, megas was added 
to the title of chartophylax. 

Some monasteries included among their offi- 
cials a chartophylax or chartophylakissa, a monk or 
nun responsible for the security and conservation 
of monastic records, and keeping track of bor- 
rowed documents. 











LIT. Darrouzés, Offikia 334-53, 508-25. Meester, De 
monachico statu 284f. —-RJ.M. 


CHARTOULARIOS (yaprovAapuos, from yaprys, 
official document), a generic term designating 
subaltern officials in various bureaus. Late Roman 
chartoulariot were known from 326 in the chan- 
ceries of the PRAETORIAN PREFECT, MAGISTER MILI- 
TUM, etc. (O. Seeck, RE 3 [1899] 2193). The first 
known chartoularios of the “divine logothesion” was 
mentioned in the 7th-C. Miracula of St. ARTEMIOS 
(ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 23.29). In the gth- 
10th C. chartoulariot were functionaries with fiscal 
and archival duties in both central and provincial 
administration, such as the chartoularioi of the 


GENIKON, STRATIOTIKON, and promos. Similar 
functions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy were per- 
formed by the CHARTOPHYLAX, and the two terms 
could be confused (Darrouzés, Offikia 20); the seal 
of a chartophylax of the genikon (Laurent, Corpus 2, 
n0.358) is also known. A chartoularios could be the 
head of an entire sekreton, such as chartoularios of 
the sakella (see SAKELLION) Or VESTIARION. Accord- 
ing to seals, the chartoulariot of the genikon and 
stratiotikon acquired the epithet megas from the 
end of the 10th C. Chartoulariot could be com- 
manders on the battlefield (Dennis, Military Trea- 
lises 252.138); Theophanes (Theoph. 398.13~-14) 
relates that Leo III appointed “his personal char- 
toularios” Paul as strategos of Sicily. In the 12th C. 
some chartoularioi (e.g., Theodore Choumnos) ex- 
ercised military functions. From the 13th C. on- 
ward, the megas chartoulanios was a high-ranking 
courtier whose duty, like that of the pRoTOSTRA- 
TOR, was to lead the horse of the emperor. I. 
Medvedev (PS6 23 [1971] 63—67) rejected B. Pan- 
¢enko’s hypothesis concerning the existence of a 
guild of chartoularioi. 

uit. Guilland, Titres, pt-X VII] (1971), 405-26. Bury, 
Adm. System 83. -A.K. 


CHARTRES NOTATION. See NEUMATA. 


CHEESE (rvpés), an important food source, men- 
tioned along with wine, olive oil, beans, and bread 
as a major component of the DIET (Lavra 1, 
nO.27.1g—21); it was commonly added as a relish 
(prosphagion) to bread. The Georonixa (bk.18:19) 
gives a recipe for making cheese and says that the 
best type was made from Goat milk. The DIEGEsIS 
TON TETRAPODON ZOON praises cheese made from 
the milk of water buffalo. Some cheeses were 
pungent and used as appetizers with wine. The 
Vlachs were famous as cheese makers, providing 
the monks of Mt. Athos with their product. Cheese 
could be used for payment of rent in kind: thus, 
in 1382, the monastery of Nea Petra on Mt. Athos 
received from revenues in Lemnos 16 modia poli- 
tika of grain, 4 modia politika of legumes, and 3 
kantaria (a measure of approximately 40—48 kg) 
of cheese (Dionys. no.5.11—12). Imperial privileges 
exempted various monasteries from mandatory 
sales of grain, wine, meat, cheese, “and all other 
kinds of food” (e.g., Patmou Engrapha 1, no. 6.537 


54), thus enumerating cheese among the most 
basic foodstuffs. 


uit. Koukoules, Bios 5:31—35. -A.K., J.W.N. 


CHEILAS (XetAds), also Prinkips Cheilas, a fam- 
ily of Peloponnesian origin, known from the 13th— 
15th C. The Cheilades produced several ecclesi- 
astical leaders and intellectuals: Theodosios Prin- 
kips Cheilas was sent by Michael VIII as envoy to 
the Mongol khan Hülegü; ca.1278-83 he was 
patriarch of Antioch. His contemporary John 
Cheilas, metropolitan of Ephesus, wrote against 
the ARSENITES and Patr. GREGORY II or Cyprus; 
the collection of letters in Paris, B.N. gr. 2022, 
was erroneously ascribed to John. John’s brother 
Constantine was a military judge (Arttes tou phos- 
satou) in 1293-94; two of his seals have survived 
(Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. 1193—94). Nikephoros 
Prinkips Cheilas, a rhetorician of the first half of 
the 15th C., wrote a monody on the death of 
Kleope Malatesta (died 1433), spouse of the des- 
potes THEODORE IT PaLaloLocos, and was closely 
connected with many intellectuals of his time, 
such as John EuGenimos, BESSARION, PLETHON, 
and GENNADIOS IE SCHOLARIOS. 














ur. I. Bogiatzides, “Hai prinkipes Cheilades tes Lake- 
daimonos,” NE 1g (1925) 192—209. |. Gouillard, “Après le 
schisme arsénite: La correspondance inédite du Pseudo- 
Jean Chilas,” BSHAcRoum 25 (1944) 174-211. —ALK. 


CHEIROTHESIA (xetpoGecia), “the laying on of 
hands,” esp. by the bishop in the rite of ordina- 
tion. Initially it referred specifically to the central 
part of the ordination process—the imposition of 
hands--rather than to the sacrament of ordina- 
tion proper and the conferring of ecclesiastical 
dignity. Still, this distinction was not always main- 
tained. Indeed the term became interchangeable 
with CHEIROTONIA and the whole liturgical act of 
ordination (cf. NicaEa I, canon 19; Council of 
CHALCEDON, canon 15). By the 8th C., however, 
cheirothesia came to be used for the ecclesiastical 
ceremony conferring minor orders of SUBDEACON, 
ANAGNOSTES, etc., through the sign of the Cross 
(sphragis), while cheirotonia was reserved for the 
ordination of the major orders of DEACON, PRIEST, 
and BISHOP. According to SYMEON of Thessalo- 
nike (PG 155:361D), the first took place “away 
from the altar” (exo tou bematos), whereas the sec- 
ond was performed “at the altar” (entos tou bema- 





CHELANDION | 417 

















tos). In general, of course, cheirothesia was also a 
common element in a number of other rites, such 
as baptism, in which the laying on of the hands 
in benediction took place. -A.P. 


CHEIROTONIA (yeporovia). In its primitive 
etymological sense the term, meaning “stretching 
forth the hands,” signified primarily appointment 
or election to office. In Christian canonical and 
sacramental usage, the word came to designate 
the liturgical rite by which a candidate was or- 
dained into one of the three major orders of the 
Christian cLercy. Specifically, the sacrament in- 
cluded both the appointment and the laying on 
of the bishop’s hands on the ordinand in the rite 
of CHEIROTHESIA. Zonaras described cheirotonia as 
the liturgical act in which the invocation of the 
Holy Spirit by the bishop is accompanied by the 
laying on of hands on the candidate for ordina- 
tion (PG 197:37A; cf. John Chrysostom, PG 
60:116.15~—20). The same canonist was neverthe- 
less aware of the ancient distinction between sim- 
ple nomination and the actual rite of consecration, 
for he observes that the election (psephes} eventu- 
ally came to be called ordination (cheirotonia) by 
the church fathers (cf. C. Vogel, frénzkon 45 [1972] 
7). The bishop alone had the right to perform 
the ceremony. 














ut. C.H. Turner, “Cheirotonia, Cheirothesia. Epithesis 
Cheiron (and the Accompanying Verbs),” JThSt 24 (1923) 
496-504. J. Coppens, L’imposition des mains et les rites con- 
nexes dans le Nouveau Testament et dans l'église ancienne: Etude 
de théologie positive (Paris 1925). M.A. Siotis, Die klassische 
und die christliche Cheirotonie in ihrem Verhältnis (Athens 
1951). ~A.P. 


CHELANDION (yeddvétov) was sometimes used 
synonymously with DROMON to refer to oar- and 
sail-powered warships of varying sizes and speeds 
(A. Dain, Naumachica [Paris 1943] 66), but other 
sources indicate that chelandion generally meant a 
transport ship, such as the type used by Constan- 
tine V to ferry horses to Bulgaria in 762 (Theoph. 
432.29—433.1) or by Basil II to transport men 
and supplies during his siege of Tripolis in 999 
(Yahya of Antioch, PO 23 [1932] 459). Another 
term, pamphylos, refers to round-hulled vessels 
that served to carry war machines and horses; 
smaller transport ships were called sagenai, sak- 
tourat, and katenai, names that indicate an Arabic 
origin. 


418 CHEMISTRY 





ur. Ahrweiler, Mer 410-14. R.H. Dolley, “The War- 
ships of the Later Roman Empire,” JRS 38 (1948) 47-53. 
—E.M., A.K. 


CHEMISTRY. See ALCHEMY. 


CHENOLAKKOS MONASTERY, a Bithynian 
monastery of uncertain location. Chenolakkos 
(Xnvóňakkos, “Goose Pond”) was founded in the 
early 8th C. by a St. Stephen, who is known only 
from his liturgical notice in the Synaxarion of Con- 
stantinople for 14 Jan. (Synax.CP, 392-94). He 
established the monastery at Chenolakkos, on land 
given him by Patr. Germanos I. The monks of 
Chenolakkos supported the restoration of images 
by the Second Council of Nicaga in 787; the 
monk Thomas signed the Horos (decree) as a 
delegate of the hegowmenos John. 

In the gth C. Chenolakkos is known as the 
monastery where the iconodule MEeTHoptos, the 
future patriarch, first adopted the habit and 
worked as a scribe. The monastery disappears 
from the sources between the ioth and iath C.; 
it reappears in the second half of the 13th C. as 
an insignificant metochion of the Constantinopoli- 
tan monastery of St. Demetrios of the Palaiologoi, 
housing only two monks. 














UIT. Janin, Églises centres 180f. -A.M.T. 


CHERNIBOXESTON (xyeprißóćteorov, from 
xepvipetov + éorns “wash basin [and] ewer”), 
term attested from the 6th C. in papyri and in an 
inscription of 582—602 on a silver vessel, for a 
washing set, either domestic or liturgical. The 
basin often took the form of a long-handled 
TRULLA, while the ewer was a handled jug. In a 
series of long-handled pans with dated SILVER 
STAMPS, the three latest (of 582—651) apparently 
still have matching ewers (Dodd, Byz. Silver Stamps, 
nos. 30-31, 48-49, 75, 77). While none of the 
complete sets displays Christian motifs, other ew- 
ers with a church dedication (KĶKAPER KORAON 
TREASURE) or New Testament iconography may 
bear witness to the early ecclesiastical use of wash- 
ing sets mentioned in the EUCHOLOGION and de- 
scribed in the LIBER PONTIFICALIS by the Latin 
terms urceus and agmanile. In the ioth C. Con- 
stantine VII Porphyrogennetos described the use 


of cherniboxesta decorated in low relief and of 
“precious towels” for the washing of hands during 
palace ceremonies (De cer. 586.3—5). 


tir. Mango, Silver 106f. -M.MM. 


CHEROUBIKON (xepovßiıkóv), the Cherubic 
Hymn, important TROPARION that accompanies 
the transfer of gifts in the GREAT ENTRANCE and 
introduces the eucharistic half of the LrrurGy with 
its references to the preanaphoral dialogue (“let 
us lay aside all worldly care”), TRISAGION (“sing 
the thrice-holy hymn”), and COMMUNION (“to re- 
ceive the King of All”). Its name derives from its 
opening words, in which the singers are assimi- 
lated to the CHERUBIM around the throne of God. 
The other Great Entrance hymns that replace this 
hymn in the Liturgy of Basil on Holy Thursday 
(Tou deipnou), Holy Saturday (Sigesate pasa sarx), 
and at PREsANCTIFIED (Nun hai dynameis) are by 
extension also called cheroubika. The cheroubikon 
and Tou detpnou were introduced under Justin II 
in 573-74 (Cedr. 1:685.3—4), perhaps replacing 
earlier psalmody (Ps 23 with alleluia). The Holy 
Saturday chant comes from the Jerusalem Liturgy 
of James; it appears in Constantinople by the 
11th—12th C. but is only an optional replacement 
for the cheroubikon until the end of Byz. 


LIT. Taft, Great Entrance 53-118. -R.F.T. 


CHERSON (Xepoay), a Greek colony in the im- 
mediate vicinity of modern Sebastopol on the 
Crimean peninsula, was from the end C. a part 
of Roman Lower Moesia. Christianity was firmly 
established there by the beginning of the 4th C. 
The altar of a cruciform church discovered in 
1897 contained a silver reliquary, with relics in- 
tact, bearing a monogram, bust, and control stamps 
of Justinian I (Iskusstvo Vizantit 1, no.151). Cher- 
son was the most significant city of CRIMEA in the 
5th-6th C.; excavations have shown, however, 
that large-scale production of salted fish and wine 
stopped during this period. The economic situa- 
tion in Cherson in the 7th—8th C. is still disputed: 
Jakobson (infra) stresses decline and desertion, 
whereas A. Romancuk (in From Late Antiquity to 
Early Byzantium [Prague 1985] 123-35) empha- 
sizes the continuity of urban life. At this time 
Cherson was a place of exile for Pope Martin I 
and Emp. Justinian II. In the 8th C. it was under 


the rule of a Khazar governor (tudun). According 
to a later legend, it offered shelter to Iconodule 
refugees from Byz. 

Byz. rule was reestablished by Emp. Theophilos 
who, ca.832, created the theme of Klimata (see 
Kuma). From the 1oth to the 12th C. Cherson 
enjoyed great prosperity. The minting of auton- 
omous coins of municipal character was resumed 
by Michael III (DOC 3.1:g1f) at this time, and 
abundant seals survive of Byz. officials in Cher- 
son, primarily those of strategoi and kommerkiarioi. 
The colony assumed pivotal importance in rela- 
tions between Byz. and the Khazars (the starting 
point for the missionary activity of CONSTANTINE 
THE PHILOSOPHER), Pechenegs, and Kievan Rus’. 
It played an essential role in the conversion of 
Kievan Rus’ in 988/g: according to a legend, VLA- 
DIMIR I of Kiev was baptized in Cherson. Many 
inscriptions and graffiti (both Greek and Latin) 
have been recovered in Cherson through archae- 
ological excavations. 

After 1204 Cherson accepted the suzerainty of 
Trebizond. It began to lose its Greek character, 
mainly because of Alan impact and economic ties 
to the northern Caucasus and the Near East. By 
the end of the 14th C. it was destroyed by the 
armies of the Golden Horde. 

ur. A. Jakobson, Rannesrednevekovyj Chersones (Moscow- 
Leningrad 1959). O. Dombrovs’kyj, “Srednevkovyj Cher- 
sones,” in Archeologya Ukrains’koj SSR 3, (Kiev 1986) 535- 
48. J. Smedley, “Archaeology and the History of Cherson,” 


ArchPont 45 (1978) 172-92. I. Sokolova, Monety i pečati 
vizantijskogo Chersona (Leningrad 1983). —O.P., A.C. 


CHERUBIM (xepovg(e)ių), celestial beings who 
held an important place in the Old Testament 
as supporters of God; God was enthroned 
upon them and they moved his chariot. Pseudo- 
Dionysios the Areopagite describes them as the 
second order of the first triad of heavenly beings, 
between the sERAPHIM and the thrones (thronoi), 
another order of angels. In contrast, Gregory of 
Nyssa (PG 45:348A) eliminates the distinction be- 
tween cherubim and thronoi, since God was en- 
throned upon the cherubim. Greek authors rep- 
resented the cherubim as fiery, with four faces 
and many eyes (polyommata), although Origen 
warned against literal interpretation of these fea- 
tures. Their usual functions included driving the 
heavenly chariot, praising God, defending the 
church, and assisting at the Last Judgment, but 








CHERUBIM 419 


pseudo-Dionysios emphasized the spiritual quali- 
ties of the cherubim—their ability to receive the 
gift of light, to contemplate the primordial might 
of thearchic splendor, and to see and comprehend 
God (Celestial Hierarchy 7.1.32-34). Accordingly, 
the name cherubim was interpreted as meaning 
“full knowledge” (John Chrysostom, PG 48:724.55), 
even though they were unable to comprehend 
God as he comprehended himself. 

Images of two cherubim were placed on the 
Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:18—22) and in the 
Temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 6:23~—29). The Chroni- 
con paschale (Chron. Pasch. 462.g—13) states that 
the latter were seized by the Roman emperor 
Titus and affixed by Vespasian to the gates of 
Antioch. These Old Testament images of cheru- 
bim were cited by John of Damascus and others 
in polemics against the Iconoclasts: although made 
by human hands, they were nonetheless the object 
of divine cult and could thus be used to justify 
the Christian veneration of icons. 

The cherubim were first depicted as regular 
ANGELS; later, under the combined influence of 
Ezekiel’s visions (Ez 1:4-25, 10:1-22) and of Rev- 
elations 4:6—9, they took the form of composite 
creatures having at least four “many-eyed” wings, 
the top pair usually crossed, with a human face 
in the very center of the wings, and the heads of 
the four apocalyptic beasts at the sides (man and 
ox to the left, lion and eagle to the right; see 
EvaNGEList SYMBOLS). Their feet are human but 
winged, and they may have a pair of hands com- 
ing out the sides, to hold a sword or spear. The 
fiery wheels of Ezekiel’s vision are often included 
either directly below them or nearby. The cher- 
ubim were sometimes given six wings, a feature 
borrowed from Revelations or from the closely 
related seraphim. 

Cherubim appear in the pendentives of churches 
to support visually the image of the cross or of 
Christ Pantokrator in the dome (e.g., gth-C. mo- 
saics in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople); they also 
guard the gates of Paradise (e.g., in OCTATEUCH 
illustration [Gen 3:24] or in scenes of the Last 
JupGMENT). On the LIMBURG AN-DER-LAHN RELI- 
guary they are labeled archai. Their liturgical 
connection (the CHEROUBIKON hymn describes how 
they support the throne of God) led to their being 
depicted on RHIPIDIA. 


Lit. O. Wulff, Cherubim, Throne und Seraphim (Leipzig 
1894). D. Pallas, “Eine Differenzierung unter den 


420 CHESS 





himmlischen Ordnungen,” BZ 64 (1971) 55—60. Idem, 
RBK 3:56-78. -A.K., N.P.S. 


CHESS (larpixiov), a game of Eastern origin, 
unknown in the later Roman Empire. The date 
of its penetration into Byz. is not established. 
When Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 3:71.11—16) 
described Alexios I playing chess with some of his 
relatives, she added that the game “came to us 
from the Assyrians.” A 15th-C. historian (Douk. 
99-17-18) depicts Timur as playing zatrtkion with 
his son; by that time, the game was also known 
among the Latins, under the name of skakon. The 
DIEGESIS TON TETRAPODON ZOON (vv. 918-27) dis- 
tinguishes between skakot, zatrikia, and tabla, and 
states that bishops, archontes, and merchants played 
these games using pieces of gold and silver; skakot 
and tablia, according to the same text (vv. 615- 
21), were made also of bull's horn. Wood and 
bone pieces were used as well. The game of chess 
was interpreted in the so-called ONEIROKRITIKON 
of Patr. Germanos I (F. Drexl, Leographia 7 [1923] 
437-70) as foretelling a fight. More explicit is the 
Oneirokritikon of ACHMET BEN SIRIN (pp. 192.3- 
193.9): victory at zatrikion foreshadowed profit, 
good luck, or military success. 

Lit. Koukoules, Bios 1:220f. B. Janovski, “Ktim rannata 


istorija na Sachmata u nas,” IstPreg 20 (1964) no.5, 92-101. 
—Ap.K., A.K. 


CHILANDAR. See HILANDAR MONASTERY. 


CHILDHOOD. The Greek terms for child, teknon 
(rà réxvov) and pais (ó or ù mais), were applied to 
boys and girls alike, while pais could also designate 
a slave, and teknon had a connotation of spiritual 
relationship. Even though some Byz. practiced 
ABORTION and CONTRACEPTION, procreation was 
considered the primary goal of a married couple 
and INFERTILITY was viewed as a disaster; the birth 
of a child, esp. a boy (Prodromos, Historische Ge- 
dichte, ed. W. Horandner, no.44.1—7), was a cause 
for rejoicing and celebration. The number of chil- 
dren varied considerably; Laiou (Peasantry 310) 
calculates that the household coefficient in the 
domain of Iveron in the first half of the 14th C. 
was 2.9 to 4.9 and in that of Lavra 4.1 to 4.9. 
The infant (drephos, in praktika also called pais 
hypomaztos—Esphig., n0.7.3-4) was weaned at about 


two or three years of age. Babies were swaddled 
at birth and nursed either by their mother or a 
wet-nurse; the attitude of Byz. society toward wet- 
nursing was equivocal (J. Beaucamp, JOB 32.2 
[1982] 546~—59). Breastfeeding was depicted in the 
image of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa and of 
some saintly children shown suckling; hagiogra- 
phy tells of some future saints who as infants 
refused to suckle on fastdays. Infant mortality 
was high, the case of Maria the Younger probably 
being typical: she bore four children of whom 
two died in infancy. Children were esp. suscepti- 
ble to disease after weaning (D. and P. Brothwell, 
Food in Antiquity [London 1969] 186-89). 

Formal EDUCATION began at age six or seven, 
either at SCHOOL (for boys) or with a tutor or 
literate parents; rote memorization, esp. of the 
Psalms, was emphasized. Only a small number of 
children went on to secondary schooling. Despite 
John Chrysostom’s warnings against indulgence 
(Sur la vaine gloire, ed. A.-M. Malingrey [Paris 
1972] 96.239-100.266, 196.1058-1064), chil- 
dren, even boys, wore gold JEWELRY and gems 
(e.g., the gold belt, bracelet, and necklace re- 
nounced by THEODORE OF SYKEON, Vita, ch.12). 
Children played with TOYS AND GAMES and pets. 

Parents were prohibited from selling or aban- 
doning their children, although Constantine I, i 
a law of 329, permitted the sale of children “4 
the case of extreme poverty” (Cod.Just. IV 34.2 
with the right of a later repurchase. Some chil- 
dren were abandoned, often at the thresholds of 
churches or houses of the wealthy. Some orphans, 
even of substance, faced problems: the vita of 
Lazaros or MT. Gacesios (AASS, Nov. 3:529D) 
describes how their neighbors expelled orphans 
from their father’s house and seized their belong- 
ings. ORPHANAGES directed by the state and church 
tried to alleviate the problems of orphans and 
abandoned children. 

Even though the concept of patria potestas (the 
father’s rights over his children) diminished dur- 
ing the Roman Empire, Byz. parents retained 
substantial rights (often customary) with regard 
to their sons and daughers: parents could inflict 
corporal punishment on their children, albeit some 
moralists (like Kekaumenos) criticized whipping; 
they could castrate boys to make them EUNUCHS 
(Rudakov, Kul’tura 187); they used children’s la- 
bor in the household (esp. as shepherds and 
swineherds), and sent them out to work as ap- 
































prenuces, servants, and prostitutes, retaining their 
earnings. Parents controlled their children’s fu- 
ture by arranging their BETROTHAL and MARRIAGE. 
After reaching adulthood children usually resided 
outside the parents’ household, but sometimes (at 
least, in the case of peasant families) remained in 
their parents’ homes after their own marriage and 
the birth of first grandchildren. Conflicts between 
fathers and sons as described in hagiography (A. 
Kazhdan, Byzantion 54 [1984] 188—g0) refer pri- 
marily to the attempts of children to leave the 
family and take monastic vows. Despite the paren- 
tal authority over children, Byz. literature reveals 
the affection of both parents and grandparents 
for their offspring and of children for their moth- 
ers and fathers. Thus Psellos was very fond of 
both his mother and of his daughter who died in 
childhood (G. Vergari, Studi di filologia bizantina, 
vol. 3 [Catania 1985] 69-76), and Anna Komnene 
remained devoted to her parents, although se- 
cretly critical of her nephew, Manuel I. 

The principle of Roman law that considered 
children as legally subordinate to the father (per- 
sonae alieni turis, Gr. hypexousioi) was accepted by 
the law of Justinian, albeit with some modification, 
and preserved in the terminology of the Ecloga. 
The Procheiron still required the formal emanci- 
pation of the son from his father’s power (Za- 
charia, Geschichte 113, n.327), but Leo VI, in novel 
25 (ed. P. Noailles, A. Dain, pp. 99.26—101.5), 
ruled that the son who established an indepen- 
dent household should be granted legal indepen- 
dence (autexouston) regardless of any formal pro- 
cedure of emancipation; the child also had full 
rights to objects received from his/her mother or 
a third person. Byz. law retained the Roman prin- 
ciple of equal division of inheritance between the 
children. 

There was no transitional period from child- 
hood to maturity corresponding to the ephebeia 
(youth) of antiquity, even though the term, in a 
nontechnical meaning, appears in some authors 
(e.g., Synesios, ed. N. Terzaghi, 2:289.20). Le- 
gally adulthood began at 25, but in fact the bor- 
derline between childhood and maturity was not 
sharply defined: marriage, taking monastic vows 
(after the 7th C. the minimum age for entry into 
a monastery was ten years), entering military or 
civil service, the opening of one’s own workshop 
meant the end of childhood. In reality it occurred 
about the age of 16 or 18, although precocious 


CHILIAS 421 


cases are known, mostly in a legendary form, as 
in the epic of DiGENES AKRITAS or in Saints’ Lives. 

Images of the PRESENTATION OF THE VIRGIN and 
cycles depicting her infancy invariably show the 
child as a miniature adult; the emphasis on the 
youthfulness of Curist Emmanuel is almost unique 
in iconography. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 1.1:1~184. Patlagean, Structure, pt.X 
(1973), 85-93. H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, “Quelques notes sur 
l'enfant de la moyenne époque byzantine (du VIe au XHe 
siécle),” Annales DH (1973) 77-84. A. Moffatt, “The Byz- 
antine Child,” Social Research 53 (1986) 705-23. P. Leloir, 
“Attitudes des pères du désert vis-a-vis des jeunes,” L'enfant 
dans les civilisations orientales (Leuven 1980) 145-52. P. 
Schreiner, “Eine Obituarnotiz über eine Friihgeburt,” JOB 
39 (1989) 209-16. ~j.H., A.K., A.C. 


CHILIA (Keia, KeddAtov, mod. Kiliya), city and 
port at the northernmost mouth of the Danube 
50 km northeast of Ismail. Probably ceded, with 
nearby Vicina, to Michael VIII by the Mongols 
after 1261, it returned to Mongol control later in 
the century. In the early 14th C. it belonged to 
the Second Bulgarian Empire and was a port of 
call for Venetian ships trading with Bulgaria. Later 
in the century, as Vicina declined and Genoa 
ousted Venice from the Black Sea trade, Genoese 
influence grew, and a Genoese colony and garri- 
son were established in Chilia. After 1970 it seems 
to have passed to the control of the princes of 
Moldavia; in the 15th C. the Wallachian port of 
Braila eclipsed Chilia, and in 1484 the Ottoman 
Turks captured it. Its principal exports were grain, 
wax, honey, and slaves. Emp. JOHN VIII Pavaio- 
LoGos passed through Chilia on his return jour- 
ney from Italy and Hungary in 1428. It is doubt- 
ful whether the Byzantine toponym Chele ever 
referred to Chilia. Some scholars identify Chilia 
with LyKOSTOMION. 

LIT. N. lorga, Studii istorice asupra Chiliei si Cetdtit-Albe 
(Bucharest 1899). N. Banescu, “Chilia (Licostomo) und das 
bithynische Chele,” BZ 28 (1928) 68—72. Balard, Romanie 


génoise 1:143—50. S. Baraschi, “Les sources byzantines et la 
localisation de la cité de Kilia (XI1°—~X1IH° siécles),” RESEE 


19 (1981) 473-84. -R.B. 


CHILIAS (xiiás, pl. xiMáðes)}, a measure of 
calculation, indicating a quantity of one thousand 
units. 

1. In agriculture, a chilias is a measure of vine- 
yards indicating 1,000 vines. Depending on the 
quality of the soil, the region, and the customs of 


422 | CHINA 


viticulture, the area of 1 chilias ranged between 1 
and nearly 4 Mopror [= approx. 878 to 3,512 
sq.m]. According to the metrological sources, in 
the Balkans a chilias could be an area of 1,000 sq. 
ORGYIAI. 

2. As a measure of fields, 1 chilias is equal to 
1,000 modioi. 

3. When measuring the tonnage of ships, chzlas 
indicates a capacity of 1,000 thalassiot modioi. 

4. In the trade of the Levant, esp. among the 
Italians, the chilias (It. miglato) is a quantity of 
1,000 pounds (LITRAI, libbre) and differs according 
to the pound used. Migliato can also, however, be 
a larger measure of calculation for oil, for ex- 
ample, of 646 liters in Venice or 713 liters in 
Negroponte. 


uit. Schilbach, Metrologie 83-89, 117. ~E. Sch. 


CHINA. The enormous distance between Byz. 
and China makes direct contact between the two 
doubtful. Byz. coins and precious objects, how- 
ever, penetrated to China. A golden necklace, 
part of it possibly Byz., was found in the tomb of 
Princess Li Jingxun (600-08; see A. Kiss, Acta 
Orientala Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38 
[1984] 33—40), and Chinese archaeologists have 
found various Byz. coins of the 6th and the first 
half of the 7th C. If Shiao Nai (VizVrem 21 [1962] 
178-82) is correct and a solidus of Justin II was 
found in a tomb dated between 595 and 599, then 
coins could move from Byz. to China in less than 
20 years. The discovery of Sasanian silver dirhems 
in the same localities suggests that they came 
through the intermediary of the Persian Empire. 
In light of these discoveries, the romancelike leg- 
end, preserved by Prokopios of Caesarea and 
THEOPHANES OF BYZANTIUM, about smuggling the 
silkworm (see SiLk) from the land of Serinda 
becomes less incredible, although the location of 
Serinda remains questionable. 

Chinese reports about Da Qin and its apparent 
successor Fulin have been identified as referring 
to the Roman Empire and Byz., although some 
scholars consider them descriptions of a Taoist 
utopia (K. Shiratori, Memoirs of the Research De- 
partment of the Toyo Bunko 15 [1956] 25-72). The 
chronicle of the Tang period (618—907) depicts 
the capital of Fulin as having a large gate orna- 
mented with gold; a palace adorned with gold, 
fragrant wood, and ivory; and an AUTOMATON 


indicating the hours. Twelve ministers administer 
the country, the emperor has a crown resembling 
a bird with wings, and the people use chariots 
and wear garish apparel (H. Wada, 14 CEB [Bu. 
charest 1975] 2:445-50). This picture is perhaps 
a distorted reflection of Byz. reality. 

NESTORIAN monks reached China in 635 and 
the Nestorian communities there were known to 
13th-C. western European travelers; the history 
of these communities between the late gth and 
the 12th C. is obscure. Nestorian monks from 
China occasionally visited the West. In 1278 two 
Nestorians, Patr. YABH ALLAHA III and Sauma, 
set out from Beijing for Jerusalem. Sauma arrived 
at Constantinople where Andronikos I] received 
him; in 1287 he reached Naples, then visited 
France and England, negotiated with Pope Nicho- 
las 1V and by 1291 returned to China (The Monks 
of Kblâi Khan, Emperor of China, tr. E.A. Wallis 
Budge [London 1928)). 

uit. A.C. Moule, Nestorians in China (London 1940). P. 
Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China? (Tokyo 
1951). H. Wada, Prokops Ratselwort Serinda und die Verpflan- 
zung des Seidenbaus von China nach dem Ostrémischen Reich 
(Cologne 1970). H. Miyakawa, A. Kollautz, “Ein Dokument 
zum Fernhandel zwischen Byzanz und China zur Zeit 
Theophylakts,” BZ 77 (1984) 6-19. Eidem, “Das Grab der 
Prinzessin Ch’ih-ti-lien, einer Enkelin des Anagaios (Ana- 
Kuei der Jou-jan),” BZ 79 (1986) 296-301. 

-D.W]., A.K. 


CHIONIADES, GREGORY, astronomer, physi- 
cian, teacher, and bishop; born Constantinople 
between 1240 and 1250, died Trebizond ca.1320; 
baptismal name George. After becoming a monk, 
Chioniades (Xcoviddys) went from Constantino- 
ple to Trebizond, where he probably composed 
his notes on John of Damascus’s Dialectics and On 
the Orthodox Faith. In the early 1290s he traveled 
on to the court of the Il-Khans at Tabriz, where 
he began studying asTRoNoMy under Shams Bu- 
khari. Between Nov. 1295 and Nov. 1296 Shams 
dictated to him in Persian the rules for using the 
‘Ala’t Tables of al-Fahhad, which Chioniades ren- 
dered into barbaric Greek as the Persian Astronom- 
ical Composition. The conventionally titled Revised 
Canons, which he wrote in the spring and fall of 
1296 in order to express some of these rules in a 
better style, indicate that he was then already 
becoming familiar with the shorter Arabic version 
of al-Khazini’s Sanjart Tables and with the Persian 
[l-Khani Tables of al-Tusi, both of which he sub- 


sequently translated into Greek. In this period he 
also translated various shorter pieces, including a 
treatise on the ASTROLABE written by Shams and 
an introduction to astronomy that is illustrated by 
diagrams of a Tasi couple. Knowledge of the Tasi 
couple eventually reached the West through a MS 
of Chioniades’ works, and perhaps by other routes 
as well; it was employed by Copernicus in his 
planetary models (N. Swerdlow, O. Neugebauer, 
Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’s De revolution- 
ibus, pt.1 [New York 1984] 47f). 

Chioniades was back in Trebizond by Sept. 1301 
and in Constantinople by Apr. 1302. In Constan- 
tinople he trained students in Persian astronomy 
and medicine. It was clearly in this period that he 
translated into Greek a short Persian treatise on 
antidotes and, being suspected of heresy for his 
long residence among the Persians and for his 
interest in astrology, wrote a confession of faith 
(ed. L.G. Westerink, REB 38 [1980] 233-45). He 
was appointed bishop of ‘Tabriz in 1305, at which 
time he changed his name to Gregory. He re- 
mained at his post in Tabriz for at least fve years 
and then retired as a monk to Trebizond. At his 
death he left part of his library to Constantine 
Loukites. 


ED. The Astronomical Works of Gregory Chioniades, ed. D. 
Pingree, 3 vols. in 4 pts. (Amsterdam 1985—86). I.V. Pa- 
padopoulos, “Gregoriou Chioniadou tou astronomou 
Epistolai,” EEPASPTh 1 (1927) 151-205. 

LIT. Pingree, “Chioniades & Astronomy.” Idem, “In De- 
fense of Gregory Chioniades,” AIHS 35 (1985) 436-38. 

—-D.P. 














CHIOS (Xios), island in the eastern Aegean Sea, 
near the coast of Asia Minor, in late antiquity part 
of the province of the Islands. Excavations have 
revealed building activity through the 6th C. Thus, 
the third construction phase of the Basilica of St. 
Isidore is assigned to the mid-6th C. (C.I. Pennas 
in Chios, ed. J. Boardman [Oxford 1986] 332). 
Late Roman buildings at Pendakas were aban- 
doned by the beginning of the 7th C. when the 
inhabitants probably retired to the relative secu- 
rity of the fortress south of the harbor (J. Board- 
man, BSA 53-54 [1958-59] 303). Emborio con- 
tinued to be inhabited into the 7th C. (J. Boardman, 
Greek Emborio [London 1967]); the fortress seems 
to have been destroyed by fire soon after 660 (M. 
Hood, J. Boardman, JHS 75 supp. [1955] 29). 


CHIOS | 423 


Archaeological evidence from the following cen- 
turies is obscure. 

Chios was included in the theme of the AEGEAN 
Sea and ruled in the gth C. by an archon (Laurent, 
Coll. Orghidan, no.204); some seals indicate the 
role of Chios as a customs station: in 6go/1 a 
certain George was general kommerkiarios of the 
combined apotheke of Asia, Chios, and Lesbos (Za- 
cos, Seals 1, no.168); in the oth C. a diviketes of 
Samos and Chios (no. 2216) is known. In the 11th 
C. Chios stood under the command of its own 
strategos distinct from that of Samos (Skyl. 373.12— 
13). 

Chios was attacked by Tzacuas ca.1083 and 
was later a Byz. base against him. The island was 
sacked by the Venetians in retaliation for the 
Latin massacre of 1171, and in 1204 it was granted 
to Baldwin of Flanders; it passed effectively to 
the Genoese in 1261 as a result of the Treaty of 
NyYMPHAION. From 1304 to 1329 Chios was occu- 
pied by the Zaccaria, from 1329 to 1346 gov- 
erned by a Greek administrator in the name of 
the emperor; on 15 June 1346 the Genoese fleet 
besieged Chios and in eight days conquered the 
entire island. Kantakouzenos relates that the in- 
habitants resisted the Genoese, and Tzybos, a 
former governor of the island, attacked them but 
was killed; a later chronicle described a plot or- 
ganized by the local metropolitan who wanted to 
hand Chios over to the emperor but failed. In a 
chrysobull of 1355 (Reg 5, no.3042) John V Pa- 
laiologos considered Chios a Genoese possession 
(the similar privilege of 1367 [Reg 5, no.3117] is 
probably a forgery). 

A Genoese record of 1395 lists 2,142 Greek 
households on Chios (about 10,000 people). The 
land belonged to secular nobles (Schilizzi, Coresi, 
etc.) and to the monastery of Nea Mone that in 
the 14th C. complained of the shortage of grain 
and the small number of douloparoikoi. The Geno- 
ese administration abolished the ANGAREIAI of 
peasants and replaced them with the KAPNIKON of 
two hyperpera; indirect taxes were also increased. 
Chios remained in Genoese hands until 1556, 
when it fell to the Turks. Chios was a suffragan 
bishopric of Rhodes and from the igth C. a 
metropolis without suffragans. 

Aside from Nea Mone, an imperial foundation 
of the 11th C., Chios preserves the remains of 
many Byz. buildings and sites. The Church of the 
Panagia Krina is a smaller copy of the katholikon 





424 | CHIRHO 


of Nea Mone with frescoes of the 13th C. and 
later (Ch. Bouras, DCAAE* 10 [1980—81] 165— 
80), while the Holy Apostles at Pyrgoi is of similar 
shape, with well-preserved exterior architectural 
detail. The general outline of the castle above the 
modern town is probably Byz., although it has 
undergone rebuilding in many periods; in the 
castle, the Church of St. George may originally 
have been built in 993. 

uit. Ph. Argenti, The Occupation of Chios by the Genoese 
and their Administration of the Island, 1346-1566, 3 vols. 
(Cambridge 1958). M. Balard, “Les Grecs de Chio sous la 
domination Génotse au XIVe siècle,” ByzF 5 (1977) 5-15. 
A. Orlandos, Monuments byzantins de Chios (Athens 1930). 


D.I. Pallas, RBK 1:917-66. Ch. Bouras, Chios (Athens 
1974). -T.E.G. 


CHI RHO. See CurisTOGRAM. 


CHITON. See Tunic. 


CHLAMYS (xAauus, also xAavis), a long cloak 
fastened on the right shoulder by means of a 
FIBULA $0 as to leave the right arm free. In anti- 
quity, a short chlamys was worn by soldiers, hunt- 
ers, and riders. Diocletian’s Price Edict refers to 
various kinds of chlamys, including a military type, 
a simple and a double chlamys, the latter being 
mentioned for the first time in this document. 
The two pointed sections hanging down over the 
legs were called “Thessalian wings” by later lexi- 
cographers (Hesychios of Alexandria, Photios, 
Souda, Eustathios of Thessalonike). By about the 
6th C. the chlamys had lost its military character 
and in its longer form became a crucial element 
of court COSTUME. The presence of a TABLION 
generally differentiates the civilian chlamys from 
military cloaks such as the paludamentum or sa- 
GION. The chlamys was made in different colors, 
including white, each office being associated with 
a specific color. It was bordered with rows of gems 
or pearls, and on certain occasions it was fastened 
in front, under the throat. A purple chlamys with 
a gold tablion was the prerogative of the emperor 
and was laid upon his shoulders in a special sec- 
tion of the imperial coronation rite (De cer. 192.23— 
193-1); he wore the chlamys over the DIVETESION, 
but not generally over the Loros. Members of his 
family might wear chlamydes adorned with eagles. 

Representations of the chlamys abound, in im- 


perial portraits and images of Old Testament 
kings such as David or Solomon, in portraits of 
courtiers, or of princely martyrs. These chlamydes 
are all evidently made of s1Lk woven with a great 
variety of gold floral, circular, or spade-shaped 
designs. 

Seeing a chlamys in dreams had a broad range 
of meanings. If the chlamys was frayed and dirty, 
this meant the downfall of a regime, if new and 
splendid, it foretold happiness and the birth of a 
male heir (ACHMET BEN SIRIN, Oneirocriticon, ed, 
Drexel, p.116.1—7). 


uit. DOC 2.127180; 3.1:117—20. K. Wessel, RBK 3:424~ 
48. ~A.K,, N.P.S, 


CHLEMOUTSI (XAepzovror or XAcvpovror, Fr, 
Clermont, Ital. Castel Tornese), castle in Elis in 
the northwestern Peloponnesos. It was the pri- 
mary fortification of the principality of ACHAIA, 
constructed on a hill with a panoramic view west- 
ward to the Ionian Sea and controlling passage 
into the interior of the Peloponnesos. It was built 
between 1220 and 1223 by GEOFFREY | VILLEHAR- 
DOUIN who used the wealth of the Moreot church 
for its construction, and was consequently excom- 
municated. Despite the castle’s formidable size 
and position, it seems to have witnessed no mem- 
orable sieges or battles; it was frequently used as 
a prison, and the Greeks captured at the battle of 
Makryplage in 1264 were held there. Chlemoutsi 
is frequently confused with the port of Clarence 
(Clarentia, Clarenza, mod. Kyllene) some distance 
to the northwest, which was the site of the mint 
of the principality until its destruction in 1429. 
Chlemoutsi remained in Frankish hands until 1429 
when it was taken by Constantine (X1) Palaiologos, 
then despotes of the Morea, and used by him as a 
base for his attack on Patras. The despotes Thomas 
Palaiologos kept John Asen prisoner at Chle- 
moutsi. It was taken by the Turks in 1460. 

The surviving fortress is almost entirely Frank- 
ish. It consists of a large polygonal circuit wall 
and, at the summit of the hill, a powerful keep— 
an irregular hexagon, with sides 60—go m long— 
and an interior court. The walls are in fact enor- 
mous halls, over 7 m wide with two stories, the 
upper supported either on vaults or with wooden 
beams. Living quarters were on the upper stories. 
Elaborate arrangements brought water from the 
roofs to huge cisterns under the floors. 








tir. Bon, Morée franque 425-28, 608-29. Andrews, Cas- 
tles 146-58. -T.E.G. 


CHLIARA (XAtapa), settlement on the road from 
Pergamon to Philadelphia, known from the 11th 
C. onward. It is mentioned several times by Anna 
Komnene, who states that the semibarbarian 
Monastras controlled Pergamon, Chliara, and 
neighboring towns (polichnia) (An.Komn. 3:155.1). 
In the mid-1ath C. Chliara was already a polis; it 
was fortified by a city wall ca.1162—73 (Nik.Chon. 
150.35—40). The bishopric of Chliara, a suffragan 
of Ephesus, is listed in a notitia (Notitiae CP 10.47), 
the date of which is variously placed between the 
roth and the 13th C. The Partitio ROMANIAE 
mentions the “province” of Atramyttion, Chliara, 
and Pergamon, but the Crusaders could not retain 
this region and Chliara fell to the Nicene emperor 
Theodore I Laskaris. It suffered from a severe 
earthquake in 1296 and from Turkish invasions. 
A 15th-C. historian (Douk. 221.13—14) is the last 
Byz. source to mention “Chliera, on the borders 
of Lydia,” but it had long ago been lost by the 
empire to the Turks. 

Recent excavations in the valley of Lykos have 
revealed the remains of Chliara on the rocks of 
Gérdiikkale. The find includes a city wall of stone 
and brick with traces of towers and a settlement 
that, as Rheidt hypothesizes, housed about 200 
families. 

uit. K. Rheidt, “Chliara,” /stMitt 36 (1986) 223-44. 

-A 


fa 


CHNOUBIS (XvovBts). The deity or darmon en- 
graved on popular medical gem AmMULETS, the 
Chnoubis takes the form of a coiled serpent with 
a lion’s head and a NIMBUS and rays, surrounded 
by the seven planets or 12 houses of the zodiac. 
This pagan amuletic device, believed to prevent 
abdominal ailments, was christianized in late an- 
tiquity when the image of Chnoubis evolved into 
a dominating Gorgon head, often accompanied 
by the inscription, “Lord, help the wearer.” 

The Chnoubis also appears on Christian uterine 
or Medusa amulets, which derive directly from 
pagan uterine amulets (hysterika phylakteria). The 
Christian versions have the lion-snake Chnoubis 
on the obverse inscribed with the Trisagion or 
invocations of the Virgin, and, on the reverse, the 
command to the womb to lie down quietly as well 


CHOIROSPHAKTES, LEO | 425 


as various symbols such as the pentalpha star, 
lunar crescents, “Zs, and eight-pointed stars. The 
purpose of both pagan and Christian womb amu- 
lets was to ensure childbirth without complica- 
tions. 


LIT. Vikan, “Art, Medicine, and Magic” 75—78. Bonner, 
Studies 56—60, nos. 81-86. —F.R.T. 


CHOIROBOSKOS, GEORGE, grammarian, dea- 
con, and chartophylax of Hagia Sophia in Constan- 
tinople; fl. early gth C. Choiroboskos (Xorpoßoorós) 
was above all active as a teacher and is described 
in the titles of some of his works as oikoumenikos 
didaskalos (see DIDASKALOS). His principal writings 
are an extensive commentary on the Rules (Can- 
ons) of declension and conjugation by Theodosios 
of Alexandria (4th—5th C.); commentaries on the 
grammarians Apollonios Dyskolos (2nd C.), 
Heropian, and Dionysios THRraAx, which survive 
only in fragments; a treatise On ORTHOGRAPHY, 
also fragmentary; a commentary on the Encheiri- 
dion by Hephaestion of Alexandria (end C.); EPI- 
MERISMS or grammatical analyses of the Psalms; 
and a treatise on poetical figures. The dry and 
detailed treatises of Choiroboskos played a major 
part in transmitting ancient grammatical doctrin 
to the Byz. world. The work on poetical figure 
was translated into Old Slavonic, probably in Pres 
lav ca.goo, and the translation was included in the 
IZBORNIK of 1073, copied for Prince Svjatoslav 
Jaroslavič of Kiev. The Epumerisms on the Psalms 
were used in schools in the mid-ioth C. EUSTA- 
THIOS OF THESSALONIKE quotes Choiroboskos fre- 
quently as an authority. Renaissance grammarians 
found in his works a mine of information on 
literary Greek. 


wm 0 


i 




















ED. Commentary on Theodosios—Grammalici Graeci, ed. 
A. Hilgard pt.4 (Leipzig 1894; rp. Hildesheim 1965) 1.103— 
417, 2.1—371. For complete list, cf. Tusculum-Lexikon 115. 

LIT. Lemerle, Humanism 87f. W. Böhler, Ch.Theodoridis, 
“Johannes von Damaskos terminus post quem fur Choirobos- 
kos,” BZ 6g (1976) 397-401. P. Egenolff, Die orthoepischen 
Stücke der byzantinischen Litteratur (Leipzig 1887). Egenolff, 
Orthog. -R.B. 


CHOIROSPHAKTES, LEO, diplomat and writer; 
died after 919; Kolias (p.15) dates his birth be- 
tween 845 and 850, Beck (Kirche 594) ca.824. 
Choirosphaktes (Xorpooġárrtns) was a high-rank- 
ing official (mystikos and kanikleios under Basil I, 
magistros from 896) and a relative of Zor KARBO- 














26 | CHOMA 


NOPSINA. Leo VI sent him on three embassies to 
SYMEON OF BuLGARIA and in gos to Baghdad. 
Probably involved in the rebellion of Andronikos 
Doukas (Jenkins, Studies, pt.XI [1963], 171), he 
was arrested probably in go7, but eventually re- 
turned to Constantinople and participated in the 
unsuccessful attempt of Constantine Doukas to 
seize the throne. In 913 Choirosphaktes was ton- 
sured and confined in Stoudios. 

Choirosphaktes’ letters are an important source 
for the history of Byz.-Bulgarian relations. He 
also wrote epigrams, hymns, and theological works, 
including Theology in a Thousand Lines, dedicated 
to Michael III. The attribution of some of his 
works remains problematic since the MS tradition 
is often obscure. Mercati (CollByz 1:271—309) as- 
cribed to Choirosphaktes an ekphrasis in verse, On 
the Bath-house in Pythia, which he dates to 911; R. 
Anastasi (SicGymn 17 [1964] 1—7) rejects the at- 
tribution. Choitrosphaktes was the object of severe 
and vitriolic accusations by ARETHAS OF CAESAREA 
and probably ConsTANTINE OF Ruopes. M. Sangin 
(VizSb [1945] 228-48) interpreted this criticism as 
a reaction against Choirosphaktes’ intellectual ac- 
tivity; on the other hand, Karlin-Hayter treats 
Choirosphaktes as a “sniveller” in comparison with 
Arethas, “a fighter” (Studies, pt.IX [1965], 456). 

ED. G. Kolias, Léon Choerosphactés, magistre, proconsul et 
patrice (Athens 1939); also FGHBulg 8 (1961) 176-84. E. 
Mioni, “Un inno inedito di Leone (Magistro),” Byzantion 19 
(1949) 133-39. See list in Tusculum-Lexikon 468f. 

LIT. G. Ostrogorsky, “Lav Ravduch i Lav Chirosfakt,” 
ZRVI 3 (1965) 29—36. ~A.K. 


CHOMA (Xua, now Homa), fortress of PHRyY- 
Gia in the upper Meander valley, became impor- 
tant as a frontier post in the 11th—12th C. Its 
troops, Chomatenoi, were in the service of Nike- 
phoros III and Alexios I; at that time, Choma 
was isolated in an area overrun by the Turks. It 
was then center of a district called Choma and 
CappapociA, under a toparches. Choma’s location 
on a major road to the interior made it a base for 
the campaigns of Alexios I and Manuel I. Contin- 
ually threatened by Turkish armies and nomads, 
Choma was refortified in 1193 by Isaac II and 
given the name Angelokastron. It fell to the Turks 
soon after 1204; it was never a bishopric. Choma 
was formerly identified with Soublaion (Ramsay, 
Cities 1:221—26), a fortress rebuilt by Manuel | in 
1175 and dismantled by him the following year 


according to the treaty after the battle of Myrı- 
OKEPHALON; its site was apparently in the vicinity 
of Choma. 


LIT. Ahrweiler, Structures, pt.X (1966), 278-83. ~C.F, 


CHOMATENOS, DEMETRIOS, a central eccle. 
siastical figure in the independent state of Epiros; 
born mid-12th C., died ca.1236. In the late 12th 
C. Chomatenos (Xwparnvos) or Chomatianos 
(Xwpartavds) served as apokrisiarios from the 
archbishopric of Ohrid to the patriarch in Con- 
stantinople; he was also chartophylax in Ohrid and 
in 1216/17 was appointed archbishop of the au- 
tocephalous see at Ohrid by THEODORE Komne- 
nos Doukas. In 1225 or 1227/8 Chomatenos 
crowned Theodore emperor in Thessalonike, thus 
inviting the censure of Patr. GERMANOS II at Ni- 
caea and causing the schism (1228—33) between 
the Epirot and Nicaean churches (G. Prinzing, 
RSBS 3 [1984] 21—64). 

That Chomatenos claimed and enjoyed a quasi- 
patriarchal position can be seen not only from his 
coronation of Theodore but also from the pro- 
tocol of documents issued by his chancery even 
after Theodore’s defeat in 1290. The collection 
of Chomatenos’s acts and letters, approximately 
150 pieces, constitutes the main source of the 
administrative and ecclesiastical history of Eprros, 
Serbia, and Bulgaria in the first half of the igth 
C. (G. Prinzing, EpChron 24 [1982] 73—120; 25 
[1983] 37—112; F. Barišić, B. Ferjancic, ZRVI 20 
[1981] 41-58). His acts, mainly decisions on mar- 
riage law, inheritance, and cases of killing, like 
those of his colleague John APOKAUKOS, are major 
sources for the social and legal history of the 
period; they indicate the level of legal knowledge, 
methods of argumentation, and range of cases 
that came before a bishop’s court. Chomatenos’s 
statements on the limitations of imperial power 
are unprecedented (D. Simon in Geddchtnisschrift 
fiir Wolfgang Kunkel [Frankfurt 1984] 449-92). 
Probably between 1230 and 1234, he wrote a brief 
vita of KLIMENT OF OuRID, a Bulgarian saint (P. 
Koledarov, Literaturna mistil 27 [1983] no.3, 89- 
100). 

ED. Pitra, Analecta, vol. 6. 

LIT. G.Prinzing, LMA 2:1874f. D. Simon, “Byzantinische 
Provinzialjustiz,” BZ 79 (1986) 310-43. A.E. Laiou, “Con- 
tribution à Pétude de l'institution familiale en Epire au 
XHI?™* siècle,” FM 6 (1984) 275-323. Macrides, “Killing, 
Asylum & Law.” ~RJ.M. 


CHONAT (Xévai, now Honaz), city of PHRYGIA. 
The inhabitants of Kolossai, an ancient city of the 
plain long in decline, moved to the nearby defen- 
sible mountain site of Chonai in the 8th C. An 
important highway fortress, Chonai was a bastion 
of the theme of THRakESION and may have been 
its capital (C. Foss, Ephesus after Antiquity [Cam- 
bridge 1979] 195f). It was devastated by Turkish 
raids in 1070 and after the battle of Mantzikert 
(1071) became a major frontier defense. Chonai 
was attacked in 1144, 1189, and 1191, and taken 
by the Turks after 1204. The great Church of St. 
MICHAEL in Chonai was a center of pilgrimage 
and location of great trade fairs, on the ancient 
site of Kolossai. This was a large basilica decorated 
with mosaics; nothing of it survives. Chonai was 
the birthplace of Michael and Niketas CHONIATES. 
It became an autocephalous bishopric ca.860 and 
a metropolis (without suffragans) ca.g5o0. The re- 
mains of its Byz. fortress have not been studied. 


ur. Ramsay, Cites 1:208-16. —-C.F. 





CHONAI, MIRACLE AT. A miracle performed 
by MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL at Chonai was cele- 
brated 6 Sept. As told by Symeon Metaphrastes, 
the miracle occurred shortly after the deaths of 
the apostles John and Philip. Next to a healing 
spring of sweet water, in an oratory dedicated to 
St. Michael, lived a hermit Archippos. The devil 
and local unbelievers conspired to dam the river, 
whose two branches ran on either side of the 
spring, in order to flood both the spring and the 
oratory with brackish water. Michael appeared 
just in time to cleave the rocks in an earthquake, 
thus diverting the river and preserving hermit, 
spring, and cult. 

Images of the miraculous event show Archippos 
and the chapel on the right and the Archangel 
driving his staff into the earth on the left, while 
the river, descending in two streams from above 
the figures, plunges down the center of the scene 
into the cleft created by Michael's staff (e.g., Sinai 
icon, K. Weitzmann, The Icon: Holy Images, Sixth 
to Fourteenth Century [New York 1978] pl.22). 
Sometimes devils with pickaxes appear (Venice, 
Marc, Z586). Known first from the MENOLOGION 
oF Basix I] (fol.17), the image is one of the rare 
examples of a miracle of a saint illustrated with 
the degree of consistency characteristic of feast 
icons. Michael wears the pallium, though indepen- 











CHONIATES, MICHAEL | 427 





dent images of him in armor are sometimes la- 
beled “Choniates” (e.g., at Karanlık Kilise, Gö- 
REME). 

uT. M. Bonnet, “Narratio de Miraculo a Michaele Ar- 
changelo Chonis Patrato,” AB 8 (1889) 287—328. A. Xyn- 
gopoulos, “To en Chonais Thauma tou Archangelou Mi- 
chael,” DChAE* 1 (1959) 26-39. O. Meinardus, “St. Michael’s 


Miracle of Khonae,” Ekklesia kai Theologia 1 (1980) 459-69. 
~A.W.C., N.P.S. 


CHONIATES, MICHAEL, writer and metropol- 
itan of Athens (1182—1204), brother of Niketas 
CHONIATES; born Chonai ca.1138, died Boudon- 
itza ca.1222; the name Akominatos often assigned 
to him is incorrect. Choniates (Xwviarns) was a 
pupil of EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE. As met- 
ropolitan he was an energetic defender of Athens’ 
interests, esp. during the city’s siege by Leo Scov- 
ros. After the Latin conquest, Choniates left Ath- 
ens, lived on Keos in 1205-17, and via Euboea 
went to the monastery of Prodromos in Boudon- 
itza (B. Katsaros, Byzantiaka 1 [1981] 99-137). 
Politically Choniates was a strong opponent of the 
civilian aristocracy, which he criticized for its in- 
difference to the provinces; he was esp. critical of 
those who came from peasant and artisan families 
(Lampros, infra 1:337.16-22). He welcomed Ax- 
DRONIKOS I at first but then withdrew support, 
frightened by his reign of terror “that put the 
whole world in fear” (1:210.12—15). 

Choniates was one of the rare writers who es- 
caped from convention and produced lively vi- 
gnettes, such as a description of a dirty and drafty 
bathhouse on Keos (A. Berger, Das Bad in der 
byzantinischen Zeit [Munich 1982] 71). He often 
developed his similes and metaphors into full- 
blown images. In one of his treatises Choniates 
discussed the question of the relationship of the 
artist and his audience, defending the thesis of 
the creator’s independence from the crowd’s ap- 
praisal, even though in actuai rhetorical practice 
he had to take into consideration the desires of 
his audience (1. Citurov, 14 CEB 3 [Bucharest 
1976] 68f). 

In frescoes in the Church of St. Peter at Kalynia 
Kouvara and in the south chapel of the cave of 
Penteli, dated 1233/4 by inscription, Choniates is 
depicted as a nimbed bishop, thus suggesting that 
in Attica he was regarded as a saint shortly after 
his death (A.K. Orlandos, EEBS 21 [1951] 210— 
14; D. Mouriki, DChAE* 7 [1973—74] 96—98, fig.1). 








428 | CHONIATES, NIKETAS 


ED. S$. Lampros, Michael Akominatou tou Choniatou ta so- 
zomena, 2 vols. (Athens 1879—80; rp. Groningen 1968). See 
list in Tusculum-Lexikon 531. 

uit. G. Stadtmiiller, Michael Choniates, Metropolit von Athen 
(Rome 1934). K.M. Setton,“A Note on Michael Choniates, 
Archbishop of Athens (1182~1204),” Speculum 21 (1946) 
234-36. LC. Hill (Thallon), A Medieval Humanist Michael 
Akominates (New York 1973). ~A.K., A.C. 


CHONIATES, NIKETAS, government official, 
historian, and theologian; younger brother of 
Michael CuHoniares; born Chonai, Phrygia, 
between 1155 and 1157, died Nicaea, spring/sum- 
mer 1217 (V. Katsaras, JOB 32.3 [1982] 83-91). 
After studies probably in Constantinople, Choni- 
ates (Xwvidrns) began his career before 1182 as 
a provincial functionary in the Black Sea region; 
he returned to Constantinople, retired while An- 
pronikxos I reigned, but resumed service after 
Isaac II ascended the throne, eventually becom- 
ing logothetes ton sekreton. In 1204 he fled to Nicaea 
but failed to receive any position of influence 
there. 

Choniates’ History [Chrontke diegesis] is the most 
important source for 1118—1206, although the 
author's personal (sometimes biased) opinions color 
it. A major example of Byz. prose, it reveals a 
new approach to human beings. They are pre- 
sented as having contradictory, good and evil 
qualities and as being the active forces in history, 
while God functions as the highest moral princi- 
ple. In a period of disaster, terror (esp. under 
Andronikos), and moral decline, Choniates de- 
fended the values of human life and property as 
well as culture. The History is permeated with a 
foreboding of catastrophe, also reflected in the 
imaginative system of metaphors and similes, taken 
from motifs of storm, shipwreck, fire, disease, and 
beasts of prey. Traditional clichés are interwoven 
with irony, psychological observations, crude jokes, 
obscenities: Choniates is concerned with the hu- 
man body and its excretory and sexual functions, 
but shies away from his own curiosity. His speeches 
(panegyrics of Isaac II, Alexios III, Theodore I, 
address to the bishop of Philippopolis, monodies) 
and letters are more conventional than the History; 
factual inconsistencies between them and the His- 
tory can be explained by the differing purposes of 
the two genres, He also wrote the Thesaurus of 
Orthodoxy (Panoplia Dogmatike), a refutation of her- 
esies up to his time (published only partially). 


ED. Historia, ed. J.L. van Dieten (Berlin—-New York 1975). 
Eng. tr. H. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium (Detroit 1984). 
Orationes et Epistulae, ed. J.L. van Dieten (Berlin~New York 
1972). Germ. tr. of orations and letters by F. Grabler, 
Kaisertaten und Menschenschicksale (Graz-Vienna-Cologne 
1966). Thesaurus, PG 139:1101—140:2g2. 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:429-41. J.L. van Dieten, Niketas 
Choniates, Erläuterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer 
Biographie (Berlin-New York 1971). Idem, Zur Überlieferung 
und Veröffentlichung der Panoplia dogmatike des Niketas Choni- 
ales (Amsterdam 1970). Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 256-86. 
A. Kazhdan, “Der Körper im Geschichtswerk des Niketas 
Choniates,” in Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, ed. G. Prinzing, D. 
Simon (Munich 1990) gi—105,. ~ALK, 


CHORA MONASTERY (Turk. Kariye Camii), 
located in the northwestern region of Constanti- 
nople near Edirne Kapı. The early history of 
Chora (Xopa, lit. “dwelling place”) is obscure. A 
legendary tradition attributes the foundation to 
the 6th-C. saint Theodore (BHG 1743), supposed 
uncle of Justinian I’s wife Theodora; a more reli- 
able source identifies the founder as Krispos, son- 
in-law of the 7th-C. emperor Phokas. In the gth 
C. Chora was a center of resistance to Iconoclasm; 
the iconodule saints THEOPHANES GRAPTOS and 
MICHAEL SYNKELLOS were associated with the 
monastery and buried there. Restored in the 11th 
C. by Maria Doukaina, mother-in-law of Alexios 
I, Chora was again renovated in the 12th C. by 
her grandson, Isaac Komnenos the sebastokrator. 
Like its predecessor, Isaac’s church was a domed 
basilica built of recessed-brick masonry on a cross- 
in-square plan with, however, a larger, single apse. 
Traces of its mosaic decoration remain in the 
south window of the nave. 

The church deteriorated during the Latin oc- 
cupation of Constantinople, but Theodore ME- 
TOCHITES restored it magnificently (1316—21). He 
rebuilt the dome over the nave and replaced the 
narthexes and PAREKKLESION, decorating them with 
resplendent mosaics and frescoes. Of the mosaics 
in the nave, only panels of Christ, the Virgin, and 
the Dormition remain. The well-preserved mo- 
saics of the narthexes and the frescoes of the 
parekklesion are critical for our understanding of 
the style of MONUMENTAL PAINTING of this period. 
In the outer narthex esp. notable are the image 
of Christ, identified as he chora ton zonton, “the 
dwelling place of the living,” on axis with the 
entrance; the cycle of his Infancy with long se- 
quences on the Magi and the Massacre of the 
Innocents; and that of his Ministry in the domical 


RA i 





CHORA MONASTERY | 429 


CHORA MONASTERY. Frescoes in the eastern end of the parekklesion of the church; 
early l4th C. Below: church fathers, the bishops (l. to r., unidentified, Athanasios 
of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, Cyril of 
Alexandria). In the conch: Anastasis. In the arch: two miracles of Christ with the 


archangel Michael in the center. 


vaults. The focus of the inner narthex is the donor 
portrait of Metochites offering his foundation to 
the Lord, In this area are mosaics of the Deesis 
with CHRIST CHALKITES, but without the Prodro- 
mos, accompanied by images of Isaac Komnenos 
and “Melania the Nun”; 17 scenes of the life of 
the Virgin; and an unusually full complement of 
70 ancestors of Christ. The eastern half of the 
parekklesion, used as a mortuary chapel, is fittingly 
devoted to the Last JUDGMENT and culminates in 
the Anastasis, abnormally placed in the conch of 
the apse. On the chapel walls are frescoes of 
military saints, some partly covered or destroyed 


by the finely carved hoods of sepulchral monu- 
ments. Along the south walls are Old Testament 
prefigurations of the Virgin. 

Metochites also endowed the monastery with 
substantial estates, added a hospital and public 
kitchen, and donated his important collection of 
books. During the Palaiologan period, Chora 
housed Constantinople’s most comprehensive li- 
brary and was frequented by scholars such as 
Maximos PLaNnoupes and Nikephoros GREGORAS, 
as well as Metochites himself. Sultan Bayezid H 
(1481-1512) transformed the church into a 
mosque. 


430 CHORAPHION 


LIT. P.A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, 4 vols. (New 
York 1966; Princeton 1975). R.G. Ousterhout, The Archi- 
tecture of the Kariye Cami in Istanbul (Washington, D.C., 
1987). Ø. Hjort, “The Sculpture of Kariye Camii,” DOP 33 
(1979) 199—289. —A.C., A.M.T. 


CHORAPHION (xwpágġiov, “cultivated field”). 
The word, rare in classical and patristic texts— 
Neilos of Ankyra (PG 79:456D) speaks of those 
who diligently plow their choraphia—was used four 
times in the FaRMER’s Law and became the term 
for field in documents of the 1oth—15th C. The 
Treatise on Taxation (ed. Délger, Beiträge 113.16— 
17), like the Farmer’s Law (pars. 25, 83) and later 
documents, distinguishes choraphia from vine- 
yards, and there is direct evidence concerning 
plowing and sowing choraphia. Choraphia are also 
contrasted with pastures (e.g., MM 4:30.19—20). 
A choraphion was normally under 10 modioi in area, 
whereas the more general term ge, “arable land,” 
was commonly applied to much larger tracts, al- 
though the combined expression choraphiaia ge is 
used as well. 

The terms esochoraphia (e.g., Lavra 3, no.164.8, 
13), esothyrochoraphia (Pantel., no.17.21), choraphion 
esotheron (Chil., no.g2.123), and the infrequent 
exochoraphia (Vazeion, nO.144.12; Dionys., no.25.118 
app.), that is, inner and outer fields, probably 
designated the location of a choraphion closer to 
or farther from the house. Choraphia could have 
common borders with vineyards (e.g., Lavra 1, 
no.18.29—32); the cadaster of 1264 for the bish- 
opric of Kephalenia (ed. Th. Tzannetatos [Athens 
1965]) registers choraphia bordering a garden 
(p.41.31) or vineyard (p.44.204—06) as well as 
roads or buildings; the cadaster of 1235 for the 
monastery of Lembiotissa includes a choraphion 
bordering an olive grove (MM 4:8.10-11). A 
choraphion could be surrounded by a ditch (MM 
4:7-33-34) or boundary marks (MM 4:18g.8-9). 
Olive trees and nut trees grew on some choraphia. 
All this indicates that choraphia were not peasant 
“shares” in a particular field, thereby providing 
evidence against the existence of an “open field” 
agricultural system. 


Lit. Solovjev-Mogin, Grčke povelje 506f. Kazhdan, Agrar- 
nye otnošenija 61—63. -M.B. 


CHOREPISKOPOS (xwperiokoros, lit. “country 
bishop”), a type of assistant bishop who presided 
over a community in the rural countryside. The 


chorepiskopoi, who were probably originally en- 
dowed with full episcopal ministry, became grad- 
ually subject to their urban colleague, the city 
bishop. Although their numbers increased in the 
4th C., their sacramental and administrative func- 
tions were gradually restricted. Thus, the Council 
of ANTIOCH (341) decreed that they could only 
ordain ANAGNOSTAI, SUBDEACONS, and exorcists; 
deacons and priests could be ordained only with 
the city bishop’s permission (canons 8, 10). Al- 
though ultimately unsuccessful, canon 57 of the 
4th-C. Council of Laodikeia even attempted to 
replace them with itinerant priests (pertodeutai), 
Finally, Nicaga II (787) restricted their episcopal 
prerogatives almost entirely by legislating that they 
could not ordain even anagnostai without episco- 
pal consent (canon 14). Soon thereafter chorepis- 
kopoi disappear. 

uit. F. Gillmann, Das Institut der Chorbischéfe im Orient 
(Munich 1903). M. Jugie, “Les chorévéques en Orient,” EO 
7 (1904) 263-68. Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles 2.2:1197-123%, 


P. Joannou, Fonti, fasc. g (Rome 1964) cols. 61—62. 
~A.P. 


CHORIKIOS OF GAZA, 6th-C. Christian rheto- 
rician. Chorikios (Xepixtos) was pupil and eulogist 
of Prokopios or Gaza. Forty-six declamations of 
various types survive. Apart from the historical 
value of his panegyric on Prokopios, his descrip- 
tions of the churches of Sts. Sergios and Stephen 
at Gaza present invaluable evidence for the vari- 
ety of CHURCH PLAN TYPES, construction tech- 
niques, and figural imagery employed in the 530s 
and 540s. These accounts are characteristically 


Justinianic in their emphasis on splendor for its 


own sake; compared to Corrppus, realistic de- 
scription in Chorikios still bulks larger than sym- 
bolic interpretation, Chorikios is also an excellent 
source for accounts of festivals celebrated in Gaza 
(F.K. Litsas, JOB 32.3 [1982] 427-36). 

Also important for its material on MIME and 
THEATER is his Apology for the Mimes, last in a series 
of such defenses (reaching back to Lipanios and 
Lucian) against the attacks, Christian and pagan, 
of Jonn Curysostom and Ailios ARISTEIDES. The- 
ater, esp. mime, was controversial, persisting as it 
did in the face of the Christian onslaught, both 
legislative and ecclesiastical. Chorikios himself had 
to reckon with both Justinian’s theater closures 
and the notorious thespian past of the empress 
‘THEODORA. 


ED. Opera, ed. R. Foerster, E. Richtsteig (Leipzig 1929). 
Partial Eng. tr—Mango, Art 60—72. Synegoria mimon, ed. I. 
Stephanes (Thessalonike 1986). 

LiT. F.-M. Abel, “Gaza au Vle siècle d’aprés le rhéteur 
Chorikios,” Revue Biblique 40 (1931) 5—31. A. Sideras, “Zwei 
unbekannte Monodien von Chorikios?” JOB 33 (1983) 57- 
73- -B.B., A.C. 


CHORION (ywpiov) in the classical language des- 
ignated “place,” a meaning retained by Byz. (pri- 
marily narrative) sources. In papyri, from the 3rd 
C. onward, the term acquires the sense of VILLAGE 
(Preisigke, Worterbuch 2:768), and it is the term 
for village in both the Farmer’s Law and the 
Treatise on Taxation, whereas in hagiography it 
alternates with the classical kome. Délger (Beiträge 
66) suggests that both words were used synony- 
mously “throughout the entire Byzantine era” and 
refers to Peira 23:3, which mentions a “topos (place) 
in the chorion of Gordiou [Gordou] kome”; Gor- 
diou kome could, however, be a personal name 
rather than a toponym. The documents use cho- 
rion almost exclusively and kome quite seldom (e.g., 
“chorion Peristerai with the neighboring kome 
Tzechhane”—Lavra 1, Appendix 11.8—9). The term 
chorion also had a fiscal connotation, esp. in the 
expression RHIZA CHORIOU. The agrarian legisla- 
tion of the 10th C. emphasized the economic and 
fiscal solidarity of the chorion, considering it as the 
VILLAGE COMMUNITY. A chorion could also be a 
rural, juridical entity with legally defined borders 
that, in their development over time, might not 
correspond to the real geographical borders and 
appearance of a “physical” village. Very rarely, 
the term meant a landed estate (e.g., the expres- 
sion “the lords of chorta” in the interpolation VII1:6 
to the Farmer’s Law). 

LIT. Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 18f, 41-48. Kazhdan, Agrarnye 
olnogenija 54f. D.V. Wayacacos, “Les mots chora (pays-ville), 
chorion (village), kome (bourg), et polis comme noms de lieu 


dans la langue grecque,” Onoma 22 (1978) 457-66. 
~M.B. 


CHORTAITES MONASTERY, located east of 


Thessalonike on the slope of a mountain now 
called Chortiates. The date of its foundation is 
unknown, but a seal of the 11th/ieth C. exists, 
indicating that the monastery was dedicated to 
the Virgin (Laurent, Corpus 5.2, no.1242). Circa 
1205 Chortaites (Xoprairns) was granted to the 
Cistercians, having been abandoned by its Greek 
monks soon after the Frankish conquest of Thes- 


CHORTASMENOS, JOHN | 431 


salonike. Because of the abuses perpetrated by 
the Latin monks, it was briefly restored to the 
Byz. between 1207 and 1212 (E.A.R. Brown, 
Traditio 14 [1958] 79-81). A second group of 
Cistercians regained control from 1212 to 1233; 
thereafter it reverted to the Greeks. 

Chortaites was an imperial monastery, with 
property in different regions of Macedonia and 
in Thessalonike; its holdings are mentioned in the 
14th-C. acts of several Athonite monasteries. A 
poem of Manuel Purves (Philes, Carmina, ed. Mar- 
tini, no.61) is the only source to mention an early 
14th-C. restoration of the monastery after a fire. 
In 1322 during the civil war the despotes Constan- 
tine Palaiologos fled to Chortaites from Thessa- 
lonike (Greg. 1:356.22). Chortaites’ metochion on 
the east side of Thessalonike was visited in 1405 
by IGNATIJ OF SMOLENSK. The monastery probably 
fell into Turkish hands ca.1421 and became de- 
serted. 

LIT. A. Bakalopoulos, “He para ten Thessaloniken by- 
zantine mone tou Chortaitou,” EEBS 15 (1939) 280-87. 
Idem, “Historikes ereunes exo apo ta teiche tes Thessalo- 


nikes,” Makedonika 17 (1977) 7-15. Janin, Églises centres 
4i4f. -A.M.T, 


CHORTASMENOS, JOHN, writer, teacher, and 
bibliophile; born ca.1370, died before June 1439. 
Chortasmenos (Xopracpévos) was a man of diverse 
interests, whose career was shaped by his love of 
books and literature. He first appears in 1391 as 
a notary in the patriarchal chancery, a position 
he held until ca.1415. At an unknown date he 
became the monk (and then hieromonk) Ignatios; 
by 1431 he had been made metropolitan of Se- 
lymbria. 

Chortasmenos included among his pupils Bes- 
SARION, Mark Eugenikos, and Gennapros (II) 
ScHoLarios. He wrote a variety of works: 56 
letters, some of which are addressed to other 
authors, such as Joseph Bryennios and Demetrios 
and Manuel Chrysoloras, as well as to Emp. Man- 
uel Il; poems, including iambic verses on the 
palace of Theodore Kantakouzenos and epigrams 
on the recently deceased scribe Ioasaph; orations; 
a vita of Constantine I and Helena; scholia on 
John Chrysostom; prolegomena to the Logic of 
Aristotle; and a short treatise on hyphenation. 
Particularly interesting are two detailed descrip- 
tions of serious illnesses he suffered (H. Hunger 
in Polychronion 244-52). D. Nastase has suggested 


432 CHOSROES I 


that Chortasmenos was the author of a (lost) 
chronicle that covered the period between the 
Histories of JOHN VI KANTAKOUZENOS and the his- 
torians of the fall of Constantinople (cf. Hunger, 
Lit. 1:482). An anonymous account of the Otto- 
man siege of Constantinople in 1394—1402 was 
attributed by Hunger to Chortasmenos, a hypoth- 
esis rejected by P. Gautier (REB 23 [1965] 100f). 

At least 24 MSS have been attributed to the 
private library of Chortasmenos: they include 
codices of Euripides, Aristotle, Plutarch, Lucian, 
Libanios, Byz. historians, and the Introduction to 
Astronomy of Theodore Merocuites. Chortasme- 
nos is also remembered for rebinding the famous 
6th-C. herbal of DioskoripEs (Vienna, ONB, med. 
gr. 1). Chortasmenos copied several MSS, includ- 
ing menaia that he donated to his diocese and 
astronomical texts for his own use (E. Gam- 
illscheg, Codices Manuscript: 7 [1981] 52—56). 

ED. Johannes Chortasmenos (ca.1370—ca.1436-37). Briefe, 
Gedichte und kleine Schriften, ed. H. Hunger (Vienna 1969). 

Lit. H. Hunger, “Johannes Chortasmenos, ein byzantin- 
ischer Intellektueller der späten Palaiologenzeit,” WS 70 
(1957) 153-63. Idem, “Zeitgeschichte in der Rhetorik des 
sterbenden Byzanz,” in Studien zur älteren Geschichte Osteu- 
ropas, pt.2, ed. H.F. Schmid (Graz-Cologne 1959) 152—61. 
P. Canart, G. Prato, “Les recueils organisés par Jean Chor- 
tasmenos et le problème de ses autographes,” in Studien 


zum Patrierchatsregister von Konstantinopel, vol. 1 (Vienna 
1981) 115-78. —A.M.T. 











CHOSROES I (Xoopons), called Anadshirwan (“of 
the Immortal Soul”), Persian “great king” (531— 
78/g). Under his father KavAp, Chosroes partici- 
pated in suppressing the social movement of sup- 
porters of Mazpak. As king he introduced several 
fiscal and administrative reforms and achieved a 
certain centralization of the state. He used Justin- 
ian I’s domestic problems and involvement in 
Western politics to continue the war. The first 
war (527-32), inherited from his father, was ended 
by the so-called “Eternal Peace” that preserved 
the frontier of 502. In 540 Chosroes invaded 
Mesopotamia and Syria and seized Antioch; si- 
multaneously the Persians were active in Lazica. 
For this invasion he found an ally in VITIGES. 
New activities in Lazica interrupted the truce of 
545, but in 561 the parties signed a 50-year treaty 
preserving the status quo. War broke out again 
in 572, originating in the Armenian revolt against 
Chosroes, Justin II’s suspension of tribute, and 
Byz.-Persian contest in southern Arabia and 











Ethiopia for the control of the SEA ROUTES to the 
East. Despite some success, the Byz. general Jus- 
TINIAN could not retain Armenia. 

Probably in 532 (Cameron, Literature, pt. XIII 
[1969], 13, 21) Chosroes offered asylum to Neo- 
platonist philosophers persecuted in Byz. In Ar- 
abo-Persian historiography he is presented as an 
ideal monarch. Cruel, hard, but worthy of respect, 
he failed, however, to rectify serious institutional 
defects. Modern scholarship often exaggerates the 
influence of Chosroes’ reforms on Byz. (E. Stein, 
Opera Minora Selecta [Amsterdam 1968] 65—70; 
Ostrogorsky, History 97, n.2). 

uit. Christensen, Sassanides 363-440. Zeit. Justinians 


1:292—373. Av. Cameron, “Agathias on the Sassanians,” 
DOP 23—24 (1969—70) 172-76. ~W.ELK. 


CHOSROES II, or Khusrau II Parvéz (“the vic- 
torious”), the last of the “great kings” (from 590) 
of Sasanian Iran; died Ctesiphon 29 Feb. 628. 
Chosroes came to power after crushing the re- 
bellion of Bahram Chébin against Chosroes’ fa- 
ther, Hurmazd IV. According to L. Gumilev 
(Problemy vostekovedenya [1960] no.g:228—41), 
Bahram revolted after he had defeated the Turks 
who, with the Khazars and Arabs, had invaded 
Iran in concert with the Byz. plan for the Persian 
war. Chosroes had to flee to Byz. territory; MAUR- 
icE and Domitianos helped restore him to the 
throne in 591. The Byz. generals KOMENTIOLOS 
and (eventually) John Mystakon were sent to sup- 
port Chosroes. The treaty with Byz. provided for 
the surrender of Dara and Martyropolis. Chos- 
roes remained Maurice’s ally, and rumors circu- 
lated that he converted to Christianity. 

The overthrow of Maurice by PHoKas gave 
Chosroes a pretext for invading Byz. in 604 
and reoccupying lost regions. Chosroes’ generals 
SHAHRBARAZ and SHAHIN were successful, but at 
last HERAKLEIOS organized a counter offensive 
and in 627 won a decisive victory near Nineveh. 
Chosroes was dethroned by his son KAvap-SHI- 
RUya and, after a trial, murdered in prison. 

LIT. A. Kolesnikov, “Iran v natale VII veka,” PSb 22 
(1970) 58-88. R. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran (Munich 
1984) 335-37- M. Higgins, The Persian War of the Emperor 


Maurice (582—602) (Washington, D.C., 1939). Goubert, a 
avant l'Islam 1:128—go. -W.E 


CHOUMNAINA, IRENE, anti-Palamite nun and 
bibliophile; born 1291, died Constantinople 


ca.1355. Daughter of Nikephoros CHoumNos, 
Irene married the despotes John Palaiologos, son 
of ANDRONIKOS ITI, in 1303. Widowed in 1307 at 
age 16, she sought solace in monastic life as the 
nun Eulogia. Despite her father’s opposition, she 
gave much of her fortune to the poor and spent 
the remainder on the restoration of the monastery 
of Christ Philanthropos Soter. She became supe- 
rior of this double monastery, to which her par- 
ents later retired. The convent, which housed 100 
nuns, was one of the largest in 14th-C. Constan- 
tinople. Only a few ruins of the monastery have 
been uncovered, between the MANGANA palace 
and the sea walls. The typikon for the monastery 
is extremely fragmentary; its surviving chapters 
stress the importance of the cenobitic life (P. Meyer, 
BZ 4 [1895] 48f). 

Choumnaina’s first spiritual director was THEO- 
LEPTOS, metropolitan of Philadelphia; in the 1330s 
she also conducted extensive correspondence with 
a monk whose identity cannot be established. She 
was an ardent supporter of Gregory AKINDYNOS 
and was harshly criticized by Gregory PALAMAS 
for meddling in theological controversy. Al- 
though errors in spelling and syntax reveal 
Choumnaina’s lack of formal education, she was 
praised by her contemporaries for her erudition, 
possessed a substantial library, and commissioned 
the copying of MSS. 











ED. A.C. Hero, A Woman's Quest for Spiritual Guidance: 
The Correspondence of Princess Irene Eulogia Choumnaina Pa- 
laiclogina (Brookline, Mass., 1986). 

utr. A.C. Hero, “Irene-Eulogia Choumnaina Palaiolo- 
gina, Abbess of the Convent of Philanthropos Soter in 
Constantinople,” ByzF g (1985) 119-47. -A.M.T. 


CHOUMNOS (Xodpvos, fem. Xovpvatva), a fam- 
ily of predominantly civil functionaries attested 
from the mid-11th C. The first known Choumnos 
was Michael, deacon and chartophylax of Hagia 
Sophia in Constantinople in 1049 (MM 4:317.11— 
12). John “Soumn ” (read “Choumnos”?) 
served as chief of the koiton in 1087 (Patmou En- 
grapha 1, no.47.24). Another Michael (died ca.1133) 
was nomophylax and chartophylax of Hagia Sophia 
and later metropolitan of Thessalonike. Several 
11th- and 12th-C. Choumnoi are known only from 
their seals, The sebastos and chartoularios Theodore 
Choumnos, an important official of Andronikos 
I, is probably to be identified with the Choumnos 
who served as tax collector in Athens. Theodore 


433 





CHOUMNOS, NIKEPHOROS 


was also entrusted with a military command. A 
chrysobull of 1192 mentions the “late sebastos 
Choumnos” (J. Verpeaux [in Nicéphore Choumnos 
(Paris 1959) 28] mistakenly named him “grand 
logothéte”—-see R. Guilland, REB 2g [1971] 82) 
who inflicted damage on the Genoese; his identi- 
fication with Theodore is not probable. Nikepho- 
ros Choumnos (died 1234) also served as a tax 
collector in the Thrakesian theme. A later Nike- 
phoros Choumnos was an important politician 
and writer (see CHOUMNOS, NIKEPHOROS); his 
brother Theodore was also a courtier, Several 
letters survive of Nikephoros’s son John, the para- 
koimomenos and general (Boissonade, AnecNova 
203-22); another son George was chief of the 
imperial table and megas stratopedarches. His 
daughter Irene-Eulogia CHouMNAINA played an 
important role in 14th-C. religious life. Several 
other Choumnoi were influential courtiers: the 
stratopedarches John received a pronoia tn 1344; 
Nikephoros was megas hetatretarches in 1355. Maka- 
rios Choumnos founded Nea Mone in Thessalo- 
nike in the 1360s and was hegoumenos of STOUDIOS 
in the 1970s. 


LIT. J. Verpeaux, “Notes prosopographiques sur la fa- 
mille Choumnos,” BS 20 (1959) 252-66. -A.K. 


CHOUMNOS, NIKEPHOROS, statesman and 
intellectual; monastic name Nathanael; born be- 
tween 1250 and 1255, died Constantinople 16 
Jan. 1327. Choumnos studied rhetoric and phi- 
losophy with Grecory (II) or Cyprus in prepa- 
ration for a government career. He first appears 
in the sources ca.1275 as a quaestor entrusted 
with an embassy to the Mongol khan in Persia. 
Under Andronikos II, he was promoted to mysti- 
kos in 1293, and ca.1295 became epi tou kanikleiou. 
Circa 1293—1305 he was also MESAZON and one 
of the most loyal ministers of Andronikos. He 
secured an alliance with the Palaiologan dynasty 
in 1303 through the marriage of his daughter 
Irene CHoumnaina to the despotes John Palaiolo- 
gos. In 1309—10 Choumnos served as governor 
of Thessalonike; thereafter he gradually with- 
drew from public service, after being supplanted 
in influence by his political and literary rival, 
Theodore Merocuires. In the 1320s the two men 
engaged in bitter polemics over questions of lit- 
erary style, Choumnos attacking the writings of 
Metochites for their lack of clarity. Metochites in 


434 | CHRESIS 








turn criticized his rival for his devotion to physics 
and his ignorance of astronomy, the highest form 
of science. Circa 1326 Choumnos retired to the 
monastery of Christ Philanthropos. His writings 
include rhetorical pieces; treatises on philosophy, 
cosmology, and theology; and 172 letters. He pos- 
sessed a great fortune, based primarily on land in 
Macedonia, and founded the monastery of the 
Theotokos Gorgoepekoos in Constantinople (V. 
Laurent, REB 12 [1954] 32-44). 

£D. Boissonade, AnecNova 1-201. Boissonade, AnecGr 
1:293—312, 2:1-187, 3:356-406, 5:183-350. PG 140:1404- 


38. , 
LIT. J. Verpeaux, Nicéphore Choumnos: Homme d'Etat et 


humaniste byzantin (ca.1250/1255—1327) (Paris 1959). L. Šev- 
čenko, Etudes sur la polémique entre Théodore Métochite et 
Nicéphore Choumnos (Brussels 1962). -A.M.T. 


CHRESIS (xpos). In a broad sense, chresis im- 
plied the principles (e.g., orthe chresis, “proper 
use”) by which church fathers integrated Graeco- 
Roman culture within the Christian worldview 
(Gnilka, infra). In documents, chresis meant “use” 
(e.g., Lavra 1, no.59.27) and was the usual word 
for USUFRUCT. In accordance with the principles 
of Roman law, a scholium to the Basilika (Basil. 
16.1.7) defines the chresis of a field as working the 
field and enjoying everything produced on it. 
Legislation of the 10th C. employs chresis in a 
different sense: a novel of Romanos II (Zepos, 
Jus 3:283.31—32) orders that, while a peasant in 
debt may hand over the chresis of his allotments 
(topoi) temporarily to a DYNATOS, he is not to be 
deprived of ownership of the property. Thus, the 
individual who received the chresis of a property 
(i.e., the usufructuarius) was not necessarily the one 
who worked the property. The word appears with 
this particular meaning occasionally in the 12th 
C.: in a document from 1153 (Lavra 1, no.62.7), 
a monk’s chrests of a property owned (and worked) 
by a monastery provided him with an annual 
income (sttereston). In an extended use of the word 
a praktikon from 1181 (Lavra 1, no.65.26) distin- 
guishes between a monastery’s rights of despoteia 


(OWNERSHIP) Over some paroikoi and a group of 


pronoiars’ lifetime chresis and nome (POSSESSION) 
over the same paroikoi. Chrests appears only rarely 
in documents thereafter (e.g., from 1315: Esphig., 
Appendix B.71). 


uit. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 87—89, 118. Ch. Gnilka, 
Chresis: Die Methode der Kirchenvdter im Umgang mii der an- 


tiken Kultur (Basel-Stuttgart 1984), with rev. F. Winkel- 
mann, BZ 7g (1986) 59—61. -M.B. 


CHRISM. See ANOINTING. 
CHRISMON. See CHRISTOGRAM. 


CHRIST. [This article is divided into three sec- 
tions that treat the theology of Christ (Christol- 
ogy) that developed in Byz., the literary image of 
Christ, and the types of Christ used in artistic 
representations. For depictions of Christ in nar- 
rative scenes, see the following entries: AGONY IN 
THE GARDEN; ANASTASIS; APPEARANCES OF CHRIST 
AFTER THE PASSION; ASCENSION; BLIND Man, 
HEALING OF THE; CANA, MARRIAGE AT; CRUCIFIX- 
ION; DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS; EPIPHANY; 
FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDES; FLIGHT INTO Ecypt; 
GALILEE, STORM ON THE SEA OF; INFANCY OF CHRIST; 
LAZARUS SATURDAY; LORD’S SUPPER; MIRACLES OF 
CHRIST; MISSION TO THE APOSTLES; NATIVITY; 
PASSION OF CHRIST; TEMPTATION OF CHRIST; 
TRADITIO LEGIS; WASHING OF THE FEET.] 


BYZANTINE CHRISTOLOGY. The image of Christ 
encountered in the Byz. church and in its theology 
is not so much that of the Synoptic Gospels, al- 
though Orthodoxy confesses the human nature 
(SUBSTANCE) of Christ and expresses it in the icon- 
ographic program of the GreaT Feasts, but rather 
the Johannine Christ (Locos), the PANTOKRATOR, 
the Transfigured or Resurrected One who is en- 
veloped by the Manporta. The church fathers of 
the th C. in particular exerted a lasting influence 
on liturgical texts, and their Christ is the Logos 
who is “of one essence with the Father” (HoMooU- 
sos). Against Arius and Eunomros, they empha- 
sized Christ’s divine status, thereby initiating the 
Christology “from above” so characteristic of Byz. 
and of the ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL as well: the Logos 
“became flesh” (Jn 1:14), the Preexistent One 
“became man” (cf. Gal 4:4). 

According to Grillmeier there are two distinc- 
tive types of Christology: the Logos-sarx (cf. sar- 
kosis, INCARNATION) and the Logos-anthropos (en- 
anthropesis) models. Representatives of the first 
type are inclined to attach no theological rele- 
vance to the human soul, or human freedom, of 
Christ. At the very least, they ignore it (e-g., 
ATHANASIOS Of Alexandria); or, they deny its ex- 
istence altogether so that in the union the Logos 


assumes the function of the soul (e.g., APOLLI- 
NARIS Of Laodikeia); or, they subordinate the soul 
of Christ (and his human personality) to the pre- 
eminence of the Logos. Accordingly, the divine 
activity of the Logos concerning the human reality 
of Christ is often vitalistically interpreted (cheoki- 
nesis), as in all Christologies of Monophysitic ten- 
dency since the Council of Ephesus (431); this 
tendency is seen above all in Cyr of Alexandria, 
if one excludes the compromise formula that he 
offered in 433 to the Antiochenes and that the 
Council of Chalcedon (451) accepted as his belief. 
Emphasizing Christ as a “man with a body and 
soul” runs the risk of conceiving the union of the 
divine and human in the “God-Man,” in the most 
extreme instance, as a relationship of two PER- 
sons, that is, in the juxtaposition of two beings, 
as in the NesToRIAN “Christology of separation.” 

Increasingly, a tendency developed to deny the 
“God-Man” certain human experiences believed 
to be “merely human.” From the beginning the 
fact of Christ’s sinlessness, a doctrine derived from 
Hebrews 4:15, was evident to the faithful and 
soon became a principle of interpretation. 
Athanasios, for instance, could still accept the 
ignorance (to agnoein) of Jesus as a characteristic 
of his human nature (PG 26:624A); but later, 
certain statements in the Gospels were seen only 
as an accommodation (ozkenomia) to the audience: 
“I told you that 1 do not know, when in truth I 
do know” (Didymos the Blind, PG 39:g20B). The 
height of this tendency is shown in the Monoth- 
elite controversy when MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR 
denied the possibility of a gnomic will in Christ, 
that is, the freedom of choice or FREE WILL. , 

After the acceptance of dyophysitism at the 
Council of CHALCEpON, theology was occupied 
with an explanation of the union, kept within the 
scope of the Chalcedonian definition (NEO-CHAL- 
CEDONISM), as taking place in the Person of the 
Logos (hypostatic union). This view came to fru- 
ition in the 6th C. in the anathemas of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council (553) and in so-called THEO- 
PASCHITISM under Justinian I. This made it pos- 
sible to accord prominence to the Christology of 
Cyril of Alexandria and to offer the MonopuHys- 
ITES a formula that drew from both traditions 
{e.g., “Known im two natures; united, without 
commingling, of two natures”). 

Emphasizing the hypostatic union gives prom- 
inence to the Logos as the basis of the union so 





CHRIST: BYZANTINE CHRISTOLOGY 435 


that he is the existential foundation of the one 
Christ. Thus, emphasis on the predominance of 
the Logos, in an Alexandrian context, brings 
prominently into view the deifying “energy.” Man 
as a union of two natures, body and soul, was a 
Christological model before Chalcedon and was 
used by Pope Leo I as well as the Monophysites. 
Not until Neo-Chalcedonism, however, does it 
become the focus for clarifying the hypostatic 
union and for distinguishing between varying de- 
grees of individuation, in particular the differ- 
entiation of the individuality of NATURE or SUB- 
STANCE and of PERSON or HYPOSTASIS. The 
individuality of body and soul, both of which are 
conceived within a Platonic framework, are united 
in a particular man, in his person or hypostasis, 
on which basis the individual “exists in himself” 
as an independent being; yet, he is more than a 
particular instance of a common nature, or spe- 
cies. 

The consequence of this model is shown in the 
Christology of Patr. Anastasios | of Antioch with 
his emphasis on the deification of man: “Many 
times have our holy fathers made use of the 
paradigm of man when reflecting on the union 
of natures [in Christ], As man is constituted of 
different activities (energezat), some of which be- 
long to the rational soul, some to the body, in the 
same way we understand the union that took place 
in our Saviour; just as we see one hypostasis 
constituted of different natures, so also we see it 
constituted of different energies,” the divine and 
human (Doctrina Patrum, ed. F. Diekamp, 13.1, 
pP- 79-13-80.3). 

If, as in THEODORE oF RAITHOU, the energies 
are expressly connected with the hypostasis, or 
together form a prosopon derived from a prosopon, 
then Neo-Chalcedonism is able to promote a sin- 
gle, hypostatic energy of Christ. In other words, 
there is created a Chalcedonian MoONOENERGISM 
(or MONOTHELETISM) as, for example, in the an- 
thropological paradigm to which Patr. Sergios | 
refers Pope Honorius (Mansi 11:536AB). By em- 
phasizing that the subject of the activity and will 
is one, both Nestorianism and the possibility of 
conflict between the divine and the human in 
Christ were excluded, while Christ’s sinlessness, 
and its accompanying mode of freedom, was firmly 
established. 

It is noteworthy that MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR 
sought to understand the uniqueness of Christ’s 





























436 C 








hypostatic union by altering this paradigm, after 
a phase in which he avoided or even rejected it, 
and thereby provided ANTHROPOLOGY with a sig- 
nificantly different mode! of man. The human 
hypostasis is never absolutely independent, never 
autonomously free; in its worldly and communal 
existence it is precisely defined as a union of 
natures, bound by necessity and impotence to 
arise and disappear, together with its elements, 
and to be so constituted until the end of the world. 
Christ alone is a pure hypostatic union standing 
above the laws of unions in the natural order. 
Consequently, he is an absolutely unique hypos- 
tasis and is not like man, who is unique only in a 
relative sense, existing as one particular among 
many other particulars of the same species. The 
autonomous character of Christ’s hypostasis dif- 
fers from that of the hypostases in the natural 
order, for there the independence of the hypos- 
tasis is conditioned by the essential elements that 
constitute the species. 

Maximos’s concept of “person,” therefore, is 
not concerned with its precise content, but rather 
its ontological structure. Since Christ is a unique 
synthesis established in divine freedom, he is not 
subject to anything in or of the world. For Maxi- 
mos, as soon as one defines the content of the 
hypostasis, its activity and will, one falls into Mon- 
ophysitism, for one’s thought moves within the 
framework of the natural synthesis characterizing 
man. 

This Christological model was, however, unique 
and had little impact on the history of Byz. theo- 
logical thought, where distinguishing marks are 
the predominance of the Logos, the notion of the 
mutual interpenetration (perichoresis) of the divine 
and human natures, and the communication of 
idioms produced by the hypostatic union. As a 
result, theological scholarship acquired the reli- 
gious flavor peculiar to the tradition of Alexan- 
drian Monophysitism, and this became normative 
for Byz. thought. The divine Logos is the one 
whom the believer encounters in the icon of Christ, 
and in the life, suffering, and resurrection of 
Jesus. It is God who in Jesus has assumed all 
mankind and whose presence extends in an aes- 
thetic experience. 

This experience is in no apparent conflict with 
God’s transcendence, with respect to his essence. 
The argument of the Iconoclasts—which main- 
tained that the iconographic representation of 


RIST: LITERARY DESCRIPTIONS OF CHRIST 


Christ, to the extent that it claims to depict God 
and man, either separates his two natures (falling, 
therefore, into Nestorianism) or fuses them into 
one (thereby falling into Monophysitism)—re- 
fects not the experience or consciousness of the 
faithful, but rather competing pseudo-rational 
Christological formulas. An example of an alter- 
native view is the simple statement of Patr. Ni- 
KEPHOROS | that in the icon of Christ the Logos 
is made visible if it represents his body and there- 
fore refers to him. At issue is the role of percep- 
tible symbols in conveying spiritual understand- 
ing: “We do not err when we depict Christ crucified 
at all times, for if what we see mentally, while 
absent, is not also seen with the senses in painting, 
then even what we see mentally will be lost” 
(Theodore of Stoudios, PG 99:436A). 

In spite of this spirituality, the dogmatic for- 
mula of Monophysitism remained unacceptable 
to Byz. thought and theologians were constantly 
involved in its refutation, esp. when the conquests 
in Armenia and on the borders of the Euphrates 
confronted them again with the Monophysite 
church. Christology also played a role in the po- 
lemic against IsLaM in that Monophysite, and even 
Nestorian, influences are discernible in the Qur'an, 
thereby indicating the milieu in which it origi- 
nated. 


LIT. A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vols. 1, 
2.1 (London-Oxford 1965—87). K.H. Uthemann, “Das an- 
thropologische Modell der hypostatischen Union,” Klero- 
noma 14 (1982) 215-912. Idem, “Das anthropologische 
Modell der hypostatischen Union bei Maximus Confessor,” 
in Maximus Confessor, ed. F. Heinzer, C. Schönborn (Fri- 
bourg 1982) 223-33. —K.-H.U. 


LITERARY DESCRIPTIONS OF CHRIST. Al- 
though the New Testament provides no infor- 
mation on the physical characteristics of Christ, 
gradually the church fathers developed verbal 
descriptions of Christ in his human manifestation. 
Using Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as their source, some 
early fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Basil the 
Great, Cyril of Alexandria) imagined Christ as an 
unattractive man of short stature and ordinary 
features (A. Michel, DTC 8 [1947] 1153). Others 
(Jerome and Augustine in the West, John Chry- 
sostom in the East) provided a different literary 
portrait, based on the description of the Messiah 
in Psalm 44:3 as “the most beautiful of the sons 
of men.” Chrysostom (PG 57:346.1g—26) states 
that Christ’s countenance was surely comparable 


to the glorious face of Moses and to Stephen the 
protomartyr, who resembled an angel. 

By the gth C. detailed descriptions of Christ 
were developed: the LETTER OF THE THREE PA- 
riaRcus (ed. Duchesne 277.15—18) refers to the 
church tradition that presented Christ as being 
“of good build, three cubits tall, with eyebrows 
that meet, beautiful eyes and long nose, curly 
haired, bent over, of healthy appearance, with a 
black beard, a complexion the color of wheat, and 
long fingers.” The same features are listed in the 
letter to Emp. Theophilos falsely ascribed to John 
of Damascus (PG 95:349C) and by OuLpios (ed. 
Chatzidakes, EEBS 14 [1938] 41 1-39-43). 


ut. P. Hinz, Deus homo, vol. 1 (Berlin 1973). S.G.F. 
Brandon, “Christ in Verbal and Depicted Imagery,” in 
Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Studies for 
Morton Smith at Sixty (Leiden 1975) 164-72. B. Baldwin, 
“Images of Christ and Byzantine Beliefs,” Aevum 58 (1984) 
144-48. —-A.K. 











Types OF CHRIST. The iconographical tradi- 
tion of representing Christ was slow to develop. 
Once established, however, images of Christ re- 








CHRIST: Types or CHRIST 437 


mained remarkably consistent, because of the em- 
phasis, from the 6th C. onward, on “authentic” 
likenesses of Christ that were all supposed to 
derive from ACHEIROPOIETA fashioned during his 
lifetime. 

Early images of Christ showed him together 
with the apostles, or in other contexts, such as 
performing miracles; if depicted alone, he at first 
took the form of the Goop SHEPHERD. In these 
cases he was generally depicted young and beard- 
less. 

Other images of Christ alone are documented 
only from the 6th C. onward (the lost acheiropoietos 
icons from KAMOULIANAI and PANIAS, in the Prae- 
torium of Pilate in JERUSALEM, and at Memphis). 
Two of these, the miraculous images of Christ’s 
face known respectively as the MANDYLION and 
the Keramion, survived longer; both were trans- 
ferred to Constantinople during the 10th C. These 
two icons have also been lost, but versions of them 
made during the 11th C. show a bearded Zeus- 
like head of Christ, which suggests that these early 
lost images all used the same type later known as 


Curist: Types of Christ. Christ Emmanuel in a medallion on the breast of the 
Virgin; mosaic, early 14th C. Church of the Chora monastery, Istanbul. 








438 CHRIST: TYPES or CHRIST 





the Pantokrator. This is confirmed by the earliest 
surviving panel portrait of Christ, an icon at St. 
Catherine’s monastery, Sinai (Weitzmann, Sinai 
Icons, B1), and by the image on the solidus of 
Justinian II, the first figure of Christ to appear 
on coins (J.D. Breckenridge, The Numismatic Icon- 
ography of Justinian H [New York 1959)). 

Christ Pantokrator. The concepts that separate 
the types of Christ are theological, having to do 
with the various manifestations of Christ in his 
relation to God the Father; the images themselves 
are based on the prophetic visions of God as well 
as on traditional representations of antique divin- 
ities. The Pantokrator, or “all-sovereign,” desig- 
nates the best-known type: Christ is represented 
frontally as a severe dark-bearded figure, clad in 
a tunic and dark blue Aimation, blessing with his 
right hand raised before his chest and holding a 
Gospel book in his left. His hair is parted in the 
middle, and two strands of hair may fall left or 
right from the center of his forehead. His halo is 
inscribed with a cross. The features do not change 
but can be subtly altered to convey a more strongly 
ascetic, merciful, or judgmental impression, de- 
pending on the taste of the period. The image is 
generally accompanied merely by the abbreviation 
IC XC, the monogram of Christ; the word Pan- 
tokrator begins to accompany this image only in 
the 12th C. Variations in the image are legion: 
Christ may be holding the book open or closed, 
from beneath or with his fingers stretched out 
over its binding. He may bless with the first two 
fingers raised and the last two touching the thumb 
or with all raised but the fourth finger. Instead 
of blessing, he may point to the book. 

In monumental painting, this Pantokrator fig- 
ure, in the form of a bust, was deemed particu- 
larly appropriate for dome decoration, where it 
could appear that Christ the ruler was coming 
from the heavenly world into the earthly through 
the center of the dome; it was also frequently 
placed over the entrance to a church, esp. the 
door between narthex and naos. Christ Pantokra- 
tor could be represented seated on a throne, as 
in the coins of Basil I (DOC, ed. Grierson, 3.1:154— 
60), but most often appears as a bust. 

Christ Emmanuel. Christ as the preexistent Lo- 
gos, the incarnate Word, the flesh immortal, was 
depicted in the form of a frontal beardless youth 
with curly locks pushed behind his ears, a high 
forehead and a cross-halo; he was known as the 














Emmanuel (Is 7:14). Though images of the 
youthful Christ were common in the 4th—5th C., 
separate images of Christ Emmanuel labeled as 
such appear with any frequency only from the 
11th C. onward. Images of the Mayestas DOMINI 
in the frontispieces to Gospel MSS of the Deco- 
RATIVE STYLE group replace the mature Christ 
with the figure of the young Emmanuel. Manuel 
I Komnenos used the image of Christ Emmanuel 
on his coins, evidently a reference to his own 
name. The VirGIn BLACHERNITISSA is shown with 
the Emmanuel enclosed in a medallion on her 
chest, and the features of the Emmanuel were 
borrowed for images of CHRIST ANAPESON, for 
the sacrificed child in the Amnos, for Christ in 
the BURNING BUSH, etc. 

Ancient of Days. God the Father was never 
represented, but Christ’s oneness with the Father 
(see TRiniry) was conveyed through the image of 
Christ as the Ancient of Days (he palaios ton he- 
meron), an elderly figure with white hair and beard, 
bearing a cross-halo. His robes and gestures are 
those of the Pantokrator. The image itself, rarely 
inscribed, is based on the description in Daniel 
7:9 (cf. Rev. 1:14); it grew in popularity from the 
rath C. onward. 

The relation between the three aspects of Christ 
(Pantokrator, Emmanuel, Ancient of Days) is ex- 
plored esp. in the 11th and 12th C., when all 
three may appear together on a single MS page 
(as three figures seated on three thrones in Paris, 
B.N. gr. 74; S. Tsuji, DOP 29 [1975] fig.4) or in 
a single church, each in a separate dome (NEREZ1), 
or in three medallions down the barrel vault of 
the nave (St. Stephen, KASTORIA). 

Christ as Angel. The rare image of the Christ- 
angel is based on Isaiah 9:6, which speaks of the 
Messiah as the angel of the Great Council (S. Der 
Nersessian, CahArch 13 [1962] 209—16). This and 
other Old Testament passages were adopted by 
Gregory of Nazianzos in his Second Homily on 
Faster (PG 36:624AB) to describe the vision of 
Habbakuk, and illustrated MSS of his homilies 
from the Paris GREGORY on illustrate his homily 
with the image of an angel in a mandorla. Later 
versions stress the relation of the angel figure to 
Christ by giving the angel the cross-nimbus. Christ 
as SOPHIA was also depicted as the Christ-angel. 

Only a couple of Christ images are clearly re- 
lated to famous icons in Constantinople: CHRIST 
CHALKITES and CHRIST ANTIPHONETES. Both are 























essentially Pantokrator images. Images in which 
Christ’s eyes look off to the viewer’s left, the 
direction followed by his “forelock,” has been 
associated by A. Cutler with Christ Euergetes (DOP 
37 [1983] 35-45). Other epithets accompanying 
figures of Christ, such as soter (savior), eleemon 
(merciful), philanthropos (lover of mankind), hyper- 
agathos (supremely good), and zoodotes (giver of 
life), while they correspond to the dedications of 
famous monasteries, do not necessarily represent 
distinct types or famous originals. The image of 
Christ Anapeson derives from a popular literary 
allegory, rather than from any theological tenet 
or special icon original. The Man or SORROWS 
and the Helkomenos (“the one dragged along”), 
which shows Christ being dragged to the cross 
and is known from at least the early 12th C. 
onward, are both illustrations of narrative Passion 
scenes. 

uit. E. von Dobschiitz, Christusbilder (Leipzig 1899). K. 
Wessel, RBK 1:966—1047. ].T. Matthews, “The Byzantine 
Use of the Title Pantocrator,” OrChrP 44 (1978) 442-62. 
A.W. Carr, “Gospel Frontispieces from the Comnenian 
Period,” Gesta 21 (1982) 7-10 and n.51. W. Warland, Das 
Brustbild Christi. Studien zür spätantiken und frihbyzantinischen 
Bildgeschichte (Rome-Freiburg-Vienna 1986). I. Stouphe- 
Poulemenou, “Palaiochristianikes parastaseis tou Christou 
kai ho byzantinos Pantokrator,” Theologia 57 (1986) 793- 
854. NPS. 





CHRIST, GENEALOGY OF. See GENEALOGY OF 
CHRIST. 











CHRIST ANAPESON (dvazrecar, lit. “the re- 
clining one”), the image of Christ asleep, awaiting 
resurrection. The image depends ultimately on 
the description of the lion in PHysi0LoGos as a 
beast who sleeps with his eyes open and whose 
offspring, born dead, are wakened to life by their 
father on the third day. References in the Bible 
to the unsleeping lion of Judah (esp. Gen 49:9; 
cf. Ps 121:4) led to the incorporation of the Phy- 
stologes description into biblical commentaries and 
to the development by the mid-14th C. of the 
image of Christ as a youth reclining on a bed, 
legs crossed, his head resting on his right hand, 
his eyes open. In his left hand he holds a scroll. 
In monumental painting the image is most often 
placed in or at the entrance to the pastophoria (A. 
Grabar, La peinture religieuse en Bulgarie [Paris 1928] 
257-62). The figure of Christ may be flanked by 





T 


TES | 439 








CHRIST ANTIPHON 








two angels carrying the symbols of the Passion 
(e.g., at Peribleptos church, Mistra); the instru- 
ments of the Passion serve to emphasize Christ’s 
sacrifice, as does the location near the sanctuary 
(in the case of the Peribleptos, the conch of the 
diakontkon) (S. Dufrenne, Les programmes iconogra- 
phiques des églises de Mistra [Paris 1970] 33, 54). 
The recumbent pose is occasionally assurned by 
the Christ child in images of the VIRGIN OF THE 
PASSION. 


tit. K. Wessel, RBK 1:1011—12. Pallas, Passion und Be- 
stattung 181-96. -N.P.S. 


CHRIST ANTIPHONETES (avridwrnrys, lit. “the 
one who responds,” also “the guarantor”). An icon 
of Christ Antiphonetes famous for its miracles 
was kept in Constantinople in an unidentified 
“domed tetrastyle” building thought to go back 
to the time of Constantine I the Great: it was 
probably in the neighborhood of the Church of 
the Virgin at CHALKOPRATEIA, where the icon is 
known to have been housed from at least the gth 
C. onward. Its best-known miracle (7th C.) in- 
volved a merchant and the Jewish creditor to 
whom he gave the icon as surety, and it may 
explain the meaning of the epithet “the giver of 
surety.” According to Psellos (Chron. 1:149, 
ch.66.1—10), the empress Zoe owned an icon of 
Christ Antiphonetes through which she foretold 
the future, as the complexion of Christ on the 
icon was capable of responding to questions by 
changing color, According to a 13th-C. chroni- 
cler, she also founded a Church of Christ Anti- 
phonetes in which she was buried (Sathas, MB 
7:163.3-5). An icon of Christ Antiphonetes ap- 
pears, inscribed as such, on her coins and on other 
coins of the 11th C. (DOC, 3.1, ed. Grierson, 
i62f). The image is that of a standing, three- 
quarter length Christ. arms held close to his sides, 
with the palm of his right hand held up so as to 
face the viewer. It appeared again in the now 
destroyed 11th-C, mosaic on a bema pier in the 
Koimesis church in Nıcara (C. Mango, DOP 13 
[1959] 252), but rarely thereafter. There was a 
12th-C. monastery of Christ Antiphonetes on Cy- 
prus. 


uit. T. Raff, “Das ‘heilige Keramion’ und ‘Christos der 
Antiphonetés,’” in Festschrift L. Kretzenbacher (Munich 1983) 
149-61. Mango, Brazen House 142-48. Majeska, Russian 
Travellers 956-60. B. Nelson, J. Starr, “The Legend of 


440 CHRIST CHALKITES 





Divine Surety and the Jewish Moneylender,” AIPHOS 7 
(1944) 289-338. -N.P.S. 


CHRIST CHALKITES (Xaadxirns), Christ of the 
CHALKE Gate. The site and historical associations 
of this image of Christ assured its fame, yet its 
exact appearance remains unclear and may in fact 
have changed with the repeated restorations to 
which it was subject. Leo III’s order to remove 
(or destroy) the image in 726 or 730 initiated 
Iconociasm. The gth-C. version, installed under 
Patr. Methodios after the TRIUMPH OF ORTHO- 
Doxy, was executed by the artist Lazaros in mo- 
saic. Frolow construed Methodios’s epigram on 
this image to mean that Christ was depicted as a 
bust of the Pantokrator type, with the arms of the 
cross as three separate spikes—that is, not in- 
scribed in a halo—behind his head. Coins of John 
IH Vatatzes that bear a standing figure of Christ 
are labeled Chalkites, as is a similar figure in the 
Deesis mosaic in the narthex of the Church of the 
CHora in Constantinople. But the gesture of 
Christ’s right hand varies, and P. Grierson has 
suggested that by the 1gth—i4th C. any standing 
figure of Christ was called Chalkites (DOC 3.1:160— 
62). 

Lit. Mango, Brazen House 108-42, 170~74. A. Frolow, 


“Le Christ de la Chalcé,” Byzantion 33 (1963) 107-20. 
-N.P.Š. 





CHRISTIANOUPOLIS (Xpioriavoúroàis), city 
of the Peloponnesos, probably to be identified 
with the modern village of Christianou in western 
Messenia (N.A. Bees, OrChr n.s. 4 [1915] 265- 
67), although connection with ancient Megalo- 
polis in Arkadia has also been suggested. The city 
probably did not exist in antiquity but was briefly 
important in the 12th C. The bishop of Christia- 
noupolis, unknown previously, held metropolitan 
status from the end of the 11th C. (Notitiae CP 
11.79). By the 13th C. the city had declined and 
in 1222 Pope Honorius IH divided its territory 
between the bishops of Korone and Methone (Re- 
gesta Honorn Papae IH, ed. P. Pressutti, vol. 2 
[Rome 1895] 50). Christianoupolis is perhaps to 
be identified with C(h)ristiana of Latin documents 
of the 13th—14th C., which mention a tower (Bon, 
Morée franque 348). The Greek see was restored 
before 1278 and is mentioned thereafter (V. Gru- 
mel, AOC 1 [1948] 166). 





Preserved at the site is the large Church of the 
‘Transfiguration (restored), a domed octagon sim- 
ilar to the katholikon of Hosios Loukas and Dapunt, 
dated to the grd or 4th quarter of the 11th C. It 
was apparently an episcopal church; its construc- 
tion may be associated with the elevation of Chris- 
tianoupolis to metropolitan rank. 

LIT. Bon, Péloponnése 112. E. Stikas, L'église byzantine de 
Christianou en Triphylie (Paris 1951). R. Janin, DHGE 12 
(1953) 7736. -T.EG. 


CHRISTODOROS OF KOPTOS (in Egypt), poet 
of 5th-6th C. Two of his epigrams in the GREEK 
ANTHOLOGY (bk.7, nos. 697-98) commemorate 
the death of John of Epidamnos, consul (467) and 
prefect (479). Christodoros’s hexameters on the 
statues standing in the Zeuxippos baths at Con- 
stantinople comprise book 2 of the Greek Anthol- 
ogy. These verses, filled with the favorite Roman 
praise of the statues’ lifelike qualities, tell us much 
about the cultural taste of the times; the presence 
of statues of the Latin authors Vergil and Apu- 
leius is particularly striking. Jonn Lypos (De mag- 
istratibus 3.26) quotes one line from Christodoros’s 
poem On the Disciples of the Great Proklos. Possibly 
Christoderos wrote the fragmentary poems in P. 
Gr. Vindob. 29788B-C (R.C. MeCail, JHS 98 [1978] 
38—63). The Souda credits him with an epic on 
the Isaurian war of Emp. Anastasios I as well as 
patria on Constantinople, Thessalonike, and other 
cities, but none survives. 

ep. AnthGr 1:168-193, 2:406. Eng. tr. in Paton, Greek 
Anth. 1:58-g1, 2:368—70. 

uit. F. Baumgarten, De Christodoro Poeta Thebano (Bonn 
1881). T. Viljamaa, Studies in Greek Encomiastic Poetry of the 
Early Byzantine Period (Helsinki 1968) 29-31, 56f, 101. R. 
Stupperich, “Das Statuenprogramm in den Zeuxippos- 
Thermen,” IstMitt 42 (1982) 210-35. —B.B. 


CHRISTODOULOS OF PATMOS, saint; baptis- 
mal name John; born Bithynia first half 11th C., 
died Euripos in Euboea 16 Mar. 1093. After ele- 
mentary education in his native village, Christo- 
doulos (Xpioróðovios) became a monk on Mt 
Olympos in Bithynia. When his spiritual father 
died, Christodoulos visited Rome, Bethlehem, and 
Jerusalem. Forced by Turkish invasions to leave 
Palestine, he headed for Larros, where he was 
protos from 1076 to 1079. The Turkish threat 
then compelled him to seek refuge in Strobilos, 
Kos, and Patmos. On Patmos Christodoulos 


founded a monastery dedicated to John the The- 
ologian and eagerly contributed to the economic 
regeneration of the island, which had been dev- 
astated by invasions. In 1092 a Turkish attack 
made Christodoulos flee to Euripos, where he 
soon died. 

For his monastery on Patmos, Christodoulos 
received privileges from Alexios I, including a 
chrysobull of April 1088; he composed three sets 
of Rules: the Hypotyposts (1091), the Diatheke (Tes- 
tament) (1093), and the Kedekellos (1093). John, 
metropolitan of Rhodes, wrote the Life of Chris- 
todoulos, probably ca.1140; Athanasios, a monk 
on Patmos and later patriarch of Antioch (1156— 
70), wrote an enkomion of Christodoulos based on 
the Life. After 1191 Theodosios, a monk from 
Constantinople, compiled another enkomion con- 
taining a description of Christodoulos’s posthu- 
mous miracles and substantial information about 
political events of the late 12th C. 

ED. MM 6:59~g0. 

AT, BHG 303-08. E. Vranouse, Ta hagiologika keimena 
tou hosiou Christodoulou (Athens 1966). Paimou Engrapha 


1:3*—32*. P. Gautier, “La date de la mort de Christodoule 
de Patmos,” REB 25 (1967) 235-38. -ALK. 














CHRISTOGRAM (also Chrismon) and Christ's 
MONOGRAM are terms for various monogrammatic 
abbreviations of the name of Christ that began to 
appear during the grd C. and became popular in 
the 4th C. as a result of their use by Constantine 
I the Great and his sons. The two most common 
types are (1) the combination of Chi (X) and Rho 
(P), the first two letters of the Greek name Christos, 
and (2) a starlike figure consisting of the initials 
of Tesous Christos, Iota (I) and Chi (X), the hori- 
zontal beam of the cross being often added to 
each of these figures. A third type of Christogram 
consists only of the combination of Rho and the 
cross beam. The programmatic intention can be 
stressed by the addition of the letters Alpha (A) 
and Omega (Q) or of attendant figures like apos- 
tles, angels, putti, etc. 

The Christian meaning of the abbreviations in 
question is not always demonstrable, the combi- 
nation Chi-Rho and similar figures (crux ansata) 
having been used in non-Christian milieus much 
earlier. Therefore the original aim of Constantine 
when placing a symbol of this kind on LaBARUM 
and shield cannot be established with certainty 
(transfer from Mithraic cult?). From the 4th C. 














CHRISTOPHER 44l 


m X xX 


K OK 


Type 2 


Type 3 


CHRISTOGRAM. Types of Christogram. 


into the 6th, the Christogram was used as an 
apotropaic device on imperial armor and as a sign 
of imperial triumph. It quickly became a sign of 
Christ’s triumph as well, appearing already on 
early 4th-C. “Passion” sarcophagi, atop the cross, 
as it had stood atop Constantine’s labarum. Its 
Christian use hereafter was varied and extensive. 
Occasionally ornamental, it was a widespread sign 
of Christian affiliation; it often symbolized Christ's 
triumph, and sometimes symbolized Christ him- 
self. From the 5th C. onward, it was replaced 
more and more by the Cross; it remained in use, 
however, in special functions, e.g., on doors (apo- 
tropaic), on documents and letters (invocative), or 
as a pattern of versus intexti. Its monumental use 
ceases after the 6th C. in Byz. 








LIT. Gardthausen, Palaevgraphie 2:57f. Idem, Das alte 
Monogramm (Leipzig 1924) 73-107. M. Sulzberger, “Le 
Symbole de la Croix et les Monogrammes de Jésus chez les 
premiers Chrétiens,” Byzantion 2 (1925) 337-448. K. Wes- 
sel, RBK 1:1047—50. R. Grigg, “Constantine the Great and 
the Cult Without Images,” Viator 8 (1977) 16—22. P. Bruun, 
“The Christian Signs on the Coins of Constantine,” Arctos. 
Acta Philologica Fennica n.s. 3 (1962) 5-36. H.I. Marrou, 
“Autour du monogramme constantien,” in Mélanges offerts 
à Etienne Gilson (Toronto-Paris 1959) 403-14. 

-W.H., A.W.C. 


CHRISTOPHER, general; dates of birth and death 
unknown. He was domestikos ton scholon under Basi. 
I and also was the emperor's gambros; accord- 
ing to C. Mango (ZRVI 14-15 [1973] 22, n.35), 
he married Basiľs eldest daughter, Anastasia. 
R. Guilland identifies him with the magistros Chris- 


442 CHRISTOPHER 





topher of the same reign. In 872 Christopher led 
the army against the PauLicians; he seized TE- 
PHRIKE and thereafter sent the strategoi of Armen- 
iakon and Charsianon to meet CHRYSOCHEIR at 
Bathyryax; an attack in the dead of night com- 
pelled the Paulicians to flee, and Chrysocheir was 
killed during the pursuit (P. Lemerle, TM 5 [1973] 
103). 

uit. Guilland, Instetutions 1:438. J.G.C. Anderson, “The 
Campaign of Basil I. against the Paulicians in 872 a.D.,” 
ClRev 10 (1896) 136-40. -A.K. 


CHRISTOPHER, bishop of Ankyra; fl. first half 
of the 13th C. After being elected ExaRCH of the 
West on 6 Aug. 1232 at Nicaea, Christopher was 
sent to the despotate of Errros as legate of Patr. 
GERMANOS lI to end the schism between the 
churches of Nicaea and Epiros. Upon arrival in 
Epiros in 1233, he convened a synod where the 
termination of the schism was declared. He was 
well received by most of the Epirot clergy, who 
provided him with financial support during his 
stay. He met with leaders of the schism, like George 
BARDANES, and investigated the status of certain 
stauropegial monasteries (G. Prinzing, RSBS 3 
[1983] 24, 52, 57)- 

LIT. A. Karpozilos, The Ecclesiastical Controversy between 
the Kingdom of Nicaea and the Principality of Epires (1217- 
1233) (Thessalonike 1973) 90—94. E. Kurtz, “Christopho- 


ros von Ankyra als Exarch des Patriarchen Germanos I1,” 
BZ 16 (1907) 120-42. Nicol, Epires Í 11g—22. -A.M.T. 





CHRISTOPHER LEKAPENOS, eldest son of 
Romanos I; co-emperor (g21—31); died Constan- 
tinople? 931. Christopher replaced his father as 
megas hetaireiarches ca.gig and was crowned co- 
emperor on 20 May 921. The patrikios Niketas, 
father of Christopher’s wife Sophia, tried unsuc- 
cessfully to incite him to rebel against Romanos 
and in g28 was removed from the palace. Maria- 
Irene, Christopher’s daughter, was married to 
PETER OF BULGARIA. 


uit. Runciman, Romanus 64f, 71. -ALK. 


CHRISTOPHER OF MYTILENE, poet, high- 
ranking imperial official; born Constantinople 
ca.1000, died after 1050 or perhaps after 1068. 
Christopher had the titles of patrikios and anthy- 
patos, and served as imperial secretary (hypogra- 


pheus), judge of Paphlagonia and Armeniakon. 
His epigrams—sometimes conventional descrip- 
tions of various objects, sometimes personal and 
sarcastic—present scenes of everyday life as well 
as political events (death of Romanos III, blinding 
of Michael V); he also praised the manliness of 
the rebel George Maniakes. Christopher was 
deeply interested in the beauty of the visible world 
which reflected divine wisdom, exemplified in such 
a small creature as the spider whose skill he praised; 
yet, at the same time, he was concerned with social 
inequity (Kurtz, infra, no.13). He praised some 
monks, e.g., Niketas of Synada, whom the em- 
press and the whole city revered (no.27), but he 
esteemed Niketas primarily for his talent as poet 
and rhetorician. He derided gluttonous monks 
(no.135) or gullible monks like Andrew, the col- 
lector of false relics (no.114). Christopher was 
interested in the visual arts and praised artists 
who depicted people and animals as full of life 
(nos. 50, 101). He also wrote four CALENDARS of 
saints: two in classical meters (iambs and hexa- 
meters), and two in isosyllabic meters—one very 
concise (in STICHERA), another a little more ex- 
panded (in KANONES); the last is called a syNax- 
ARION in some MSS. 

ED. Die Gedichte, ed. E. Kurtz (Leipzig 1903), corr. C. 
Crimi, BollBadGr 39 (1985) 231-42. Canzoniere, Ital. tr. R. 
Anastasi, C. Crimi, et al. (Catania 1983). I calendari in metro 
innegrafico di Cristoforo Mitileneo, ed. E. Follieri, 2 vols. 
(Brussels 1980). 


tir. E. Follieri, “Le poesie di Cristoforo Mitileneo come 
fonte storica,” ZRVI 8.2 (1964) 133-48. -A.K. 


CHRISTOS PASCHON (Xpioròs máoyxywv), 
anonymous drama presenting the story of Christ’s 
crucifixion and resurrection. Although the per- 
sonae dramatis are derived from the Gospels (Vir- 
GIN Mary, Jonn, Joseph of Arimatheia, Mary 
MAGDALENE, and others), the author has them 
express their feelings and attitudes in words bor- 
rowed from ancient writers, primarily Euripides. 
He structures his drama, however, on different 
aesthetic principles, replacing action with a nar- 
rative account of the action (both the chorus and 
heralds play a substantial part) and emphasizing 
the sudden shifts in emotion (S. Averincev in 
Problemy poetiki i literatury [Saransk 1973] 255-70); 
the author accordingly changes the lexical pattern 
of his sources (I.G. Rizzo, SicGymn 30 [1977] 1- 
63). The problem of authorship remains un- 


solved; the MS tradition ascribes the work to GRE- 
Gory OF Nazianzos, and A. Tuilier accepted this 
traditional point of view, but the majority of schol- 
ars prefer to date Christos Paschon in the 12th C. 
Among possible authors mentioned are Pro- 
DROMOS, TzETZES, and Manasses, none of them 
unquestionably proven. R. Dostdlova (JOB 32/3 
[1982] 80) hypothesized that the work could have 
been produced in the circle of EUSTATHIOS OF 
THESSALONIKE, while L. MacCoull (BSAC 27 [1985] 
45-51) returned to late antiquity by hypothesizing 
an origin in 5th- to 6th-C. Egypt. 

ED. Grégoire de Nazianze, La passion du Christ, ed. A. 
Tuilier (Paris 1969), with criticism by J. Grosdidier de 
Matons, TM 5 (1973) 363-72. 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 2:102~04. F. Trisoglio, “La Vergine 
ed il coro nel ‘Christus Patiens,’” Rivista di studi classici 27 
(1979) 338-73. W. Hérandner, “Lexikalische Beobachtun- 
gen zum Christos Paschon,” in Studien zur byzantinischen 


Lexikographie, eds. E. Trapp et al. (Vienna 1988) 183-202. 
—A.K. 








CHRISTOUPOLIS (Xpicrotwokis, mod. Ka- 
vala), seaport in northern Greece located on the 
site of ancient Neapolis; it was the harbor of 
Puixippr. Prokopios (Buildings 4.4, p.118.50) men- 
tions Neapolis in the list of Macedonian phrouria 
fortified by Justinian l; it is still named among 
Macedonian bishoprics in a notitia compiled after 
787 (Notitiae CP 3.274), and is listed by Constan- 
tine VII Porphyrogennetos (De them. 2.36, ed. 
Pertusi 88) among Macedonian poleis. The name 
of Christoupolis had probably replaced that of 
Neapolis by the second half of the gth C.; seals 
of several kommerkiarioi and an archon of Christou- 
polis have been published (Schlumberger, Sig. 
114; Zacos, Seals 1, no.2404). Its walls were rebuilt 
by the strategos Basil Kladon in 926 (S. Reinach, 
BCH 6 [1882] 267-75). 

Located on an important mainland route from 
Thessalonike to Constantinople, Christoupolis was 
the object of many attacks: it was burned by the 
Normans in 1185, captured by Baldwin of Flan- 
ders, and seized by semi-independent Lombard 
barons. In the 13th C. the area was contested 
among Latins, Bulgarians, the despotate of Epi- 
ros, and the empire of Nicaea, with John HI 
Vatatzes the ultimate victor. In the early 14th C. 
it was a part of the theme of Boleron-Mosynopolis 
(Guillou, Ménécée, no.16.1), in 1935-38 an inde- 
pendent theme (Xénoph., nos. 23.23, 25.1). Be- 








CHRONICLE 





| 443 


cause of the strength of its fortifications (G. Mpa- 
kalakes, Hellentka 10 [1938] 307-18), it withstood 
the attack of the Catalan Grand Company in the 
early 14th C., but Stefan Uroš IV Dušan later 
conquered it. The Byz. retook Christoupolis in 
1357—58, after Dusan’s death, and John V gave 
it to two brothers, the stratopedarches Alexios and 
the megas primikerios John, who had commanded 
the army that seized Christoupolis (Ostrogorsky, 
Serska oblast 147-54). The city surrendered to the 
Turks in 1387. 

The bishop of Christoupolis, first attested in the 
early 10th C., was suffragan of Philippi; he be- 
came autonomous archbishop before 1260 and 
metropolitan without suffragans by 1310. The 
traditional view that Christoupolis also had the 
Slavic name Moruvac was rejected by G, Theo- 
charides (Makedonika 6 [1964—65] 75—89). 

tir. K. Chiones, Historia tes Kabalas (Kavala 1968) 27- 
64. G. Mpakalakes, “Neapolis, Christoupolis, Kabala,” 
ArchEph (1936) 1-48. Idem, “Hoi teleutaioi Komnenoi ex 


epigraphes tes Kabalas,” ArchEph (1937) 454-72. Lemerle, 
Philippes 208f. -T.E.G. 











CHRIST PHILANTHROPOS MONASTERY. 
See KECHARITOMENE NUNNERY. 





CHRONICLE (xporikóv, also xpovoypadıkórv, 
xpovoypadetov, rarely ypovoypadia), the term that 
the Byz. applied, without a strict distinction, to 
various types of HISTORIOGRAPHY, and that has 
acquired, in modern scholarship, several specific 
meanings. The concept of the monastic chronicle 
as opposed to the secular “history” created by 
high state officials was rejected by Beck (infra), 
who demonstrated that among 21 so-called chron- 
icles only one-third were written by monks, one 
of whom (GEORGE THE SYNKELLOS) was a man of 
high education. As a conventional term, chronicle 
can designate any one of the following types of 
works: (1) historical works describing world his- 
tory from Creation (John Matatas, George Syn- 
kellos, GEoRGE HaMarRTOLOS, GLYKas) or large. 
sections of past history (as in THEOPHANES THE 
CONFESSOR, Patr. NIKEPHOROS I) that for the most 
part were not based on the author's personal 
observation; the sections on ancient history were 
derived primarily from JosepHus Flavius, Sextus 
Julius Arricanus, and Eusepios or CAESAREA; 
ZONARAS, however, used more sophisticated 


444 | CHRONICLE OF 819 








sources; (2) short chronicles that narrated in an 
annalistic form political events within a limited 
chronological period; esp. abundant are short 
chronicles dealing with the Turkish invasions (see 
CHRONICLES, SHORT); (3) short lists of dated events 
(ancient empires, emperors’ reigns, patriarchs, 
popes, etc.) beginning with the ancient past (e.g., 
the Chronographikon of Patr. Nikephoros I, the 
chronicle of PETER OF ALEXANDRIA), attested in 
Byz. from ca.800 onward, that, according to Z. 
Samodurova (VizVrem 36 [1974] 139-44), were 
contained in MSS alongside short works on gram- 
mar, geography, rhetoric, philosophy, metrology, 
etc., and probably served educational ends (VizVrem 
21 [1962] 146f); and (4) private notes with chro- 
nological dates, such as the list of the children of 
Alexios I in Moscow, Hist. Mus. 53/147 (A. Kazh- 
dan in Festschrift F. Altheim, vol. 2 [Berlin 1970] 
233-37). 

ED. Chronica byzantina breviora. Die byzantinischen Klein- 
chroniken, ed. P. Schreiner, 3 vols. (Vienna 1975—79). S. 
Lampros, Brachea chrontka (Athens 1932). 

uit. Beck, fdeen, pt.XVI (1965), 188-97. Z.V. Samodu- 
rova, “Malye vizantijskie chroniki i ich istotniki,” VizVrem 
27 (1967) 1539-61. B. Croke, “The Origins of the Christian 


World Chronicle,” in Croke-Emmett, Historians 116-31. 
~ALK. 





CHRONICLE OF 819, a short, annotated chro- 
nological table of events and notable persons from 
the birth of Christ to 819, written in Syriac. The 
author, a Monophysite, and probably a monk at 
Qartamin, a monastery near Mardin, listed those 
persons and events that were of interest to mem- 
bers of the Syrian Orthodox church. Of particular 
interest are the references to military encounters 
between the Muslims and “Romans” in the 8th 
and gth C. The chronicle was later integrated 
almost completely into the so-called Chronicle of 
846. 

ep. A. Barsaum in Anonymi auctoris chronicon ad annum 


Christi 1234 pertinens, ed. J.-B. Chabot (Paris 1920) [CSCO 
81] 3—22, (Louvain 1937) [CSCO 109] 1-16. -S.H.G. 








CHRONICLE OF 1234, conventional title for the 
universal history in Syriac, composed by a now 
anonymous Edessan author ca.1240. The work 
covers roughly the same ground as does the 
Chronicle of MICHAEL | THE Syrian, which is ear- 
lier by almost a half-century and with which the 
Chronicle of 1234 often disagrees in details. The 


latter chronicle is composed of two major parts, 
a narrative of civil affairs and a record of eccle- 
siastical events. The two parts are conflated up to 
the time of Constantine 1; thereafter they are in 
separate books. In the Chronicle's present state of 
preservation, a unique and incomplete 14th-C. 
MS, the civil history reaches the year 1234 (hence 
the conventional title) while the ecclesiastical re- 
cord ends in 1207. The importance of the Chron- 
icle of 1234 lies in part in the fact that it preserves 
excerpts from earlier works that are now lost. 
Examples of works surviving only in quotations 
are writings attributed to John of Asia, Dionysios 
or Terry Mauré, and a history of Edessa by Basil 
bar Shūmana (died 1171). Other now unknown 
sources used by the author appear to be the same 
as those used by Theophanes the Confessor (A.S. 
Proudfoot, Byzantion 44 [1974] 367-439). 

ED. J.-B. Chabot, Anonymi auctoris chronicon ad annum 
Christi 1234 pertinens, 2 vols. in 3 pts. (Paris 1916—20; 
Louvain 1937) with Lat. tr. [CSCO, vols. 81, 82, 109]. Fr. 
tr. A. Abouna, J.-M. Fiey, Anonymi auctoris chronicon ad A.C. 
1234 pertinens If (Louvain 1974) [CSCO 354]. 

Lit. W. Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionystus 
of Tel-Mahré (Uppsala 1987) 856. —S.H.G, 

















CHRONICLE OF CAMBRIDGE, conventional 
and incorrect title of an anonymous chronicle 
preserved in two Greek versions (Vat. gr. 1912 
and Paris, B.N. suppl. gr. 920 of the 11th C.) and 
in an Arabic translation (MS of Cambridge, of the 
igth C.). It consists of brief notes with chronolog- 
ical indications, encompassing 827—965 and relat- 
ing primarily to Greco-Arab wars in Sicily; it was 
apparently the continuation of a general chroni- 
cle, from Adam to 825/6. G. Cozza-Luzi suggested 
that it was written in 998/9, with the Arabic text 
produced in the beginning of the 11th C. 











ED. La Cronaca Siculo-Saracena di Cambridge, ed. G. Cozza- 
Luzi (Palermo 1890), corr. C.O. Zuretti, Athenaeum 3 (1915) 
186f. 

LIT. Vasiliev, Byz.Arabes 1:342~-46. Krumbacher, GBL 
358. ~A.K. 


CHRONICLE OF EDESSA, or Histories of Events 
in Brief, as the work is called in Syriac, is essentially 
a list of notable events and noteworthy church- 
men associated with the history of the city of 
Epessa from the grd to 6th C. The now anony- 
mous Chronicle, which was compiled in the 6th C., 
survives in a unique MS (Vat. Syr. 169). It pre- 


serves excerpts from the archives of Edessa as 
well as other sources, and is important for the 
history of the establishment of Christianity in the 
Syriac-speaking world. In its present form the 
Chronicle is probably an abbreviation of a longer 
recension of the same material. In turn, tt became 
a source for later chronicles. 

ep. L, Hallier, Untersuchungen über die edessenische Chronik 
(Leipzig 1892), with Germ. tr. I. Guidi, Chronica Minora 
(Paris 1903) 1:1~13 (Syriac); 2:1~11 (Latin). 

uit. Baumstark, Literatur ggf. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and 
Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia 1971) 12—17. W. 
Witakowski, “Chronicles of Edessa,” Orientalia Suecana 33— 
35 (1984-86) 487-98. -S.H.G. 


CHRONICLE OF GALAXEIDI, a brief chronicle 
composed ca.1703 by Euthymios, a monk of the 
monastery of the Savior in Galaxeidi (a port on 
the Gulf of Corinth). Drawing on apparently au- 
thentic documents preserved in the monastery 
and adding a liberal dash of epic imagination and 
religious credulity, the chronicle provides some 
interesting sidelights on late Byz. resistance move- 
ments in the southern Balkans as well as on earlier 
events, such as the Bulgarian invasion of the Pel- 
oponnesos under Romanos I (Jenkins, Studies, 
pt.XX [1955], 205—09; Bon, Péleponnése, 80 and 
n.4). 

ED. K, Sathas, Chronikon anekdoton Galaxeidiou (Athens 


1865). G. Valetas, Chroniko tou Galaxeidiou (Athens 1944). 
-E.M J. 


CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA, name given by 
Vranoussis to an anonymous 15th-C. prose chron- 
icle, originally wrongly attributed to the non- 
existent “Komnenos and Proklos.” The chronicle, 
written ca.1440, is the longest and most infor- 
mative of the surviving texts on medieval Eprros 
and describes the tyrannical reign over IOANNINA 
of THoMaAS PretjuBovié (1366/7—84). The author 
is very hostile to Thomas and emphasizes his 
cruelty. The second portion of the chronicle con- 
cerns Thomas’s pious widow, Maria Angelina (died 
1394), and her marriage in 1385 to the Florentine 
Esau Buondelmonti, who ruled benevolently until 
1408 or 1411. The chronicle also contains infor- 
mation about the settlement in Epiros of Serbs 
and ALBANIANS. It concludes with the year 1399; 
however, an Oxford MS of the chronicle contains 
additional entries up to 1417/18 (L. Vranoussis, 
Historika kat topographika tou mesaionikou kastrou ton 


CHRONICLE OF THE MOREA 445 


Toanninon [Athens 1968] 78f). There is also a 
vernacular version of the chronicle, written in the 
18th C., that ends with the death of Thomas. 

ED. L. Vranoussis, “To chroniken ton Joanninon kat’ 
anekdoton demode epitomen,” EpMesArch 12 (1962) 57- 
115 (texts: 74-101). 

LIT. S. Cirac Estopanan, Bizancio y España. El legado de 
la basilissa Maria y de los déspotas Thomas y Esaú de Joannina, 
2 vols. (Barcelona 1943). Nicol, Epiros H 191, 142-60, L.L. 
Vranoussis, Chronika tes mesatonikes kai tourkokratoumenes 
Epeirou (Ioannina 1962). —-A.M.T, 


CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA, conventional 
and perhaps incorrect title of a local anonymous 
chronicle preserved in four late MSS (of the 16th 
C.) that differ from each other in content. Le- 
merle argued that the original chronicle (as re- 
produced in Ivir. 329) should be called the 
“Chronicle of the Peloponnesos”: it describes events 
in the Peloponnesos from Justinian to Nikephoros 
I. The additional section deals with later events, 
some of which can be dated from 1082 to 1339. 
Lemerle argued that the chronicle was written 
before 932, when it was used in a scholion by 
ARETHAS OF CAESAREA; J. Koder even hypothe- 
sized that it was Arethas who compiled the chron- 
icle (JOB 25 [1976] 75—80). I. Dujéev (in Charanis 
Studies 54) rejected these conclusions on the basis 
of the allusion to Nikephoros II who lived after 
Arethas; he dated the chronicle to 963-1018. The 
chronicle’s statement that the Slavs dominated the 
Peloponnesos for 218 years has provoked heated 
discussion: S. Kyriakides (Byzantinai meletai, vol. 6 
[Thessalonike 1947]) considered the chronicle as 
a nonauthentic text, whereas P. Charanis (DOP 5 
[1950] 139-66) insisted on its historicity. 

ED. Cronaca di Monemvasia, ed. l. Dujéev (Palermo 1976). 


LIT. P. Lemerle, “La chronique improprement dite de 
Monemvyasie,” REB 21 (1963) 5-49. -A.K. 


CHRONICLE OF THE MOREA (Xpovexor rot 
Mopéws), an anonymous account of the Frankish 
conquest of the Morea, from the First Crusade 
to 1292, which survives in four versions (Greek, 
French, Italian, and Aragonese, while extracts 
appear in the chronicle of DOROTHEOS OF MONEM- 
vasia); debate continues whether the original was 
in Greek or French. The main MS of the Greek 
text (which is composed of over g,o00 lines of 
POLITICAL VERSE) dates from the late 14th C., not 
long after the time of its composition in the first 


446 CHRONICLE OF THE TOCCO 





decades of that century. Including many Frankish 
loanwords and written in the mixed Greek found 
also in the late Byz. verse ROMANCES, this work 
contains a large number of repeated lines, a fea- 
ture which usually indicates a close connection 
with traditional oral poerry (M.J. Jeffreys, DOP 
27 [1973] 163-95). The Chronicle is a major wit- 
ness to the forms of VERNACULAR Greek at this 
time. The unknown author shows good knowl- 
edge of the legal niceties of Moreot feudal pro- 
cedure and is more familiar with the council 
chamber than the battlefield; on events outside 
the Morea he is totally unreliable. Taking a Frank- 
ish standpoint and at times showing a vehemently 
anti-Byz. and anti-Orthodox bias, his account re- 
flects vividly the cultural mix of the Frankish- 
Greek Peloponnesos of the late 14th C. 


ED. The Chronicle of Morea, ed. J. Schmitt (London 1904; 
rp. Groningen 1967). To Chronikon tou Moreos, ed. P. Ka- 
lonaros (Athens 1940). Crusaders as Conquerors: The Chronicle 
of Morea, tr. H. Lurier (New York 1964). 

LIT. Beck, Volkshteratur 157-59. Jacoby, Société, pt VH 
(1968), 133-89. M.J. Jeffreys, “The Chronicle of the Mo- 
rea: Priority of the Greek Version,” BZ 68 (1975) 304-50. 
LP. Medvedev, “K voprosu o social’noj terminologii Mo- 
rejskoj chroniki,” VizOč 3 (1977) 198-48. ~E.M J. 


CHRONICLE OF THE TOCCO, title given by 
G. Schiré to an early 15th-C. chronicle in political 
verse about the Tocco family. Most of the chron- 
icle (3,923 lines) has been preserved in Vat. gr. 
1831 (produced before June 1429), which Schird 
identifies as an autograph MS; Zachariadou (infra) 
has shown that the order of folios in the MS is 
confused, The title of the work and the name of 
its author are missing. The chronicle describes 
events in Epiros during the late 14th and early 
15th C. and glorifies the accomplishments of the 
Tocco rulers of IOANNINA. It spans a 50-year pe- 
riod from the death of Leonardo Tocco (1375/6) 
to 1422. In addition to political history, the work 
provides information on the feudal structure of 
Epiros and socioeconomic conditions. 

Schird suggests that the anonymous author was 
contemporary to the events he described and lived 
in Ioannina when he wrote the Chronicle of the 
Tocco, He praised Ioannina and the Greeks and 
criticized Arta and the Albanians. His viewpoint 
is very provincial: Constantinople and the Byz. 
emperor seem far removed from the local power 
struggles on which he focuses. The author writes 








in the Greek vernacular with many errors in or- 
thography. 

ED. Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia di anonimo, ed. G. Schird 
(Rome 1975), with Ital. tr.; corr. E.A. Zachariadou, EpChron 
25 (1983) 158-81. 

LIT. A. Kazhdan, “Some Notes on the ‘Chronicle of the 
Tocco,’ ” in Bisanzio e l'Italia. Raccolta di studi in memoria di 
Agostino Pertust (Milan 1982) 169-76. —A.M.T, 


CHRONICLE OF THE TURKISH SULTANS 
(Xpovixdyv mepi tov Tovpxwy covATaver), con- 
ventional title of an anonymous chronicle of the 
Ottoman sultans, compiled at the end of the 16th 
C. It is preserved in a unique MS (Vat. Barb. gr. 
111), which lacks both opening and closing folios; 
another MS (Vat. Barb. gr. 598) contains some 
fragments of the text (E. Zachariadou, Helleniha 
20 [1967] 166). In its present form the Chronicle 
runs from 1373 to 1513. Zoras (infra) and Mo- 
ravesik (Byzantinoturcica 1:296) suggested that the 
chronicler used CHALKOKONDYLES and LEONARD 
or Curios as well as some sources now lost; Za 
chariadou (infra) demonstrated that its major 
source was the Italian chronicle of Francesco San- 
sovino (in its second edition of 1573), which the 
chronicler translated with slight changes and ad 
ditions; he used also pseudo-DoRoTHEOS oF Mo- 
NEMVASIA and an independent story of SKANDER- 
BEG. The Chronicle’s significance for Byz. events is 
minimal. 

















ED. Chronikon peri ton Tourkon Soultanon, ed. G.T. Zoras 
(Athens 1958), with add. and corr. in EEPASPA 16 (1965- 
66) 597-604. Leben und Taten der türkischen Kaiser, tr. R.F. 
Kreutel (Graz-Vienna-Cologne 1971). 

tir. E.A. Zachariadou, To Chronike ton Tourkon soultanon 
(Thessalonike 1960). ~E.M.J., A.K. 


CHRONICLES, CITY. Local chronicles form a 
subdivision of the genre of CHRONICLES; few are 
known (e.g., CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA). One 
can hypothesize that some kind of annalistic rec- 
ords were kept in Antioch and Constantinople, 
but the traces are very indistinct. A chronicle of 
Antioch seems to have been the main source for 
Ma a as (bks. 1—17); Theophanes and some other 
historians also rely on local materials. PARASTASEIS 
SYNTOMOI CHRONIKAI drew its detailed knowledge 
of the late 6th-C. emperors from a written source 
that might be a lost chronicle (Parastaseis 45), and 
some information concerning natural phenomena 
(solar eclipse, comets) in the second part of the 


chronicle of SYMEON LOGOTHETE might be drawn 
from a city record (A. Kazhdan, VizVrem 15 [1959] 
140f). Schreiner (Kleinchroniken 1:24) listed an- 
nalistic notes from Thessalonike, Argos and Nau- 
plion, Thebes, Mytilene, and Mesembria as well 
as those of Greco-Venetian provenance; they be- 
long primarily to the 14th and 15th C. 


LIT. A. Freund, Beiträge zur antiochenischen und zur kon- 
stantinopolitanischen Stadtchronik (Jena 1882). -A.K. 


CHRONICLES, SHORT (Bpaxéa Xpovıiká), a 
name imposed by S. Lambros (the first editor of 
these texts) on a series of unrelated brief notices 
found scattered in the margins and on blank folios 
of MSS from the 1oth C. onward. A major char- 
acteristic of these notices is a precise date by 
indiction, year, month, and day (after the Chrono- 
graphia of THEOPHANES THE CONFESSOR, gth C., 
this annalistic form ceased to be used for major 
works). The Short Chronicles vary in type and can 
include extracts from longer works, lists of im- 
perial reigns, records of events in a particular 
locality, and notes of births and deaths within an 
individual family. Though often scrappy, the Shert 
Chronicles, which cover all periods from the 4th 
C. to the Turkish conquest of the Aegean in the 
16th and 17th C., frequently contain information 
unattested elsewhere; they provide an invaluable 
web of references that corroborate and comple- 
ment the narrative historians. 











ED. Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, ed. P. Schreiner, 3 
vols. (Vienna 1977—79), with partial Germ. tr. -E.M J. 


CHRONICON ALTINATE, a complicated Vene- 
tian compilation that survives in 13th-C. MSS and 
whose legendary early history of Venice and its 
relations with Byz. comprises catalogs of rulers 
and bishops. It preserves an essential document 
on the circumstances of the deaths of Byz. em- 
perors and descriptions of their tombs that was 
compiled in the 10th C. and continued from the 
vith to 1gth C. The 1oth-C. section is a Latin 
translation of a lost memorandum of the em- 
perors’ reigns that once figured as the hitherto 
lost chapter 42 of De cer. book 2 (C. Mango, I. 
Ševčenko, DOP 16 {1962] 61-63) and sheds con- 
siderable light on problems of imperial chronol- 


ogy. 


CHRONICON SALERNITANUM 447 


ED. R. Cessi, Origo civitatum Hahe seu Venetiarum [= FSI 


73] (Rome 1933) 102-19. 
LIT. Grierson, “Tombs and Obits,” 3—60. RepFontHist 
3:265f. -M.McC. 


CHRONICON PASCHALE, conventional title for 
a Byz. universal chronicle, probably written in the 
630s. It was so named by its first editor DuCange 
because it presents methods of determining the 
date of EASTER. It has sometimes been called the 
Alexandrian Chronicle, although in fact the work 
does not follow the Alexandrian chronographic 
tradition. The Chronicon Paschale originally cov- 
ered the period from Adam to 629/30, but the 
preserved text breaks off in 628. It is the first 
extant chronicle to use the reckoning of 21 March 
B.C. 5509 for the date of Creation. Though largely 
a compilation of Sextus Julius AFRICANUS, EUSE- 
BIOS OF CAESAREA, KOSMAS INDIKOPLEUSTES, and 
other sources, it does provide documentary and 
contemporary evidence for the 6th and early 7th 
C., esp. the reigns of Phokas and Herakleios. 
From the prominence accorded to SeRcios I, pa- 
triarch of Constantinople, it has been conjectured 
that the author was a member of his circle. 

ED. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, 2 vols. (Bonn 
1832). Eng. tr. M. & M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale 284- 
628 A.D. (Liverpool 1989). 

LIT. J. Beaucamp et al., “Le prologue de la Chronique 
pascale,” TM 7 (1979) 223-301. Eidem, “La Chronique pas- 
cale: Le temps approprié,” in Temps chrétzen 451-68. E. 
Schwartz, RE 3 (1899) 2460-77. Hunger, Li. 1:328—30. 

~B.B. 


CHRONICON SALERNITANUM, essential 
source on Byz. Italy and its relations with neigh- 
boring principalities by an anonymous 1oth-C, 
monk of Salerno (perhaps Radoald, abbot of S. 
Benedetto—H.Taviani, Annales de Bretagne et des 
pays de l'Ouest 87 [1980] 175-89). The chronicle 
draws on the LIBER PONTIFICALIS. Paul the Dea- 
con, ERCHEMPERT, and lost archival materials, which 
are sometimes incorporated into the account (e.g., 
the letter of Louis II to Basil I and the spurious 
epistolary exchange between CHARLEMAGNE and 
the basileus), as well as oral tradition; it also nar- 
rates in lively—and sometimes inventive—fashion 
the deeds of the princes of Benevento and Salerno 
from the 8th C. to 974. It is particularly valuable 
for the later period. 


ED. Chronicum Salernitanum, ed. U. Westerbergh (Stock- 
holm 1956). 


448 CHRONICON VENETUM 








LIT. Wattenbach, Holtzmann, Schmale, Deutsch. Gesch. 
Sachsen u. Salter 1:940f, 9:111f. P. Delogu, Mite di una città 
meridionale (Salerno, secoli VI-XI) (Naples 1977). 

—-M.McC. 


CHRONICON VENETUM, the oldest surviving 
Venetian history, which narrates events from the 
6th C. to 1008. The prominent role the anony- 
mous work gives to the diplomat John, deacon, 
chaplain, and confidant of Doge Pietro II Orseolo 
(976-78, 991-1008), suggests that John may have 
written it. Most material on Byz. for the first two 
centuries comes from the 8th-C. chronicler Paul 
the Deacon. From ca.800 the Chronicon has inde- 
pendent value, although its sources are unclear 
and its chronology imprecise. It downplays Ven- 
ice’s formal links to Byz. but documents relations 
in the conferral of dignities like spatharios, hypatos, 
etc., on doges (e.g., 103.12—13, 104.1—2, 106,16—- 
17); the defense of Byz. Italy (109.4-12, 113.11- 
115.4); the dispatch of Venetian BELLS to 
Constantinople for a church built by Basil I 
126.19—16); and the purchase of artwork in Con- 
stantinople (143.1-~2). It also treats Eastern events 
ike the revolt of BaRpANEs TourKos (100.14- 
19), the Bulgar victory over Michael I (106.6-14), 
he attack of the Rus’ on Constantinople in 860 
117.14—-118.5), Romanos I's coup and Constan- 
tine VII's restoration (134.23-136.13), and the 
marriage at Constantinople of the doge’s son with 
Basil II’s “niece,” Maria Argyropoulina (167.27- 
169.11), who was actually a sister of Romanos III 
(Vannier, Argyrot 43). 











ED. Chronache veneziane antichissime, ed. G. Monticolo in 
FSI g (1890) 59-171. 

LIT. G. Fasoli, “I fondamenti della storiografia Vene- 
ziana,” in La storiografia Veneziana fino al secolo XVI: Aspetti 
e problemi, ed. A. Pertusi (Florence 1970) 11—44. Kara- 
yannopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde 2:417. -M.McC. 


CHRONOGRAPHER OF 354. See CALENDAR OF 
354 


CHRONOLOGY. Byz. inherited from the ancient 
world its wide variety of systems for ordering 
events at proportioned intervals on a fixed scale 
and for measuring the time between them, and it 
proceeded to construct new systems of its own. 
Nature’s way of ordering the passage of TIME is 
twofold: the monthly cycle of the moon and the 
annual seasonal cycle of the sun. Following Ro- 


man usage, the Byz. calendar comprised a week 
of seven pays, with each day divided into HOURS 
of light and dark which varied in length depend- 
ing on latitude and the seasons; and a year of 365 
days divided into 12 MONTHS of uneven duration 
with a bissextile or leap year every four years, At 
Constantinople and throughout most of the Byz. 
world each new year began on ı Sept. (before 
462, on 23 Sept.). This day traditionally signified 
the beginning of the rnpicrion, the official ad- 
ministrative year, which became compulsory for 
legal purposes in 537 (Justinian I, nov.47). The 
indiction was originally a cycle of years used in 
Egypt for the purpose of assessing land tax and 
in 312/13 a regular indiction of 15 years was 
instituted. Although the successive indiction cycles 
were themselves never numbered, each year within 
the cycle was, and the indiction became the usual 
way for the Byz. to distinguish recent and forth- 
coming years. When a document is dated only by 
an indiction, the exact year must be established 
by some other means. The date of EASTER was 
the other recurring chronological yardstick for 
Byz.; it required the provision of paschal tables 
setting out successive years with each year’s Easter 
date. Sometimes events were dated in or from a 
year of cataclysmic or portentous events such as 
EARTHQUAKES, ECLIPSES, and COMETS. 

The passing of time was ordered in a number 
of short-term and long-term ways. In the short 
term an event might be ascribed to a particular 
indiction or eponymous year. There was a variety 
of eponymous years that could begin and end at 
any point in a solar year: regnal years of Byz. 
emperors and foreign rulers (regnal years of Byz. 
emperors might also be used outside the empire, 
e.g., in Italy); years of the patriarchs of Constan- 
unople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; years 
of the popes of Rome; and years of leading im- 
perial officials such as PRAETORIAN PREFECTS. Until 
the 7th C., following Roman practice, each year 
beginning on Jan. 1 was a consulship named after 
one or two consuls designated for that year. This 
was the usual way of dating years in chronicles 
and in public and legal documents. Lists of con- 
suls were maintained for chronological reference. 

The ordering of time over longer spans was 
much more complex and controversial. Some tra- 
ditional measures were utilized: Olympiads (each 
year being the ist, 2nd, grd, or 4th of a succes- 
sively numbered Olympiad beginning in 776 B.c.); 














local eras used in different cities and regions such 
as the ANTIOCHENE Era or the DIOCLETIANIC ERA 
originating in Egypt and beginning on Thoth 1 
(Aug. 29). The years of Diocletian were used 
initially for Easter tables but were later employed 
to date events and documents. More significant 
were the chronological measures developed by the 
Byz. themselves: lunar/solar cycles and world eras. 
Lunar cycles (19 years) and solar cycles (28 years) 
were employed to establish recurring synchron- 
ism and were compounded into larger cycles of 
532 (= 28 X 19) years for fixing paschal dates 
(see Computus). The cycles also formed the basis 
for calculating eras from Creation, on the sup- 
positions that the age of the world could be dis- 
covered precisely by chronographical methods and 
that the death and resurrection of Christ were 
epochal dates of special cosmic significance. All 
Byz. era calculations were based on the lunar cycle 
of Anatolios of Laodikeia, which began in 258, 
and the world era of Julius Arricanus (Incarna- 
tion in 5500, or 5501 by George the Synkellos’s 
reckoning). Consequently, the ALEXANDRIAN ERA 
was constructed by changing the commencement 
of the year to 29 Aug., and the BYZANTINE ERA 
was constructed by adjusting the cycle of Anato- 
lios first to the equinoctial new moon (21 Mar.), 
then to the indiction. There were other eras such 
as that of Mararas (Incarnation in 5967, Cruci- 
hxion 6000) and the eras of the Incarnation (date 
dependent on world era) and the Ascension (be- 
ginning in 31). The official era became the Byz- 
antine Era, while the civil year corresponded to 
the liturgical YEAR, reflecting the way Byz. had 
come to sacralize chronology and the calendar. 
The multiplicity of dating systems used by Byz. 
up to the gth C. meant that historians and annal- 
istic chroniclers always needed to reconcile and 
combine overlapping systems. The chronicle of 
Malalas, for instance, dates events by consulships 
and indictions, by the Antiochene Era, and by 
years from Adam. It was not easy to maintain 
perfect synchronism over a long period, as evi- 
denced by the miscalculation of THEOPHANES THE 
Conressor for the events of the 7th/8th C. After 
Theophanes a unified system of chronology was 
used, and the date of the Creation as 5,508 years 
before the Incarnation was generally accepted. 
To establish the chronology of events, modern 
scholars rely primarily on direct indications of 
dates. The sources, however, present various dif- 














CHRONOS 449 








ficulties in chronology: (1) many Byz. historians 
do not date every event; thus, Byzantinists can 
place undated episodes in time only by inference, 
assuming that events were presented in strict 
chronological sequence (not always true); (2) some 
events or documents are dated by indiction only, 
and the scholar needs additional information to 
establish an absolute date; (3) in some cases, when 
there is a discrepancy between the date by indic- 
tion and the date from Creation, the scholar must 
decide which date is correct (or if both are wrong); 
(4) a similar problem arises when events are as- 
signed different dates in Byz. and non-Byz. sources, 
If a source has no date whatever, the event can 
sometimes be dated on the basis of astronomical 
data (mention of ECLIPSES and COMETS), of natural 
phenomena (EARTHQUAKES, PLAGUES, etc.), or of 
feasts (e.g., by the occasional coincidence of Easter 
or a Sunday with a day and month of the solar 
year). 

AUXILIARY DISCIPLINES have elaborated compli- 
cated methods to date MSS, inscriptions, coins, 
seals, ceramics, and other objects; to establish the 
chronology of archaeological material, not only 
the discovery of relatively well-dated objects (esp. 
coins) is necessary, but also stratigraphy, that is, 
the sequence of inhabited levels. Particularly im- 
portant and difficult is the dating of literary texts, 
esp. anonymous ones, that can be based only on 
the mention of persons and events and, to a far 
lesser degree, on stylistic and linguistic criteria. 

LIT. V. Grumel, La Chronologie (Paris 1958). M. Sjuzju- 
mov, Chronologija vseobščaja (Sverdlovsk 1971). R.S. Bagnall, 
K.A. Worp, The Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt (Zut- 
phen 1978). F. Délger, Das Kaiserjahr der Byzantiner (Munich 
1949). Ja. Ljubarskij, “Zamecanija k chronologii X1 knigi 
‘Aleksiady’ Anny Komninoj,” VizVrem 23 (1963) 47—56. 

~B.C., AK. 


CHRONOS (Xpåvos), ancient personification of 
TIME, the father of Aion (i.e., aeon). In Neopla- 
tonic philosophy, esp. in Damaskios (381K), he is 
the principle of being, described as a winged 
dragon with the face of a god resembling both a 
bull and a lion. Nonnos OF PANOPOLIs (Dionysiaka 
2:420-23) depicted Zeus as seated in Chronos’s 
chariot with four winged steeds, whereas QUINTUS 
OF SMYRNA (12:194f) said that it was “immortal 
Aion” who framed Zeus’s eternal chariot “with his 
never-wearying hands.” Church fathers usually 
contrasted Chronos and Aion, considering chronos 





450 | CHRYSAPHES, MANUEL 








as the time of the sensible world and aion (eter- 
nity) as the time of the everlasting cosmos (Basil 
the Great, PG 29:596B; Gregory of Nazianzos, 
PG 36:320B). 


ut. O. Waser, RE 3 (1899) 2481f. —A.K. 


CHRYSAPHES, MANUEL, musician; fl. ca. 1440- 
63. Although little is known about his life and 
growth as a musician, apparently Chrysaphes 
(Xpvoddns) was the most prolific and distin- 
guished composer, singer, scribe, and theoretician 
of the late Byz. period. At least two of his dated 
autographs survive: Athos, Iveron 1120 (july 1458) 
and Istanbul, Topkapı 15 (July 1463). Numerous 
sources reveal that he held the office of lampada- 
rios (see SINGERS) at the imperial palace, and, as 
john VII and Constantine XI commissioned cer- 
tain of his compositions, his association with the 
imperial court is confirmed. 

Chrysaphes’ compositions appear with great 
frequency in musical collections written after the 
mid-isth C. In this he compares favorably with 
the prolific igth- and 14th-C. writers Glykys, 
KOUKOUZELES, Korones, and Kiapas. All adhere 
to the new stylistic trends of the Palaiologan pe- 
riod, characterized in musical composition by the 
dominant kalophonic idiom. Chrysaphes—like his 
predecessors, acutely aware of the need to refur- 
bish older chants, which were no longer suitable 
for the new, expanded liturgy, and to enrich the 
repertory with fresh vocal settings—composed a 
variety of musical offerings in diverse styles to fit 
the new requirements: solo and choral hymnody 
and psalmody; embellished chants; kratemata (see 
“TERETISMATA); etc. 

Chrysaphes was one of the few Byz. composers 
to write about theoretical and practica] matters 
that he considered essential for a true under- 
standing of Byz. chant. His treatise, entitled On 
the Theory of the Art of Chanting and On Certain 
Erroneous Views That Some Hold about It, is of great 
value in that it clarifies hitherto unexplained as- 
pects of modal theory and musical practice and 
provides much important information about the 
development of Byz. singing in the 14th—15th C. 


LIT. D.E. Conomas, The Treatise of Manuel Chrysaphes, the 
Lampadarios (Vienna 1985). =D.E.C. 





CHRYSARGYRON (xpvo&pyvpov, collatio lus- 
tralis), tax in gold and silver levied every five years, 


originally designed to pay the quinquennial do- 
natives to the army. The tax was instituted by 
Constantine I and collected from negotiatores, a 
term primarily denoting merchants, but also in- 
cluding moneylenders and prostitutes; doctors and 
teachers were exempt. The tax was assessed on 
the capital assets of the negotiatores, along with 
their tools and families. Officials elected in each 
city by those liable for the tax collected the chrys- 
argyron; it was esp. burdensome for city dwellers 
and those of small means. In the 5th C. it was 
collected every four years. In 498 Emp. Anastasios 
I abolished the tax, making up the difference 
from his own estate. 

Lit. Jones, LRE 110, 237, 431f, 871f. Karayannopulos, 
Finanzwesen 129-37. R. Delmaire, “Note sur la périodicité 
du chrysargyre,” Bulletin de la société française de numisma- 
tique 40 (1985) 621-23. T. Damsholt, “Das Zeitalter des 
Zosimos: Euagrios, Eustathios und die Aufhebung des 


Chrysargyron,” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 8 (1977) 
89-102. ~T.E.G. 


CHRYSOBALANTES, THEOPHANES, physi- 
cian; A. probably i1oth C. Recent research has 
demonstrated that the name of Theophanes Non 
nos, previously ascribed to this physician, derives 
from a Renaissance forgery. No biographical data 
are known. At the orders of an emperor “Con- 
stantine Porphyrogennetos,” probably Constan 
tine VII, Chrysobalantes (Xpvooßaiávrys) com- 
piled a therapeutic manual composed of abstracts 
from the writings of ORIBASIOS, AETIOS OF AMIDA, 
ALEXANDER OF TRALLES, and PAUL OF AEGINA. 
This compendium survives as the Epitome de cu- 
ratione morborum in 297 chapters. He also wrote a 
pharmaceutical tract, the De remediis (as yet un- 
published). A third treatise, De alimentis, describes 
the nutritive values of various foods. 


i 























ED. Epitome de curatione morborum, ed. C.W. Ettinger, 2 
vols. (Amsterdam-Gotha 1794-95). De alimentis, in Phys- 
MedGr 2:257—81. 

LIT. J. Sonderkamp, “Theophanes Nonnus: Medicine in 
the Circle of Constantine Porphyrogenitus,” DOP 38 (1984) 
29—41. Idem, Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung der Schriften 
des Theophanes Chrysobalantes (sog. Theophanes Nonnes) (Bonn 
1987). -J.S. 


CHRYSOBERGES (XpvaoBépyns, “golden 
wand”), a family known from the late 10th C. 
Some family members were judges or fiscal offi- 
cials, such as “Krysobourgios,” judge of Melitene 
under Romanos IL] (MICHAEL I THE SYRIAN, Chro- 
nique 3:140f); Peter Chrysoberges, patrikios and 


judge of the velum and Charsianon (Schlumber- 
ger, Sig. 285; the editor’s date—1oth C.—does not 
seem acceptable: at that time PATRIKIOS was too 
elevated a title for a provincial judge); Peter, megas 
chartoularios of the genikon (Laurent, Corpus 2, 
no.335) in the 11th C.; John, megas chartoularios 
of the soldiers’ logothesion in 1088; Michael, logart- 
astes on Crete in 1193. 

Other members of the Chrysoberges family were 
high ecclesiastical functionaries: two patriarchs of 
Constantinople, Nicholas Il and Loukas Cury- 
SOBERGES; Theodosios, patriarch of Antioch in the 
mid-11th C. (Laurent, Corpus 5.2, nos. 1521—24); 
Chrysoberges, metropolitan of Naupaktos, an ad- 
dressee of THEOrPHYLAKTOS of Ohrid; another 
Chrysoberges, archbishop of Corinth ca.1170 (V. 
Laurent, REB 20 [1962] 214-18); Stephen, char- 
tophylax of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in the 
mid-12th C. (Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.101; he was, 
according to Laurent, identical with the arch- 
bishop of Corinth); Nikephoros Chrysoberges, 
metropolitan of Sardis and a writer (see CHRY- 
SOBERGES, NIKEPHOROS). The family possessed 
lands and held modest posts in the Smyrna region 
from the 12th C. onward (Ahrweiler, “Smyrne” 
109f). While they still participated in administra- 
tion in the 14th C.—a Leo signed a charter of 
1322 as imperial doulos (Chil. 1, no.85-98—99), and 
a John was an imperial envoy ca.1343—by that 
time they were mostly peasants, artisans, and 
scribes. 

ur. Nikephoros Chrysoberges, Ad Angelos orationes tres, 
ed. M. Treu (Breslau 1892) 38f, add. N. Bees, EEBS 2 
(1925) 149, n.1. —A.K. 


CHRYSOBERGES, MAXIMOS, theologian; died 
Lesbos? between 1410 and 1429. He was the eld- 
est of three brothers, all of whom became DominI- 
CANS; both Theodore and Andrew rose to be 
vicar-general of the order. Maximos was a student 
of Demetrios Kypones and studied AQUINAS in 
his teacher’s translation. After his conversion to 
Catholicism, he entered a Dominican monastery 
in Pera ca.1gg0. A few years later he went to 
Venice to study philosophy and (in 1396) to Pavia 
to study theology. In 1398 he traveled to Rome, 
where he received permission from Pope Boni- 
face IX (1389-1404) to celebrate the Dominican 
rite in Greek. Circa 1399/1400 he went to Crete, 
where he participated in a public disputation with 
Joseph Bryennios and wrote his Discourse to the 














CHRYSOBULL | 451 


Creians on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. He also 
engaged in polemics with Neilos DAMILAS. Maxi- 
mos believed that the decline of the Byz. was a 
result of their disobedience to the pope. 

ED. PG 154:1217~-30. 


uit. Loenertz, Calécas 57-63. Beck, Kirche 742. 
~A.M.T. 


CHRYSOBERGES, NIKEPHOROS, rhetorician; 
born probably ca.1160 (not 1142), died after 1219?. 
Promoted with the patronage of Constantine 
MESOPOTAMITES to the post of DIDASKALOS ca.1186, 
Chrysoberges probably fell into disgrace in the 
1 1908 but was then appointed magistros ton rhetoron 
(1200—04) and produced speeches to Alexios HI, 
Alexios IV, and Patr. John X Kamateros, Circa 
1204 he succeeded his uncle as metropolitan of 
Sardis. Both his political views and literary prin- 
ciples were traditional and conventional. He praised 
imperial power but unlike EusTATH1OS OF THES- 
SALONIKE remained unimpressed by military 
prowess. The Italian problem occupied an impor- 
tant place in Chrysoberges’ works. In 1202 he 
criticized the Italians for their arrogance and van- 
ity but was more cautious in 1204, trying to pre- 
sent them as loyal servants of Alexios IV. 

ED. Ad Angelos orationes tres, ed. M. Treu (Breslau 1892). 
Eng. tr. of the speech to Alexios IV by C. Brand, “A 
Byzantine Plan for the Fourth Crusade,” Speculum 43 (1968) 
465-72. R. Browning, “An Unpublished Address of Nice- 
phorus Chrysoberges to Patriarch John X Kamateros of 
1202,” BS/EB » (1978) 37—68. F. Widmann, “Die Progym- 
nasmata des Nikephoros Chrysoberges,” BNJbb 12 (1935— 
36) 12-25. 

LIT. Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 224-36. Browning, “Pa- 
triarchal School” 184~86. Dujtev, Proučvanija 91—110. P. 
Wirth, “Die Wahl des Patriarchen Niketas I]. Muntanes 
von Konstantinopel,” OrChr 46 (1962) 124-26. -A.K. 


CHRYSOBULL (xpvoóßoviiov), generic name 
for several types of documents bearing the em- 
peror’s gold bulla; later, used to indicate solemn 
documents, even those without such a bulla. Chry- 
sobulls were also issued by the emperors of Tre- 
bizond and by Slavic rulers, esp. by STEFAN UROŠ 
IV Dušan. 

Types of chrysobull included the chrysoboullos 
logos, the chrysoboullon sigillion, the chrysoboullon, 
and the chrysoboullos horismos. The chrysoboullos lo- 
gos (preserved originals from 11th to 15th C.) was 
a solemn document for granting privileges (in- 
cluding unilateral confirmations of TREATIES with 


452 | CHRYSOCHEIR 





countries of western Europe), sometimes also for 
communicating important administrative deci- 
sions or for publishing new laws. The word logos 
(usually three times), part of the date, the word 
legimus (until the 12th C.), and the full imperial 
autograph signature were written with red ink. 
The chrysoboullon sigillion (originals from 11th to 
mid-14th C.) was for lesser privileges, often re- 
lated to real estate. Words written in purple ink 
were sigillion, legimus (until 1119), and the em- 
peror’s autograph MENOLOGEM. In some early si- 
gillia, the gold seal was accompanied by the em- 
peror’s wax seal. The chrysoboullon, sometimes 
defined as horkomotikon (when confirming an oath) 
or prokouratorikon (when it served as a procura- 
tion), was a document for confirmation of treaties, 
safe-conducts, appointment of representatives 
(1gth—15th C.), signed either with full signature, 
or with menologem. The chrysoboullos hortsmos 
(middle of the 14th C.) was a less-solemn docu- 
ment in which only the emperor’s full signature 
was written in purple. 

The gold bulla and the emperor’s autograph 
full signature in purple (exception: menologems 
1341, 1342) were also used to confirm treaties 
(trevae, symbolaion, symphonia) with Venice and 
Genoa (1341 and after) as well as the litterae pa- 
tentes (Gr. aneogmenai graphat) issued in Paris by 
Manuel II (1400, 1402), although the word chry- 
sobull was not used of them. 

Lit. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 117-28. Oi- 


konomides, “Chancellerie” 190. Oikonomides, “Chancery” 
313-19. Dölger, Diplomatik 39—45- -N.O. 


CHRYSOCHEIR (Xpvooxépis, lit. “Golden 
Hand”), last leader of the PauLicrans (ca.863-— 
ca.878/9). Chrysocheir may have served in his 
youth as an officer in the imperial army, but his 
career is known primarily after his succession to 
his uncle, KarBeas. Chrysocheir sided with the 
Muslims and fought vigorously against Emp. Basil 
l, raiding as far as Nicaea, Nikomedeia, and even 
Ephesus, but the capture of TEPHRIKE and his 
own murder by a renegade named Poullades 
(ca.878/g) brought about the end of the Paulician 
principality. The memory of his career must have 
survived in popular tradition, for in the DIGENES 


Curysosutt. Chrysobull of Emp. Alexios I; 1088. 
Monastery of St. John, Patmos. 


AKRITAS he seems to have been turned into Di- 
genes’ Muslim paternal grandfather. 


LIT. Lemerle, “Pauliciens” g6—103. Garsoian, Paulician 
Heresy 30f, 39, 128f. -N.G.G. 


CHRYSOGRAPHY. See ILLUMINATORS. 


CHRYSOKEPHALOS, MAKARIOS, metropoli- 
tan of Philadelphia (1336-82); baptismal name 
Michael; born ca.1300, died Philadelphia? Aug. 
1382. Born to a noble family, Chrysokephalos 
(Xpvcoxédados) is first attested, as a scribe, in 
1327. By 1328 he was a monk and was later 
ordained hieromonk. After becoming metropoli- 
tan of PHILADELPHIA, he traveled frequently to 
Constantinople to participate in the permanent 
synod (ENDEMOUSA SYNODOS); he remained a mod- 
erate on the questions of UNION OF THE CHURCHES 
and PaLamMism. In 1345 he was praised by AKIN- 
DYNOS (ep.48) for his opposition to Palamas, but 
switched sides by the following year and signed 
the Tomos of the local council of Constantinople 
of 1341 five years after it had been issued. By 
1350 he had the title of exarch of Lydia, and in 
1351 he was called “universal judge” (see KRITAI 
KATHOLIKOI). He was a candidate for the patriar- 
chate in 1353 but was defeated by PHILOTHEOS 
KOKKINOS. | 

Chrysokephalos was celebrated by his contem- 
poraries as an orator and writer. In his youth he 
compiled the Rhodonia (Rose Garden), an anthology 
of PROVERBS and GNomal. Later he wrote CATENAE 
on Matthew and Luke, homilies, and a vita of St. 
Meletios of Galesios (BHG 1246a). Passarelli (in- 
fra) argues that he was responsible for the resto- 
ration of the basilica of St. John at Philadelphia 
and delivered his Homily on the Feast of Orthodoxy 
at its inauguration. His correspondents included 
Sophianos, Makarios Paradeissas, and Theodore 
ME.iTENIOTEs (cf. R. Walther, JOB 22 [1973] 219- 
32; 23 [1974] 215-27). 

ED. Rhodonia—ed. Leutsch-Schneidewin, Corpus 2:135— 
227. PG 150:173-244. Macario Crisocefalo (1300—1382): 
Lomelia sulla festa dell’Ortodossia e la basilica di S. Giovanni di 
Filadelfia, ed. G. Passarelli (Rome 1980). Vita S. Meletii, ed. 
Spyridon Lauriotes in GregPal 5 (1921) 582-84, 609-24 
and Ho Athos 8g (1928) g-11. 

uT. M. Manousakas, “Makariou Philadelpheias tou 


Chrysokephalou anekdota chronika semeiomata,” Thesau- 
nismata 4 (1967) 7-19, 2236. —-A.M.T. 


CHRYSOKOKKES, GEORGE 453 


CHRYSOKOKKES, GEORGE, astronomer and 
physician; fl. Trebizond and Constantinople 
ca.1335—50. Chrysokokkes (Xpvcoxoxxys) is first 
noted as a scribe who copied the Batrachomyoma- 
chia and Odyssey in 1336 (Vat. Palat. gr. 7). Frag- 
ments of his works on medicine, perhaps influ- 
enced by contemporary Persian practice, survive 
in some MSS. He studied asTRonNomy in Trebi- 
zond under a priest named Manuel, who owned 
MSS containing astronomical tables and their can- 
ons translated by Gregory CHIONIADES from Per- 
sian and Arabic into Greek. Taking his geograph- 
ical table and one of his three star-catalogs from 
Chioniades’ version of the Zi al-Sanjari of al- 
Khazini, his calendaric tables from the Zīj al-‘Ala’t 
of al-Fahhad, and most of his planetary tables and 
their canons from the Z%-i Ilkhani of al-Tasi, 
Chrysokokkes produced ca.1346 an Introduction to 
the Syntaxis of the Persians (Exegesis eis ten Syntaxin 
ton Person), dedicated to his “brother,” John Char- 
sanites (perhaps identical with John Charsianeites, 
the founder of the CHARSIANEITES MONASTERY— 
H. Hunger, JOB 7 [1958] 137). Some 30 MS 
copies survive of this extremely popular work, 
which influenced several anonymous sets of astro- 
nomical tables and canons written in the second 
half of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th C. 
as well as the Tribibles of Theodore MELITENIOTES. 
Shelomo ben Eliyahu of Thessalonike (f.1374- 
86) translated Chrysokokkes’ Exegesis into Hebrew 
(B. Goldstein, Journal for the History of Arabic Sci- 
ence 3 [Aleppo 1979] 36f). Chrysokokkes himself 
made no significant contribution to astronomy (D. 
Pingree, DOP 18 [1964] 144f). His authorship of 
the brief list of equivalent ancient and modern 
toponyms (published by U. Lampsides, BZ 38 
[1938] 320-22) is extremely doubtful. 

A later George Chrysokokkes, active in Con- 
stantinople ca.1420-30, was an important hu- 
manist. counting among his students BESSARION 
and among his Italian patrons FILELFo, Aurispa, 
and Cristoforo Garatone (Wilson, Scholars 271f). 
Another astronomer, Michael Chrysokokkes, a 
notary of the Great Church in Constantinople, 
translated the astronomical tables of Immanuel 
ben Jacob Bonfils from Hebrew into Greek in 
1435 under the title Hexapterygon (P. Solon, Cen- 
taurus 15 [1970] 1—20). 

ED. Tables and one star-catalog—Astronomia philolaica, 


ed. I. Bullialdus (Paris 1645), Tabula philolaicae, 211-32. 
Canons (partial)—Ad historiam astronomiae symbola, ed. H. 


454 CHRYSOLORAS, DEMETRIOS 


Usener (Bonn 1876) 23~37. Three star-catalogs—ed. P. 
Kunitzsch, BZ 57 (1964) 382-411. 

uT. R. Mercier, “The Greek ‘Persian Syntaxis’ and the 
Zij-i [khani,” ATHS 34 (1984) 35-60. —D.P., J.S. 


CHRYSOLORAS, DEMETRIOS, writer and gov- 
ernment official; born before 1360, died after 
April/May 1416. Little is known of his biogra- 
phy; his relationship to Manuel CHRYSOLORAS 
(Xpvooħwpâs) is unclear. He was an intimate of 
MANUEL II PaLaroLocos, who addressed eight 
letters to Chrysoloras between 1397 and ca.1417. 
About 1384/5 he went on an embassy to a “bar- 
barian” ruler, probably the Ottoman sultan Mu- 
rad I. Despite his friendship with Manuel, he 
served as mesazon for JOHN VII PALAIOLOGOS in 
Thessalonike from 1403 to 1408. 

Chrysoloras wrote a variety of works: anti-Latin 
polemics (including a dialogue among Thomas 
Agutnas, Neilos Kapasitas, Demetrios KYDONES, 
and himself), a eulogy of St. Demetrios, and dis- 
courses on the Annunciation and Dormition. His 
enkomion of a flea is still unpublished. In 1403 he 
composed an oration of thanksgiving on the first 
anniversary of the defeat of Bayezip I at Ankara 
(P. Gautier, REB 19 [1961] 340-57). His descrip- 
tion of the ideal emperor (Comparison of Old Rulers 
and the Present New Ruler) was the source of a 
closely related work, his “Hundred Letters” to 
Manuel, a collection of very short letters praising 
the emperor. 

ED. Cento epistole a Manuele II Paleologo, ed. F.C. Bizzarro 
(Naples 1984), with Ital. tr. Comparison—ed. Lampros, Pal. 
kai Pel. 3:222—45. Eulogy of St. Demetrios—ed. B. Laour- 
das, GregPal 40 (1957) 342-54. For complete list, see Tus- 


culum-Lexikon 166. 


LIT. Beck, Kirche 751. Chortasm. go-94. -A.M.T. 


CHRYSOLORAS, MANUEL, diplomat and 
teacher of Italian humanists; born ca.1350, died 
Constance 15 Apr. 1415. About the same age as 
ManueEL II, Chrysoloras was the emperor’s friend 
and was entrusted with numerous European mis- 
sions. During embassies to Venice in the 1390s he 
first came into contact with Italian scholars. From 
1397 to 1400 he taught Greek in Florence; his 
most prominent student was Guarino of Verona 
(1374-1460). After his return to Constantinople 
in 1403, he continued his teaching and prepared 


a textbook on grammar. Chrysoloras made peri- 
odic trips to the West to seek assistance against 
the Turks; in 1406 he was in Venice and Padua, 
from 1407 to 1410 in Paris, London, Spain, and 
Bologna. Chrysoloras converted to Catholicism 
and spent two years in Rome (1411—13) attempt- 
ing to negotiate the convocation of a church coun- 
cil. He then attended the Council at Constance, 
where he died. 

His relatively small literary output included a 
Comparison of the Old and New Rome, in the form 
of a letter to Emp. Jonn VIII Pataro.ocos. In 
this work Chrysoloras shows his appreciation of 
the naturalism of antique art and marvels at the 
ancient ruins and Christian shrines of Rome, but 
concludes that Constantinople is the superior city 
because of its incomparable location and won- 
drous monuments such as Hagia Sophia. An au- 
tograph MS (Meteora, Metamorph. 154) pre- 
serves a lengthy and important discourse to 
Manuel, written in 1414, eulogizing the deceased 
despotes THEODORE I PaLaloLocos, and urging the 
promotion of education and study of the past 
(C.G. Patrinelis, GRBS 13 [1972] 497-502). 

ED. Letters—PG 156:24—-60. Germ. tr. of eps. 1-2—F. 
Grabler, Europa im XV. Jahrhundert von Byzantinern gesehen 
(Graz 1954) 109~47. See list in Cammelli, infra 177-85. 

LIT. G. Cammelli, 7 dotti bizantini e le origini dell’umane- 
simo, I. Manuele Crisolora (Florence 1941). Barker, Manuel 
I 261—67, 320-23, 544f. H. Homeyer, “Zur Synkrisis des 
Manuel Chrysoloras, einem Vergleich zwischen Rom und 
Konstantinopel,” Klio 62 (1980) 525-34. —A.M.T. 


CHRYSOPOLIS (Xpvaozronis, lit. “Golden City”), 
the name of at least two Byz. cities, one in Mace- 
donia, the other in Bithynia. 


CHRYSOPOLIS IN MACEDONIA, a kastron at the 
mouth of the StRYMON River; it was located near 
ancient AMPHIPOLIS which disappeared in the 7th 
C., although some archaizing authors (from 
Bryennios through Kantakouzenos) continued to 
use the name Amphipolis. Chrysopolis is first at- 
tested in an act of 984 transferring from Lavra to 
Iveron 25 exempted households there (/vir., 
no.6.32—35). An act of the mid-11th C. (ibid., 
no.30.2) places Chrysopolis in the district (diotke- 
sts) of Boleron and Strymon. Chrysopolis was a 
harbor on “the sea of Chrysopolis” (Solovjev-Mosin, 
Grčke povelje, no.g.43-44); in 1347 Stefan Uroš 
IV Dušan conferred upon Lavra an annual reve- 


nue of 300 hyperpera from the salt pan and 
mooring stations in Chrysopolis (ibid, no.16.48— 
51). The town is also mentioned in Greek portu- 
lans of the 15th—16th C. 

Surviving walls represent several phases rang- 
ing from the original settlement in the west to a 
vast extension in the east during the 1qth C., 
probably under Andronikos III, and later repairs. 

LIT. F. Papazoglou, “Eion-Anfipol-Hrisopol,” ZRVI 2 
(1953) 7-24. A.W. Dunn, “The Survey of Khrysoupolis, 
and the Byzantine Fortifications in the Lower Strymon 
Valley,” JOB 32.4 (1982) 605-14. Lemerle, Philippes 263— 
65. -T.E.G. 

CHRYSOPOLIS IN BITHYNIA (Scutari, mod. 
Usktidar), a harbor on the eastern shore of the 
Bosporos, and a suburb of CHALCEDON. It was 
one of the principal places to cross the strait to 
Constantinople. In antiquity it was a simple kome 
(W. Ruge, RE 3 [1899] 2518). In the gth C. Patr. 
Nikephoros I described it as a coastal chorion op- 
posite Constantinople (Nikeph. 44.10—11) and as 
a port, epineion (60.25). 

Licinius was captured in Chrysopolis after his 
defeat in 324 and delivered to Constantine I. The 
town gained significance in the 7th and 8th C., 
when both the Arabs attacking Constantinople 
and armies from rebellious themes headed toward 
the Bosporos: thus in 668 the soldiers of Anato- 
likon assembled in Chrysopolis to demand that 
Emp. Constantine IV accept his brothers as co- 
rulers; in 715 the town served as a base for the 
Opsikianoi who mutinied against Anastasios II; 
in 717 the future Leo III moved against Theo- 
dosios III from Chrysopolis. The town also played 
a crucial role in the revolt of ARTABASDOS against 
Constantine V. In 803 BaRDANES TouRKOS ar- 


rived there and waited in vain for the citizens of 


Constantinople to invite him into the city. In 988 
Basil II defeated Bardas PHokas at Chrysopolis, 
and in 1055 the rebellious Bryennios went to 
Chrysopolis. Around 1050 Chrysopolis formed a 
theme under the command of a strategos (Skyl. 
467.2-3). Its role evidently diminished after the 
Turkish conquest of Asia Minor, where these up- 
risings had originated. In 1200 Alexios III moved 
to Chrysopolis when there was a rebellion in Con- 
stanuinople. Under its new name, Scutari, Chry- 
sopolis is mentioned by Latin authors in the 13th 
C. 

Chrysopolis was an important monastic center. 


CHRYSOTRIKLINOS 455 


The most renowned of its monasteries was built 
by Philippikos. 


LIT. Janin, CP byz. 494f. Janin, Églises centres 23-29. 
—A.K. 


CHRYSOTELEIA (xpvooréiesia, lit. “tribute in 
gold”), a tax introduced by Anastasios I. It is 
described by a 6th-C. chronicler (Malal. 394.8— 
10) as a tax imposed upon JUGA, collected in 
money instead of in kind, and used “to feed the 
stratiotat.” EVAGRIOS SCHOLASTIKOS (HE 3:42) crit- 
icizes Anastasios for levying the chrysoteleia, since 
the emperor “sold the soldiers’ expense” and placed 
a heavy burden on taxpayers; according to JOHN 
oF ANTIOCH, Anastasios’s measures left the prov- 
inces (eparchiai) empty of military contingents (FHG 
4:621, fr.215). This evidence has been variously 
interpreted: as a new tax replacing the CHRYSAR- 
GYRON that Anastasios had abolished; as a com- 
MUTATION of the ANNONA; and finally as an adae- 
ratio tironum (see SECONDARY TAXES) that was 
effective only temporarily. The vernacular 
expression chrysoteles eispraxis (exaction in gold) 
used by the hagiographer of Nikon HO “METAa- 
NOEITE” (ed. Sullivan, ch.58.13) was understood 
by N. Svoronos (Cadastre 85, n.1) as synonymous 
with CHARAGMA. 

LIT. J. Karayannopulos, “Die chrysoteleia der iuga,” BZ 
49 (1956) 72-84. -A.K. 


CHRYSOTRIKLINOS (Xpvaorpixdwwos, “golden 
hall”), a hall in the Great Palace, probably con- 
structed at the end of the 6th C. A domed octagon 
lit by 16 windows, the Chrysotriklinos was the 
place of ceremonial receptions, esp. at Easter. Its 
principal table (of gold or rather gilded silver) 
accommodated 30 high-ranking state and church 
functionaries; there were 2 to 4 additional tables 
for 18 persons each, where subordinate officials 
were seated. Literary sources sometimes menion 
a small table for the emperor who sat apart from 
his guests. The imperial throne, decorated with a 
mosaic representing the enthroned Christ, was 
placed in the apse of the Chrysotriklinos. The hall 
contained exquisite furniture, of which the most 
renowned piece was the so-called PENTAPYRGION, 
a large cupboard displaying vases, crowns, and 
other precious objects. The Chrysotriklinos was 
surrounded by numerous halls: Tripeton (a ves- 


456 | CHURCH 


tibule of Chrysotriklinos), Horologion (possibly 
containing a sundial), Kainourgion (adorned with 
16 columns and with mosaics depicting imperial 
expeditions), LAUSIAKOS, and the TRIKLINOS OF 
Justinian (II), from which one could reach the 
HIıPPODROME through the Gate of Skyla. The of- 
ficial in charge of the Chrysotriklinos (also called 
the protospatharios of Chrysotriklinos) was an im- 
portant court dignitary, but his functions are not 
yet clear. 


LIT. Janin, CP byz. 115-17. Oikonomides, Listes 196, n. 
209, 299. —A.K. 


CHURCH (éxkAnoia, lit. “assembly”). The Byz. 
did not develop a systematic ECCLESIOLOGY. In- 
stead, for them the church was a sacramental 
communion that included not only the earthly 
OIKOUMENE but the Kingdom of Heaven as well, 
with angels, saints, and God himself: in the words 
of Isidore of Pelousion (PG 78:685A), a “union 
of saints hammered out of true faith and perfect 
behavior.” In general, however, the Byz. church 
rejected the claims of DonaTism and MonTANISM, 
whose followers sought to exclude sinners from 
membership in the church. Sanctity and unity 
were considered basic features of the church, con- 
trasted with the multiplicity and falsity of pagan- 
ism and heresy. The unity of the church was 
underlined by such epithets as katholike (general) 
and oikoumenike (universal), and its dogmatic cor- 
rectness by the epithet orthodoxos (of right belief). 

Administration of the church was based on pa- 
tristic texts and the canons of ecumenical and 
local couNcILs, codified beginning in the 6th C. 
and regularized in the NomMoKaANon of Fifty Titles. 
The Byz. church did not have a single head, 
rejecting the idea of papal primacy, but embraced 
the concept of PENTARCHY in which patriarchs and 
the pope maintained administrative control of 
their individual territory. In fact, the loss of the 
East to the Arabs in the 7th C. and the separation 
of the West made the patriarch of Constantinople 
the de facto head of the Byz. church. The Byz. 
defended the concept that the authority of the 
council was superior to the power of the patri- 
arch; in an extreme form, an anonymous treatise 
of the 1oth C. tried to justify the superiority of 
an assembly of metropolitans over the patriarch 
of Constantinople (Darrouzés, infra 24—29). On 


the contrary, NIKETAS OF AMASEIA defended the 
thesis that the patriarch was the supreme arbiter 
in the ecclesiastical sphere. With regard to the 
state, theoreticians insisted that the church was 
superior to the civil administration (e.g., John 
Chrysostom, PG 61:507.42—43), in contrast to the 
attempt of the state to treat the emperor as the 
supervisor (“bishop”) of the church’s external af- 
fairs. The author of the EPANAGOGE presented 
the theory of two equal powers, that of the em- 
peror, who deals with material matters, and that 
of the patriarch, responsible for mankind’s spiri- 
tual health and salvation. In practice, however, 
civil administration usually had the upper hand 
over the church. 

As an institution, the church possessed an es- 
tablished organization based on a hierarchy of 
rank (bishop, priest, deacon, etc.), on administra- 
tive gradations (patriarchate-metropolis-bishopric, 
etc.), on regular assemblies (councils), and on the 
system of ecclesiastical officials. Its privileges in- 
cluded a special CANON Law distinct from civil law, 
and various exemptions for the CLERGy. The 
church obtained jurisdiction over the clergy and 
in some matters over the laity. Its material basis 
consisted of the ownership of land, imperial grants 
(SOLEMNIA}, movable property (esp. liturgical ves- 
sels and vestments), and voluntary donations and 
bequests; the mandatory TITHE was a relatively 
late innovation. Ecclesiastical property was in the- 
ory inalienable, and attempts to confiscate it 
aroused serious conflicts (e.g., the case of LEO OF 
CHALCEDON). 

Being a holy body, the church could expel sinful 
members, both temporarily and permanently (by 
means of EXCOMMUNICATION). MISSIONS €x- 
panded the church’s influence by spreading 
Christianity to new territories, baptizing heathens 
and heretics, and converting Jews and Muslims. 
The Byz. church had no monopoly on education, 
but it obtained supervision over teaching and of- 
fered episcopal posts to many outstanding schol- 
ars. Its means of salvation were challenged by 
some mystics who, like SYMEON THE THEOLOGIAN, 
considered the individual path of vision of the 
divine light as superior to the activity of the insti- 
tutionalized church. The political role of individ- 
ual bishops was significant in secular affairs, but 
the influence of episcopal organization had to 
compete with monasteries (see MONASTICISM) that 


often managed to obtain independence from local 
bishops (STAUROPEGION) and even from the patri- 
arch. 


sourcE. Darrouzés, Ecclés. 

tir. Meyendorff, Byz. Theology 79—90. E. Herman in 
CMH 4.2:105-33. J-M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the 
Byzantine Empire (Oxford 1986) 297~368. -T.EG. 


CHURCHES, CAVE AND ROCK-CUT. See 
Rock-cuT CHURCHES AND DWELLINGS. 


CHURCHES, IMPERIAL, were of three main 
types, all more or less exempt from patriarchal 
and episcopal jurisdiction, although this exemp- 
tion was contested in the early 11th C. by Patr. 
ALEXIOS STOUDITES (cf. Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 
5:29) and no doubt at other times. 

1. One group included the churches and chapels 
of the imperial palaces and provincial governors’ 
residences (praitoria). Their exemption is autho- 
rized in a real or spurious piece of imperial leg- 
islation whose administrative terminology reflects 


the realities of the 6th—7th C. (L. Burgmann in. 


Cupido Legum 20). 

2. Another group included those founded by 
emperors, in association either with the Palace 
(NEA EKKLESIA, CHALKE) or, more commonly, with 
monastic and philanthropic institutions in Con- 
stantinople (e.g., MYRELAION, MANGANA, PANTO- 
KRATOR). Such foundations, officially designated 
as “pious houses” (EUAGEIS 01KO!) or, by the 11th 
C., “pious bureaux” (euage sekreta), constituted, 
with their large endowments, a special crown do- 
main (N. Oikonomides, TM 6 [1976] 138-40). 

3. Finally, there were monasteries whose foun- 
ders, often highly respected, influential ascetics, 
put them under the direct protection of the em- 
peror, in order to make them independent (au- 
texousia or autodespota) of other earthly authorities 
(Meester, De monachico statu 104; I. Konidares, To 
dikaion tes monasteriakes periousias [Athens 1979] 
173—7g9). Such foundations were registered in the 
imperial SAKELLION (Lavra 1, no.33) and put un- 
der the care of particular government ministers 
(P. Magdalino, REB 42 [1984] 235f). -P.M. 


CHURCHES, PRIVATE, were characterized, in 
canonical terms, by “oratory” (EUKTERION) status, 


CHURCHES, PRIVATE 457 


and, for practical purposes, by dependence on a 
“proprietor” (KTETOR) able to determine how and 
by whom the foundation was used. Although the 
rights and requirements of ktetores varied consid- 
erably and were sure to lapse sooner or later, it 
is useful to draw a conceptual distinction between 
churches founded on this basis and churches 
founded for purposes of public worship. The 
institution of the private church was already well 
established by the 6th C., and became even more 
popular later, accounting for the vast majority of 
churches built after the slump of the 7th—8th C. 
From this time the existing public churches were, 
except in newly reoccupied and reorganized pro- 
vincial areas, generally more than adequate, while 
the urge to found one’s own church was wide- 
spread among all who had the means, which, to 
judge from many surviving structures, did not 
have to be very great. 

A private church was the expression of all that 
the founder held most dear. It provided an inti- 
mate venue for his regular religious observances; 
it embodied his personal devotion to the heavenly 
figure to whom it was dedicated; it was a spiritual 
investment for his own salvation, and, as sacred 
PROPERTY, a financial investment that was rela- 
tively secure from fiscal erosion and partible in- 
heritance. Whether it served as a funerary chapel 
or merely commemorated the ktetor and his family 
in its prayers, it was a monument to him and the 
unity of his kin. The significance of the private 
church is very well illustrated by the will of Eu- 
stathios Borras (1059), who with his late sister’s 
grandchildren had joint responsibility for a church 
that his mother had founded, while he himself 
was founder of two churches, one a burial chapel, 
and, close to his house, another which clearly 
meant more to him than either of his two daugh- 
ters to whose hands he reluctantly entrusted its 
fate (Lemerle, Cing études 23—29). 

‘The relationship between private churches and 
the authorities was ambivalent. Local bishops, who 
were Often ktetores in their own right, cannot have 
objected to modest foundations whose properties 
were registered in an INVENTORY in the episcopal 
archives and might be added to the episcopal 
estates after the founder’s death—a practice that 
Basil II tried to prevent (Zepos, Jus 1:268). On 
the other hand, churches founded by rich and 
powerful ktetores threatened to take business away 


458 | CHURCH FATHERS 


from the bishop’s church, esp. from the gth—1o0th 
C., when legal restrictions on the liturgical func- 
tions of domestic eukteria lapsed and founders 
were able to evade episcopal control by placing 
their foundations under the jurisdiction of the 
patriarch. The possibility that private services in 
domestic chapels were a cover for clandestine 
gatherings concerned the state as well as the church. 
William Adam (pseudo-Brocardus), a Western 
writer of the 14th C., saw the private churches as 
a politically subversive institution peculiar to Byz. 
(RHC Arm. 2:475). 

The proliferation of private churches, whether 
urban or rural, domestic or monastic, undoubt- 
edly affected the development of liturgy and 
church architecture from the 6th C. The exclu- 
sion of the laity from entrance processions, the 
confinement of these within the church, the ele- 
vation of the sanctuary barrier, and the disap- 
pearance of the SYNTHRONON and SOLEA may all 
be related to the saying of private masses in pri- 
vate chapels. The intimate scale of the Byz. church 
of the 1oth—12th C. and its standardization as a 
hierarchy of inner surfaces peopled with icons 
had much to do with the ktetors desire for com- 
munion with his own personal “heaven on earth.” 

The diversity of plans, masonry types, and forms 
of decoration in private churches is evident in 
such regions as have been investigated in detail 
(GÖREME, Kastoria, and the Mann), although lo- 
cal traditions tended to dictate norms in these 
respects. More idiosyncratic were the oratories 
that existed in monasteries such as St. CATHER- 
INE’s on Mt. Sinai and that of Constantine Lips, 
and in katholikai ekklesiai, for example, in the GAL- 
LERIES of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. After 
the 8th C., private chapels are found in the resi- 
dences of both lay persons and ecclesiastics. 


LIT. Zhishman, Stifterrecht. J. Thomas, Private Religious 
Foundations in the Byzantine Empire (Washington, D.C., 1987). 
A. Steinwenter, “Die Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Klös- 
ter nach den Papyri,” ZSavKan 19 (1930) 1—50. E. Herman, 
“ ‘Chiese private’ e diritto di fondazione negli ultimi secoli 
dell'impero bizantino,” OrChrP 12 (1946) 302-21. A.W. 
Epstein, “Middle Byzantine Churches of Kastoria: Dates 
and Implications,” ArtB 62.2 (1980) 190-207. T.F. Ma- 
thews, “ ‘Private’ Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture: Towards 
a Re-appraisal,” CahArch 30 (1982) 125-37. —P.M., A.C. 


CHURCH FATHERS (éxkdAnowaorikol TATÉpES 
in EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA, Against Markellos 1.4.3), 


the most authoritative ancient Christian writers, 
second in their significance only to the APOSTLES. 
The totality of their oeuvre is called patristics or 
patrology. In the first centuries of Christianity the 
title “father” was given to spiritual teachers in 
general and esp. to bishops; pateres was also the 
term for the DESERT FATHERS whose sayings were 
collected in the APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM and for 
the participants in the First Council of Nicaea. 
The concept of the church fathers as guardians 
of Christian tradition was developed from the 4th 
C. onward, when their opinions were frequently 
used during Trinitarian and Christological dis- 
cussions and were, for this purpose, gathered in 
FLORILEGIA; one of these florilegia was the so- 
called Doctrina patrum de incarnatione Verbi (The 
Doctrine of the Fathers on the Incarnation of the 
Logos), a collection of Orthodox and “heretical” 
statements concerning Monophysitism and Mon- 
otheletism, produced between 660 and 685 (Beck, 
Kirche 446). In the West, a (partial) list of “holy 
fathers” was established, probably in the 6th C., 
and is found in the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, 
the apocryphal decree of Pope Gexasius I. 

The early Christian theologians are divided into 
the earlier Apologists (Justin, Hippolytos, etc.) 
and later “fathers” in a narrow sense of the word, 
while such authors as ORIGEN, TERTULLIAN, and 
LACTANTIUS Occupy an intermediate place. Among 
the Western fathers AUGUSTINE was considered 
supreme; after him patristics declined, and theo- 
logical thought revived only in the 11th C., in the 
form of scHOLasTIcISM. In the East, patristics 
flourished from the 4th to the 6th C., with pride 
of place being given to the CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS 
and pseudo-Dionysios THE AREOPAGITE in the 
theological field, while Jonn CurysosTom marks 
the apogee of Christian ethics. JOHN OF DAMASCUS 
summarized the whole development of Christian 
doctrine up to his time and can be called the last 
of the church fathers. The great theologians of 
the post-patristic period (Symeon the Theologian, 
Nicholas of Methone, Gregory Palamas, etc.) are 
not considered church fathers. 


uit. M. Geerard, Clavis patrum graecorum, 5 vols. (Turn- 
hout 1974—87). J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (Westminster, 
Md. 1950-60; Ital. revised tr. Turin 1967-78). O. Barden- 
hewer, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 5 vols. (Freiburg 
im Breisgau 1902—32). J. Liébert, Les Pères de l'Église, vol. 
1 (Paris 1986). P.K. Chrestou, Hellenike patrologia, 3 vols. 
(Thessalonike 1976-87). G.G. Majorov, Formirovanie sred- 
nevekovoj filosofii (Moscow 1979). -A.K. 


CHURCH PLAN TYPES. The classification of 
religious architecture by type was first established 
around the turn of the goth C. and served as a 
chronological taxonomy. Although this method 
of dating has largely been superseded, the iden- 
tification and study of these types remains a useful 
system of basic classification. The most common 

lan types are the following: BasILica (e.g., St. 
Achilleos, Mikra Prespa); domed basilica (St. IRENE, 
Constantinople); cross-domed church (Hacia So- 
puta, Thessalonike); cross-in-square (North Church 
of Lies MONASTERY, Constantinople); domed oc- 
tagon (NEA Mone, Chios); Greek cross, or domed 
octagon (katholikon, DAPHNI); ambulatory church 
(PAMMAKARISTOS, Constantinople); triconch, or 
trefoil (large-scale: katholikon, Great Lavra, Mt. 
Athos; small-scale: Koumbelidike, KASTORIA); te- 
traconch, or quatrefoil (large-scale: martyrion [?], 
SELEUKEIA PiERIA; small-scale: VeLjusa). (For ill., 
see next page.) 

Many other church plan types existed, but they 
were less commonly employed. Most could be 
enlarged by the addition of enveloping spaces— 
exedrae, ambulatories, aisles, porches, or chapels— 
resulting in new compound plans and more elab- 
orate exterior massing. Multiplication of domes 
(St. Sophia, Krev) is one of the most important 
architectural by-products of this phenomenon. 

LIT. Krautheimer, ECBArch 517-21. G. Stanzl, Léngsbau 
und Zentralbau als Grundthemen der frithchristlichen Architektur 


(Vienna 1979). S. Curčić, “Architectural Significance of 
Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches,” /SAH 


36 (1977) 94-110. S.C. 


CHURCH PROGRAMS OF DECORATION. 
From the earliest surviving remains it is evident 
that Christian edifices were adorned with figural 
images selected and positioned according to their 
religious significance. Already in the mid-grd-C. 
baptistery in Dura Europos both symbolic depic- 
tions such as the Good Shepherd and represen- 
tations derived from biblical narratives such as 
the Healing of the Cripple were used to reinforce 
visually the beholder’s ritual experience. 

From the 4th to 7th C. elaborate narrative cycles 
from both the New and Old Testaments appeared 
on the interior walls of Christian monuments (S. 
Maria Maggiore, Rome; S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ra- 
VENNA). Other monuments displayed votive panels 
(St. Demetrios, Thessalonike). On the triumphal 
arch and in the apse of the BEMA a variety of 


CHURCH SLAVONIC | 459 


themes occurred, including Christ in Majesty 
among saints, apostles, and/or donors (S. Vitale, 
Ravenna), the prophetic vision (Hosios Davin, 
Thessalonike), the Virgin with accompanying fig- 
ures (KITI, LYTHRANKOMI), and even narrative 
images, like the TRANSFIGURATION (St. CATHER- 
INE, Sinai; S. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna). 

EKPHRASEIS of churches in Constantinople and 
surviving provincial monuments suggest that in 
the period from the gth through the ioth C. 
programming was flexible. Scenes such as the 
ASCENSION and PENTECOST as well as the PANTO- 
KRATOR might appear in the central vault. The 
Virgin was the most popular but certainly not the 
only subject for the conch of the apse. The nave 
might be adorned with elaborate Christological 
narratives or with single figures. Particularly in 
the provinces, votive programs seem to have 
maintained their pre-Iconoclastic popularity. 

The so-called “Middle Byz. Program” appeared 
as a dominant formula only at the end of the 10th 
and beginning of the 11th C., coincident with the 
political consolidation of the empire. This scheme 
is typified by a Pantokrator in the central dome 
and the Virgin, most often holding the Child, in 
the conch of the bema. The heavenly court— 
angels, prophets, apostles, and saints—are ranked 
on the walls and vaults below along with icons of 
the GreaT Feast cycle. The hierarchical nature 
of this program complements the pyramidal or- 
dering of space in the relatively small, centralized 
churches constructed during this period. With the 
collapse of the empire in 1204, narrative pro- 
gramming with the multiplication of framed, qua- 
dratic images replaced the more iconic and ar- 
chitectonic forms of the earlier period. 

ut. Demus, Byz.Mosaic. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, “L’évo- 
lution du programme décoratif des églises,” 15 CEB, vol. 
3 (Athens 1976) 131-56. Demus, Mosaics of San Marco 
1:231—73. Ihm, Apsismalerei. T. Mathews, “The Sequel to 


Nicaea Il in Byzantine Church Decoration.” Perkins Journal 
41 (July 1988) 11-23. -AJ.W. 


CHURCH SLAVONIC, in its broadest sense, the 
liturgical and literary language of the Orthodox 
(and Catholic Croatian) SLavs. The term Old 
Church Slavonic (OCS) is normally reserved for 
the language of the earliest translations by Sts. 
CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER and METHODIOS 
and their immediate successors, as preserved in 
GLaGo.iric and Cyrillic MSS of the 1oth—11th C. 


i 
z 
s 
z 
: 
: 


Cross-clomed Church 


Domed Basilica 


Co a oan 


Ambulatory Church 


Cross-in-square or Quincunx 





460 


CHURCH PLAN TYPES 








Greek Cross-domed Octagon 


Domed Octagon 





Triconch 





Tetraconch 





Tetraconch 


461 


462 | CIBORIUM 


Subsequently, distinct local recensions of Church 
Slavonic emerged through its interaction with the 
Slavonic vernacular languages (Russian Church 
Slavonic, Bulgarian Church Slavonic, etc.). 

uit. R. Picchio in The Slavic Literary Languages, ed. A. 


Schenker, E. Stankiewicz (New Haven 1980) 1-33. 
-S.C.F. 


CIBORIUM (x:Bwp.ov), a domed or pyramidal 
structure on four or six columns (K. Wessel, RBK 
1:1055). In Roman times ciboria were erected 
over tombs both to protect them and to enhance 
their importance, hence their use over the ALTAR 
symbolizing the tomb of Christ. Similarly, the 
silver ciborium at St. DEMETRIOS in Thessalonike 
was thought to mark the site of the saint’s tomb 
(Lemerle, Miracles 1:114f). A pyramidal ciborium 
rose over the SARCOPHAGUS containing the saint’s 
relics in the church of Hosios Loukas (R.W. 
Schultz, S.H. Barnsley, The Monastery of Saint Luke 
[London 1901] 29, pl.46). Circular, hexagonal, or 
rectangular in plan, ciboria survive mostly in frag- 
ments; exceptionally complete examples are the 
restored ciborium of the Katapoliane in Paros and 
that of the Metropolis church at Kalambaka (see 
Stacol). Some ciboria display columns with spiral 
fluting and Corinthian or protome CaPITALS, their 
pyramidal or domed canopy terminating in a cross 
(Orlandos, Palaiochr. basiltke 2:471—81). Painted 
representations of ciboria suggest that they were 
furnished with curtains, though this point has 
been contested (Mathews, Early Churches 165-68). 

Ciboria sometimes combined colored and white 
marble, while those of St. Polyeuktos and St. Eu- 
phemia in Constantinople displayed inlaid glass 
decoration. They were cast in bronze and gilded, 
or dressed in silver like that in Hagia Sophia, 
Constantinople, as described by PauL Sı- 
LENTIARIOS. 

uir. M.T. Smith, “The Ciborium in Christian Architec- 
ture at Rome, 300—600 A.D.” (Ph.D. diss., New York Univ., 


1968). D.I. Pallas, “Le Ciborium hexagonal de Saint-Dé- 
métrios de Thessalonique,” Zograf 10 (1979) 44-58. 
-L. 


CILICIA (KtArkia), Roman province of south- 
eastern Asia Minor consisting of two districts: 
Cilicia Pedias, a well-watered fertile plain bounded 
by the Taurus, Antitaurus and Mediterranean, 
and Cilicia Tracheia, the rugged region of the 
southern Taurus stretching west to PAMPHYLIA. 





CIBORIUM. Depiction of a ciborrum; mosaic, 14th C. In- 
ner narthex of the Church of the Chora monastery, 
Istanbul. The scene depicts Zacharias praying before 
the rods of the suitors. 


Under Diocletian, Cilicia Tracheia became part of 
Isaura. Cilicia Pedias was divided ca.400 into 
Cilicia I (metropolis Tarsos) and Cilicia II (me- 
tropolis ANAZARBOS); their churches were under 
the patriarchate of Antioch. Located on the high- 
way from Constantinople to northern Syria via 
the Citic1aAn Gates, Cilicia prospered; it was a 
densely populated center of agriculture, trade, 
and manufacture (esp. of linen) through the 6th 
C. In 646, however, Mu‘Awrya found the area 
virtually deserted, and by the early 8th C. it was 
occupied by the Arabs, for whom it became a 
bulwark against Byz. attacks. These achieved their 
goal with the reconquest of Cilicia by Nikephoros 
II Phokas in 965. The district did not then form 
an administrative unit, but was ruled by strategot 
of separate fortresses (N. Oikonomides in 14 CEB, 
vol. 1 [Bucharest 1974] 288f). After 1071 Byz. 
lost Cilicia to Philaretos BRACHAMIOS; thereafter, 
it constantly changed hands between Byz., Cru- 
saders, Seljuks, and Armenians. John II Komne- 


nos took it in 1197; Manuel I Komnenos had to 
reconquer it in 1159; it was definitively lost to the 
Armenians after 1176 (see CILICIA, ARMENIAN). 
Cilicia contains the remains of numerous late an- 
tique churches and medieval fortifications. 

ur. F. Hild et al., RBK 4:182-356. H. Hellenkemper, 
Burgen der Kreuzritterzeit (Bonn 1976) 104—254. H. Hellen- 
kemper, F. Hild, Neue Forschungen in Kilikien (Vienna 1986). 
R.W. Edwards, “Ecclesiastical Architecture in the Fortifi- 


cations of Armenian Cilicia,” DOP 36 (1982) 155—76. 
~C.F. 


CILICIA, ARMENIAN (also known as Lesser 
Armenia), principality (1073?-10g9) and subse- 
quently kingdom (1099-1375) under the Arme- 
nian RuUBENID and Hert‘umip, and the Latin Lu- 
SIGNAN dynasties. Armenians fleeing from Seljuk 
invasions after the Byz. defeat at MANTZIKERT 
(1071) took refuge in Rubenid strongholds such 
as Vahka and Gobidar (Kopitar) in the Antitaurus 
mountains, and the Het‘umid Lambron near the 
Cilician Gates. By the end of the 12th C. the 
Rubenids had established a kingdom that encom- 
passed at its peak the coastal plain of Cilicia as 
well as the surrounding mountains. Its capital was 
located at Sis, in the foothills. 

The princes of Armenian Cilicia, although oc- 
casionally supported by the Crusaders, were forced 
to recognize the suzerainty of Byz. (reaffirmed by 
the campaigns of the emperors John II Komne- 
nos in 1138 and Manuel I Komnenos in 1158) 
and negotiations were opened between the Ar- 
menian church and the Byz. Empire. The Third 
Crusade enabled the Rubenid prince Leo II to be 
crowned king as Leo I (see Leo II/I). Officially, 
Byz. sanctioned this action, but Armenian Cilicia 
turned thereafter increasingly toward the Latins. 

The kingdom prospered from the trade passing 
from the West to the Far East through its port of 
Ayas (It. Lajazzo), esp. during the period of Mon- 
gol protection in the second half of the 13th C. 
Its international culture reached its apogee in the 
same period. 

The recognition of Mongol suzerainty by the 
Het‘umids in 1253 bolstered Armenian Cilicia for 
a time, but its political situation between the Sel- 
juks of Ram, the Mamliks of Egypt, and the 
Mongols remained precarious, esp. after the con- 
version of the latter to Islam at the end of the 
13th C. By 1292 the Armenian patriarchs were 
forced to abandon their seat at Htomkla on the 


CILICIA, ARMENIAN 463 


Euphrates overrun by the Muslims and to seek 
refuge at Sis. Internal struggles between pro- and 
anti-Latin parties, fueled by the growing influence 
of Western institutions and by the negotiations 
for an ecclesiastical union with Rome, sapped the 
strength of the kingdom still further. The hostility 
of the Armenian nobility toward the Latin Lusig- 
nans led to the murder of King Guy in 1344. In 
1375, an Egyptian force overran Cilicia, sacked 
the capital, and carried away the last king as a 
prisoner to Cairo. 


LIT. S. Der Nersessian, HC 2:630-59. L. Alishan, Sis- 
souan ou l’Arméno-Cilicie (Venice 1899). P. Tekeyan, Con- 
troverses christologiques en Arméno-Cilicte dans la seconde moitié 
du XIle siècle (Rome 1939). R. Edwards, The Fortresses of 
Armenian Cilicia (Washington, D.C., 1987). -N.G.G. 


Art of Armenian Cilicia. The many ruins of 
fortified towns in Cilicia include both palaces and 
churches, some with traces of monumental paint- 
ing. Some silverwork survives—a reliquary and 
bookbindings—but it is MS illumination that best 
reveals the brilliant art of the Cilician court. The 
traditions of great scriptoria (in both monasteries 
and towns) and the contributions of individual 
artists and aristocratic patrons can be traced for 
decades at a time: for example, MSS are known 
from Hiomkla from just after the founding of 
the patriarchal see there in 1151 until the Mamluk 
sack of 1292; among them are seven signed from 
1256 to 1269 by the artist Toros Roslin. 

Although Armenian workshop traditions sur- 
vived the emigration to Cilicia, Byz. styles and 
images are found throughout Cilician painting. A 
13th-C. Gospel (Erevan, Mat. 7651) copies almost 
all the miniatures of the 11th-C. FRIEZE GOSPEL 
in Florence. Ornate inscriptions and arabesque 
arches On CANON TABLE pages, however, reflect 
Islamic art, while the Lectionary of Het‘um II 
(Mat. 97g) contains Chinese elements. Cilician 
royalty are shown wearing orientai textiles. Latin 
influence was particularly strong after the Council 
of Sis (1252), as the affinity of Toros Roslin’s 
figure style to that of the Arsenal Bible (Paris, 
Arsenal 5211) or the adoption of the Madonna 
della Misericordia type for Cilician donor portraits 
demonstrates. 


LIT. S. Der Nersessian, Armenian Art (London—New York 
1978) 123-62. Eadem, “Deux examples arméniens de la 
Vierge de Miséricorde,” REArm n.s. 7 (1970) 187—202. 

-A.T. 


464 | CILICIAN GATES 


CILICIAN GATES (Ilva Kedckias), the narrow 
pass, 1,050 m high, that offers the easiest crossing 
of the Taurus Mountains between central Ana- 
tolia and the plain of Cilicia, and thus always the 
route of a major highway. It was esp. important 
during the wars with the Arabs after they gained 
control of Cilicia in 703. The term strictly denotes 
the narrow pass but is also applied to the whole 
stretch of road through the mountains. The main 
center of this district was Podandos, a city and 
bishopric and later KLEIsOURA of Cappadocia, which 
was the constant goal of (often successful) Arab 
attacks in the 8th—10th C. Lulon, on a steep peak 
at the west end of the pass, provided a final 
defense and served as the first in the chain of 
BEACONS that rapidly transmitted news of attack 
to the capital. The pass contains the remains of 
several fortresses. 


LIT. TIB 2:223f, 261-64. -C.F. 


CIRCUS. See CHARIOTEERS; 
HIPPODROMES. 


CHARIOT RACES; 


CIRCUS PARTIES. See Factions. 


CISTERNS. See CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS 
oF: Cisterns. 


CITATION was an important stylistic device closely 
connected with the tendency toward ARCHAISM 
and IMITATION (mimesis). On the one hand, citation 
was a sort of game between the author and reader, 
the former avoiding any direct indication of the 
origin of the citation and the latter challenged to 
guess the source (Hunger, Lit. 2:7). On the other 
hand, citation could be a powerful vehicle to con- 
vey direct information; e.g., Christian apologists 
(imitating their Jewish predecessors) quoted an- 
cient poets for their propaganda, and during 
theological discussions citation was the major ar- 
gument that time and again led to forgery or 
deletion of crucial passages. The most commonly 
quoted texts were the Bible, Homer, and the 
ancient tragedians. Often citations originated not 
from original texts but from FLORILEGIA and LEXI- 
KA; quoting from MEMORY was common and fre- 
quently caused distortions. The frequency of ci- 
tation differs from work to work: some texts 


(CHRISTOS PASCHON, ANACHARSIS, BARLAAM AND 
IOASAPH) are consciously composed of borrowed 
lines, while other works used citations to a limited 
degree. Since the concept of plagiarism did not 
exist, the use of quotations could grow into a 
copying of entire passages. Even though there 
was an element of showing off the author’s knowl- 
edge (D. Christides, EEPhSPTh 22 [1984] 689), 
citation also performed specific aesthetic func- 
tions. It connected the present with the past, de- 
picted objects and events from an alien point of 
view, and introduced the element of unexpect- 
edness and strangeness (esp. by combination of 
biblical and pagan quotations); a new image was 
often constructed from borrowed words and sen- 
tences. 

LIT. N. Zeegers-van der Vorst, Les citations des poètes grecs 
chez les apologistes chrétiens du Ie siècle (Louvain 1972). E. 
Livrea, “Le citazioni dei tragici in un inedito florilegio 
patmiaco,” RSBS 3 (1983) 3—9. F. Grabler, “Das Zitat als 
Stilkunstmittel bei Niketas Choniates,” 11 CEB (Munich 
1960) 190-93. A.R. Littlewood, “Repetition of Quotations 
in Byzantine Letters,” 12 BSC Abstracts (Bryn Mawr 1986) 


49f. M. Kertsch, “Patristische Zitate bei spatern griechisch- 
christlichen Autoren,” JOB 38 (1988) 113-24. —A.K. 


CITIES (zodexs), the cornerstone of classical civ- 
ilization, were centers of population, culture, trade, 
manufacture, and administration. By the 6th C., 
the East contained more than goo cities, of which 
the greatest were CONSTANTINOPLE, ALEXANDRIA, 
and ANTIOCH. A large provincial city might ex- 
tend 2 km in its greatest dimension and have a 
population of 50,000, but most were much smaller. 
Urban wealth was based on agriculture, but 
trade and manufacture were significant. These 
were usually on a small scale in which the artisan 
would sell the goods he made, but many cities, 
esp. ports, had extensive TRADE in essential or 
luxury goods. Major classes of the urban popu- 
lation were the CURIALES, bureaucrats and state 
officials, ecclesiastics, landowners, and the mem- 
bers of GuiLps, the craftsmen and shopkeepers. 
The city differed from rural areas by its pro- 
vision of public works and services. Most were 
maintained until the 6th C.: cities provided free 
bread, AQUEDUCTS, clean and lighted streets, BATHS, 
markets, theaters, HIPPODROMES, and LATRINES. 
Diocletian instituted municipal higher education 
to supply trained civil servants. The church, whose 
revenues were increasing, offered public welfare, 
with HOSPITALS, poorhouses (PTOCHOTROPHEIA), 


homes for the aged (GEROKOMEIA), and inns (XE- 
NODOCHEIA). As cities found public works more 
difficult to support, governors came to build or 
restore them. Such activity was concentrated in 
provincial capitals, which often prospered at the 
expense of lesser cities. Urban prosperity varied 
considerably, from Constantinople, which could 
draw on the revenues of the empire, to cities in 
exposed regions like North Africa (e.g., CAR- 
THAGE in the 7th C.) and the Balkans, where ruin 
and contraction were common. 

Cities were administered by councils or CURIAE, 
which relied on rents, endowments, local taxes, 
and contributions from their members (curiales or 
decurions) to support their expenses: supplying 
bread and water to the population, higher edu- 
cation, police, and esp. maintenance of baths and 
other public facilities. The confiscations of Con- 
stantine I and Constantius II deprived the cities 
of their territories and taxes; the resulting finan- 
cial distress was only partially relieved when Val- 
ens remitted one-third of these revenues. The 
history of late antique cities is thus marked by 
shortage of money, weakening of the councils, 
and growing interference from Constantinople. 
As the decurions became increasingly reluctant to 
serve, the government tried a series of expedients 
to maintain the councils, install responsible ad- 
ministrators (DEFENSOR CIVITATIS), and restrain 
the influence of rapacious governors. Finally, 
Anastasios I entrusted the cities to their bishops 
and landowners, replacing the councils with the 
collective responsibility of the church and proper- 
tied class. Many cities suffered serious demo- 
graphic decline from the bubonic plague of 542 
and later years; however, Constantinople, pro- 
vincial capitals, pilgrimage centers, and cities along 
main highways and trade routes continued to 
prosper. 

Excavations have revealed the physical aspect 
of the late Roman city. The broad boulevards, 
numerous open squares, and massive palaces and 
churches of Constantinople represented the plan- 
ning of the age but could not be duplicated else- 
where. New districts of cities like Antioch, how- 
ever, show a regular plan featuring orthogonal 
streets with monumental arches at their intersec- 
tions. Most cities followed existing and often ir- 
regular plans, but in all cases colonnaded streets 
(EMBOLO!) were an essential element for commu- 
nication and commerce, as rows of shops laid out 


CITIES 465 


behind their mosaic-paved colonnades became the 
chief markets. In general, the ancient urban fabric 
survived: theaters, odeons, baths with gymna- 
siums, marketplaces, and civic centers were all 
maintained, while the villas and luxurious apart- 
ments of the rich were frequently expanded, and 
monumental fountains adorned the streets. Major 
changes reflected religion and style. Pagan tem- 
ples were abandoned and demolished for building 
materials; churches took their place. In some cases, 
temples were turned into churches, but more often 
the churches grew up on the periphery and only 
gradually invaded the city center. Late antique 
cities looked very different from their predeces- 
sors: buildings universally employed reused ma- 
terial, often covered on the outside with plaster, 
and were decorated inside with frescoes, cut mar- 
ble, and mosaics. Color was manifest everywhere. 
Ancient urban regularity tended to disappear as 
open spaces and streets became cluttered with 
shoddy commercial construction (shops were typ- 
ically extended into streets, and booths set up in 
colonnades), and abandoned buildings were left 
in ruins. Deterioration of open space was esp. 
marked in the 6th C. Cities like JUSTINIANA PRIMA, 
or some in Lycia, have virtually no civic buildings 
of the traditional type but contain houses and 
shops closely packed along regular streets and 
dominated by one or more large churches, thus 
illustrating the decline of public works and growth 
in the power of the church. 

In the 7th C., cities underwent fundamental 
and permanent transformations as they reduced 
in size and population; their public works and 
services came to an end. They generally became 
ruralized, differing from fortresses or villages only 
in their size, occasional preservation of ancient 
buildings, and continuing role as seats of the 
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Merchants and craftsmen 
became rare; the curiales disappeared; cities were 
commonly under the command of military ofti- 
cials, subordinates of the sTRATEGOS. External 
blows—Persian, Arab, Slav, and Avar attacks— 
contributed to the crisis. 

A typical city of the Dark Ages consisted of a 
fortified center, often with a separate acropolis, 
which occupied a small part of the former urban 
area. The walls, built from ruined buildings, typ- 
ically incorporated or obliterated former public 
structures and ignored previous streets. Within 
them, civic buildings were almost universally 


466 CITIZENS 


abandoned: most became quarries for building 
material; others were occupied by squatters who 
built poor dwellings within them, often in con- 
nection with burning their marble for lime to 
make mortar. Churches, however, survived, often 
as increasingly dilapidated basilicas that came to 
tower over the small and crowded industrial in- 
stallations (for pottery, glass, lime, and iron work- 
ing) and houses. Monasteries and cemeteries, for- 
merly alien to urban areas, came within the walls. 
Houses were small and poorly built, usually con- 
taining courtyards with large pithoi for storage of 
grain and liquids. With the abandonment or de- 
struction of aqueducts, cisterns were constructed 
everywhere. Many settlements clustered behind 
the walls of a hilltop fortress, while others were 
scattered around the ancient ruins, often as sep- 
arate settlements resembling villages, each with its 
own water supply and limited facilities for pro- 
duction. Even Constantinople was affected: large 
parts of the city fell into ruin, public services were 
abandoned, and the population declined drasti- 
cally. 

Recovery began in the gth C. and continued in 
Asia Minor through the 11th, in Greece through 
the 12th C. The cities never regained their ancient 
roles, but conditions within them improved as 
peace and trade brought growth. New larger cir- 
cuits of walls were built, but cities continued to 
expand outside them. Small neighborhood 
churches were erected and an occasional open 
marketplace appeared, but cities remained crowded 
and poorly built, with small houses along narrow 
winding streets which had no relation to earlier 
planning. In this, new foundations hardly dif- 
fered from the old; fortresses and churches were 
the dominant elements, other structures found 
room beside them. The 13th C. brought some 
prosperity to the cities of Asia Minor, which often 
received new walls and churches, while in Greece 
the Frankish period brought a growth of city- 
fortresses on hilltops. The last period of Byz. rule, 
when the central government was weak, allowed 
the cities to gain some independence, often rec- 
ognized with concessions when they were reinte- 
grated into the empire. In some places a local 
aristocracy assumed considerable authority. Cities 
of the splinter states grew and flourished. They 
often consisted of a citadel (kKASTRON), an upper 
enclosure where the ruler, magnates, and bishop 
had their palaces; and a lower town (EMPORION) 


devoted to commerce, with the homes of the com- 
mon people and foreigners (who sometimes had 
their separate castle). By the 14th C. houses were 
large and spacious, aqueducts were again in use, 
and the standard of living was higher than it had 
been since the 7th C. Even such places, however, 
were small compared with their late antique pre- 
decessors, offered few if any public services, and 
showed no sign of systematic planning. 

The normal artistic representation of a city was 
as a walled enceinte, studded with towers and 
rendered in bird’s-eye perspective. Entered via a 
single portal, cities shown as models in the hands 
of a benefactor or as elements of BACKGROUND 
are customarily filled with elaborate architecture 
including a domed church. Only rarely, as in the 
MADABA MOSAIC MAP, do they contain structures 
that allow specific identification of the site. A 
unique planimetric view of Constantinople ap- 
pears on the hyperpers of Michael VIII and An- 
dronikos II. 

LIT. A.P. Kazhdan, “Vizantijskie goroda v VII-IX vv.” 
Sovetskaja Archeologija 21 (1954) 164-88. E. Kirsten, “Die 
byzantinische Stadt,” 11 CEB (Munich 1958) Berichte 5:3. 
C. Foss, “Archaeology and the ‘Twenty Cities’ of Byzantine 
Asia,” AJA 81 (1977) 469-86. Mango, Byzantium 60-87. 
Ch. Bouras, “City and Village: Urban Design and Archi- 
tecture,” JOB 31 (1981) 611-53. I. Ehrensperger-Katz, 
“Les représentations de villes fortifiées dans Fart paléo- 


chrétien et leurs derivées byzantines,” CahArch 19 (1969) 
1-27. -C.F., A.C. 


CITIZENS (odirar). Byz. law preserved the Ro- 
man concept of citizenship, as granted to all free 
inhabitants of the empire in 212. Byz. citizens 
were distinguished from slaves, whose acts of 
MANUMISSION recognized them as citizens (e.g., 
Sathas, MB 6:618.13~-14). Changes in citizenship 
to take advantage of commercial privileges could 
cause problems (e.g., MM 3:189.11—19 of 30 Oct. 
1436) and dual citizenship is attested after 1204. 
It is unclear how Byz. proceeded juridically toward 
the numerous foreigners (e.g., Armenians, LAT- 
INS) who entered imperial service, but many were 
successfully assimilated. Externally, Byz. citizens 
were usually recognizable by a national costume 
and particular traits of grooming; for example, 
in 787 the Beneventans offered to enter the Byz. 
Empire and adopt the Byz. national dress and 
haircut (CODEX CAROLINUS 83, p.617.5—31). Shared 
cultural traditions, PATRIOTISM, loyalty to the em- 
peror, Orthodoxy, and, from the 7th C. onward, 


the Greek language helped shape Byz. citizens’ 
distinctive identity. 
LIT. R.S. Lopez, Byzantium and the World around It (Lon- 


don 1978), pt.XIV (1974), 342-52. P. Schreiner, LMA 
2:1099f. —M.McC. 


CITY TAXES. Until the 7th-C. crisis, Byz. cities, 
important demographically as well as economi- 
cally, had their own municipal administrations 
and finances, based mainly on rents of city land 
(astika), on contributions (voluntary or not) of 
wealthy citizens (esp. civic magistrates), and on 
city taxes, the vectigalia, collected on local eco- 
nomic activities. City taxes were taken over by the 
COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM, partially returned 
by Julian, then confiscated again by Valentinian 
and Valens, the latter being obliged to return part 
of them to the city administrations. In the mean- 
time, urban economic activities had started to 
decline. After the 7th C., when the smaller and 
less economically active “medieval” cities ap- 
peared, administered directly by state officials and 
financed by the government, city taxes disap- 
peared. 


LIT. Jones, LRE 732-34. —N.O. 


CIVIL PROCEDURE (xpnparı iky). The 
Justinianic civil lawsuit began with the plaintiffs 
(enagon) submission of the writ (libellos) at the 
court of law; from there it was served, together 
with a summons, on the defendant (enagomenos). 
On the first day fixed for TRIAL the formal con- 
ditions were clarified (esp. the question of the 
competency of the court), an OATH was taken by 
the participants in the proceedings, and surety 
was arranged by the plaintiff and defendant or 
by their representatives. The first part (prooimion) 
of the procedure was concluded with the formal 
statement of dispute (prokatarxis). The next step 
was the examination of evidence that could be 
undertaken by the assessors. The most important 
types of evidence were the testimony of wITNESSES 
and documents. Witnesses did not necessarily have 
to appear in person, but they did have to confirm 
their recorded testimony under oath. Where other 
proofs were lacking an oath could be imposed on 
one party by the other or by the judge. After a 
maximum of three years, a trial concluded with a 
final judgment (apophasis), which had to be drawn 
up in writing and read aloud. If the losing party 


CIVIL WAR OF 1341-47 467 


neither complied with the decision nor appealed 
within ten days, the victorious party could file for 
the legal execution of the judgment four months 
after the court’s announcement of the decision. 
LIT. D. Simon, Untersuchungen zum justimanischen Zivil- 


prozess (Munich 1969). Kaser, Zivilprozessrecht 410-529. Za- 
charia, Geschichte 392-99. -L.B. 


Later Developments. In post-Justinianic law, 
witnesses, documents, and oaths continued to play 
the chief role in litigation. Although late Roman 
procedure tended to give more weight to docu- 
ments than to oral testimony, the Peira 30.17 
reversed this principle: while acknowledging the 
preeminence of written evidence in cases such as 
marriage or sale of property and other business 
affairs, Eustathios RHomaltos proclaimed that oral 
testimony was generally the most reliable. Byz. 
law thus paid much attention to exposing false 
documents (S. Troianos, EEBS 39—40 [1972-73] 
181—200). The use of oaths contradicted the in- 
junction of Matthew 5:33, and commentators on 
Basil. 22.5 tried to reconcile their practice with 
the Gospel ruling by quoting John Chrysostom. 
Byz. legal practice also accepted certain paralegal 
means of decision making: rhetorical arguments 
that could be more convincing than legal ones, 
the principle that the emperor’s word is beyond 
law (this could be extended to those to whom the 
emperor delegated his authority), and mob pres- 
sure. The use of various ORDEALS as a means of 
establishing the truth emerged despite some strong 
resistance. Literary texts (e.g., hagiography) could 
be submitted as evidence, and references to Homer 
or Aristotle could be used to establish precedent. 

LIT. F. Dölger, “Der Beweis im byzantinischen Gerichts- 
verfahren,” La preuve 1 (Brussels 1964) 595—612. Simon, 
Rechtsfindung. S. Troianos, “Ho elenchos tes gnesiotetos ton 
apodeiktikon engraphon en te byzantine dike,” in Xenon: 


Festschrift für P. Zepos, vol. ı (Athens—Freiburg im Breis- 
gau—Cologne 1973) 693-726. -A.K. 


CIVIL WAR OF 1341-47. Following shortly after 
the conflict between Andronikos II and Androni- 
kos III (1821—28), this war further divided and 
weakened the remnants of the Byz. Empire. When 
Andronikos III died in 1341, leaving his nine- 
year-old son JOHN V PararoLoGos as heir to the 
throne, a struggle for the regency developed be- 
tween JOHN (VI) KANTAKOUZENOS, the megas do- 
mestikos, on one side, and the empress ANNA OF 
Savoy, Patr. Jonn XIV KALEKAS, and the megas 


doux Alexios APOKAUKOS, on the other. Taking 
advantage of the absence of Kantakouzenos from 
Constantinople on military campaign, John XIV 
declared his own regency and confiscated Kanta- 
kouzenos’s property in the capital. In Oct. 1341 
Kantakouzenos was proclaimed emperor in Di- 
dymoteichon, triggering war. Kantakouzenos was 
generally supported by the provincial landed ar- 
istocracy and proponents of HESYCHASM, but there 
were numerous exceptions. At first Kantakou- 
zenos fared poorly in the war as the result of anti- 
aristocratic rebellions in the towns of Macedonia 
and Thrace, notably the revolt of the ZEALOTS in 
Thessalonike. But after receiving assistance from 
Umur BEG, emir of Aydin, and STeFan Uroš IV 
Dušan, king of Serbia, his fortunes improved and 
he gained control of Thessaly, Epiros, and parts 
of Thrace and Macedonia, despite DuSan’s switch 
of allegiance to John V. The murder of Apokau- 
kos in 1345 was a severe blow to the regency. 
After 1345 Umur was forced to withdraw his 
troops, but Kantakouzenos replaced them with 
Ottoman soldiers supplied by the emir ORHAN (E. 
Werner, BS 26 [1965] 255-76). In 1346 Kanta- 
kouzenos was crowned emperor at Adrianople, 
and the following year he entered Constantinople. 
An agreement that he and John V should rule as 
co-emperors ended the civil war. The prolonged 
struggle was disastrous for Byz., as it brought 
anarchy to the cities and devastation to the coun- 
tryside. In Didymoteichon, for example, soldiers 
turned to BRIGANDAGE in order to secure the nec- 
essary provisions (C. Asdracha, EtBalk n.s. 7.3 
[1971] 118-20). The war also permitted Dušan 
to expand his empire into Thrace and Macedonia. 
The victory of Kantakouzenos significantly af- 
fected the church, since it enabled the triumph 
of hesychasm. 


LIT. Nicol, Last Centuries 191-216. Ostrogorsky, History 
509-22. Matschke, Fortschritt. —A.M.T. 


CLARENZA. See CHLEMOUTSI. 


CLARISSIMUS (Aaympérartos), honorific epithet 
applied to SENATORS that became an official title 
during the early Roman Empire. According to 
the EXCERPTA VALESIANA (ed. Moreau-Velkor 9.3), 
when Constantine I created the SENATE in Con- 
stantinople he granted new senators the title of 


clari to distinguish them from the clarissimi of 
Rome. When the titles of 1LLUSTRIS and SPECTA- 
BILIS were introduced in the second half of the 
4th C., clarissimus began to designate the lowest 
category of senators. Between 450 and 530 use of 
the title clarissimus (as well as spectabilis) declined 
and ceased to be applied to senators at all. Jones 
(LRE 2:529) considers it still as hereditary, but 
Guilland (Institutions 1:68f) denies it. The title was 
not part of the Byz. bureaucratic hierarchy. 


LIT. Dagron, Naissance 123f. Guilland, Titres, pt.I (196 


7) 
27—36. —A.K. 


CLASSE. See RAVENNA. 


CLASS STRUCTURE. Class is a conventional so- 
ciological term designating extensive groups of 
people who have common characteristics with re- 
gard to their place in the system of production, 
their wealth, power, and prestige. The difficulty 
in defining Byz. class structure originates in the 
difference between Byz. stratification and the con- 
temporary scholarly models (which in turn, vary 
according to schools of thought, Marxist or non- 
Marxist), from the lack of clear-cut boundaries 
between various classes, and from cases of social 
mobility. The Byz. resorted to several methods of 
social categorization: (1) slaves and free men, (2) 
“great” and “small,” or “powerful” (dynatoz) and 
“poor,” with a third category of men of moderate 
means (mesoi) introduced on occasion; (3) classi- 
fication by profession, as in Psellos—senators, 
monks, the urban masses, and those involved in 
agriculture and trade; (4) a tripartite classification 
of Western type—soldiers, clergy, and ordinary 
people (Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 142-44). 

Four factors were taken into account by the 
Byz. in defining the elite or ruling class: good 
family background (this principle seems to have 
been reestablished by the 10th C.); wealth (includ- 
ing salaries, rewards, extortions, etc., in addition 
to property); hierarchical rank; and prestige or 
high moral reputation. The shift from an elite 
based on rank and position to an elite determined 
by family background and ownership of land was 
a crucial development of the Byz. class structure. 
Merchants probably emerged as an independent 
class by the 11th C. but were never legally defined 


as a distinct category. The lower class encom- 
passed various groups of rural and urban popu- 
lation: common soldiers, state and private peas- 
ants, craftsmen and peddlers, misthioi, slaves, 
beggars. The lower clergy (parotkoi-priests, work- 
ing monks) in a certain sense belonged to this 
class. Intellectuals did not form a separate group 
until the 12th C.; before then they were part of 
the secular and ecclesiastical administration. 

LIT. Beck, /deen, pt.X (1965), 11-45. A. Kazhdan, So- 
cial’nyj sostav gospodstvujuscego klassa Vizantii XI-XII vv. 
(Moscow 1974), with a Fr. résumé by 1. Sorlin, TM 6 (1976) 
367-80. A. Kazhdan, I. Citurov, “O strukture vizantijskogo 
obščestva VII-IX vv.,” VizOé (Moscow 1977) 107-37. G. 
Weiss, “Beobachtungen zur Sozialgeschichte von Byzanz,” 


SüdostF 34 (1975) 3—25- J. Gagé, Les classes sociales dans 
V'Empire romain (Paris 1964) 335-448. -A.K. 


CLAUDIAN (Claudius Claudianus), wandering 
poet of late Roman Egypt; born Alexandria ca.370, 
died ca.404. After producing (in Greek) conven- 
tional panegyrics, patria, and epigrams (some pre- 
served in the GREEK ANTHOLOGY), Claudian went 
to Italy, where he composed Latin panegyrics at 
Rome (395) for the consuls Probus and Olybrius 
and at Milan (396) for the third consulate of Emp. 
Honorius. From then until 404, he tirelessly man- 
ufactured more panegyrics for Honorius and most 
notably for STILICHO. A natural pendant to these 
works is Claudian’s elaborately vicious attack on 
the Eastern courtiers RuFINUS and Eutropius. His 
material rewards for this propaganda included 
the title clarissimus, a public statue whose inscrip- 
tion (CIL 6:1710) records his honors, and a rich 
bride chosen by Stilicho’s wife Serena. Further 
poetic themes include the crushing of the rebel 
GILDO (398) and the mythological De raptu Proser- 
pinae and Gigantomachia. Claudian, noted for his 
poetry and paganism by AUGUSTINE and OROSIUS, 
is essentially the culmination of classical Latin 
poetry. Prolix in praise and abuse, although pol- 
ished overall, his poems are a major source for 
the military and political history of the years 395— 
404. 

ED. Carmina, ed. J.B. Hall (Leipzig 1985). De raptu Pro- 
serpinae, ed. J.B. Hall (Cambridge 1969). Claudian, ed. M. 
Platnauer, 2 vols. (London—New York 1922), with Eng. tr. 

ur. Al. Cameron, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the 
Court of Honortus (Oxford 1970). J.B. Hall, Prolegomena to 
Claudian (London 1986). P.G. Christiansen, The Use of Im- 
ages by Claudius Claudianus (The Hague—Paris 196g). H.L. 


Levy, Claudian’s In Rufinum. An Exegetical Commentary 
(Cleveland, Ohio, 1971). —B.B. 


CLAVIJO, RUY GONZALEZ DE, a high-ranking 
official of Henry III, king of Castile; died 2 Apr. 
1412. With an embassy he journeyed to the court 
of TIMUR in Samarkand, which he described in 
detail. The embassy left Seville on 22 May 1403 
and returned to Castile on 24 March 1406. Clavijo 
describes several islands of the Aegean Sea (Rhodes, 
Chios, Lesbos [“Metellin”}), mentions Mt. Athos 
(“Monteston”), and dwells at length on Constan- 
tinople and Pera. He was most interested in 
churches and monasteries (Hagia Sophia, St. John 
the Baptist, Blachernai [“de la Cherne”], etc.) and 
their treasures, relics, and ornaments; among oth- 
ers, Clavijo describes the Church of Mary “Peri- 
belico” (PERIBLEPTOS), at whose entrance were 
represented 30 castles and towns allegedly granted 
to the church by an emperor Romanos; privileges 
listing the rights of the church to these castles and 
confirmed by wax and lead seals were displayed 
nearby. Clavijo also reports on the Hippodrome, 
the city walls, wells of sweet water, the money- 
changers’ street, warehouses, and the fetters used 
to punish those who sold meat or bread with false 
weights. He noticed that many buildings were in 
a state of ruin. Clavijo visited Trebizond as well. 
He devotes considerable attention to relations 
within the imperial family and to the war between 
Venice and Genoa. 

ED. Embajada a Tamorldn, ed. F. Lopez Estrada (Madrid 


1943). Eng. tr., Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de 
Clavyo, ed. C. Markham (London 1859; rp. New York 


1970). 
LIT. A. Bravo Garcia, “La Constantinopla que vieron R. 


Gonzalez de Clavijo y P. Tafur,” Erytheia 3 (1983) 39—47- 
-A.K. 


CLAVUS, a vertical stripe decorating the Roman 
TUNIC; the wide ones (clavi lati) were originally an 
indication of the senatorial rank of the wearer. 
The clavi were usually purple or gold and were 
woven into the tunic in pairs; they were visible on 
the shoulder even when the tunic was covered by 
an outer mantle. In Byz. art, clavi are primarily 
found decorating the tunics of Christ, the angels, 
and the apostles, figures who are regularly shown 
clad in ancient garb. Clavi embroidered with rows 
of flowers adorn the tunics of the female members 
of the imperial entourage and those of female 
martyrs in the 6th-C. mosaic processions of S. 
Vitale and S. Apollinare Nuovo, RAVENNA, and 
David’s tunic in the 1oth-C. Bible of Leo SAKEL- 


470 | CLEMENT III 


LARIOS (fol.263). In Egypt, tapestry bands have 
been found decorated with comparable floral and 
figural designs; these were probably clavi for tun- 
ics. Simple, dark-colored clavi adorn the Byz. li- 
turgical vestment called STICHARION, in which case 
they are called potamoi (“rivers”). 

LIT. M.G. Houston, Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine 


Costume and Decoration? (London 1947) 97, 138, 143. Papas, 
Messgewdnder 107f. -N.P.Š. 


CLEMENT III (Guibert of Ravenna), antipope 
(elected Mar. 1084); born Parma ca.1025, died 
Civita Castellana 8 Sept. 1100. Henry IV of Ger- 
many supported Clement against Popes GREGORY 
VII and Ursan II. Urban sought an accommo- 
dation with Byz., whereas Clement tried to gain 
the support of Byz.’s northern neighbors: on 8 
Jan. 1089 he created a Serbian archbishopric un- 
der Roman jurisdiction. Around 1088 Clement 
sent envoys to Jonn II, metropolitan of Kiev. 


LIT. J. Ziese, Wibert von Ravenna (Stuttgart 1982). 
—A.K. 


CLEMENT V (Bertrand de Got), pope (from 5 
June 1305); born in the Bordelais ca.1260, died 
Roquemaure, Comtat Venaissin, 20 Apr. 1314. 
Forced to leave Italy, Clement settled in southern 
France, residing from 1309 in Avignon. He ad- 
vocated the idea of a new Crusade with limited 
objectives. While proclaiming the liberation of the 
Holy Land as the ultimate goal, the Crusaders’ 
armies were directed to specific areas: Clement 
supported the attack of the HOSPITALLERS on 
Rhodes, the official purpose of which was to pro- 
tect Armenia and Cyprus from the infidel, to 
hinder trade with the Saracens and to prepare a 
universal crusade. Also under the banner of a 
crusade, Clement organized a war against Venice 
and managed to regain FERRARA for the papacy. 

uit. G. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305—1378 (London— 
New York 1963) 3—8. F. Heidelberger, Kreuzzugsversuche 
um die Wende des XIII. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1911) 24—62. L. 
Thier, Kreuzzugsbemiihungen unter Papst Clemens V. (Werl, 
Westfallen, 1973). N. Housley, “Pope Clement V and the 


Crusades of 1309—1310,” /MedHist 8 (1982) 29-43. 
~A.K. 


CLEMENT VI (Pierre Roger), pope (from 7 May 
1342); born Maumont (Corréze), France, 1291, 


died Avignon 6 Dec. 1352. Clement’s pontificate 
coincided with the growth of national forces jn 
western Europe and the decline of monarchies 
with a tendency to universalist power, so that the 
PAPACY remained the sole bearer of the idea of 
crusade. The kings of France, who were involved 
in the Hundred Years’ War, withdrew from the 
project, and Clement had to seek the support of 
smaller Mediterranean states such as Aragon, 
Venice, Cyprus, and the kingdom of Cilicia. He 
also entered into negotiations with Byz. in expec- 
tation that the empire, weakened by the Civiz 
WAR OF 1341—47, would accept UNION OF THE 
CHURCHES. In 1348 Emp. John VI Kantakou- 
zenos sent ambassadors to Avignon; this mission 
left an important mark on cultural life, since one 
of its members, Nicholas Sigeros, gave Petrarch a 
codex of Homer. Clement’s major achievement 
was the capture of SMyrna by a Latin navy on 28 
Oct. 1344, but the ensuing expedition inland failed. 
Union was not achieved, but the people of Pria- 
DELPHIA, impressed by the Latin success at Smyrna, 
dispatched ambassadors to Avignon, accepting 
papal supremacy in exchange for assistance in 
their struggle against the Turks. 

LIT. A. Pélissier, Clément VI le Magnifique (Paris 1951). 
G. Mollat, DHGE 12 (1953) 1129-62. J. Gay, Le pape Clément 
VI et les affaires d'Orient (Paris 1904; rp. New York 1972). 
R.J. Loenertz, ByzFrGr I 285-302. F. Giunta, “Sulla politica 


orientale di Clemente VI,” in Studi di storia medievale e 
moderna in onore di Ettore Rota (Rome 1958) 149-62. 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, more fully T. 
Flavius Clemens, early Christian philosopher; born 
Athens? ca.150, died Cappadocia before 215. Ed- 
ucated in Alexandria, he worked there as a teacher 
from ca.200 until he was forced to leave the city 
because of anti-Christian persecutions. Like ORI- 
GEN, Clement belonged to a group of well-edu- 
cated Christians who sought a certain reconcilia- 
tion with pagan ideas and were influenced by 
Platonism. Clement’s aim was the struggle against 
Gnosticism and radical extremists within Chris- 
tianity: he argued that the rich could be saved, 
defended marriage, praised education, and took 
the concept of Logos (Reason), not Theos (God), 
as the basis of his doctrine. Clement laid the 
foundations for the ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL and 
paved the way for the incorporation of pagan 
learning within Christianity; he was a foremost 


proponent of the use of allegory in biblical exe- 
esis. 

Clement was not one of the more popular church 
fathers in Byz.: Prodromos (PG 133:1265AB), for 
example, criticized him for treating language as 
immaterial and rejecting the search for beauty 
and nobility of expression. Arethas of Caesarea 
was interested in Clement: at his instigation, a 
certain Baanes prepared in 914 a MS of two of 
Clement’s works (Protreptikos and Paedagogus), 
which was provided with scholia by Baanes and 
Arethas (Paris, B.N. gr. 451). Some other writings 
have survived in MSS of the 11th and rath C. 

ED. PG 8-9. Protrepticus und Paedagogus*, ed. O Stahlin 
et al. (Berlin 1972). Stromata, Buch I-VI *, ed ©. Stahlin et 
al. (Berlin 1985). Stromata, Buch VII und VII?, ed. O. 
Stahlin et al. (Berlin 1970). Register, ed. U. Treu (Berlin 
1g80). G.W. Butterworth, Clement of Alexandria (London— 
New York 1919), with Eng. tr. CPG, nos. 1375—99- 

uit. S.R.C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria (Oxford 1971). 
Quasten, Patrology 2:5—36. O. Stahlin, Beiträge zur Kenntnis 
der Handschriften des Clemens Alexandrinus (Nurnberg 1895). 
Idem, Untersuchungen über die Scholien zu Clemens Alexandri- 
nus (Nürnberg 1897). -T.E.G. 


CLEMENT OF OHRID. See KLIMENT OF OHRID. 


CLEMENT SMOLJATIC. See KLIM SMOLJATIČ. 


CLERGY («A7jpos), term that initially designated 
the entire Christian community, the people of 
God (laos, Larry) chosen to participate in God’s 
inheritance or kleronomia (1 Pet 5:3). By the grd 
C. the term was restricted to those appointed as 
ministers of worship within the Christian com- 
munity. Below the major orders (hieromenoi) of 
BISHOP, PRIEST, and DEACON were the minor or- 
ders (klerikoi) of SUBDEACON and ANAGNOSTES. Be- 
sides differences in functions, the two orders were 
distinguished by the method of ordination (CHEI- 
ROTONIA)—the ritual act that also served to sepa- 
rate clergy from laity. Their lives and responsi- 
bilities were fixed by ecclesiastical law. Ordination 
to the priesthood and episcopate was forbidden 
before age 30, whereas deacons and subdeacons 
could be consecrated at ages 25 and 20, respec- 
tively (Council in TRULLO, canons 13, 14). Once 
appointed to a city or church they could not 
transfer elsewhere (Nicaea I, canon 15). Equally, 
all were subject to episcopal jurisdiction and could 
sue each other only in episcopal courts (Council 


CLICHE 471 


of CHALCEDON, canon g). Admitted to the office 
of DEACONESS, women were forbidden entry to 
both the priesthood and episcopate. 

Generally, clergy were forbidden to participate 
in secular occupations such as trade, usury, or 
banking; nor were they allowed to become civil 
servants, although they could perform manual 
and agricultural labor (Nicaea II, canon 15) and 
serve as imperial advisers (like the monk Ioanni- 
kios in the court of ALexios I). In practice, how- 
ever, these restrictions were not always observed, 
as several 1 2th-C. synodal and patriarchal decrees 
illustrate (RegPatr, fasc. 3, nos. 1048, 1092, 1100, 
1119). Clerical privileges included exemption from 
certain taxes, military service, and other munici- 
pal duties (Cod.Theod. XVI 2.1-47, 5.1; Council 
of Chalcedon, canon 7). Despite their social, ju- 
dicial, and pecuniary exemptions, Byz. clergy never 
constituted a rigid sociological entity—a self-con- 
scious antithesis of the laity—as in the West. Sig- 
nificantly, they rarely held high state office and 
were never the exclusive bearers of high culture. 
Except for bishops, they were also not separated 
from the laity by CELIBACY. 

LIT. A.P. Lebedev, Duchovenstvo drevnej vselenskoj cerkvi 
ot vremen apostol’skich do IX v. (Moscow 1905). D.J. Constan- 
telos, “Clerics and Secular Professions in the Byzantine 
Church,” Byzantina 13.1 (1985) 373—9090. E. Herman, “Die 
kirchlichen Einkünfte des byzantinischen Niederklerus,” 
OrChrP 8 (1942) 378—442. T. Elliott, “The Tax Exemptions 
Granted to Clerics by Constantine and Constantius II,” 
Phoenix 32 (1978) 326-36. -A.P. 


CLICHÉ, in modern terminology, a trite or re- 
peated phrase or idea. In Byz. literature two types 
of cliché can be distinguished. (1) In works written 
at a learned level of the language at all periods, 
the conventions of RHETORIC (which, learned in 
the schoolroom, underlay virtually every literary 
genre) imposed structures and sequences of ideas 
that most writers and audicnces accepted as ap- 
propriate and followed. (2) In many works written 
in the POLITICAL VERSE at a popular level of the 
language in the 14th—15th C., large numbers of 
lines and half-lines were repeated virtually un- 
changed, both within a given poem and in others 
(see ROMANCE). Debate continues as to whether 
this is the result of plagiarism and quotation, or 
whether these “clichés” (phrases like mikroi te kai 
megaloi, “great and small”) represent in written 
form the style of a traditional literature, originally 
disseminated orally. -E.M.J. 


472 | CLIMATE 


CLIMATE in Byz. was determined by the situa- 
tion of the MEDITERRANEAN SEA, which is enclosed 
to the south and southeast by a band of deserts 
and to the north and northeast by mountain ridges 
(Pyrenees, Alps, and Caucasus). Winds, dry in 
summer and bringing rain in winter, blow pri- 
marily north to south; the strong winter winds, 
esp. dangerous along the southern Mediterranean 
shore, could bring navigation to a halt. The com- 
bination of rainy winters (from approximately 
Oct. to Apr.) and summer drought is typical of 
the Mediterranean. Summers were hot, but win- 
ters mild, except on elevated plateaus where con- 
siderable snow accumulated; permanent snow 
cover is found only on mountains at high eleva- 
tions. The diverse climate was due partly to lati- 
tudinal situation (the hottest areas—North Africa, 
Egypt, and Palestine—were lost to the Arabs in 
the 7th C.) but also to elevation, with sharp con- 
trasts between the coastal lowlands and interior 
highlands. 

The coast was sufficiently warm for the culti- 
vation of olives, mulberry, and, in some areas 
(Sicily, Crete), cotton. Vineyards and many FRUIT 
orchards could be found at higher elevations and 
farther to the north (including Thrace), but Bul- 
garia was considered by the Byz. to be a region 
that produced fittle fruit. Grain grew everywhere; 
the predominance of wheat in Asia Minor and of 
barley in the Balkans depended more on soil than 
on temperature. The plateaus (esp. Anatolia), with 
their cold winter nights and shortage of water, 
were best for cattle and flocks of sheep and goats, 
while the contrasts between lowland and highland 
contributed to the development of TRANSHUM- 
ANCE. Special climatic regions were the hinterland 
of the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Armenian 
highlands, the Anatolian plateau, Egypt, and the 
valley of the Po—a transitional region between 
the Mediterranean and Central European climate. 

The question of changes in the Mediterranean 
climate in historical times has been variously ap- 
proached by historians, some of whom attribute 
the decline of the Roman Empire to climatic 
changes; climatologists, however, deny radical 
changes, even though some warming and desic- 
cation ca.1300 can be observed (F. Braudel, La 
Méditerranée? 1 [Paris 1966] 247). It is plausible 
that deforestation also took place over time, but 
neither its scale nor chronology can be estab- 
lished. 


tir. E.C. Semple, The Geography of the Mediterranean Re- 
gion (London 1932) 83-101. A. Philippson, Das Mittelmeer- 
gebiet (Leipzig 1904) 93—138. J.H. Prior, Geography, Tech- 
nology and War (Cambridge 1988) 15-24. A. Guillou, La 
civilisation byzantine (Paris 1974) 41—100. -A.K. 


CLOCK. See HOROLOGION. 


CLOISONNE. See ASHLAR; BRICKWORK TECH- 
NIQUES AND PATTERNS; ENAMELS. 


CLOSED DOOR or gate (An KEKAELTHÉVN) of 
the sanctuary of the Temple, seen by Ezekiel 
(44:1-3) in a vision. This was not to be opened 
or traversed by any man, for God had entered in 
by it. The image was taken, for example, by Theo- 
doret of Cyrrhus (PG 81:1233B), to symbolize the 
Virgin’s womb. ROMANOS THE MELODE (Hymnes 2, 
ed. J. Grosdidier de Matons [Paris 1965] 10:9.4— 
10) describes Mary as the Closed Gate (aparanotk- 
tos pyle) who opened the door to the Magi that 
they might see the Door (thyra), the infant Christ. 
In the context of increased interest in PREFIGUR- 
ATIONS of the Virgin, the Door is represented at 
the CHora (S. Der Nersessian in Underwood, 
Kariye Djami 4:346) and other Palaiologan churches. 

LIT. G. Babić, “L'image symbolique de la ‘Porte fermée’ 


à Saint-Clément d’Ohrid,” in Synthronon 145-51- 
-Ċ.B.T., J.H.L. 


COATS OF ARMS. The use of heraldic INSIGNIA 
as a symbolic representation of families did not 
develop in Byz. The broad range of images (Christ, 
the Virgin, the cross, various saints) found on 
SEALS are personal rather than familial emblems. 
Certain “blazons” have, however, been inter- 
preted by some scholars as official imperial or 
familial coats of arms. Soloviev (infra) considered 
the double-headed EaGLE as an emblem of the 
Komnenoi and the tetragrammic cross with four 
Bs as the blazon (from ca.1327) of the Palaiologoi. 
G. Vikan (ArtB 63 [1981] 326) has connected 
other emblems (including a multipetal flower, a 
swastika, and four overlapping bars) with the Pa- 
laiologos family. Some of these symbols—whether 
blazons or not—were placed on imperial stan- 
dards: thus, a 14th-C. ceremonial book (pseudo- 
Kod. 167.17—29) states that on ordinary warships 
the customary imperial banner (phlamoulon) was 
displayed, that is, the cross with pyrekbola (flints?}— 


probably the tetragrammic cross—whereas the ship 
of the megas doux displayed the image of the 
mounted emperor. In Aug. 1439 John VIII Pa- 
laiologos conferred upon Giacomo de Morellis, a 
citizen of Florence, the right to place on his ban- 
ner the imperial “blazon” (semeion); on the chry- 
sobull, beneath the text, is pictured a double- 
headed eagle (Reg 5, no.3489). 

Lit. W.H. Riidt von Collenberg, “Byzantinische Prä- 
heraldik des 10. und 11. Jhs.,” Recueil du r2e Congrès 
international des sciences généalogique et héraldique (Stuttgart 
1978) 169-81. D. Cernovodeanu, “Contributions a l'étude 
de l’héraldique byzantine et postbyzantine,” JÖB 32.2 (1982) 
409-22. A. Soloviev, “Les emblèmes héraldiques de Byz- 
ance et les Slaves,” SemKond 7 (1935) 119-64. -A.K. 


CODEX (6éA7os, mukTiov, Tedxos, KLE), the pre- 
ponderant form of the Byz.—and modern—soox. 
It consists of QUIRES made of sheets of PAPYRUS, 
PARCHMENT, Or, later, PAPER, which were prepared 
for copying by the application of RULING PATTERNS 
in order to guide the writing; the written quires 
were stitched, usually one to another, to form the 
smooth spine characteristic of Byz. BOOKBINDING. 
Unlike the earlier ROLL, the codex fitted more 
text into less space because each sheet was written 
on both sides. Moreover, since the codex could 
be immediately opened to any page, it allowed 
random consultation. In appearance, Byz. codices 
range from sumptuous illuminated MSS (see Boox 
ILLUSTRATION AND ILLUMINATION) or lavish edi- 
tions of the classics to tax registers or heavily 
annotated working texts produced by scholars for 
their personal use. 

The codex probably derived from the Roman 
businessman’s parchment notebook, itself in- 
spired by the bound and waxed wooden tablets 
(codices) used as notepads in antiquity and Byz. 
Travelers seem to have been among the first to 
favor the new format, and the codex enjoyed 
unique prestige among Christians from the 2nd 
C., esp. for Scripture. Eusebios of Caesarea men- 
tions the order issued by Constantine I that fifty 
codices of the Bible should be copied for liturgical 
use in Constantinople. From 300 onward, the 
codex replaced the roll as the chief vehicle for 
literary texts. The physical transformation of the 
book encouraged intellectual change as well. The 
capacity of and the ease of access within the codex 
now made practical the creation—and quick con- 
sultation—of vast works of reference, such as the 


CODEX EBNERIANUS | 473 


codification of Roman law at Constantinople in 
the 5th and 6th C. For artists the invention of the 
codex made possible the painting of full-page 
miniatures. 

Lit. B. Atsalos, La terminologie du livre-manuscrit à l'époque 
byzantine (Thessalonike 1971) 88—128. C.H. Roberts, T.C. 
Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London 1983). M. McCormick, 
“The Birth of the Codex and the Apostolic Life-Style,” 
Scriptorium 39 (1985) 150-58. —E.G., M.McC. 


CODEX CAROLINUS, collection of letters sent 
by popes (GREGORY III through Haprian I) and 
from the Byz. Empire to Charles Martel, Pippin, 
and CHARLEMAGNE, compiled at Charlemagne’s 
command in 791. Only the papal letters survive. 
They constitute the chief source on Frankish in- 
volvement in Italy. Because the papacy acted as 
an intermediary between Byz. and the Franks, 
these letters shed valuable light on Byz. relations 
with the Carolingians (eps. 11, 25, 28—29, 36-37 
on the negotiations of CONSTANTINE V with Pip- 
pin, and ep.45 on the planned marriage of Leo 
IV with the king’s daughter) and, above all, on 
Constantinople’s projects to recapture its Italian 
holdings (eps. 15, 17, 30-31, 38, 57, 61, 64—65, 
80, 82-84) and subdue the Iconodule papacy 
(eps. 20, 32). They also transmit general infor- 
mation deemed relevant to the Frankish court, 
for instance the Eastern patriarchs’ attitude toward 
ICONOCLASM (ep.gg), Constantine V’s death (ep. 
58), an Arab invasion of Asia Minor (ep.74), news 
from Byz. IsTRIA (ep.63), and the activities of Byz. 
or Venetian merchants (eps. 59, 86). 

ED. W. Gundlach, MGH Epist. 3:476—657. Facsimile— 
Codex epistolaris Carolinus, ed. F. Unterkircher (Graz 1962). 

LIT. P. Kehr, “Uber die Chronologie der Briefe Papst 


Pauls I. im codex Carolinus,” NachGétt (1896) 102-57. 
~M.McC. 


CODEX EBNERIANUS, a :2th-C. illustrated New 
Testament in Oxford, Bodl. Auct. T. inf. 1. 10, 
named after its 18th-C. owner. Bound in a silver 
cover with a 1oth-C. ivory fragment, the MS is 
decorated with ornate CANON TABLES and HEAD- 
PIECES, a double portrait of Eusebios of Caesarea 
and Karpianos, and ten portraits of New Testa- 
ment authors. Accompanying most portraits are 
liturgically inspired narrative scenes. The MS was 
copied by the same scribe as Escorial X IV 17, 
but illuminated in the different style of the MSS 
of JAMES OF KOKKINOBAPHOS. It is the product of 


474 CODEX GREGORIANUS 


the preeminent school of Constantinopolitan il- 
luminators during the second quarter of the 12th 
C. In 1391 the scribe Ioasaph of the HopEGON 
monastery added liturgical notations to the MS, 
and its evangelist portraits served as the model 
for the Palaiologan miniatures inserted into Ven- 
ice, Marc. gr. I, 8. The MS is marked with Geor- 
gian quire signatures, but was still in Constanti- 
nople in the 16th C. 

LIT. Hutter, CBM 1:59-67, 3.1:333f. H. Buchthal, “A 


Greek New Testament Manuscript in the Escorial Library,” 
in Byz. und der Westen 86—94. —-R.S.N. 


CODEX GREGORIANUS, a collection of impe- 
rial rescripts issued sometime between 291 and 
294 by a certain Gregory, who is otherwise un- 
known. It is impossible to determine whether it 
was prepared in the East (Berytus?) or elsewhere, 
or whether it was a private tool or an official 
document, for purposes of instruction or for 
practical use. It contains edicts from the year 196 
to Diocletian; the latest law (of 295) is often con- 
sidered a later addition. The material is orga- 
nized, according to subject matter, in books and 
titles. It is possible that the original text of the 
edicts has here been contracted and paraphrased 
(N. van der Wal, Bollettino dell’Istituto di diritto 
romano 22 [1980] 7). The text has survived only 
in fragments—in the CopEx JUSTINIANUS and in 
various legal compilations, such as the Fragmenta 
Vaticana, scholia of the Sinai Library, and the lex 
Romana Visigothorum. 

ED. P. Krüger, Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani 3 (Ber- 
lin 1890) 224-33, 236-42. 

LIT. P. förs, RE 4 (1901) 161-64. J. Gaudemet, La 
formation du droit séculier et du droit de l'église aux IVe et Ve 


siècles (Paris 1979) 44—48. W. Turpin, “The Purpose of the 
Roman Law Codes,” ZSavRom 104 (1987) 620~30. —A.K. 


CODEX HERMOGENIANUS, a collection of im- 
peria! rescripts published after the Conex GRE- 
GORIANUS by a certain Hermogenianus, usually 
identified as a praetorian prefect of 304. The text 
has survived in fragmentary form in the same 
sources as the Codex Gregorianus (with the excep- 
tion of the appendices to the lex Romana Visigotho- 
rum), but it differs from the latter in several re- 
spects: the Codex Hermogenianus is shorter, divided 
only into titles (not books), and contains primarily 
the edicts of Diocletian. The 5th-C. Christian au- 


thor Sedulius notes that Hermogenianus had his 
work published three times; accordingly, Rotondi 
(infra) postulates that the first edition appeared 
in 295, the second in 305, and the third included 
three constitutions of 314-24. Seven rescripts of 
364/5 are considered later additions. 

ED. P. Krüger, Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani 3 (Ber- 
lin 1890) 234f, 242-45. 

LIT. A. Cenderelli, Ricerche sul ‘Codex Hermogenianus’ (Milan 
1965). D. Liebs, Hermogenians Iuris epitomae (Göttingen 1964). 
G. Rotondi, Scritti giuridici 1 (Milan 1922) 111-46. ~A.K. 


CODEX JUSTINIANUS, a collection of imperial 
constitutions (in the form of leges, rescripta, sanc- 
tiones pragmaticae) from Hadrian to Justinian I, 
that, along with the Dicest, the INSTITUTES, and 
the NoveLs OF JUSTINIAN I, constitutes the Corpus 
Juris Civils. Executed at Justinian’s request, the 
collection was intended to take the place of the 
Copex GREGORIANUS, the CODEX HERMOGENI- 
ANUS, and the CopEX THEODOSIANUS and to pro- 
vide a compilation of imperial law arranged ac- 
cording to subject and freed from contradictions 
and repetitions. To this end Justinian appointed 
a commission of ten lawyers under the direction 
of TRIBONIAN. The original collection, the so- 
called Codex vetus, which has been transmitted only 
in short fragments, was made public on 7 Apr. 
529 through the introductory constitution 
“Summa.” It soon stood in need of revision—not 
least because of Justinian’s own legislative activity. 

With the constitution “Cordi” of 16 Nov. 534 
the so-called Codex repetitae praelectionts was pro- 
mulgated and made authoritative. It contains 12 
books that, in contrast to the Institutes and the 
Digest, reflect the socioeconomic and ecclesiastical 
problems of the time in the form of numerous 
administrative, penal, civil, and ecclesiastical reg- 
ulations. The language of the constitutions is pre- 
dominantly Latin. The regulations of the Codex 
Justinianus were introduced into the BASILIKA, esp. 
in the Greek version of THALELAIOS; treatments 
of the Codex Justinianus by the jurists ISIDORE, 
ANATOLIOS, and THEODORE SCHOLASTIKOS are also 
preserved. Revisions in the sequence of the laws 
of the Codex Justinianus are transmitted only in 
fragments. With a view to the integration of the 
Codex Justinianus into the Basilika, the individual 
titles were divided up according to subject and, 
where appropriate, attached to the Basilika chap- 
ters Originating in the Digest. 


gp. CIC, vol. 2. 
uit. Wenger, Quellen 569-72, 638-51, 688—g2. D. Si- 
mon, “Aus dem Codexunterricht des Thalelaios,” ZSavRom 


86 (1969) 334-83; 87 (1970) 315-94; Revue internationale 
des droits de l'antiquité 16 (1969) 283-308; 17 (1970) 273- 
31 1. —M.Th.F. 


CODEX SUPRASLIENSIS, the largest surviving 
Old Church Slavonic MS (found in 1823 in the 
Suprasl monastery in Poland), is a menologion for 
the month of March that contains saints’ Lives 
and sermons for Holy Week and Easter. It was 
probably copied in central or eastern Bulgaria 
between goo and 1050 on the basis of an original 
created in the circle of Tsar SYMEON OF BULGARIA. 
More than half of its 285 folia were lost during 
World War II; the other portions are in Ljubljana 
and Leningrad. Marguliés (infra) and some other 
scholars hypothesize that the original of the Codex 
was in GLAGoOLITIC. The Codex was translated 
from a Greek pre-Metaphrastic menologion and 
contains 48 hagiographical texts; for some of them 
the Greek sources have not yet been identified. 
The work of the translator (or translators?) was 
difficult, since the original also contained the writ- 
ings of some experienced rhetoricians (Basil the 
Great, John Chrysostom, Epiphanios of Salamis), 
and in some cases their language was misunder- 
stood. The compilator of the Codex probably 
introduced stylistic alterations. The Codex is an 
important monument of Byz. intellectual influ- 
ence upon Bulgaria ca.goo. 

ED. S. Sever’janov, Suprasl’skaja rukopis’ (St. Petersburg 
1904; rp. Graz 1956). Suprastilski ili Retkov sbornik, ed. J. 
Zaimov, M. Capaldo, 2 vols. (Sofia 1982-83). 

ut. R. Trautmann, R. Klostermann, “Drei griechische 
Texte zum Codex Suprasliensis,” ZSlavPhil 11 (1934) 3- 
21, 299-324; 12 (1935) 277-94. K.H. Meyer, Altkirchen- 
slavische Studien (Halle an der Saale 1939). Ph.A. Marguliés, 
Der althirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis (Heidelberg 1927). 
M. Capaldo, “Zur linguistischen Betrachtungsweise der 
Komposition des Codex Suprasliensis,” in Contributi Italiani 
all'VIII Congresso internazionale degli Slavisti (Zagreb-Ljub- 
ljana 1978) 23—60. —A.K. 


CODEX THEODOSIANUS, a Latin law book 
named after the emperor THEOopostros II. By a 
constitution of 26 Mar. 429, Theodosios, together 
with his co-emperor Valentinian III, established 
a nine-member commission to produce a collec- 
tion of all of the imperial constitutions published 
since Constantine I (following the model of the 
Conex Grecortanus and the Conex HERMOGENI- 


CODICIL 475 


ANUS), integrating into the collection appropriate 
passages from the writings of the jurists. By a 
constitution of 20 Dec. 435, the same emperors 
set up a new commission of 16 people that was to 
collect all general imperial constitutions since 
Constantine I and, if necessary, to improve them 
by changing the text or dividing them into several 
titles. This work came to fruition and was pub- 
lished by a constitution of 15 Feb. 438. On 1 Jan. 
439 the Codex Theodosianus went into force for the 
entire Roman Empire. The Codex contains more 
than 2,500 constitutions (from the years 31 1-437) 
and is divided into 16 books; the books are sub- 
divided into titles within which the constitutions 
are arranged in chronological order. The MS 
transmission of the Codex Theodosianus is poor, esp. 
for books 1—5, which are only indirectly pre- 
served, in the Lex Romana Visigothorum. For this 
Lex as well as for the Codex Justinianus, the Codex 
Theodosianus was the most important source. The 
Codex Theodosianus was provided with commentar- 
ies (F. Wieacker in Symbolae Friburgenses in honorem 
Ottonis Lenel [Leipzig 1935] 259-356). After ap- 
proximately a century it was superseded by the 
Corpus Juris CIiviLis, esp. the Codex Justinianus. 
ED. T. Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutiont- 
bus Sirmondianis, 1 vol. in 2 pts. (Berlin 1905; rp. Dublin- 
Zurich 1970—71). Codex Theodosianus cum perpetuis commen- 
tariis lacobi Gothofredi, ed. A. Marvillius, with rev. and add. 
I.D. Ritter, 6 vols. (Leipzig 1736-43; rp. Hildesheim—New 
York 1975). Eng. tr. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and 
Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Princeton 1952; rp. 


1970). 
LIT. G.G. Archi, Teodosio H e la sua codificazione (Naples 
1976). T. Honoré, “The Making of the Theodosian Code,” 


ZSavRom 103 (1986) 133-222. —A.S. 


CODICIL. In classical Roman law, the codicil was 
at first a document strictly connected to a WILL, 
in which the testator addressed the heir of the 
will and requested that he execute a FIDEICOMMIS- 
sum. The codicil had no required form; it had to 
be announced in the will or be authorized by a 
(later) will. When codicils independent of the will 
came into use, they began to compete with wills. 
A will was distinguished from a codicil in that it 
had a required form and by the circumstance that 
only in wills could heirs be appointed and disin- 
heritance effected. The difference was weakened 
by the testator instructing that his will be main- 
tained as a codicil in the case of invalidation. 
Justinian I further reduced the differences by his 


476 CODICOLOGY 


regulation that a codicil must be drawn up in the 
presence of five witnesses (it was seven for wills). 
In the post-Justinianic period, the required num- 
ber of witnesses for a will was reduced even fur- 
ther (Nov. Leo VI 41): five witnesses in the city, 
three in the country and while on journeys. Since 
already in late antiquity the significance of the 
appointment of heirs diminished with the decline 
of the Roman household structure, the codicil 
should have disappeared. If it is still mentioned 
in the legislation of the Macedonian period and 
in the legal literature that follows it until Har- 
menopoulos, this appears to be—as the lack of 
evidence from practice allows one to surmise— 
only a traditional reminiscence. -D.S. 


Codicils in Administrative Terminology. Cod- 
icil (Lat. codicillus, Gr. kwdtkeddos) designated in 
Roman terminology the emperor’s brief writing 
and particularly the diploma of appointment to a 
high office or the conferring of a high title. They 
are known from literary and legal texts of the 4th 
C. onward. At that time they were usually accom- 
panied by ivory piprycus and probably put inside 
the diptych’s sealed wings. Texts of the 8th—1 oth 
C. sometimes mention separately granting either 
the codicils or ivory plakes (tablets). The prepara- 
tion of codicils in the late Roman Empire was the 
duty of the primicerius notariorum (the chief of the 
notaries), while in the 1oth C. it was the respon- 
sibility of the kanzkleios, who was paid by the gran- 
tee 16 nomismata per piece (Oikonomides, Listes 
95-8). 


LIT. O. Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 179-81. Délger, Diplomatik 
49. Dolger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 113-15. Oiko- 
nomides, Listes 93, n.41. —A.K. 


CODICOLOGY (lit. “the study of the copEx”), 
the scholarly term coined by A. Dain (Les manuscnits! 
[Paris 1949] 71—86) as an equivalent of the Ger- 
man Handschriftenkunde (“the study of manu- 
scripts”). Dain conceived of codicology as a disci- 
pline dealing with the history of MSS and their 
collections, research on their present location, and 
the compilation of catalogs and repertories of 
catalogs (Les manuscrits? [Paris 1964] 77); that is, 
with the history of books after their completion. 
The term, however, gradually has acquired a dif- 
ferent meaning—the study of ancient écrits in con- 
trast to that of écriture (F. Masai, Scriptorium 10 
[1956] 286-92), that is, study of the hand-pro- 





duced book as an archaeological object rather 
than of its script. Thus it has become identical 
with the German Buchwesen (“the structure of the 
book”), one of the two divisions of PALAEOGRAPHY, 

Codicology examines the book’s size, material 
(PAPYRUS, PARCHMENT, PAPER), physical properties 
of Inks and pigments, preparation for writing 
(RULING PATTERNS and systems), structure (QUIRES, 
their signatures, sewing, BOOKBINDING and re- 
bindings), ownership markings, and so forth, all 
of which changed over time and place. In so 
doing, it often determines characteristics specific 
to various production centers (SCRIPTORIA) and 
LIBRARIES. The use of the neologism codicology can 
be justified by the fact that recent study puts more 
and more emphasis on the book as a material 
vector of culture, unlike traditional palaeography, 
which tended to study the book in a cultural 
vacuum, 

LIT. PGEB (Paris 1977) 27—91. R.-H. & M.A. Rouse, 
DMA 3:475—78. Griechische Kodikologie und Textiiberlieferung, 
ed. D. Harlfinger (Darmstadt 1980). G. Cavallo, “Le tipo- 


logie della cultura nel riflesso delle testimonianze scritte,” 
SettStu 34 (1988) 467-529. —M.McC., E.G. 


COERCION, NONECONOMIG, an application 
of moral or physical compulsion to force people 
to work. It was based primarily on political, social, 
and personal relations (esp. dependency) and only 
secondarily on market values. The tendency of 
the landlord was to exact the maximum benefit 
from the laborer without ruining the existence of 
the slave/serf or his dependent household; the 
tendency of the laborer was to perpetuate his 
household. Accordingly, RENT was established in 
Byz.—in practice, not in theoretical calculations— 
not only on the basis of the actual quantity and 
quality of the soil (arable land, vineyards, olive 
trees, gardens), livestock, yokes of oxen, number 
of family members, but primarily on the basis of 
intangible factors of social status and personal 
relations. Thus a curious phenomenon arose: 
poorer peasants could be compelled to pay a pro- 
portionately higher rent than their wealthier 
counterparts (in another or even in the same 
village) and, on the average, the poorer tenants 
would fulfill heavier obligations than the wealthier 
householders—in contrast with the modern sys- 
tem of progressive taxation. The numerous tax 
exemptions granted to churches and monasteries, 
officials and courtiers, originated from the same 


principle. This principle was extended to land 
prices, variations in which went beyond the usual 
market conditions. Noneconomic coercion in Byz. 
was shaped not only through landlord-tenant re- 
lations reflected in local customs but also through 
the state with its elements of state ownership of 
property (see STATE PROPERTY), MONOPOLY, and 
the concept of the “enslavement” of the entire 
population to “the father and the lord,” that is, 
the emperor. 


LIT. Patlagean, Structure, pt.III (1975), 1371-96. Kazh- 
dan, Agrarnye otnosenija 138-364. -A.K 


COINAGE, FOREIGN. The circulation of for- 
eign coinage played no role in the Byz. Empire 
during the greater part of its existence. During 
the early centuries the only coin-producing state 
with which Byz. was in contact was Persia, and 
although there is literary evidence for Sasanian 
silver drachmae circulating on the frontier (e.g., 
at Nisibis) hoard evidence shows that such coins 
did not penetrate into the interior. The thin, 
broad fabric of Umayyad dirhems certainly deter- 
mined the appearance of the silver MILIARESION 
introduced by Leo HI, and miliaresia later in the 
8th C. are sometimes found overstruck on ‘Ab- 
basid dirhems (G.C. Miles, MN g [1960] 189- 
218). Only in the last two centuries of the empire, 
after the Fourth Crusade and the occupation of 
most of the former imperial territories in the 
Aegean by Westerners, did foreign coins come to 
be used on a large scale in the empire and to 
influence the designs of Byz. coins. The most 
important of the intruders were initially the Vene- 
tian silver ducat, copied as the BASILIKON, and the 
Frankish ToRNESE. Later the Venetian gold ducat, 
imitated at Chios and at Fogliavecchia on the 
neighboring mainland and by the Genoese at Pera 
in the suburbs of Constantinople itself, replaced 
the Byz. gold HyPERPYRON, which ceased to be 
minted in the 1350s. From ca.1380 onward the 
small change of Constantinople seems to have 
largely consisted of Turkish akces, minted mainly 
at Bursa, which supplemented the locally pro- 
duced aspErs and were of about the same value. 

LIT. T. Bertelé, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina,” 


in Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV (Florence 1973) 3- 
146. -Ph.G. 


COIN FINDS are customarily classed into three 
categories: hoards, site finds, and casual or iso- 


COIN FINDS 477 


lated finds. These categories are not exclusive, 
however; most hoards come to light by chance. A 
hoard is defined as a group of coins concealed or 
lost as a unit. Site finds are those brought to light 
by archaeologists in the course of excavation. Iso- 
lated finds are those turned up by chance in 
digging a field, preparing a road surface, or as 
the result of some similar activity. 

Hoards. Finds of this type are valuable partly 
as sources of material, partly because of their size. 
In addition, sometimes the presence of a con- 
tainer tends to ensure the survival of their con- 
tents in good condition. They are also useful 
because they show what coins were in circulation 
or at least were available at the time of conceal- 
ment or loss. Their interpretation is often deli- 
cate: a savings hoard will differ in composition 
from one buried in an emergency. Also, although 
coins have been hoarded at all periods, usually 
they were recovered by their original owners ex- 
cept in times of unrest. Then too, since a single 
hoard may have belonged to a traveler from out- 
side the area where it was found, its contents are 
not necessarily a reliable guide to the local circu- 
lating medium. Comparing several hoards whose 
contents overlap is the surest means of determin- 
ing the order of issue of undated coins. In many 
periods hoards are virtually limited to gold and 
silver coins of substantial inherent value, but in 
the Byz. world, as in Roman times, there are also 
many hoards of low-value coins. Much of Hendy’s 
work on the coinage of the 12th-13th C. was 
made possible by the great number of (mainly) 
Bulgarian hoards of billon and trachea of the 
period. Unfortunately the reporting of hoards in 
most former Byz. lands is inadequate, and the 
only comprehensive bibliography (Mosser, infra) 
is long since out of date. Byz. coin hoards in the 
USSR throw much light on trade routes (see Kro- 
potkin, infra), while inside former imperial terri- 
tories they have been helpful in documenting 
Slavic penetration of the Balkans (J. Juroukova, 
BBulg 3 [1969] 255—63) and the military situation 
in the Aegean area under Herakleios (D.M. Met- 
calf, ABSA 57 [1962] 14-23). 

Site Finds. These consist mainly of low-value 
coins that were easily lost and not worth their 
owners’ trouble to recover. The older excavation 
reports often neglected to take proper note of 
them, and in particular failed to find the great 
numbers of tiny 5th- and 6th-C, copper NUMMI 


478 COINS 


that require systematic sieving of the soil. A new 
standard in this respect was set by the American 
excavations at Athens, Corinth, Antioch, and other 
sites, mainly from the 1920s onward. The reports 
of these have made possible the study of fluctua- 
tions in coin use between different periods, though 
their interpretation presents many problems. Sim- 
ple comparisons between the numbers found for 
different rulers, as was common in the older re- 
ports and historical works based on them, can 
only mislead, for coins will normally have re- 
mained in circulation many years after they were 
struck, and denominations of different sizes and 
values are not equally likely to be lost. The coins 
themselves are usually in poor condition as a 
result of prolonged burial. They are so corroded 
or worn as to be of little use for the study of types 
and inscriptions and of no use at all for metro- 
logical: purposes. They are, on the other hand, 
essential to archaeologists for dating associated 
objects and the buildings or excavation strata in 
which they were found. 

Casual Finds. This type of find generally occurs 
in the countryside and is usually of single coins. 
In most former Byz. lands these tend to be in- 
adequately reported. The scholarly value of such 
finds comes mainly from the light they throw on 
the areas over which coins circulated, esp. outside 
the cities, and occasionally for the identification 
of local mints. 

LIT. P. Grierson, Numismatics (London 1975) 124-39. 
V.V. Kropotkin, Klady vizantyskikh monet na territorii SSSR 
(Moscow 1962). Hendy, Coinage 325—404. P. Grierson, “The 
Interpretation of Coin Finds,” NChron’ 5 (1965) i—xiil; 6 
(1966) i-xv. S.McA. Mosser, A Bibliography of Byzantine Coin 
Hoards (New York 1935). —Ph.G. 


COINS. Byz. coinage derived from that of the 
later Roman Empire, and there is no sharp divi- 
sion between them. Nevertheless, in many re- 
spects they are very different. It has long been 
customary to start the Byz. series with Anastasios 
I, since a separate line of emperors in the West 
had come to an end with Jurus Neros (died 480) 
and because Anastasios’s creation of the copper 
FOLLIS in 498 determined much of the pattern of 
minting for the future, but the older books begin 
with Arkadios, since from 395 there were separate 
lines of emperors in East and West. 

Metals. Metals for coins were mainly the three 





Coins. Gold coin (solidus) of Emp. Justinian H (687- 
92) showing the bust of Christ on the obverse. 


standard ones used in the ancient world—gold, 
silver, and copper—but the proportion and form 
of coins in each metal has varied greatly over the 
centuries. Heavy copper coins were not struck in 
the 5th C. (their place being taken by tiny NUMMI), 
nor were they struck after the late 11th C. A 
coinage in silver barely existed in the 5th—6th C., 
and between the late 11th and the late 13th C. 
the traditional silver MILIARESIA were replaced by 
TRIKEPHALA of electrum (a gold-silver alloy) for 
higher values and TRACHEA of billon (that is, a 
silver-copper alloy containing less than 50 percent 
silver) for lower ones. The trachea also substituted 
for the heavy folles of copper no longer minted. 
The gold remained of high quality until the 1030s, 
when a half century of progressive debasement 
began. NomismaTa of good quality were revived 
by ALExtos I in 1092 as part of a general coinage 
reform which reestablished a currency on whose 
quality users could rely, but these HYPERPYRA were 
only 20.5 carats fine (85.4 percent) instead of 24 
carats as previously. The use of good quality silver 
coins was revived only with the creation of 
the BASILIKON in the first years of the 14th C. 
Gold hyperpyra were no longer struck after the 
mid-14th C. Lead was occasionally used, e.g., for 
ten-nummus pieces in 6th-C. Italy (C. Morrisson, 
Rivista italiana di numismatica 83 [1981] 119-39) 


and for Alexios I’s first tetartera or half-tetartera 
of 1092. 

Thematic Content. The thematic content of 
Byz. coins differed markedly from that of Roman 
ones, as did the way the emperor was represented. 
Beginning with the reign of Constantine I al] coin 
types of a positively pagan character disappeared, 
although for the next two-and-a-half centuries 
representations of Victory and of Roma and Con- 
stantinopolis (see also PERSONIFICATION) contin- 
ued to be tolerated because it was possible to 
regard them as symbolic and not as objects of 
worship. The cross began to be used as a main 
type in the mid-s5th C., though only on a few 
denominations; only under Tiberios I did it be- 
come the main reverse type of the gold coins. A 
bust of Christ, first shown on coins of Justinian 
II, became a regular feature of the coinage only 
after the restoration of images under Michael III 
(843), but from then on representations of Christ, 
of the Virgin (first under Leo VI), and of the 
saints (first under Michael IV) are normal. A bust 
or standing figure of the emperor was almost 
always present, except on the so-called Anony- 
mous Folles (970—1092), which have religious types 
and inscriptions only. But the personality of the 
emperor was eclipsed by the greatness of his of- 
fice. Characterized portraits in high relief, a dis- 
tinctive feature of Roman coinage during the 
Principate, were replaced by formalized frontal 
effigies in low relief, usually with no attempt at 
reproducing an individual likeness. Instead, the 
status of the emperor was shown by his costume 
(CHLAMYS, FIBULA, CROWN) and insignia (SCEPTER, 
globus cruciger, AKAKIA). 

Language. The language of the coin inscrip- 
tions was initially Latin, as were the elements of 
the emperor’s style (DN for dominus noster, PE or 
PF for perpetuus or pius felix, AVG for augustus), 
but Greek legends began to be used in the 7th C. 
(EN TOVTO NIKA on folles of Constans II) and 
Greek titles such as basileus, despotes, and so forth 
in the 8th. After a long period in which Greek 
and Latin characters were used indiscriminately 
and might even appear together in the same word, 
the use of letters in a specifically Latin sense 
disappeared in the 11th C., so the C was hence- 
forward invariably a sigma and H an eta. 

Collections. Byz. coins are found by the thou- 
sand every year, some in regular excavations, in 


COIN SCALES 479 


which case they are preserved as part of the rec- 
ord, but the majority pass through dealers’ hands 
to collectors and some in due course to museums. 
The major collections are those of Paris (Biblio- 
théque Nationale), London (British Museum), 
Berlin (Staatliche Museen), Leningrad (Hermi- 
tage), and the Dumbarton Oaks Center of Byz- 
antine Studies in Washington, D.C. The British 
Museum catalog of 1908 was for a half century 
the standard work of reference on the subject, 
but it has now been largely superseded, other 
than as a collection of material, by the catalogs of 
the Paris collections (to 1204) and of Dumbarton 
Oaks, three volumes (to 1081) out of a projected 
five having been published to date. Much Her- 
mitage material is available in the unfinished work 
of Tolstoj (to 886). For the period 491-720 these 
have to be supplemented by a synoptic survey 
published under the auspices of the Numismatic 
Commission of the Austrian National Academy 
of Sciences. For coins of the 4th C., from the 
accession of Diocletian (284) to the death of Theo- 
dosios I (395), the standard reference work is vols. 
6—9 of Roman Imperial Coinage; since vol. 10 has 
not yet appeared, there is no satisfactory work 
covering the century from 395 to 491. 

Lit. Grierson, Byz. Coins. Hendy, Economy. W. Wroth, 
Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum, 
2 vols. (London 1908). C. Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies 
byzantines de la Bibliothèque Nationale (491—1204), 2 vols. 
(Paris 1970). A.R. Bellinger, P. Grierson, Catalogue of the 
Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the 
Whittemore Collection, 3 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1966-73). 
W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini, 3 vols. (Vienna 1973- 
81). I. Tolstoj, Vizantyskie monety, g fasc. (St. Petersburg 
1912-14). H. Mattingly, E.A. Sydenham, The Roman Impe- 
nal Coinage (London 1923-), vol. 6 (by C.H.V. Sutherland, 


1967), vol. 7 (by P. Bruun, 1966), vol. 8 (by J.P.C. Kent, 
1981), and vol. g (by J.W.E. Pearce, 1951). - Ph.G. 


bronze implements for weighing coins or small 
amounts of precious material in granulated or 
powdered forms. Invented by the Romans, a coin 
scale is a lever balance with fixed fulcrum at 
midpoint; it is supported from above either by a 
hinged bracket or by a cord or wire (Davidson, 
Minor Objects, no.1466). The coin is placed in a 
small pan at the end of one arm, and balance is 
achieved either by the predetermined weight of 
the other arm, through a counterpoise placed in 


480 COISLIN NOTATION 


a corresponding pan, or by a tiny weight that may 
be slid across a scale in an open channel along 
the other end. 


LIT. B. Kisch, Scales and Weights (New Haven—London 
1965) 56—66. —G.V. 


COISLIN NOTATION. See NEUMATA. 


COLLECTIO 25 CAPITULORUM, a 6th-C. col- 
lection of canon law prescriptions, mainly those 
of Justinian I, divided into 25 chapters. The work 
consists of 21 Greek constitutions reproduced ver- 
batim from titles 1—4 of the first book of the Codex 
Justinianus as well as from the Justinianic novels 
120, 131 (chs. 13—14), 133, and 137. The most 
recent piece in the collection is novel 137 of March 
565. However, since the work is sometimes trans- 
mitted without the four novel chapters, these may 
represent a later addition. This was the opinion 
of Zachariä von Lingenthal, who also conjectured 
that the original compilation was composed soon 
after the completion of the Codex Justinianus (a.534) 
as an appendix to the Synagoge of Sixty Titles. 

ED. G.E. Heimbach, Anekdota, vol. 2 (Leipzig 1840; rp. 
Aalen 1969) 145-201. 


LIT. Zacharia, “Nomokanones” 2f (615f in reprint). Be- 
neSevic, Sinagoga v 50 titulov 2gof. -AS. 


COLLECTIO 87 CAPITULORUM, a 6th-C. col- 
lection of canon law prescriptions of Justinian I, 
divided into 87 chapters. The work consists of 
excerpts, most of them verbatim, from 12 Justin- 
ianic novels that were published between 535 and 
546. Since Justinian I is referred to as deceased 
in the rubric and in the short note between the 
pinax (table of contents) and the main text, the 
work cannot have been produced before 11 Nov. 
565. The sporadic attribution in MSS of the col- 
lection to Patr. JOHN IH ScHOLastTikos is perhaps 
plausible; on the other hand, the hypothesis that 
the work (in its “first edition”) was composed soon 
after 546 as an appendix to the SYNAGOGE OF 
Firry TITLes is insufficiently substantiated. 

ep. I.B. Pitra, Juris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monu- 
menta, vol. 2 (Rome 1868; rp. 1963) 385—405. 

tir. Zachariä, “Nomokanones” 5 (618 in reprint). Be- 
neševič, Sinagogà v 50 titulou 288-92. -AS. 


COLLECTIO AVELLANA (6th C.), a dossier of 
243 letters and edicts of emperors, popes, bishops, 


and magistrates, spanning the years 367—553. 
Many of them belong to Pope Hormisdas (514~ 
23). This collection derives its name from Fonte 
Avellana, Italy, where a MS of it was found. Its 
documents are often valuable sources for both 
ecclesiastical and secular affairs, esp. when the 
two come together: a dispute of 384 about Lucifer 
of Cagliari (died between 364 and 375), a sup- 
porter of Athanasios of Alexandria; allegations 
by Pope Gexasius | of a pagan revival at Rome; 
and controversy over THEOPASCHITISM involving 
Justinian and Severos of Antioch are three such 
examples. A Latin translation of the treatise of 
EpIPHANIOS of Salamis, On the Twelve Precious Stones, 
is appended to the end of the collection. 

ED. Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. 
CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLII datae Avellana quae dicitur col- 
lectio, ed. O. Guenther, 2 vols. (Vienna 1895-98). 

LIT. O. Günther, Avellana-Studien (Vienna 1896). E. Pos- 


ner, Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., 1972) 
216f. -B.B. 


COLLECTIO TRIPARTITA, a collection of canon 
law prescriptions taken from the Corpus Juris Civi- 
lis, divided into three parts. The work, which aims 
at a comprehensive coverage of the relevant ma- 
terial, consists of (Greek) résumés of norms orig- 
inally written in Latin or Greek. The first part is 
taken from the Codex Justinianus (I, 1—13), the 
second from the Digest and the Institutes (regula- 
tions on the res sacrae, etc.), and the third from 
the Novels of Justinian (in the paraphrase of 
Athanasios of Emesa, titles 1—3). The latest pre- 
scription (reproduced in paraphrase) is novel 144 
of Justin I from the year 572 (3.3.3). According 
to Zacharia von Lingenthal, the collection was 
produced shortly thereafter (ca.580) as an appen- 
dix to a Syntagma of Fourteen Titles (see NOMOKA- 
NON OF FourTEEN TITLEs). Stolte has suggested 
the younger ANONYMOUS, “ENANTIOPHANES” aS 
the author of the Collectio Tripartita. 

ED. PG 138:1077—-1336. 

LIT. Zacharia, “Nomokanones” 7f (620f in reprint). B.H. 


Stolte, “The Digest Summa of the Anonymus and the 
Collectio Tripartita,” SubGr 2 (1985) 47—58. -AS. 


COLOBIUM (koàóßiov), a form of TUNIC, ampler 
than the chiton, and either sleeveless or short- 
sleeved. Its use is particularly associated with the 
monks of Egypt, where it was sometimes adorned 
with colored stripes (DOROTHEOS OF Gaza, ed. 


Regnault-Préville, 168.28-170.24; see also CLa- 
vus). It is the garment in which Christ is clad in 
early representations of the CRUCIFIXION (e.g., the 
RABBULA GOSPELS of 586). 


LIT. Oppenheim, Ménchskleid 95—103. -N.PS. 


COLONUS (xodwvés). The Latin term colonus, 
like the Greek yewpyos (PEASANT), literally means 
“tiller of the soil,” in contrast to the pastor, herds- 
man. In late Roman legislation the term became 
the designation of a perpetual tenant. The term 
covers various categories of peasants, primarily 
liberi coloni, free tenants, and apscripricu. The 
status of coloni differed in different provinces, 
and different sources stress different aspects of 
their condition, legislation emphasizing their fiscal 
bonds to the soil, while in documents (e.g., the 
correspondence of SYMMACHUS, the ALBERTINI 
TABLETS) they appear relatively independent. The 
term colonatus is used in legislative acts (e.g., 
Cod.Theod. XII 1.33) to denote the condition of 
the rural population. 

The origin of the colonate is debatable. The 
institution probably developed from various roots 
and was assimilated under the pressure of the 
economic and fiscal conditions of the late Roman 
Empire, although it never attained real homo- 
geneity. In the East it may have been drawn from 
Hellenistic (and even pre-Hellenistic) forms of 
dependency and at any rate was determined by 
the state fiscal requirements; in the West the in- 
creasing role of landed magnates contributed to 
the strengthening of bonds between the colonus 
and his master. 

On the one hand, the coloni were construed as 
free people and Roman citizens; at the same time 
they were liable to service or serfdom—servitute 
dediti (Cod.Just. X1 50.2 pr.). They possessed some 
property, but it was treated as a PECULIUM; they 
could not give anything away without their mas- 
ter’s permission. They could marry both free peo- 
ple and slaves and were able to litigate, even 
against their own master. They were not allowed 
to leave their origo, the land they lived on—but 
their master was also prevented from evicting 
them from this land. One became a colonus by 
birth (if both parents were coloni or the mother 
alone), or by a long residence as a tenant on a 
lord’s land (in the East); barbarians could be set- 
tled as coloni, as could BEGGARS, if healthy. Free 


COLOPHON 481 


peasants under the PATROCINIUM VICORUM could 
be transformed into coloni. The colonate could be 
terminated by emancipation, by long service in a 
different status (e.g., as a decurion) in another 
province, or by entering religious orders. 

By the end of the 4th C. the coloni were often 
mentioned together with slaves (e.g., Cod.Just. XI 
48.12 of 396), but it is improbable that the colon- 
ate originated from the mass settlement of slaves 
on the land. The evolution of the colonate after 
the 6th C. is far from clear. There is no evidence 
of dependent peasants in the East in the late 7th— 
gth C., and it is impossible to prove that the later 
PAROIKOI were descendants of Roman coloni. In 
the West the term coloni continued to designate 
dependent peasants (e.g., in the correspondence 
of Pope Gregory I the Great). The Western coloni 
were probably of various conditions: in Visigothic 
Spain they seem to have merged with servile ten- 
ants, while in France they maintained a status 
between freemen and servi. 

Lit. H. Clausing, The Roman Colonate, the Theories of its 
Origin (New York 1925). M. Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte 
des römischen Kolonates (Leipzig 1910). A.H.M. Jones, “The 
Roman Colonate,” in Studies in Ancient Society, ed. M.I. 
Finley (London-Boston 1974) 288—303. Colonato e otras 
formas de dependencia no esclavistas (Oviedo 1980). D. Eibach, 
Untersuchungen zum spdatantiken Kolonat in der kaiserlichen 


Gesetzgebung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Terminologie 
(Cologne 1980). -A.K. 


COLOPHON (xododwr, lit. “summit, finishing 
touch”), or subscription, a note on a MS (usually 
at the end) with information on its date, the place 
where it was written, and sometimes the SCRIBE. 
Colophons are not only the main source of infor- 
mation about copyists but also are important for 
social and political history, prosopography, the 
economics and technology of book production 
and BOOK TRADE (prices, wages, length of time 
needed to copy a MS), and the history of copying 
centers (ScRIPTORIA). Dates and places mentioned 
in colophons are basic to the study of the devel- 
opment of the Greek script (mostly MINUSCULE) 
and of regional MS production. Asa genre, Greek 
colophons are less informative than Syriac or Ar- 
menian ones. 

LIT. K. Treu, “Griechische Schreibernotizen als Quelle 
für politische, soziale und kulturelle Verhältnisse ihrer 
Zeit,” BBulg 2 (1966) 127-43; rp. in Harlfinger, Kodikologie 
310-36. K. Treu, “Byzantinische Kaiser in den Schreiber- 
notizen griechischer Handschriften,” BZ 65 (1972) 9-34. 


482 COLOR 


Ph. Euangelatou-Notara, “Semeiomata” Hellenikon kodikon 
(Athens 1978), rev. H. Hunger, JOB 36 (1986) 370-72. 
-E.G., 1.8. 


COLOR, a functional and aesthetic element as- 
sociated with earthly and heavenly splendor and 
therefore central to Byz. CEREMONY, both courtly 
and ecclesiastical. Brilliance of color was prized 
for its own sake, but varieties of hue also underlay 
hierarchical distinctions in COSTUME. Primary col- 
ors are specified in DE CEREMONHS and the pseudo- 
Kop1nos, although some names of colors, such as 
atrabatika, are unidentifiable. The color of the 
emperor’s garb was sometimes left to his pleasure 
(De cer. 187.13). 

No equivalents to Western treatises on the mak- 
ing of colors (Roosen-Runge, infra) are known, 
but a passion for polychrome brilliance shines 
through the taste for JEWELRY, ENAMELS, and col- 
ored MORTAR. In monumental painting, islands of 
brilliant color, set in fields of gold, green, or white 
are juxtaposed from the 6th C. onward. LAND- 
scaPEs and architectural BACKGROUNDS employed 
secondary hues—purples, greens, ochres. In and 
after the 10th C. complementary colors were used, 
such as blue to highlight a purple area or red for 
the shadows of a green garment. Generally, carbon- 
black was used for shadows, and chalk or gypsum 
for white highlights. Blacks and whites were mixed 
with pigments to darken or lighten them. By the 
12th C., a “three-tone” scheme had been evolved 
in FRESCO TECHNIQUE. At the same time, hard, 
opaque colors, esp. in BOOK ILLUSTRATION, aspired 
to the effect of enamel. The late 13th and 14th 
C. saw the introduction of unusual pinks and a 
great variety of greens. 

No thorough analysis of the palette of Byz. 
painters has been made, but it is known that they 
relied more heavily on organic pigments than did 
Armenian artists. Mineral sources used included 
ultramarine and vermilion; cochineal seems to 
have been a source of red (M.V. Orna et al., 
Archeological Chemistry 4 [1989] 265-88). Vegeta- 
ble sources yielded red-lake as well as orpiment 
and saffron for yellows. Colors were rarely blended; 
the separation of hues helps to explain the pre- 
dominance of LINE AND CONTOUR in painting. 

The palette of Byz. writers, with some excep- 
tions (e.g., Eustathios of Thessalonike in his com- 
mentary on Homer), is relatively poor, limited to 
black, white, gold, and purple. Some authors, 


however, masterfully used colors for their political 
and moral purposes. Thus Niketas Choniates ap- 
plied “multicolored” characterizations to Andro- 
nikos I, whose instability he wanted to stress; Ni- 
ketas violates the chromatic convention when he 
construes the gold of imperial garb as “the color 
of bile” predicting defeat and the purple of the 
emperor’s ink as the color of the blood of inno- 
cent victims (Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 257-63). 

Symbolism and Significance of Color, 
Throughout the Byz. period, color choice re- 
mained among the most powerful expressions of 
SYMBOLISM, affecting the palettes of painters, the 
choice of INK, PARCHMENT, SEALS, and COSTUME, 
The color of imperial garments and crowns varied 
according to the occasion on which they were 
worn; sometimes, as in the case of the DIVETESION 
worn in Holy Week, it was clearly symbolic. The 
highest state ranks were connected with particular 
colors: with rare exceptions gold and PURPLE were 
exclusive to the emperor, blue was typical of the 
sebastokrator, green of the caesar. Pseudo-Kodinos 
carefully indicates the color of the footwear, dress, 
and hats assigned to each rank of officials on 
special occasions. Occasionally, symbolic color 
yielded to practical considerations. Though all 
emperors down to Marcian had had purple se- 
pulchres, Justin I and Theophilos were buried in 
green marble tombs, Michael III in white, per- 
haps because supplies of PORPHYRY were ex- 
hausted. 

Conventions rather than rigid rules governed 
choices of color in painting. In the TRANSFIGU- 
RATION, Christ’s robe is usually white, as are the 
tunics of martyrs; in Miracle and PassIon scenes, 
he often wears imperial purple. The Virgin’s gar- 
ments are usually purple or blue but in the Nativ- 
ity, where the Child receives “courtly” gifts, it may 
be gold (e.g., at the Cappella Palatina, PALERMO). 
ANGELS frequently have haloes of celestial blue; 
Hades and demons often have gray flesh while 
PERSONIFICATIONS such as Slander in Klimax MSS 
display this tonality as well as bluish-gray clothing. 


LIT. Winfield, “Painting Methods” gg—131. J.J. Tikka- 
nen, Studien über die Farbengebung in der mittelalterlichen Buch- 
malerei (Helsinki 1933). H. Roosen-Runge, Farbgebung und 
Technik frithmittelalterlicher Buchmalerei, 2 vols. (Munich-Ber- 
lin 1967). V.V. Byčkov, “Esteti¢eskoe znacenie cveta v vos- 
totnochristianskom iskusstve,” Voprosy istorii 1 teorii estetiki 
(Moscow 1975) 129-45. O.J. Lindsay, “Some Remarks on 
the Colour System of Medieval Byzantine Painting,” JOB 
32.5 (1982) 85—91. U.M. Rüth, “Die Farbgebung in der 


byzantinischen Wandmalerei der spatpalaologischen Ep- 
oche (1341—1453)” (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Univ- 
ersitat Bonn 1977). —A.C. 


COLUMN (kiwv, orôàos). The chief and defini- 
tive support in trabeate architecture from ancient 
to modern times, the classical column consists of 
a base with horizontal moldings, a cylindrical shaft 
(monolithic or in segments called drums), and a 
CAPITAL, carved to articulate the juncture of weight 
(superstructure) and support (the column’s shaft). 
In the columnar basilicas, stoas, colonnades flank- 
ing streets, and open courts of the Hellenistic, 
Roman, and Byz. city, the column, by its size and 
spacing, determined the scale of the structure and 
the urban character of the city. In the arcuate, 
domical architecture of Rome and Byz., heavy 
piers carried the principal loads of the building; 
in these structures columns formed a secondary 
support system, screening side aisles from central 
naves, or became decorative additions to the piers 
themselves (Early Christian and Byz. baptisteries; 
vaulted chambers in imperial palaces; domed bas- 
ilicas like St. John’s, Ephesus; Hagia Sophia, Con- 
stantinople; San Marco, Venice). 

Stone columns have great compressive strength 
and can carry heavy loads; hence they remain 
useful after the building has fallen into disuse. 
Reused ancient columns (sPoLIA) have been iden- 
tifed in Early Christian and Byz. structures, for 
example, S. Sabina and S. Maria in Trastevere, 
Rome, and St. Demetrios, Thessalonike. Byz. 
builders, particularly under Justinian I, exploited 
quarries of varied colored marble (unlike their 
ancient Greek predecessors); they also developed 
a new form of capital (IMPOST CAPITAL, IMPOST 
BLOCK) to provide a better juncture between heavy 
masonry arches and the column shaft than that 
offered by the traditional Ionic or Corinthian 
capital. The shafts were normally undecorated, 
although spirally fluted columns were esp. popu- 
lar in the 6th C. (J.L. Benson, Hesperia 28 [1959] 
254-72). In all periods inscriptions might be carved 
upon them or votives attached. Columns were 
represented on sarcophagi, in MS illumination, 
on ivories, and in other media where they served 
to frame figures of importance who are often 
shown standing beneath an arch. A few ascetics 
(called sryLITEs) chose to take up residence on 
the top of large column shafts. 

In metaphorical and symbolic vocabulary stylos 


COLUMNS, HONORIFIC | 483 


(not kion) was often used to designate a moral 
pillar or support; the word was employed for the 
apostles and Christ, for saints (esp. Peter and 
Paul), for the church. According to John Chry- 
sostom (PG 62:554.30—37), the church is the stylos 
of the otkoumene and truth is the stylos of the 
church. The biblical image of “the pillar of fire” 
(Ex 13:21) was combined with the concept of 
support. Christ, says Epiphanios of Cyprus (Pana- 
rion 69.35.2, ed. Holl 3:183.23-26), is the way 
that we follow, the stylos as the support of the 
truth, the cloud sheltering the children of Israel, 
and (again) the stylos as the fiery pillar in the 


desert. (See also CoLuMNs, HONORIFIC.) 
-W.L., T.E.G., A.C. 


COLUMN CHURCHES. The term is used for 
three closely related ROCK-CUT CHURCHES, Kar- 
anlık Kilise (Dark Church), Elmalı Kilise (Apple 
Church), and Çarıklı Kilise (Sandal Church) clus- 
tered in GÖREME. All three imitate the CROSS-IN- 
SQUARE plan of built churches, although the west- 
ern corner bays in Çarıklı were never excavated. 
Each was ornamented with a Deesis in the apse 
and a conventional feast cycle (see CHURCH PRO- 
GRAMS OF DECORATION) in the nave, augmented 
by images derived from earlier churches in the 
valley, for example, Tokalı Kilise’s Ascension/ 
Blessing appears in the barrel vault of Karanlık’s 
narthex. Four donor PORTRAITS are preserved in 
Karanlık (Basil and the priest Nikephoros in the 
apse and Genethleos and John entalmatikos [a pa- 
triarchal functionary?] over the entrance) and three 
in Çarıklı (Theognostos, Leo, and Michael on the 
west wall). The paintings have been dated to the 
mid-11th C. (Jerphanion, Epstein) and to ca. 1200 
(Restle). (For ill., see next page.) 

LIT. Jerphanion, Églises rupestres 1.1:393—473. Restle, Wali 
Painting. A.W. Epstein, “Rock-cut Chapels in Göreme Val- 
ley, Cappadocia: The Yiianii Group and the Coiumn 
Churches,” CahArch 24 (1975) 115-35. ~AJ.W. 


COLUMNS, HONORIFIC, large freestanding 
columns erected for commemorative purposes. 
The practice of erecting such columns was a con- 
tinuation of Roman custom and esp. common in 
the capital in the 4th—5th C. (see CONSTANTINO- 
PLE, MONUMENTS OF). Honorific columns were of 
two basic types. The first consisted of a monolithic 
shaft standing on a base and supporting a capital 


484 COMES 





CoLuMN CHURCHES. Column church of Elmalı Kilise, Göreme. View of the interior, 
looking east. In the dome, Christ Pantokrator. 


that in turn held a statue of the honoree. Among 
such monuments erected in Constantinople were 
the so-called Porphyry Column of Constantine I 
and the Column of Marcian, both of which remain 
standing, as well as others known only from lit- 
erary accounts and drawings. The second type 
was derived from the Column of Trajan in Rome 
and consisted of a shaft composed of drums rest- 
ing on a base and supporting a capital and statue. 
Both base and shaft were carved in relief, and the 
figures on the shaft were set in a spiral frieze. 
Two such columns existed in Constantinople: the 
Column of Theodosios I, fragments of which sur- 
vive, and that of Arkadios, its shaft and carvings 
known only from drawings. Although the practice 
of erecting honorific columns was abandoned after 


the 6th C., it was revived in a fashion by Michael 
VIII, who erected a column near the Church of 
the Holy Apostles. It was topped by a bronze 
statue of the archangel Michael and the emperor 
offering him a model of the city (Pachym., ed. 
Bekker, 2:234.17). Whether such columns influ- 
enced the cult of sTYLITE saints appears not to 
have been investigated. 

LIT. Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikon 52-55. G. Becatti, La 
colonna coclide istoriata (Rome 1960). Janin, CP byz. 73-86, 
105- -MJ 


COMES (kóuns, lit. “companion”), Lat. designa- 
tion for the personal adviser or retainer of an 
emperor or barbarian king. Constantine I gave 
the term a technical sense (first mentioned in 





COMES RERUM PRIVATARUM 485 


312); early terminology, comes domini nostri or comes 
Augustorum nostrorum, emphasized the personal 
link to the emperor or his family. The term was 
employed for officials of different ranks or ordines 
(of which there were three at the time of Con- 
stantine); it presupposed a special assignment and 
encompassed various meanings. As an honorary 
title it was bestowed on some of the highest state 
functionaries, such as the MAGISTER OFFICIORUM 
Or QUAESTOR; it became part of bureaucratic de- 
nominations, such as the COMES SACRARUM LAR- 
GITIONUM Or COMES RERUM PRIVATARUM. Besides 
this upper echelon of the comites consistoriani there 
were other comites who were not members of the 
CONSISTORIUM. Some comites, such as the comes 
Africae (B.H. Warmington, BZ 49 [1956] 55-64) 
or comes Aegypti, were provincial administrators, 
while others fulfilled fiscal or economic functions 
or acted as guardians and overseers. In later times 
komes, the Greek form of the term, continued to 
be used for officials with various functions such 
as the KOMES HYDATON, KOMES TES KORTES, and 
others; komites were also subaltern officers of the 
army and navy units. The office or function of a 
comes was termed a comitiva. 

LIT. O. Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 629-79. Jones, LRE 1:104- 


o6. G. De Bonfils, Zl comes et quaestor dell'età della dinastia 
costantintana (Naples 1981). -A.K. 


COMES RERUM PRIVATARUM (kóuns Ttìs 
idtkys mapovoias, lit. “of the private fortune”), 
high-ranking official of the later Roman Empire 
who administered the imperial estates. The of- 
fice—like that of the COMES SACRARUM LARGI- 
TIONUM—was created ca.318 and first mentioned 
ca.342—45. The responsibility of this comes was to 
contro] income from the land of the emperor as 
opposed to that of the state; this distinction, how- 
ever, was not consistently applied. The functions 
ot the comes encompassed collecting rents and 
accepting land grants given to the emperor as 
well as forfeitures and escheats, and protection of 
the fisc from the intrusion of private owners. The 
comes also handled the sale of movable and im- 
movable imperial properties and was a member 


Co.umns, Honoriric. Drawing of the Column of Ar- 
kadios; from a sketchbook dated 1575. Trinity College 
Library, Cambridge. The shaft of the column illus- 
trates conflicts between the Byz. and the Goths. 


486 | COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM 


of the CONSISTORIUM. His officers were called pala- 
tini rerum privatarum; in 399 their number was 300 
(Cod.Theod. V1 30.16). By the end of the 4th 
C. the Cappadocian estates were transferred from 
the control of the comes to that of the PRAEPOSITUS 
SACRI CUBICULI. Anastasios | created, before 509, 
a separate office of the comes patrimonii to manage 
the imperial estates, while the comes rerum priva- 
tarum preserved functions connected with grants 
and forfeitures. Thus he was transformed from a 
financial into a judicial official; he acquired duties 
that went far beyond his former obligations, for 
example, serving as a judge in cases involving 
grave-robbing and marriage. The office disap- 
peared in the 7th C., some of its functions as- 
sumed by the SAKELLARIOS. 

LIT. O. Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 664-70, 675-77. Jones, LRE 


1:412~17. M. Kaplan, Les propriétés de la couronne et de 
VEglise dans l’Empire byzantin (Paris 1976) 10—12. -A.K. 


COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM (Kóuns 
Tov deiwv Oncavpar, lit. “of the sacred largess, of 
the sacred treasuries”), high-ranking financial of- 
ficial of the late Roman Empire, created probably 
ca.318 and first mentioned between ca.342 and 
345. The comes sacrarum largitionum replaced the 
former rationalis and obtained administration of 
those taxes that did not come to the department 
of the PRAETORIAN PREFECT, that is, CHRYSARGY- 
RON, taxes on senators, customs duties, and the 
so-called “voluntary payments.” Income from the 
emperor’s private land passed from this comes to 
the COMES RERUM PRIVATARUM as early as 379. 
The comes sacrarum largitionum also controlled 
mines, the production of state mills and dyeworks, 
and minting. The comes had a central office di- 
vided into several scrinia (bureaus) and a large 
staff in the dioceses and provinces. He enjoyed 
some judicial rights in cases related to taxation 
and after 425 also had jurisdiction over the offi- 
cials of his staff. He was a member of the consis- 
ToRIUM. From the end of the 5th C. the role of 
the comes sacrarum largitionum decreased, esp. after 
the abolition of the chrysargyron; the last comes is 
mentioned under Emp. Phokas. In the 7th C. the 
office was replaced by the saKELLARIOS. Insignia 
of the comes sacrarum largitionum are shown in the 
NOTITIA DIGNITATUM, while his control stamps are 
found on numerous silver objects (see SILVER 
STAMPS). 


LIT. J.P.C. Kent, “The comes sacrarum largitionum,” in 
Dodd, Byz. Silver Stamps 35—45. Jones, LRE 1:427-38. O, 
Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 671-75. A. Masi, “La giurisdizione del 
‘comes sacrarum largitionum’ e del ‘comes rei privatae’ suj 
rispettivi funzionari ‘palatini, ” Studi economico-giuridici 45 
(1965—69) 253-61. -A.K,, A.C. 


COMETS (sing. xouzyrns, lit. “with long hair,” 
dornp). Byz. records refer frequently to indefin- 
able astronomical phenomena, thereby making it 
difficult to be certain that it is a comet that is 
being described because, except for Halley’s Comet, 
the observation cannot be verified astronomically, 
Generally, a comet was called a semeion and some- 
times it was qualified by a particular shape, such 
as that of a swordfish. Although some Byz. schol- 
ars followed Aristotle in stressing a natural sci- 
entific explanation for comets, the majority of the 
Byz. population understood a comet to be an 
omen predicting disaster. As a result an elaborate 
ritual of prognostication for comets was devel- 
oped (Jonn Lypos, On Omens 10—15). Some com- 
ets, however, such as the one used to foretell the 
Arab irruption of 632 (Theoph. 336.21-—24), were 
merely invented. Like EARTHQUAKES, ECLIPSES, and 
FIRES, the appearance of some comets was com- 
memorated by an annual liturgy (Synax.CP 154.24- 
26). The most reliably attested Byz. sighting of 
comets were in 389, 418, 422, 442, 466, 518, 734, 
744, 974, 1042, and 1345. Halley’s Comet was 
sighted in 451, 530, 837, 912, 989, 1066, 1145, 
1222, 1301, and 1456. 


Lit. Grumel, Chronologie 469-75. —B.C. 


COMIC, THE, a mode intended to excite LAUGH- 
TER, is rare in preserved Byz. art. Excluded almost 
by definition from Christian representation, comic 
elements do appear in the peristyle mosaics of the 
GREAT PALACE at Constantinople that show, for 
example, a man thrown from a donkey. If their 
content is correctly read, it survives on some late 
glazed ceramics. Otherwise HUMOR as we know it 
is hard to trace in art after the 6th C. A possible 
exception is the antics of the children in some 
14th-C. representations of the Baptism of Christ 
(D. Mouriki in Okeanos 460-62). The CARICATURE 
found in psalter illustration and the paropy of 
classical and mythological images evident on bone 
caskets and boxes are functionally different from 
the comic mode. -AC. 


COMITATENSES (from comitatus, military reti- 
nue), late Roman field army or mobile troops as 
opposed to the LimiTane! or border troops. The 
creation of the body of comitatenses was attributed 
to Diocletian by T. Mommsen (Hermes 24 [1889] 
195-279) and O. Seeck (RE 4 [1901] 619f), de- 
spite the direct evidence of Zosimos (Zosim. bk.2, 
ch.34), who ascribed the innovation to Constan- 
tine I. It is likely that before Constantine the 
comitatus was only a body of imperial guards (W. 
Seston, Historia 4 [1955] 295). In the 4th C. the 
comitatenses consisted of about 110,000—120,000 
men (Hoffmann, infra 1:304) including infantry 
(legiones), cavalry (vexillationes), auxiliary troops of 
foreign soldiers, and SCHOLAE PALATINAE. The 
infantry and cavalry stood in theory under the 
command of different MAGISTRI MILITUM. In 364 
each unit of comztatenses was divided into two parts: 
those called seniores served primarily in the West, 
juniores in the East. After 373 some units of limi- 
tanei were assigned to serve with comitatenses; 
Theodosios I restructured the comitatenses, uniting 
cavalry and infantry regiments under individual 
magistri utrius militiae. Circa 395 eastern contin- 
gents consisted of five armies, two attached to the 
court and three stationed in Oriens, Thrace, and 
Illyricum. Comitatenses were considered more priv- 
ileged troops than limitanei. R. MacMullen (Klio 
62 [1980] 459) suggests that the number of well- 
trained comitatenses declined in the second half of 
the 4th C., and later the difference between comi- 
tatenses and limitanei disappeared. 

ut. D. Hoffmann, Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die 
Notitia dignitatum, 2 vols. (Düsseldorf 1969-70). H.M.D. 
Parker, “The Legions of Diocletian and Constantine,” JRS 


23 (1933) 175-89. R. Tomlin, “Seniores-Iuniores in the Late- 
Roman Field Army,” AJPh 93 (1972) 253-78. -ALK. 


COMITIVA. See Comes. 


COMMANDERS, MILITARY. In theory, the 
emperor was supreme commander of the army, 
but only a few (such as Constantine V, Nikephoros 
Il Phokas, Basil II, or the Komnenoi) personally 
led armies in the field. MAGISTRI MILITUM were 
supreme commanders of the empire’s armies until 
the 7th C. By the early 8th C. the pomEsTIKos 
TON SCHOLON had become chief commander, sec- 
onded by the stratTecos of the Anatolikon; after 
the 11th C. the rank of MEGAS DOMESTIKos des- 


COMMANDS, MILITARY | 487 


ignated supreme military commander. Despite the 
high number of MERCENARIES in the Byz. army, 
supreme command was rarely given to a for- 
eigner. 

High military command was not necessarily en- 
trusted to capable soldiers. The assignment, dura- 
tion, and independence of military command was 
subject to considerations other than proven abil- 
ity, and emperors were careful to bestow com- 
mand on a temporary basis to loyal courtiers or 
family members, regardless of their actual mili- 
tary experience or ability. During the 10th and 
11th C., when practically every successful general 
(Bardas SkLERos, George MANIAKES) made a bid 
for the throne, command assigned on the basis of 
loyalty was particularly evident, as was the ensuing 
deleterious effect of loyal but incompetent com- 
manders on the army’s performance. EuNnucus, 
automatically precluded from the throne, fre- 
quently received command of armies; while some 
were effective generals (e.g., the 6th-C. Narses), 
many brought disaster on their men. Constantine 
Gongyles, for example, led the impressive expe- 
ditionary army to Crete in 949, which was anni- 
hilated as a result of his carelessness (Skyl. 245.35- 
246.52). 


LIT. Guilland, Titres, pt.V (1966), 133-39; pt. VI (1973), 
44f. Idem, Institutions 1:380-468, 498-521.  —A.K., E.M. 


COMMANDS, MILITARY. The Strategikon of 
Maurice (Strat.Maurik. 3.5, pp.152—54) provides a 
detailed description of commands issued by a 
MANDATOR during the army’s training exercises. 
The soldiers began to march upon hearing the 
blast of a trumpet (bowkinon or touba) or seeing an 
ensign wave a banner (phlamoulon); the striking of 
a shield or hand signals brought them to a stop. 
The Strategikon lists all oral commands in Latin; a 
gth-C. chronicler (Theoph. 258.15—19) records 
an order given by KOMENTIOLOs “in the ancestral 
language” (i.e., Latin), “torna, torna, fratre,” during 
an expedition against the Avars in 586, but by the 
end of the gth C. Latin commands had apparently 
been discarded, as Leo VI lists the same com- 
mands in a Greek version in his TAKTIKA (e.g., 
7.65—69). The 1oth-C. PRAECEPTA MILITARIA iN- 
dicates that battle commands were taught in train- 
ing, and that most were signaled by trumpet (4.1— 
2; 15.22—23). 

Daily orders were issued to officers in writing 


488 | COMMENDATIO ANIMAE 


(DE RE MILITARI 32.4—12). The emperor, in theory 
the supreme military commander, likewise trans- 
mitted written commands to his generals. A 12th- 
C. historian (Nik.Chon. 154.43—48) relates that 
Manuel I sent a letter (grammata or biblion) to 
Andronikos Kontostephanos on the eve of a battle 
with the Hungarians (8 July 1167) forbidding him 
to engage the enemy because he found the day 
unpropitious. Kontostephanos, however, disre- 
garded the command, hid the letter under his 
cloak, gave battle, and won the day. (See also 
BATTLE STANDARD AND FLAG.) 

LIT. G. Reichenkron, “Zur römischen Kommando- 
sprache bei byzantinischen Schriftstellern,” BZ 54 (1961) 


18-27. H. Mihăescu, “Torna, torna, fratre,” Byzantina 8 
(1976) 21—35- —A.K., E.M. 


COMMENDATIO ANIMAE (Lat., lit. “com- 
mending of a soul”), popular prayer for the dead 
in Western ritual, known from the grd C. onward 
and influential in art and hagiography. It contains 
13 petitions on the model of “Free his soul, Lord, 
as you freed Daniel from the lions’ den.” The Old 
Testament events cited include Noah and the 
Flood, Job’s sufferings, the sacrifice of Isaac, Jonah 
and the whale, and the rescue narratives of the 
Book of Daniel: Daniel in the Lions’ Den, the 
Three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace, and Su- 
sanna and the Elders. St. Thekla is the only non- 
biblical figure included. A. Baumstark (OrChr, n.s. 
4 [1914-15] 298—305) identified early Byz. ana- 
logues to the Commendatio in the Great Eucholo- 
gion. 

Scenes referred to in the Commendatio recur in 
the caTacomss and elsewhere. For instance, a 
grd-C. cup from Diokleia includes the three Dan- 
iel scenes (with all figures ORANT), Jonah and 
Isaac, with quotations from the Commendatio (H. 
Leclercq, DACL 3:300g—11, fig.3336). Frescoes in 
the necropolis at El-Bagawat include the three 
Daniel scenes, Noah, and Thekla (Idem, DACL 
4:439f). The Brescia casket (Volbach, Elfenbeinar- 
beiten, no.107) juxtaposes images of Jonah and of 
the rescue narratives of Daniel. Often hagiogra- 
phers ascribe a version of the Commendatio to 
saints about to face torture (e.g., Lukillianos—ed. 
F. Halkin, AB 84 [1966] 16f, 26), esp. if the 
approaching torture is by fire (e.g., Juliana—PG 
114:1444D, 1448f). 

ED. Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis, ed. A. Dumas [= 
CChr, ser. lat. 159] (Turnhout 1981) 460-62. 


LIT. K. Stuber, Commendatio animae: Sterben im Mittelalter 
(Bern-Frankfurt 1976). Seeliger, “Drei Jünglinge” 301, 317~ 
19, 328. J. Ntedika, L’évocation de l'au-delà dans la prière pour 
les morts (Louvain-Paris 1971) 72—83. -C.B.T, 


COMMENTARIES (pl. pvaraywyiat), mystag- 
ogy, interpretations of liturgical rites that apply 
to LITURGY the multilevel patristic method of 
scriptural ExEGESIS. Developed systematically in 
4th-C. instructions for the CATECHUMENATE and 
first applied extensively to EUCHARIST by Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, homilies 15—16 (ed. R. Ton- 
neau, R. Devreesse, Les Homélies catéchétiques de 
Théodore de Mopsueste [Vatican 1949] 461-605) 
and pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite, Ecclesias- 
tical Hierarchy (PG 3:369-569), mystagogy ma- 
tured with the Byz. commentaries of MAXIMOS THE 
Conressor, GERMANOS I, the Protheoria (PG 
140:417—68) of ca.1085—95 (cf. J. Darrouzés, REB 
32 [1974] 199-203), the spurious 12th-C. Litur- 
gical Commentary, wrongly attributed to SopHRo- 
NIOS of Jerusalem (PG 87:3981—4001), Nicholas 
KaBASILAS, and SYMEON OF THESSALONIKE. 

Differing methods of interpretation were in- 
herited from the two schools of patristic exegesis, 
Alexandrian and Antiochene. For the more spir- 
itualizing ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL (Dionysios, Max- 
imos, Symeon to some extent), the contemplation 
(theorta) of liturgical rites raises the soul to the 
realities of the invisible world. Here anagogy takes 
precedence over biblical typology, and the liturgy 
becomes an allegory of the soul’s progress from 
sin to divine communion via a process of purifi- 
cation symbolized in the rites. This Alexandrian 
system left little room for the saving mediatorship 
of Jesus’ earthly life, death, and resurrection. By 
contrast, the exegesis and mystagogy of the AN- 
TIOCHENE SCHOOL, more attentive to historia than 
to theoria, emphasized the relationship between 
liturgical rites and the historic saving actions of 
Christ, of which the sacramental rites are an “im- 
itation” (mimesis: Cyril) and “memorial” (anamne- 
sis: Chrysostom), as well as being an initiation and 
foretaste of the heavenly worship. 

Patr. Germanos I, joining both methods, added 
the more literal Antiochene mystagogy to the Al- 
exandrian heritage of pseudo-Dionysios transmit- 
ted to Byz. via Maximos. Thus for Germanos the 
church is not only, as for Maximos, “Heaven on 
earth, where the God of heaven dwells and moves.” 
It also “images forth the crucifixion and burial 


and resurrection of Christ” (Germanos, Liturgy, 
par- 1). The GREAT ENTRANCE not only shows “the 
entrance of all the saints and righteous ahead of 
the cherubic powers and the angelic hosts. . . . 
It is also in imitation of the burial of Christ” 
(par.37)- This synthesis reached classical expres- 
sion in the more extensive and complete com- 
mentary of Kabasilas, which represented a return 
to the balanced method of Germanos after the 
exaggerated allegorical historicism of the Pro- 
theoria. 

uT. Taft, “Liturgy of Great Church.” R. Bornert, Les 
commentaires byzantins de la divine liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle 


(Paris 1966). H.-J. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York 
1986) 184-92. -R.F.T. 


COMMERCE AND TRADE. The role of trade 
in Byz. changed over time, depending on political 
circumstances and on general economic develop- 
ment. In the period through the 6th C., among 
the factors facilitating economic exchange within 
the empire were the existence of cities, a common 
currency, the low internal duties of 2 to 2.5 per- 
cent, and the relative openness of the MEDITER- 
RANEAN, even after the creation of a VANDAL fleet. 
Among the factors inhibiting exchange were state 
exactions, the fact that the needs of the army and 
the provisioning of Constantinople were met by 
levies or payments in kind thus obviating trade, 
the difficulties of transportation, and a certain 
degree of self-sufficiency on the large estates. 
Modern scholars tend to stress these inhibiting 
factors; nevertheless, the evidence for the exis- 
tence of internal trade is clear: wine and OIL 
(commodities for mass consumption) were objects 
of relatively long-distance trade, as were wool, 
metals, MARBLE, timber, and manufactured goods, 
esp. cloth and luxury products, the last having a 
MARKET that was diffused geographically but re- 
stricted in size. Great periodic markets (FAIRS), 
such as those of Aigai (in Cilicia) and Epessa, 
catered to this internal long-distance trade. At the 
local level, markets were small and so was the 
radius of activity. The fairs outside Antioch served 
the needs of local villages; small towns exchanged 
products with the countryside, forming local net- 
works of exchange within a system of relative self- 
sufficiency. Trading activity was greater in the 
eastern part of the empire, while in the West the 
Process toward self-sufficiency was more ad- 
vanced. It is impossible to quantify the importance 


COMMERCE AND TRADE | 489 


of trade in the economy of this period; Jones’s 
statement (LRE 2:872) that the collatio lustralis, a 
tax on trade and manufacturing, accounted for 5 
percent of imperial revenue, is a fiscal, not an 
economic calculation. 

In terms of international trade, its most impor- 
tant expression was the importation of SPICES, 
silks, jewelry, and other luxury products from 
China, Persia, and India; these commodities ar- 
rived at the stations of the Persian frontier, the 
Syrian cities, or Clysma and Aila, and then were 
transported to both the eastern and the western 
part of the empire. Foreign trade appears to have 
been particularly active in the 5th—6th C. It was 
somewhat hampered by the fact that trade in the 
most important item of exchange, sILK, was highly 
regulated. 

The political, demographic, and military trou- 
bles that afflicted Byz. in the 7th C. brought about 
economic changes that affected trade. The ten- 
dency toward self-sufficiency became much 
stronger than in the previous period, while urban 
decline reduced the level of exchange between 
town and countryside. Land routes became very 
difficult and communications along the Mediter- 
ranean, although they never completely stopped, 
were disrupted by prracy. Trade declined but did 
not cease, the provisioning of big cities, esp. Con- 
stantinople, acting as an impetus to it. Large fairs, 
like that of EpHEsus, continued to exist. The RHo- 
DIAN SEA Law testifies to the survival of maritime 
trade. It was probably in order to stimulate such 
trade that Emp. Nikephoros I imposed a forced 
loan on the large shipowners of Constantinople. 
Locally, exchange took place in small markets 
where an element of BARTER was also to be found. 
International trade was reoriented to some extent 
toward the north and to the Black Sea. In the 8th 
C. the Byz. had trade relations with Bulgaria and 
in the 10th C. with the Rus’. The silk trade, now 
taking place primarily within the empire, may 
have been considerable. Quantifiable information 
is, once again, lacking. 

By the 10th C., there is evidence of a strong 
revival of trade. The Book OF THE EPARCH, along 
with other sources, shows a large number of dif- 
ferent trades and crafts in Constantinople. The 
state regulated and circumscribed, to some extent, 
the activities of the various guilds. At the same 
time, Constantinople appeared as a center of in- 
ternational trade, with Syrian, Italian, Rus’, and 


490 COMMERCE AND TRADE 


Bulgarian MERCHANTS, whose contact with Byz. 
merchants was also regulated. The market of 
Constantinople stocked spices, which arrived by 
way of Tresizonp, cloth from Syria (also men- 
tioned in Thessalonike), and linen cloth from 
Bulgaria and the Pontus. Trade relations with the 
Muslims became very active in the middle of the 
10th C. The internal market also appeared active. 
The size of mercantile enterprises remained small. 

In the 11th—1 2th C. a number of general changes 
combined to activate the economy of exchange. 
Urban growth acted as a stimulant, as did the rise 
of an important Italian market and, possibly, the 
general quickening of economic activity in the 
Mediterranean, partly the result of the activities 
of Italian merchants. Byz. traders from Constan- 
tinople appear in the documents of the Cairo 
Geniza, importing into Egypt brocades and luxury 
textiles as well as furniture: chests, cupboards, 
and bedsteads of Ram. Constantinople and Thes- 
salonike were still the most important trade cen- 
ters. The TIMARION attests to the vitality of the 
commerce of Thessalonike, while BENJAMIN OF 
TuDELa (p.20) says of Constantinople, “It is a busy 
city, and merchants come to it from every country 
by sea or land, and there is none like it in the 
world except Baghdad.” A number of smaller 
centers of exchange developed: Hatmyros, DE- 
METRIAS, Preveza, and others. Michael CHONIATES 
speaks of the dependence of Athens on trade. 
The Black Sea witnessed important commercial 
activity throughout the period. Byz. aristocrats 
still shied away from commerce, at least in their 
normative statements; and large economic units 
(e.g., the Kosmosoteira monastery at Bera) tried 
to buy necessities such as oil directly from the 
producer, rather than through middlemen. At the 
same time, monks themselves participated in trade, 
primarily, perhaps, by selling their produce, but 
also, it seems, by sometimes acting as middlemen. 

The acquisition of trade privileges first by VEN- 
IcE (at the end of the 11th C.) and then by Pisa 
and Genoa played an important role in these 
developments. The chrysobulls to the Venetians 
gave them access to an increasing number of 
markets, both in Constantinople and in provincial 
cities. Venetian merchants were interested not 
only in trade with the East, but also in the internal 
trade of the Byz. Empire; this is also evident in 
the chrysobull of 1198 (the date is under discus- 
sion), which greatly expanded the markets acces- 


sible to the Venetians. Venetian involvement jn 
domestic trade was facilitated by the fact that, 
after 1126, the Byz. paid no KOMMERKION On their 
transactions with the Venetians. This may have 
acted as a stimulant to trade and may even have 
profited some Byz. merchants; in the long term, 
however, it subsidized the Venetian middleman 
to the detriment of the Byz. 

During the Palaiologan period, the trade of the 
Byz. Empire functioned under very different con. 
ditions from the past. The dominant factor in the 
eastern Mediterranean in this period was the pres- 
ence of Western merchants, primarily the Italians, 
who had turned the terms of trade in their favor, 
By the late 13th C., they had created a network 
of exchange that resembled an international trade 
network; within it they were dominant, since they 
controlled communications, information, exclu- 
sive access to Western markets, and privileges in 
the marketplaces of the Levant, including the 
Byz. Empire. Through their colonies and trade 
stations, Western merchants exercised over- 
whelming influence on trade. Byz. trade formed 
part of this complex and served the needs of 
Western markets. Food and raw materials were 
exported to the West, from which manufactured 
products, primarily Italian and French cloth, were 
imported. Constantinople was a particularly im- 
portant pivot in this system when the Pax Mon- 
golica (mid-13th—mid-14th C.) made it easier for 
merchandise from the Far East to reach the Med- 
iterranean by way of the Black Sea. By contrast, 
after the mid-14th C. the relative importance of 
Constantinople declined, to the advantage of Cy- 
prus, Ayas (Lajazzo in Lesser Armenia), and even- 
tually Alexandria and Berytus. 

Throughout this period trade was active, esp. 
along the coasts of the Aegean and the Black Sea, 
the islands, the inland route from Thessalonike 
to Prizren and other Serbian towns, and the Dan- 
ube delta. Monemvasia, Thessalonike, and Tre- 
bizond were major commercial centers. Indeed, 
it may be said that commercial activity was greater 
in this period than ever before. Byz. merchants 
and sailors participated in this activity quite sub- 
stantially, as did members of the aristocracy. They 
were primarily active in local or interregional trade, 
however, rarely gaining access to international 
trade, which was the most lucrative. Only in the 
late 1340s did the Byz. try to capture the profit- 
able Black Sea trade for themselves. It was an 


abortive effort, which came to an end in 1350. 
For the rest, their activities remained important, 
extensive but subsidiary, until the establishment 
of the Ottoman Empire changed the terms of 
trade once again. 

tir. W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen 
âge?, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1936). M. Hendy, Studies in the Byz- 
antine Monetary Economy c. 300—1450 (Cambridge—New York 
1985). N. Oikonomides, “Silk Trade and Production in 
Byzantium from the Sixth to the Ninth Century: The Seals 
of Kommerkiarioi,” DOP 40 (1986) 31-53. Kazhdan, De- 
revnja i gorod 250-300. A.E. Laiou-Thomadakis, “The Byz- 
antine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System; Thir- 
teenth-Fifteenth Centuries,” DOP 34-35 (1980-81) 177- 
222. S.D. Goitein, “Mediterranean Trade in the Eleventh 
Century,” in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, 
ed. M.A. Cook (London 1970) 51-62. ~A.L. 


COMMODATUM (rò eis xpo dtd6pevov), a 
loan for use free of charge. As a type of contract 
commodatum was already under Justinian I (Digest 
13.6) manifestly an artificial term that can be 
distinguished from Loan and MISTHOsIS only with 
difficulty because of the unclear terminology of 
the Byz. with regard to ownership. Even so, it is 
treated in detail in the Basilika (13.1) and is still 
found in Harmenopoulos (Harm. 2.10). In prac- 
tice it was confused with a wide variety of other 
types of transmission for use: in Peira 46.5 it is 
characterized as “polymorphic.” In fact, CHRESIS 
is also readily used as a term for rights of use 
(usuFRUCT), for example, the rights of a widow 
over the property of her deceased husband (Nov. 
just. 22) or for LONGI TEMPORIS PRAESCRIPTIO (cf. 
Harm. 1.16.5). -D.S. 


COMMUNION (werdédAniis), the eating and 
drinking in common of the consecrated bread and 
wine (Jesus’ body and blood), climax of the rite 
of the EucuarisT, as sign of the spiritual com- 
munion (koinonia) of Christians with one another 
in Christ, and, through him, with the Father in 
the Holy Spirit. The FRACTION and distribution of 
one loaf (1 Cor 10:16—17) and the drinking from 
one cup, as well as the old requirement that each 
receive the consecrated elements from the hand 
of another, symbolized the fellowship involved. 
Communion in both Eucharist and prayer was 
restricted to the baptized who had not been ex- 
cluded by EXCOMMUNICATION or grave sin. Com- 
munion among churches was symbolized by invit- 


COMMUTATION | 491 


ing visiting bishops to join in celebrating the Eu- 
charist. 

Originally all church members in good standing 
communicated at every Eucharist, but by the end 
of the 4th C. the church fathers complained of a 
decline in the reception of communion, though 
they themselves were scaring people away by call- 
ing communion a “dread” mystery to be received 
only by those worthy, in fear and trembling. By 
the Middle Ages, laity communicated at most a 
few times a year, on the GREAT FEasrTs, esp. Easter. 
Monks, however, continued to receive commu- 
nion more often: daily communion was a rarity 
in Byz. monasteries, but weekly communion, 
though not universal, remained common. 

LIT. W. Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First 
Four Centuries (St. Louis 1966). L. Hertling, Communio, 
Church and Papacy in Early Christianity (Chicago 1972). Taft, 
East & West 61-80, 101—0g. E. Herman, “Die häufige und 


tägliche Kommunion in den byzantinischen Klöstern,” in 
Mém.L.Petit 203-17. -R.E.T. 


COMMUNION OF THE APOSTLES. See Lorp’s 
SUPPER. 


COMMUTATION (Lat. adaeratio). Following the 
monetary reform of Constantine I, Byz. con- 
stantly favored the commutation of fees or con- 
tributions in kind and of services and CORVEES 
into monetary payments. In the early centuries, 
the ANNONA as well as the caput or the levies of 
animals (horses, pigs) or weapons were commuted 
into cash contributions at such a variety of rates 
(often arbitrarily established) that the fiscal bur- 
den of contributors and the illicit gains of some 
tax collectors could also vary considerably. In the 
FISCAL SYSTEM of the Macedonian period, the 
adaeratio of services due to the state as well as of 
sportulae (see SYNETHEIA) in kind due to officials 
was common: for example, the military obligation 
(STRATEIA) of a farmer-soldier for one year could 
be replaced, in the :oth—11th C., by a cash pay- 
ment of 4—6 nomismata; similar arrangements 
were possible for peasants attached to the DROMOS 
and for most SECONDARY TAXES in kind, some of 
which were claimed in cash so often that new 
names had to be invented (antikaniskon, antimita- 
tikion, etc.). In the late 11th C. and afterward, in 
times of monetary instability TAX COLLECTORS in- 
creased their revenues by playing with the ex- 


492 COMPUTUS 


change rates of the various coins. In the 14th C. 
the KANISKION was commuted to 6 keratia per 
year. 

LIT. Jones, LRE 207f, 460f, 625f, 670f, 702-04. Morris- 


son, “Logariké” 419-64. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnogenija 120. 
~N.O, 


COMPUTUS. The date of Easter in Byz. was 
determined by a set of simple rules and a variety 
of cycles, collectively called the computus. The 
rules are essentially that Easter falls on the first 
Sunday that follows both the 14th day of the 
Paschal lunar month (Passover) and 21 March in 
the Julian calendar. The two cycles in common 
use were of 19 years (19 solar years = 235 months; 
the years of intercalation [embolismic years] were 
numbers 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 of the cycle) 
and, from the 5th C. onward, 532 years (= 19 X 
28). The 28-year solar cycle is the product of a 
four-year leap-year cycle and seven weekdays. The 
combination of the 19-year lunar cycle and the 
28-year solar cycle results in the precise recur- 
rence of the sequence of Julian calendar dates of 
Easter in each 532-year cycle. The so-called “re- 
forms” of the computus in general consisted sim- 
ply of changing the epoch at which the 19-year 
or 532-year cycles begin, or of changing the one 
year in each cycle in which the saltus lunae or “leap 
of the moon” (an epact of 12 instead of 11 days) 
occurs. It is true that, following the Islamic value 
for the length of a solar year that had been known 
in Byz. since the 11th C., Nikephoros GREGORAS 
proposed a reform of the calendar (Pingree, 
“Chioniades & Astronomy” 138f), but this pro- 
posal was not accepted. The immense Byz. liter- 
ature on computus includes treatises by Isaac AR- 
cyros and Nicholas RHABDAS. 

Ready-made computus tables (or paschal tables) 
indicating the dates of Easter for the observable 
future survive in many MSS. Usually compiled by 
the readers/owners, their earliest date gives the 
terminus ante quem for the completion of the 
MS. 

LIT. Grumel, Chronologie 31-55, 98-110, 129-39, 265— 
77. O. Neugebauer, Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus (Vi- 
enna 1979). —D.P. 


CONCESTI TREASURE, dated to ca.400?, found 
at Concesti in Moldavia in 1812 and now in the 


Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. It includes six 
Byz. silver objects, Hunnish gold jewelry, and 
horse fittings (see CHARIOT MOUNTS AND HorseE 
Fitrincs). Three silver objects have decorations 
from classical mythology: the amphora, one of 
the most elaborate silver vessels of the late an- 
tique period, has relief decoration of a hunt, a 
battle between Greeks and Amazons, and a ma- 
rine thiasos (Dionysiac revelry); the sITULA has a 
frieze incorporating Hylas, Leda, Apollo, and 
Daphne; and the plate, one of the largest known 
(diam. 55 cm), is decorated on its rim with gilded 
and niello-inlaid portrait medallions and hunt 
scenes, comparable in technique to the SUTTON 
Hoo Treasure plate and a trulla in the MYTILENE 
TREASURE. The other silver objects in the treasure 
include a ewer, of a well-known type; a folding 
stool that resembles others from Ostia and the 
LampsakosS TREASURE; and a helmet of a type 
introduced by Constantine | (see ARMOR). It has 
been suggested that the treasure belonged to a 
Hunnish prince who may have acquired the silver 
objects as booty during a campaign in the Danube 
region and that the burial took place between 400 
and 410. 


LIT. Matzulewitsch, Byz. Antike 123-37. Kent-Painter, 
Wealth 138f. ~M.M.M. 


CONCH (kóyxn, lit. “mussel shell”), a half-dome 
covering a niche or apse. Its shell-like or ribbed 
form, which appeared behind and above the seats 
of magistrates in Roman basilicas, was taken over 
into Christian iconography (Volbach, Elfenbeinar- 
beiten, nos. 137, 150, 153f). In Byz. churches a 
conch was usually decorated with mosaic or fresco 
as a focus for the interior decoration. In early 
basilican churches the conch of the apse normally 
contained an image of Christ; in later, domed 
churches the conch of the apse became, after the 
dome, the most conspicuous location in the build- 
ing and was reserved for the image of the Virgin. 
Conches were also used for other visually and 
structurally prominent roles—for example, in the 
supporting system for the dome in certain domed 
octagon churches (as at the Nea Mone on Chios), 
for the covering of subsidiary apses in triconch 
and tetraconch churches, and for covering EXE- 
DRAE of polyconch churches and other buildings 
(e.g., triklinia and refectories). Smaller-scale conches 


were also used in conjunction with niches as ex- 
terior decorative devices (H. Buchwald, JOB 26 
[1977] 265f, 290-95). 


ur. K. Wessel, RBK 1:268—93. Demus, Byz. Mosaic 21f. 
-MJ. 


CONCUBINAGE (zahvaxeia, agraphos gamos in 
Ecloga 2.6), a stable sexual relationship, frequently 
of a married man with a woman of lower status, 
was considered legal in Roman law (Ph.J. Thomas 
in Huldigungsbundel P. van Warmelo [Pretoria 1984] 
230-36). Church fathers attacked concubinage, 
equating it with PROSTITUTION. In 326 Constan- 
tine I prohibited married men from keeping con- 
cubines (Cod.Just. V 26.1) and in 336 he threat- 
ened with infamy and deprivation of Roman 
citizenship any men of high rank who tried to 
treat as legitimate their children by bond-maids, 
freedwomen, actresses, or tavern keepers (Cod. 
Theod. IV 6.3 pr.). Anastasios I and Justinian I 
were more tolerant toward concubines and their 
offspring, and the Ecloga still protected concu- 
bines against the arbitrariness of their “hus- 
bands.” Leo VI abolished this institution (nov.g1); 
the previous opinion that this action was initiated 
by Basil I was questioned by N. Oikonomides 
(DOP 30 [1976] 173-93) who interpreted Pro- 
chetron 4.26 as an interpolation of a section of Leo 
VIs novel of go7. Concubinage evidently survived 
this abolition, and in the 13th C. Demetrios 
CHOMATENOS mentions pallaketa and concubines 
(pallakai) kept by men of various status and in 
various areas of Epiros. 

The status of the children of concubines, filii 
naturales, posed a problem for legislators who 
tried to distinguish them from offspring resulting 
from casual intercourse (with prostitutes, etc.); 
their attitude toward these children kept shifting, 
as they sometimes granted and sometimes with- 
drew their rights to the property of their fathers. 
In reality many ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN of em- 
perors and noblemen by their concubines as- 
sumed high ranks and social importance. 

UT. A. Laiou, “Contribution à |’étude de l'institution 
familiale en Epire au XIIIe siècle,” FM 6 (1984) 284-300. 
G. Prinzing, “Sozialgeschichte der Frau im Spiegel der 
Chomatenos-Akten,” JOB 32.2 (1982) 453-62. Ritzer, 
Mariage 93f, 133, 169f. M. Niziołek, Legal Effects of Concu- 
binage in Reference to Concubines’ Offspring in the Light of 


Imperial Legislation of the Period of the Dominate (Krakow 
1980). —J.H., A.K. 


CONFESSOR 493 


CONFESSION (é&0u0A6ynors), the solemn act of 
acknowledgment of one’s sins, was considered by 
the church fathers as indispensable in the search 
for sALvATION. As Athanasios of Alexandria (PG 
27:481A) states, “Confession is the beginning of 
salvation.” John Chrysostom (PG 57:426.35-37) 
asserts that sin is such a stain that even thousands 
of springs of water cannot remove it, only tears 
and confession. The early church encouraged 
public confession, but from the end of the 4th C. 
this practice declined, and the right of hearing 
confession and imposing PENANCE was entrusted 
to the church as an institution and individually to 
priests. The Byz. church, however, placed less 
emphasis on the institutional and legalistic ap- 
proach to confession than did its Western coun- 
terpart: confession was not included in the list of 
SACRAMENTS established by Theodore of Stoudios. 
John Chrysostom (PG 49:292.34—44) stresses that 
there are many different ways of repentance (me- 
tanoia) and none are difficult: “Are you a sinner? 
Enter a church, confess your sins, and receive 
absolution.” The informal character of Byz. 
confession is evident from a text ascribed to Ana- 
stasios of Sinai (PG 89:372A): “If you find a spir- 
itual man, experienced and capable of curing you, 
confess before him without shame and full of 
faith, as if before God and not a human being.” 

In the monastic milieu confession to a PATER 
PNEUMATIKOS, a Spiritual father, was a regular 
practice. At the BepalAs ELPIDOS NUNNERY daily 
confession was prescribed (Typikon, chs. 105-11). 
But in the secular world it was not common, 
except during LENT or as acknowledgment of 
serious sins. Byz. PENITENTIALS do not suggest a 
rigid format for absolution or a strict scale of 
penances (EPITIMIA); absolution was expressed 
mostly in the form of PRAYER and the remission 
of sins was attributed to God rather than to the 
priest. 

LIT. Meyendorff, Byz. Theology 195f. M. Jugie, Theologia 
dogmatica christianorum orientalium 3 (Paris 1920) 331-89. 
A. Almazov, Tajnaja ispoved’ v pravoslavnoj vostočnoj cerkvi 


(Odessa 1894), rev. I. Sokolov, VizVrem 4 (1897) 675-82, 
692. —-A.K. 


CONFESSOR (óuooyņnrhs), an honorific title 
designating primarily those who, during the per- 
secutions of the 3rd—q4th C., overtly proclaimed 
themselves Christians; the feminine form, homo- 


494 | CONFISCATION 


logetria, is rare—for example, EpirHanios of Sala- 
mis (PG 42:192B) mentions an anchorite, Paph- 
noutios, who was the son of a homologetria. The 
difference between the confessor and MARTYR was 
still vague in the grd C.; OrIGEN applied the term 
martyr to all who witnessed to the truth, although 
he knew that the term was generally reserved for 
those who proved their faith by shedding their 
blood. After the victory of Christianity, the term 
acquired the metaphorical sense of “pious Chris- 
tian,” as in the 5th-C. inscription of “Domnos 
homologetes” (W. Ramsay, JHS 25 [1905] 172). It 
was also specifically applied to some ardent de- 
fenders of Orthodoxy, such as MAXIMOS THE Con- 
FESSOR and THEOPHANES THE CONFESSOR, who 
suffered exile or imprisonment, but not death, 
for their beliefs. (For confessor as one who hears 
CONFESSION, see PATER PNEUMATIKOS.) 


tir. H. Delehaye, “Martyr et confesseur,” AB 39 (1921) 
20-49. —-A.K. 


CONFISCATION. Legislation of the 4th—6th C. 
prescribed confiscation as punishment for trai- 
tors, heretics, pagans, and parties contracting il- 
legal marriages; in addition, the property of pa- 
gan temples, certain municipal estates, and 
individuals who died intestate without legally rec- 
ognized heirs, was subject to confiscation. While 
several of these categories ultimately fell into dis- 
use, confiscation for both intestacy and treason 
persisted in modified forms throughout later pe- 
riods: the Ecloga (6.2) stipulates that the fisc could 
recover half the estate of a husband who died 
intestate and was survived only by his wife (see 
ABIOTIKION); the Peira (60.1) documents a com- 
plicated division of property between the fisc and 
the heirs of a proscribed member of the Bourtzes 
family; Manuel STRABOROMANOs (P. Gautier, REB 
23 [1965] 183.30-31) describes how his father 
was punished with confiscation under Alexios I, 
adding that the victims were allowed to retain a 
portion of their property and that many subse- 
quently received aid from the emperor himself. 
Confiscated lands became state property, admin- 
istered until the 7th C. by the COMES RERUM PRI- 
VATARUM. 

Alongside such practices sanctioned in civil law, 
confiscation also developed certain extrajudicial 
forms based largely upon administrative regula- 
tions of the army and fisc. In the 10th C., military 


officers were permitted during foreign invasions 
to seize private cash to purchase supplies (De 
OBSIDIONE TOLERANDA 49.20—22), and several em. 
perors appropriated ecclesiastical treasure to meet 
urgent military expenses. Lands abandoned for 
30 years might become classified as KLASMA and 
revert to the fisc, while STRATIOTIKA KTEMATA 
could be withdrawn from their original possessors 
for transfer to more reliable soldiers. THEOPHy- 
LAKTOS of Ohrid (ep.26, ed. Gautier, Lettres 215~— 
17) mentions widespread confiscation by imperial 
officials in Bulgaria. In addition, emperors pro- 
gressively obtained the right to confiscate any 
landholding in exchange for its JUST PRICE or the 
equivalent in land (vita of John Chrysostom, PG 
114:1156A), and both Nikephoros I (Theoph. 
487.27—488.1) and Basil II (Skyl. 340.88—95) ap- 
pear to have appropriated private property with- 
out any compensation. Such widespread applica- 
tion rendered confiscation a continual threat in 
Byz. society, and a number of writers (e.g., Sky- 
litzes, Kekaumenos, and esp. Niketas Choniates) 
express disapproval and fear of its frequently 
unjust or arbitrary nature. 

uit. G. Monks, “The Administration of the Privy Purse,” 


Speculum 32 (1957) 748-63. Kazhdan-Constable, Byzantium 
144f. -AJ.C. 


CONFRATERNITY (aed 67s, “brotherhood,” 
or Stakovia, “diaconate”), a private association of 
laymen and clergy, men and women, established 
for devotional purposes (e.g., the veneration of a 
particular icon) and for mutual assistance among 
members (e.g., in cases of sickness, for funeral or 
memorial services). One function of a confratern- 
ity was to hold a procession with cult icons on 
feastdays, a scene depicted in the Blachernai mon- 
astery at ArTA. Such lay confraternities had char- 
ters, strict regulations for members, and other 
similarities to the confraternities found in the 
medieval West. There is evidence for Byz. confra- 
ternities from the 6th C. until the end of the 
empire, with perhaps a discontinuity during the 
Iconoclastic era. A late 11th- or early 12th-C. 
TYPIKON exists for a confraternity at Thebes. 

uit. J. Nesbitt, J. Wiita, “A Confraternity of the Com- 
nenian Era,” BZ 68 (1975) 360-84. Beck, Kirche 198f. P. 
Horden, “The Confraternities in Byzantium,” in W.J. Sheils, 


D. Wood, Voluntary Religion (Oxford 1986) 25-45. 
—M.B., A.C. 


CONRAD III (Koppáðos) of Hohenstaufen, king 
of Germany (1138-52), never crowned Western 
Emperor; born 1093, died Bamberg 15 Feb. 1152. 
Begun in 1140, negotiations with JOHN II Kom- 
NENOS for an alliance against RoGER II of Sicily 
culminated in 1142 with the dispatch of BERTHA 
oF SULZBACH to Constantinople as bride for Man- 
vet I. Conrad led the German contingent on the 
Second Crusade in 1147. Because of clashes with 
Byz. forces, he feared to enter Constantinople, 
but crossed the Bosporos with his army. Defeated 
in Anatolia by the Turks, Conrad joined Louis 
VII, leader of the French Crusaders. From Ephe- 
sus, ill and exhausted, Conrad sailed to Constan- 
tinople (ca. Jan. 1148), where Manuel entertained 
him; he continued by sea to the Holy Land. Re- 
turning after the Crusade’s failure, Conrad landed 
at Thessalonike, where, at Christmas 1148, he and 
Manuel agreed on a joint attack on Roger. Manuel 
was to receive Apulia and Calabria as Bertha’s 
dowry. Because of ill health and preoccupations 
in Germany, Conrad failed to execute these plans. 

ut. V.G. Vasil’evskij, Trudy 4:18—105. Lamma, Comneni 
1:33-115. H. Vollrath, “Konrad II. und Byzanz,” Archiv 
fir Kulturgeschichte 59 (1977) 321-65. -C.M.B. 


CONRAD OF MONTFERRAT, claimant king of 
Jerusalem (1190—92); died Tyre 28 Apr. 1192. 
Son of the marquess William VI of Montferrat, 
Conrad and his brothers BONIFACE oF MONT- 
FERRAT and RENIER OF MONTFERRAT allied with 
Emp. Manuel I against FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA 
in 1179. Conrad captured Frederick’s represen- 
tative, Archbp. Christian of Mainz (Sept. 1179), 
then went to Constantinople to confer with Man- 
uel; he was there at Manuel’s death. In 1186 Isaac 
II offered the hand of his sister Theodora and 
Conrad accepted. He reached Constantinople 
about Apr. 1187, and the marriage occurred im- 
mediately. Conrad became caesar. During the 
subsequent revolt of Alexios Branas, Conrad en- 
listed Western cavalry and infantry as well as 
Turkish and Georgian merchants; his generalship 
was crucial in defeating Branas. Conrad soon be- 
came discontented, however, and perhaps learned 
of the threats posed by Saladin in the Holy Land. 
Around late June 1187 (or Sept., according to R.- 
J. Lilie in Varia 1 [Bonn 1984] 163-74), he aban- 
doned Theodora and sailed to Tyre. There he 


CONSCIENCE | 495 


helped organize the defense of the city and pre- 
serve the remnants of the kingdom of JERUSALEM. 
In 1190 he married Isabel (daughter of AMALRIC 
I and Maria Komnene) and claimed the kingdom. 


LIT. Th. Ilgen, Markgraf Conrad von Montferrat (Marburg 
1880). Brand, Byzantium 18—20, 80-84. —C.M.B. 


CONSANGUINITY. See RELATIONSHIP, DE- 
GREES OF. 


CONSCIENCE (ovveténors), a term rarely found 
in ancient philosophy. Taken literally, synezdesis 
originally meant personal knowledge or under- 
standing shared with another; eventually it came 
to mean self-awareness. From the 1st C. B.c. the 
term appears more frequently, often with a neg- 
ative connotation, in reference to an attitude that 
approaches our notion of conscience. In the New 
Testament, while the term does not occur in the 
Gospels, it appears 30 times throughout the re- 
maining books, but only in the Pauline epistles is 
it understood in an ethical sense as the stage at 
which the self feels either justified or condemned. 

In Christian sources syneidesis primarily denotes 
either self-justification or self-condemnation, even 
though its alternative meanings are not wholly 
absent. For example, in Ignatius of Antioch and 
Clement of Rome conscience becomes more au- 
thoritarian, emphasizing faithful obedience to the 
authority of the church. The Philonic or Pauline 
notion is evident in JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, for whom 
conscience is the highest authority next to the 
command of God, an understanding that unites 
him with Jonn oF Damascus, for whom the law 
of God is embedded in human conscience, called 
the law of the mind (Exp. fidei 95.8—10, ed. Kotter, 
Schriften 2:222). It is the impulse, the tension that 
maintains the life of ascetic spirituality, for the 
conscience demands satisfaction. The ascetic life 
of the saints shows conscience as a form of mar- 
tyrdom, while it may also refer to the monastic 
life: “Let conscience serve as a reflection of your 
obedience” (John Klimax, PG 88:712B). In this 
tradition, the formation of conscience requires 
certain spiritual qualities, “vigilance of the heart” 
and “sobriety” (nepsis). 

uit. C.A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London 


1955). J. Stelzenberger, Syneidesis bei Origenes (Paderborn 
1963). Idem, “Conscientia in der ost-westlichen Spannung 


496 | CONSISTORIUM 


der patristischen Theologie,” Tübinger Theologische Quartal- 
schrift 141 (1961) 174—205. M. Pohlenz, “Paulus und die 
Stoa,” ZNTW 42 (1949) 69-104. Idem, Die Stea*, 2 vols. 
(Göttingen 1948~49). -K.-H.U. 


CONSISTORIUM (8siov ovvédprov), the body of 
imperial advisers that replaced the former consi- 
lium in the late Roman Empire. The term consis- 
torium was derived from the hall in which the 
meeting was convened; W. Kunkel (ZSavRom 85 
[1968] 295, n.g6) rejects the traditional derivation 
of the name from the obligation of participants 
to stand during its sessions. The mention of the 
consistorium in a decree of Diocletian (Cod.Just. IX 
47-12) is probably a later “correction” of the scribe, 
and the first secure evidence comes only from 
347, although it is plausible that the consistorium 
was a creation of Constantine I. Membership in 
the consistorium was never fully regularized, but 
by the end of the 4th C. the consistorium was 
composed of two groups of members or comites 
consistoriant: (1) the chiefs of the central adminis- 
tration (MAGISTER OFFICIORUM, quaestor sacri palatii 
[see QUAESTOR], COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM, 
and COMES RERUM PRIVATARUM), and in some cases 
the PRAETORIAN PREFECT and certain military com- 
manders, and (2) advisory officials with minor 
rights. The functions of the consistorium included 
promulgation of imperial laws, reception of for- 
eign ambassadors, and discussion of high policy 
(although sometimes this was discussed within a 
narrower and less formal circle of the emperor’s 
proximi, including the empress) and high justice. 
A session of the consistorium was called a SILEN- 
TIUM. The consistorium never developed into an 
independent institution, remaining a consultative 
and ceremonial body. By the end of the 4th C. 
emperors rarely participated in the consistorium, 
as the emperor’s “inner cabinet” came to play a 
growing role as the advisory board. Senators ac- 
tively participated in the judicial work of the con- 
sistorium from the 5th C.; in the 6th C. Justinian 
I essentially abolished the distinction between the 
consistorium and the SENATE. 

LIT. W. Kunkel, “Consilium, Consistorium,” JbAChr 11—- 
12 (1968—69) 242—48. P.B. Weiss, Consistorium und comites 


consistoriani (Würzburg 1975). Jones, LRE 1:333~41. 
—A.K. 


CONSTANS I (Kwvoras), caesar (from 25 Dec. 
333) and augustus (from g Sept. 337); born ca.323, 


died fortress of Helena, Pyrenees, Jan. 350. The 
youngest son of CONSTANTINE I and Fausta, he 
was initially given control of Italy, Africa, Pan- 
nonia, Dacia, and Macedonia. In 340, after Con- 
STANTINE [I's death during an attack on him, 
Constans became master of the entire West. He 
opposed ARIANISM and persuaded CONSTANTIUS 
II to participate in the ill-fated Council of SeRpIca 
(342/3). He continued to support ATHANASIOS of 
Alexandria and was probably responsible for his 
return from exile in 346. In 350 Constans was 
overthrown and killed in a plot led by Macnen- 
TIUS. 


LIT. Jones, LRE 112-15. Barnes, New Empire 8, 45. 
-T.E.G. 


CONSTANS II, emperor (641-68); son of He- 
RAKLEIOS CONSTANTINE and grandson of Hera- 
kleios; born Constantinople 7 Nov. 630, died Syr- 
acuse 15 July 668 (Grierson, “Tombs and Obits” 
49f). Christened Flavios Herakleios, Constans was 
crowned co-emperor as Constantine (Constantine 
III, according to Stratos) by his uncle, HERAKLOo- 
NAS, in Sept. 641. He became sole emperor after 
Heraklonas and Martina were deposed in winter 
641/2, ruling officially as Constantine (his coins 
bear the name) but popularly known as Constans. 
His thick beard earned him the nickname “Po- 
gonatos.” With his wife Fausta, daughter of VAL- 
ENTINOS ARSAKUNI, he had three sons: Constan- 
tine (IV), Herakleios, and Tiberios. 

Throughout his reign, Constans was occupied 
by the empire’s external enemies. Against the 
Arabs he probably organized the themes of ANA- 
TOLIKON and OpsikION and personally cam- 
paigned in Asia Minor and Armenia. The first 
Greek inscriptions on Byz. coins (“In this, con- 
quer”) are found, together with Constans holding 
a cross, on folleis of his reign. Evoking the success 
of Constantine I at the Milvian Bridge, this slogan 
was intended to urge the army to victory over the 
Muslims. He suffered defeats, however, esp. at 
the naval battle of Phoenix (mod. Finike in Tur- 
key) in 655, and twice (651, 659) accepted peace 
treaties (see Mu‘Awiya). He had more success 
against the Slavs, personally invading SKLAVINIA 
in 658 and resettling captives in Asia Minor. He 
also probably organized the theme of HELLAS. 

Anxiety over external threats led him to leave 
Constantinople for the West ca.660. Arriving in 


Italy in 663, he campaigned against the Lombards 
before settling in Sicily, where he created a theme 
and raised a navy and army. Constans’s measures 
to finance his military activities were unpopular, 
esp. in Italy, where high taxes and confiscations 
of church vessels antagonized the local nobility 
and clergy. He faced numerous rebellions (e.g., 
those of SaBortIos, OLYMPIOS, and GREGORY, ex- 
arch of Carthage). His religious policy attempted 
to end Christological arguments, but his Tyros 
only angered Western bishops, partly resulting in 
the trials of Pope Martin I and MAXIMOS THE 
Conressor. He also infuriated Pope VITALIAN in 
March 668 by decreeing the independence of the 
archbishop of Ravenna. Constans was murdered 
while bathing, either struck in the head by a 
servant or stabbed by the conspirators who pro- 
claimed Mezizios emperor. His body was re- 
turned to Constantinople, perhaps personally by 
Constantine IV, and buried in the Church of the 
Holy Apostles. 

LIT. J. Kaestner, De imperio Constantin II (641-668) 
(Leipzig 1907). Stratos, Byzantium 3:1—282. P. Corsi, La 
spedizione italiana di Costante IJ (Bologna 1983). Idem, “La 


politica italiana di Costante 11,” SettStu 34 (1988) 751-96. 
— P.A.H., A.C. 


CONSTANTIA (Kavotavr(e)ia), Constantiana, 
and other variants, name of several sites (towns 
and/or strongholds), primarily in the northern 
Balkans. 


CONSTANTIA IN THE RHODOPE MOUNTAINS, a 
town destroyed by Kalojan in 1201 (Nik.Chon. 
532.22—23). It is probably the Constantia listed in 
a notitia of Patr. Nicholas I Mystikos as a suffra- 
gan of Philippopolis (Notitiae CP, no.7.592). Ex- 
cavations at Assara (near Marica in Bulgaria) have 
revealed the remains of a late Roman and medi- 
eval town (coins of Anastasios I, Phokas, and Leo 
VI were found) that has been identified as Rho- 
dopian Constantia. 

LIT. W. Gjuselev, “Forschungen zur Geschichte Thra- 
kiens im Mittelalter,” BBulg 3 (1969) 155-69. Asdracha, 
Rhodopes 151f. Z. Aladžov, “Archeologičeski proučvanija na 
Konstancija (1967—1977 g.),” Izvestija na nacionalnija istori- 
česki muzej 3 (1981) 253-333. 

CONSTANTIA ON THE DANUBE, 5th-C. fortress 
(phrourion) mentioned by Priskos (FHG 4:72.16), 
probably to be identified with the 11th-C. phrou- 
rion of Constantia, referred to by Skylitzes (Skyl. 


CONSTANTINA 497 


301.2-3). It was near modern Belgrade, at the 
juncture of the Morava and the Danube. 


CONSTANTIA ON THE BLACK SEA. See Tomis. 


CONSTANTIANA IN SCYTHIA. A notitia (Notitiae 
CP, no.3.656) lists Constantiana as a bishopric of 
the eparchia of Scythia; its identification is ques- 
tionable (E€. Popescu, BZ 66 [1973] 359-82, and 
I. Barnea, SCIV 25 [1974] 427-29). 


CONSTANTION NEAR OHRID, a phrourion erected 
by Basil IT (Skyl. 359.40—42). 


OTHER CONSTANTIAS. Cities also possessing 
this name existed in Calabria, Cyprus (anc. Sala- 
mis), and Phoenicia, and infrequently this name 
was given to Constantinople. CONSTANTINA (now 
Viransehir in Turkey) in northern Mesopotamia 
was called Konstantia by Theophanes the 
Confessor. -A.K. 


CONSTANTIANA. See CONSTANTIA. 


CONSTANTINA (Kwvoravrivn, Syr. Tella), city 
in northern Mesopotamia, now Viransehir in east- 
ern Turkey. Constantina was the headquarters of 
the doux of Mesopotamia in 363—527 and 532- 
40 and a bishopric of OSRHOENE subject to Edessa 
(L. Dillemann, Haute Mésopotamie orientale et pays 
adjacents [Paris 1962] 75, 107f). Malalas (Malal. 
323.14—1g) states that Constantina was rebuilt by 
Constantine I on the site of ancient Maximianou- 
polis, which had been destroyed by a Persian 
attack and an earthquake. Constantina, also called 
Konstantia by Theophanes, should be distin- 
guished from the Konstantia in Phoenicia, previ- 
ously called Antarados, that was rebuilt by Con- 
stantius II (Theoph. 38.8—9). In the 6th C. 
Constantina was headquarters of General Priskos 
and an important point of contention during the 
Persian wars. JACOB BARADAEUS was born near 
Constantina and was a monk at the monastery of 
Phesiltha outside the city. Constantina fell to the 
Arabs in 639. 

Parts of city walls, a large-aisled, centralized 
church (the “Octagon”), and an entire (?) ware- 
house of 543 were still standing in 1972; other 
remains of the 4th—6th C., including Greek in- 
scriptions, are recorded by travelers. A tetrapylon 
disappeared in this century. 


LIT. Bell-Mango. Tur ‘Abdin 154-57. —M.M.M. 


498 CONSTANTINE 


CONSTANTINE (Kwvoravtivos), personal name. 
It is uncertain whether the name was used before 
CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT; a certain Aurelius 
Constantine is named in an undated inscription 
(CIL 3294). The name may have been coined on 
the basis of Constantius, Constantine the Great’s 
father; at any rate, in the 4th C. Constantius was 
more popular than Constantine (PLRE 1:223- 
28). The relative frequency seems to have changed 
in the 5th C.: PLRE 2:311~-25 lists 24 Constan- 
tines and 20 Constantii. Prokopios mentions only 
four Constantines, but thereafter the frequency 
increased: 28 in Theophanes, 60 in Skylitzes, 15 
in Anna Komnene (in the last two cases Constan- 
tine is the most popular name). Niketas Choniates 
has 22 Constantines, third after JOHN (35) and 
ALEXIOS (24). In Lavra, vol. 1, encompassing the 
period of the 10th—12th C., 37 Constantines are 
listed, third only to JOHN (go) and NicHo;as (42), 
but in the later Lavra, vols. 2—3 (13th—15th C.), 
Constantine occupies only the seventh place. Con- 
stantius seems to have almost disappeared after 
Theophanes, but the vernacular form Konstas, 
rare in Lavra 1, occurs 30 times in Lavra 2-3. 
Constantine was the most popular name for em- 
perors; 11 bore the name between the 4th and 
15th C. and it should be noted that Leo V changed 
the name of his son Symbatios to Constantine (E. 
Patlagean in Byz. Aristocracy 27). Four patriarchs 
had this name but there are very few saints named 
Constantine in the Byz. calendar. -A.K. 


CONSTANTINE, co-emperor; eldest son of Basi. 
I by his first wife Maria, although some sources 
name Eupokia INGERINA as his mother (see G. 
Ostrogorsky, SemKond 5 [1932] 28); born ca.859 
(Vogt, infra) or 863/4 (E. Kislinger, JOB 33 [1983] 
129), died 3 Sept. 879 (P. Karlin-Hayter, Byzantion 
36 [1966] 624-26). Constantine was proclaimed 
co-emperor in 867/8, and his name is included 
with Basil’s in the title of the PRocHEIRON. Basil 
planned his betrothal to a daughter of Louis II, 
and the question was discussed with Frankish en- 
voys in 869 (A. Gasquet, L'empire byzantin et la 
monarchie franque [Paris 1888] 412). Constantine 
accompanied Basil in his expedition against the 
Arabs in 879 (Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.1:88—91,93- 
94). 

Constantine always appears beardless on his 
father’s coins (Grierson, DOC 3.2:474 and nos. 1— 


4, 8, 10—11). Spatharakis’s view (CahArch 23 [1974] 
97—105) that Constantine was depicted in the 
well-known Paris MS of the Homilies of GREGory 
OF Nazianzos (Paris B.N. gr. 510, fol.8v) was 
corrected by I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (JOB 27 
[1978] 19-24). 


LIT. Vogt, Basile ler 58f. —A.K., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE. See also KONSTANTIN. 


CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT, augustus (from 
25 July 306); born Naissos 273/4, died Nikome- 
deia 22 May 337; feastday 21 May. Son of Cox- 
STANTIUS CHLORUS and HELENA, he was pro- 
claimed as augustus in Britain upon the death of 
his father. He was subsequently acknowledged as 
caesar by GALERIUS and as augustus by MAXIMIAN, 


CONSTANTINE I THE Great. Bronze head of the em- 
peror; 4th C. National Museum, Belgrade. 





and his imperial position was confirmed at the 
Conference of Carnuntum in 308. He defeated 
MAXENTIUS at the battle of the Mitvian BRIDGE 
in 312, thus becoming sole ruler of the West. 
Alliance with Licintus turned to hostility, and 
after victory over his rival at Chrysoupolis in 
Bithynia in 324 Constantine became ruler of the 
whole empire. He associated his sons with him as 
caesars—CRISPUS (317), CONSTANTINE II (317), 
CONSTANTIUS II (324), and Constans I (333)— 
but he remained sole augustus until his death. He 
had two consorts, Minervina (perhaps a concu- 
bine) and Fausta (see genealogical table). 
Constantine carried out important administra- 
tive and military reforms, completing and/or re- 
versing those of DiocLeTIAN. He organized the 
entire empire into three or four prefectures, each 
under its Own PRAETORIAN PREFECT, below whom 
were provinces and the cities. At court, officials 
such as the comes rei privatae, comes sacrarum largi- 
tionum, and magister officiorum, wielded great power 
as heads of large amorphous bureaus, while mag- 
istri militum commanded the army, increasingly 
dominated by the ComMITATENSES. Constantine re- 
formed the coinage, issuing a gold soLIpus that 
remained the standard coin through the 11th C. 
To celebrate his victory over Licinius he founded 
a new city on the site of ancient Byz.; CONSTAN- 
TINOPLE was inaugurated on 11 May 330, not so 
much a “new capital” as an imperial residence 
and monument to the emperor’s greatness. Ac- 
cording to the CHRONICON PASCHALE (1:527—29), 
his huge building program consisted almost en- 
tirely of secular structures, whereas EUSEBIOS OF 


COLOBIUM 499 


CAESAREA emphasizes the churches and martyria 
that Constantine built in the capital and at Niko- 
MEDEIA, ANTIOCH, and JERUSALEM. 

Like most of his predecessors, Constantine 
sought divine support for his rule and ultimately 
came to base his power on a special connection 
with the Christian God. This concept developed 
slowly, augmented by the emperor’s victories, and 
culminating in the image of Constantine in the 
works of Eusebios of Caesarea, esp. the VITA 
ConsTANTIN1. In the latter work (VC 4.15) Euse- 
bios interprets the upward gaze exhibited by Con- 
stantine on his coins as a gesture of piety. In fact, 
his numismatic portraits exhibit a remarkable range 
of types (D.H. Wright, DOP 41 [1987] 493-507). 
It is still debated whether Constantine actually 
issued the so-called Epict or Mian. Constantine 
became involved in the controversies surrounding 
DONATISM and ARIANISM, convoked the first ecu- 
menical council at NICAEA, and approved its de- 
cisions, although he later came to support Ari- 
anism. He was baptized on his deathbed by 
EusEBIOS OF NIKOMEDEIA. The so-called Dona- 
TION OF CONSTANTINE is a forgery, probably of 
the 8th C. 

As the first Christian emperor and the founder 
of Constantinople, Constantine set the style that 
was followed by nearly all Byz. emperors. Despite 
his very real human failings, Constantine was very 
quickly heroized as founder of the new politico- 
religious order and regarded as a saint; he was 
commonly pictured, frequently along with his 
mother, in figural representations of rulers in 
church decoration. 









SELECTED GENEALOGY OF THE FAMILY OF CONSTANTINE I 









CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS 
m. (1) HELENA 
m. (2) Theodora 


























CONSTANTINE I Flavius Julius Constantius Hannibalianus Constantia Anastasia Eutropia 
m. (1) Minervina Delmatius m. (1) Galla 
m. (2) Fausta m. (2) Basilina 
CONSTANTINE II CONSTANS I Helena 
CRISPUS CONSTANTIUS [I1 Constantina | GALLUS JULIAN m. Helena 









Based on A.H.M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (New York 1962) 211. 


500 | CONSTANTINE II 


LIT. A.H.M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Eu- 
rope (London 1948; rp. New York 1962). T.D. Barnes, 
Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981). J. Vogt, 
Constantin der Grosse und sein Jahrhundert? (Munich 1960). 
M. MacMullen, Constantine? (London—New York—Sydney 
1987). Konstantin der Grosse, ed. H. Kraft (Darmstadt 1974). 
A. Kazhdan, “ ‘Constantin imaginaire.’ Byzantine Legends 
of the Ninth Century about Constantine the Great,” Byzan- 
tion 57 (1987) 196-250. ~T.E.G., AC. 


CONSTANTINE II, caesar (from 1 Mar. 317) 
and augustus (from g Sept. 337); born Arles, Feb. 
317, died Aquileia 340. He was the son of Con- 
stantine I, perhaps illegitimate. In the arrange- 
ments made after his father’s death Constantine 
II ruled Britain, Gaul, and Spain. He was, how- 
ever, apparently regarded as the senior emperor. 
A strong opponent of ARIANISM, he returned 
ATHANASIOS of Alexandria from exile in Gaul 
despite the opposition of Constantius II. In 340 
Constantine responded to a perceived slight from 
Constans I by invading Italy, where he was killed. 


LIT. Jones, LRE 112-14. PLRE 1:223. Barnes, New Em- 
pire 8, 44f. -T.E.G. 


CONSTANTINE III, usurper in Britain and Gaul 
(407-11). He is described as a common soldier 
but was a man of ability who was proclaimed 
emperor in Britain in 407. He made himself mas- 
ter of much of Gaul, being able to mint coins 
extensively at Trier, Lyons, and Arles, In Septem- 
ber 411 he surrendered to Honorius’s army and 
was put to death. He is not to be confused with 
either HERAKLEIOS CONSTANTINE, son and succes- 
sor of HERAKLEIOS, or with ConsTans II, both of 
whom have been called Constantine III by some 
historians. 

LIT. E. Demougeot, “Constantin III, l'empereur d’Arles,” 


in Hommage a André Dupont (Montpellier 1974) 83-125. 
—Ph.G. 


CONSTANTINE III LEICHOUDES (Aetyovdys), 
patriarch of Constantinople (2 Feb. 1059—9/10 
Aug. 1063); born Kouzenas (Psellos in Sathas, MB 
5:300.10) or Constantinople (Sathas, MB 4:390.18— 
19) ca.1000, died Constantinople. The statement 
of later chroniclers that he was a eunuch is prob- 
ably incorrect. Together with John Mauroprous, 
Leichoudes was the leader of the young intellec- 
tuals who came to power under Constantine IX; 
he became MESAZON (Beck, Ideen, pt.XIII [1955], 


329) but had to retire ca.1050. The question of 
the pronoia that Constantine IX granted to Lei- 
choudes over the MANGANA monastery is under 
discussion; it was apparently an administrative 
function (A. Hohlweg, BZ 60 [1967] 291-94), 
rather than a semifeudal property (K. Juzbašjan, 
VizVrem 16 [1959] 24—28). He returned to politi- 
cal activity only when Michael VI sent him and 
Psellos as envoys to the rebellious Isaac I Kom- 
nenos, who eventually chose Leichoudes to re- 
place MıcHaeL I Keroucarios on the patriarchal 
throne. 

The policy of Leichoudes as patriarch is little 
known: he evidently resumed negotiations with 
Pope Alexander II (1061—73) concerning the Fi- 
LIOQUE (PL 145:633B). His hostility toward the 
Monophysites was relentless: MICHAEL I THE Syr- 
IAN mentions the patriarchal decree of 1063 to 
burn all the sacred books “of the Syrians” (tr. 
Chabot, 3:166). Leichoudes regulated the right of 
ASYLUM in such a way that a priest involved in a 
murder was proclaimed free, whereas a slave (oi- 
ketes) Demetrios, guilty of murder, was extradited 
to his owner in exchange for the payment of 24 
nomismata (PG 119:853—-56). On his seals Lei- 
choudes retained the title of ecumenical patriarch 
(Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.17). Psellos devoted to 
him an enkomion praising his friend as a talented 
administrator and even military commander. 

source. Sathas, MB 4:388—421. It. tr. U. Criscuolo, 
Michele Psello: Orazione in memoria di Costantino Lichidi (Mes- 
sina 1983). 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 3, nos. 887—92. Ljubarskij, Psell 56- 
58. A. Michel, “Schisma und Kaiserhof im Jahre 1054: 


Michael Psellos,” L'Église et les églises, vol. 1 (Chevetogne 
1954) 361-65, 426-28. Skabalanovič, Gosudarstvo 3090—96. 
-A.K. 


CONSTANTINE IV, emperor (668-85); born 
ca.650, died Constantinople 10 July (?) 685. In 
the 19th C. many scholars identified Constantine 
IV with “Constantine Pogonatos,” who in reality 
was his father, ConsTans II (E.W. Brooks, BZ 17 
[1908] 460-62). Proclaimed co-emperor in April 
654 by Constans II, Constantine avenged his fa- 
ther’s murder by going to Sicily in early 669 and 
defeating Mezizios (E.W. Brooks, BZ 17 [1908] 
455-59, rejects Constantine’s personal participa- 
tion). Constantine ruled with his younger brothers 
Herakleios and Tiberios until 681, when he de- 
posed and mutilated them, probably because of a 


conspiracy (E.W. Brooks, EHR 30 [1915] 42-51). 
With them and his son Justinian (II) he is shown 
in an apse mosaic in S. Apollinare in Classe, pre- 
senting privileges to that church (Beckwith, ECBA, 
fig.g6). 

Throughout his reign Constantine faced exter- 
nal pressures but preferred diplomatic to military 
responses. The Arabs raided Byz. territory yearly 
and in 674—78 besieged Constantinople itself, but 
their defeat compelled Mu‘Awiya to sign a 30- 
year truce on terms favorable to Byz. Shortly 
thereafter Constantine signed treaties with the 
Lombards, who had captured Brindisi and Ta- 
ranto (after 671), and the Avars (Reg, nos. 241, 
240). In the Balkans Constantine unsuccessfully 
campaigned against ASPARUCH and formally rec- 
ognized the Bulgars’ settlement south of the Dan- 
ube, in response to which he created the theme 
of Turace. He hoped to end the empire’s reli- 
gious disputes by summoning the Council in 
TRULLO and personally presided at 12 of its 18 
nieetings. He also attempted to revalue the bronze 
coinage by minting an 18-gram FoLLIS. He died 
of dysentery and was survived by his wife Ana- 
stasia and their sons Justinian and Herakleios. 

LIT. D. Missiou, “Who was the Constantine in the In- 
scription no. 8788 CIG IV?” Byzantina 13 (1985) 1477—86. 
I. Barnea, “Sceau de Constantin IV empereur de Byzance 
trouvé a Durostorum,” Revue roumaine d'histoire 20 (1981) 


625-28. Stratos, Byzantium 4:1-171. Kulakovskij, Istorija 
3:228—52. —P.A.H., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE V, emperor (741-75); born 
Constantinople 718, died Strongylon 14 Sept. 775. 
Leo III crowned his son Constantine as co-emperor 
in 720 and in 732 married him to the Khazar 
khagan’s daughter, who took the name Irene and 
bore him Leo (IV). Constantine’s second wife, 
Maria, died shortly after their marriage ca.750. 
By a third wife, Eudokia, whom he crowned in 
769, Constantine had five sons (including Caesar 
NikFPHOROS) and a daughter. After succeeding 
Leo in 741, Constantine was briefly driven from 
Constantinople by ArTABaspos, but regained the 
throne in Nov. 743. Byz. sources displayed their 
hostility toward his zealous support of Icono- 
CLASM by nicknaming him “Kaballinos” (“groom”) 
and “Kopronymos” (“dung-named”) for suppos- 
edly having defecated while being baptized. Con- 
Stantine convened a church council at HIERIA in 
754 and thereafter persecuted ICONOPHILES in the 


CONSTANTINE VI 501 


bureaucracy, army, and church; his attacks on 
monks evolved into a campaign against monasti- 
cism as an institution. He also rejected the cult of 
saints, including the intercessory power of the 
Theotokos, and was hostile to RELICS, except those 
of the True Cross. In the Life of St. Stephen the 
Younger (PG 100:1120C), Constantine is indicted 
for scraping the holy pictures off the walls of the 
Church of the Virgin at BLACHERNAI. In the prov- 
inces he relied on strategoi like Michael LacHa- 
NODRAKON to execute his iconoclastic and fiscal 
policies. Constantine wrote treatises on Icono- 
clasm that survive as his fragmentary Questions 
(Peuseis, ed. Ostrogorsky, Bilderstr. 7—45). 

An outstanding general, Constantine served in 
740 with his father at AKROINON. He campaigned 
frequently against the Slavs and Bulgarians, win- 
ning decisive victories at Anchialos in 763 and 
over TELERIG at LirHosoria in 773. He also cam- 
paigned successfully against the Arabs, capturing 
Germanikeia in 746 and Theodosioupolis and 
Melitene in 752. For resettling captives from Ar- 
menia in Thrace, he was blamed for introducing 
PAULICIANS into the empire (Theoph. 429. 19-22). 
He repopulated Constantinople with families from 
Greece after a plague in 747. Constantine trans- 
ferred Sicily, Calabria, and ILLyricum from papal 
to Byz. ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but, by neglect- 
ing northern Italy and the Lombards’ seizure of 
Ravenna, he drove the papacy closer to the FRANKS. 
He created the BOUKELLARION theme and re- 
stored the aqueduct of Valens during a drought 
in Constantinople in 767. He financed his cam- 
paigns and enriched the treasury by raising taxes 
and selling confiscated monastic properties. Con- 
stantine was buried in the Church of the Holy 
Apostles, but in the gth C. his bones were ex- 
humed, burned, and cast into the sea (Grierson, 
“Tombs and Obits” 53f). 

LIT. S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of 
Constantine V (Louvain 1977). A. Lombard, Constantin V, 
empereur des Romains (740—775) (Paris 1902). C. Zuckerman, 
“The Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. Theo- 
dore the Recruit (BHG 1764),” REB 46 (1988) 191—210. C. 


Mango, “St. Anthusa of Mantineon and the Family of 
Constantine V,” AB 100 (1982) 401-09. -P.A.H. 


CONSTANTINE VI, emperor (780-97); son of 
Leo IV and Irene; born Constantinople 14 Jan. 
771, died before 805 (E.W. Brooks, BZ 9 [1900] 
655). Leo crowned Constantine VI as co-emperor 


502 CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENNETOS 


in 776, but after Leo’s death IRENE ruled as Con- 
stantine’s regent with Stauraxios. In 782 she 
betrothed Constantine to Rotrud, the daughter of 
CHARLEMAGNE, but broke the engagement in 788 
and married Constantine to Maria from Amnia 
in the Armeniakon. This reportedly upset Con- 
stantine (Theoph. 463.24-27) and likely con- 
tributed to his growing animosity toward his 
mother. He signed the acts of the Second Council 
of Nicaka (787) condemning IconoctasM, but his 
close association with Michael LACHANODRAKON, 
with whose help he deposed Irene in Dec. 790, 
may indicate Iconoclastic leanings. He was an 
ineffectual ruler, fruitlessly campaigning against 
the Bulgarians and Arabs in 791 and being se- 
verely defeated by the Bulgarians at MARKELLAI 
in 792. His restoration of Irene in 792 disap- 
pointed his supporters. In 792-93 he thwarted a 
conspiracy in favor of his uncle, Caesar NIKEPHO- 
ros, and at Irene’s urging blinded Alexios Mo- 
SELE, thereby aggravating an uprising in the Ar- 
meniakon, which he cruelly suppressed. He 
instigated the MOECHIAN CONTROVERSY in 795 by 
divorcing Maria, who had given him two daugh- 
ters, and marrying his mistress Theodote. Under- 
mined by Irene and Staurakios, he was dethroned 
and blinded on 19 Apr. 797 (S. Pétridés, EO 4 
[1900—01] 72—75). He died in exile and was bur- 
ied in Irene’s monastery of St. Euphrosyne (Grier- 
son, “Tombs and Obits” 54f). Constantine’s only 
recorded monumental portrait was a mosaic at 
the Church of the Virgin of PEGE, together with 
one of his mother. 

LIT. Treadgold, Byz. Revival 60—110. D. Misiou, “Stadia 
basileias Konstantinou XT" kai Eirenes kai ta nomismata 
tous,” Byzantiaka 1 (1981) 139-56. P. Speck, Kaiser Konstan- 


tin VI. (Munich 1978). Ostrogorsky, History 176-81. 
—-P.A.H., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENNETOS, 
emperor of the MACEDONIAN DYNASTY (945-59); 
born 17 or 18 May 905, died Constantinople 9 
Nov. 959. His birth to Leo VI and Zor KARBO- 
NOPSINA provoked the conflict over the TETRA- 
GAMY OF Leo VI. Crowned co-emperor probably 
on 15 May go8 (P. Grierson-R. Jenkins, Byzantion 
32 [1962] 133-38), he was excluded from power 
for almost four decades, successively dominated 
by ALEXANDER, NICHOLAS I Mystikos and Zoe, 
and Romanos I, whose daughter Helen married 
Constantine in May 919. His independent rule 





CONSTANTINE VII PoRPHYROGENNETOS. The emperor 
crowned by Christ; ivory, 10th C. State Pushkin Mu- 
seum of Fine Arts, Moscow. 


began only after Romanos’s sons were deposed 
on 27 Jan. 945. Dismissing Romanos’s supporters, 
Constantine sought the assistance of aristocratic 
families such as Poxas. A contemporary source 
(TheophCont 456.14-16) asserts that Constantine 
surrounded himself with noblemen (eugeneis) on 
whom he bestowed titles and gifts, while another 
(Skyl. 237.14) reports that the emperor chose his 
functionaries regardless of their noble merits (ouk 
aristinden), 

In his legislation Constantine proclaimed a 
complete rupture with his predecessor’s policy: 
he called Romanos’s officials and generals venal 
and unwarlike (Zepos, Jus 1:226.5) and tried to 
alleviate (kouwphisai) the tax burden that his father- 
in-law had required the peasantry to bear 


(TheophCont 443.13-18). In fact, however, Con- 
stantine’s novels, written predominantly by THEO- 
DORE OF DekaPo_is, retained principles of Ro- 
manos I’s legislation, such as the concept of the 
protection of the poor from the pyNatTor; he 
made, however, certain concessions to small ar- 
chontes and small monasteries. Especially impor- 
tant in this respect was a novel (now lost) men- 
tioned in Theodore’s decision of g60/1: in it, 
Constantine, responding to the request of the 
military archontes (Zepos, Jus 1:239.19), obliged 
even the poorest peasants to compensate the ille- 
gal buyers of their allotments; they were allowed, 
however, five years for this repayment. 

Constantine fought against the Arabs without 
great success. The expedition to Crete in 949 was 
a failure, and although his armies seized GERMA- 
NIKEIA in 949 and crossed the Euphrates in 952, 
they were subsequently defeated by SAYF AL- 
Daw a. NIKEPHOROS (II) PHokas led the offensive 
from 954 and in 957 captured Hadat; in 958 
Joun (I) Tzimiskes conquered Samosata. Despite 
the baptism of Ov’ca, princess of Kiev, and her 
visit to Constantinople, Constantine was unable to 
establish a strong alliance with the Rus’. 

Constantine contributed much to the systema- 
tization of knowledge and encouraged the com- 
pilation of encyclopedic works such as Excerpta de 
legationibus (see EXCERPTA) and Groponika; he 
also encouraged historical writing intended to eu- 
logize BasiL I and thereby present Basil’s prede- 
cessors as inept villains. This aim was achieved by 
the anonymous author of the Imperial Histories, 
ascribed to a certain GENEsIOS, and by a collection 
conventionally called THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS. 
Constantine collaborated in several] works on the 
empire’s administrative system and foreign rela- 
tions that are preserved under his name: DE AD- 
MINISTRANDO IMPERIO, DE THEMATIBUS, and DE 
CEREMONIS. To his literary heritage also belong 
several speeches, letters (e.g., correspondence with 
THEODORE OF KyziIkos), and specimens of litur- 
gical poetry. 

Constantine’s reputation as guiding spirit of the 
so-called Macedonian Renaissance is based on the 
prooimion of the continuators of Theophanes 
(TheophCont 3.15—-4.1), who declare that the em- 
peror brought a palinzoza (“new life”) and palin- 
genesia (“rebirth”) to what had been lost in the 
course of time. The same source (450.12—20) tells 
of Constantine’s “accurate” painting and his role 


CONSTANTINE VIII 503 


as “corrector” of stonemasons, carpenters, gold- 
smiths, silversmiths, etc., and attributes numerous 
works to his hand (447.1-450.11). LIUTPRAND OF 
CREMONA (Antapodosis 3.37) confirms also that 
Constantine engaged in zografia, that is, that he 
worked as a painter. Constantine’s portrait is found 
on an ivory plaque in Moscow (Goldschmidt- 
Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt. 11, no.35) and per- 
haps on a MANDYLION icon at Sinai. 

LIT. A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World 
(London 1973). A. Rambaud, L'empire grec au dixième siècle, 
Constantin Porphyrogénéte (Paris 1870; rp. New York 1963). 
A. Kazhdan, “He epoche tou Konstantinou Z’ Porphyro- 
gennetou,” Diabazo 129 (1985) 17-20. J. Ripoche, “Con- 
stantin VII Porphyrogénéte et sa politique hongroise au 
milieu du Xe siècle,” SüdostF 36 (1977) 1-12. Lemerle, 
Humanism 309-46. —A.K., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE VIII, emperor (1025—28); born 
960/1, died Constantinople 12 Nov. 1028, accord- 
ing to YAHya. Son of Romanos II, Constantine 
was crowned co-emperor probably 30 Mar. 962 
(Oikonomides, Documents, pt.XIII [1965], 173- 
76). During the reign of his elder brother Basii 
Il, he lived in idleness. He married Helena, 
daughter of Alypios, who bore him three daugh- 
ters: Eudokia (who became a nun), Zor, and 
THEODORA. Upon succeeding his brother, Con- 
stantine continued his devotion to chariot racing 
and theatrical spectacles, although he did enjoy 
the imperial duty of receiving embassies. He was 
strongly influenced by his household EuNucHs, 
capricious, and prone to inflict blinding on the 
slightest excuse. Among his apparently innocent 
victims were Constantine Bourrzes, Nikephoros 
Komnenos, and Basil SkLerRos. Because Basil II 
had allowed two years of tax arrears to accrue, 
Constantine collected the taxes for five years in 
three. He considered annulling the ALLELENGYON 


His general Constantine Diogenes repelled an at- 
tack by PecHENEGs, and George Theodorakanos 
defeated a Muslim naval incursion. On his death- 
bed, Constantine married Zoe to the future Ro- 
manos IlI. 

Generally accepted as portraits of Constantine 
and Basil II are the co-emperors in the Bari 
Exultet Roll (Archivio della Cattedrale 1). If this 
is sO, it is, apart from his coins, the only portrait 
known of Constantine. 


Lit. M. Canard, “Les sources arabes de l'histoire byz- 
antine aux confins des X® et XI® siècles,” REB 19 (1961) 


504 CONSTANTINE IX MONOMACHOS 


284-314. Skabalanovit, Gosudarstuo 1-14. S.A. Kamer, 
“Emperors and Aristocrats in Byzantium, 976—1081” (Ph.D. 
diss., Harvard Univ., 1983) 158-73. -C.M.B., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE IX MONOMACHOS (Movo- 
páxos), emperor (1042—1055); born ca.1000, died 
Constantinople 7/8 Jan. (Kleinchroniken 1:159, 167) 
or 11 Jan. (Grumel, Chronologie 358; Ostrogorsky, 
History 337) 1055. From a distinguished family, 
Constantine was exiled to Mytilene by MICHAEL 
IV. He was recalled to wed Zoe (11 June 1042) 
and crowned the next day; their mosaic portraits 
survive in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople. He en- 
joyed the support of the commercial classes of 
Constantinople; leading merchants became sena- 
tors. He also gathered around him such intellec- 
tuals as future Patr. CONSTANTINE (III) Ler 
CHOUDES, future Patr. JOHN (VIII) XIPHILINOs, 
Michael PseLLos, and John Mauropous, whose 
epigrams describe two images of Constantine. A 
law school was established under Xiphilinos, and 
Psellos became HYPATOS TON PHILOSOPHON. 

Constantine extravagantly maintained his mis- 
tress, SKLERAINA, and her successor, an “Alan” 
(Georgian) princess. He converted into taxpayers 
peasants in “IBERIA” who had owed military ser- 
vice and substituted mercenaries. A moderately 
adulterated NOMISMA perhaps facilitated com- 
merce (Morrisson, “Dévaluation” 6f). These pol- 
icies alienated the military aristocracy. The revolts 
of George Manrakes and Leo Tornixkios were 
overcome with great difficulty. 

Constantine experienced some successes over 
foreigners: the Rus’ of JAROSLAV of Kiev were 
defeated (Shepard, “Russians Attack” 147—212), 
and Gacık II yielded Ani. Nonetheless, the fron- 
tiers proved porous: the Turks of TuGHRuL BEG 
devastated eastern Anatolia, the PECHENEGS oc- 
cupied the Danubian plain and ravaged Thrace, 
and the Normans advanced in southern Italy. 
Late in his reign, these disasters caused Constan- 
tine to dismiss Xiphilinos and other intellectuals. 
He turned to the eunuch John, who instituted 
harsh taxation. In his final year, Constantine could 
not control Patr. MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS. 

Psellos’s Chronographia vividly depicts Constan- 
tine’s personality; later Byz. writers blamed his 
extravagant polictes for the ensuing collapse of 
Byz. Among his lavish foundations were the mon- 
astery of the Nea Mone on Chios and the mon- 
astery at MANGANA, built near the house where 


Skleraina lived. MSS presumably commissioned 
by Constantine include a rich copy of the homilies 
of John Chrysostom (Sinai gr. 364) that contains 
a frontispiece showing the emperor between Zoe 
and THEopoRA (Spatharakis, Portrazt, fig.66). 

LiT. Lemerle, Cing études 268-71, 285~g0. Ohnsorge, 
Abend. © Byz. 317-32. Idem, Ost-Rom und der Westen 


(Darmstadt 1983) 207-18. Mouriki, Nea Moni 24-29. 
-C.M.B., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE X DOUKAS, emperor (1059- 
67); born ca.1006, died Constantinople 22/3 May 
1067. An Anatolian magnate, Constantine was 
briefly imprisoned, then retired to his estates when 
his father-in-law Constantine DALASSENOS was ar- 
rested (1034). In 1057 Constantine supported the 
rebellion of the future Isaac I Komnenos. Through 
his second wife, EuDOKIA MAKREMBOLITISSA, a 
niece of Patr. MicHAEL I KEROULARIOS, he was 
allied to the opponents of MICHAEL VI STRATIO- 
TIKOS within Constantinople. During Isaac’s reign, 
Constantine supported those hostile to Isaac’s re- 
forms (E. Stănescu, RESEE 4 [1966] 55-69). 
Nevertheless, through the influence of Michael 
PsELLOs, Constantine was designated emperor by 
the dying Isaac and crowned on 23/4 Nov. 1059. 
He undid Isaac’s reforms, restoring many to office 
and promoting leading guild members to the sen- 
ate. Soldiers who felt neglected sought to enter 
the civil hierarchy (Attal. 76.10—12). He avoided 
a plot (Apr. 1061) led by the eparch of Constan- 
tinople (D. Polemis, BZ 58 [1965] 61f). His gen- 
erosity to monasteries and individuals required 
heavy taxation, which inspired rebellion (1066) in 
northern Greece (G. Litavrin, VizVrem 11 [1956] 
123-34). Constantine could barely rally 150 sol- 
diers to oppose an incursion of Uzes across the 
Danube (1064-65). Turkish raiders overran the 
eastern boundaries, and ALP ARSLAN seized Ani. 
Constantine’s reign was deemed disastrous by At- 
taleiates; even Psellos was critical. At his death, 
the augusta Eudokia took power on behalf of her 
sons (N. Oikonomides, Documents, pt.III [1963], 
102). She had already held the place of honor 
(the spectator’s left) on FOLLEIS of Constanune’s 
reign. Their joint portraits appear in a badly 
damaged miniature in a copy of the Sacra Parallela 
(Spatharakis, Portrait, fig.68). Constantine’s best- 
preserved likeness, again with Eudokia, is on a 
reliquary of St. Demetrios in Moscow (Iskusstvo 
Vizanty 2, N0.547). 


LIT. Polemis, Doukai 28—34, no.12. M. Angold, The Byz- 
antine Empire 1025—1204 (London—New York 1984) 16— 
32, 593756, 61-74- -C.M.B., A.C. 


CONSTANTINE XI PALAIOLOGOS, emperor 
(2 Mar. 1449—29 May 1453); born Constanti- 
nople 8 Feb. 1405, died Constantinople 29 May 
1453- Last member of the Palaiologan dynasty 
and final ruler of the Byz. Empire, Constantine 
was the fourth son of ManueL Il and Helena 
Dragaš. He is sometimes called Constantine XI] 
because of the erroneous supposition that Con- 
stantine Laskaris was crowned emperor in Apr. 
1204 (cf. Brand, Byzantium 258 and 381, n.58). 
Constantine came to the Morea in 1428 to share 
the despotate with his brothers THEODORE II and 
THOMAS PaLaloLocos; he ruled as despotes for 20 
years. He significantly strengthened the Byz. po- 
sition by the restoration of the HEXAMILION (1444) 
and the conquest of Patras (1429), Athens, and 
Thebes (1444). His dream of reasserting control 
over Greece, however, was destroyed by the Ot- 
toman campaign of 1446. Since both of Constan- 
tine’s older brothers, Theodore and Andronikos, 
predeceased him, he inherited the throne upon 
the death of the childless Joun VIII. He was 
crowned at Mistra on 6 Jan. 1449 and began his 
reign in March when he reached Constantinople. 
He did not receive a second coronation in Hagia 
Sophia. 

As a pragmatist Constantine accepted the Union 
of Florence, in the hope of gaining military assis- 
tance from the West. During his short reign he 
made several desperate appeals to European rul- 
ers (R. Guilland, EEBS 22 [1952] 60—74 and BS 
14 [1953] 226-44). He did not implement the 
Union, however, until 12 Dec. 1452. Constantine 
fought bravely during the Ottoman siege of Con- 
stantinople and was killed on the ramparts during 
the final Turkish assault. He died without heir, 
since his two marriages were childless. 

LIT. Papadopulos, Genealogie, no.g5. Zakythinos, Despotat 


1:204—47. M. Carroll, “Constantine XI Palaeologus: Some 
Problems of Image,” in Maistor 329-43. -A.M.T. 


CONSTANTINE BODIN (Boédtvos), called Peter 
by the Bulgarians, king of Duklja (DIokLera) after 
ca.1081; died 1101 or 1108. In 1072 Constantine 
was sent by his father, Michael, son of Stephen 
VoisLav, to support George VoiTECH. At Prizren 


CONSTANTINE DRAGAS 505 


Constantine was acclaimed basileus of Bulgaria, 
but the Byz. defeated and captured him. Rescued 
or ransomed, he returned to Duklja ca.1078. When 
ROBERT GUISCARD attacked Dyrrachion, Constan- 
tine led an army purportedly to assist Alexios I, 
but at the battle on 18 Oct. 1081 he withheld his 
troops until the Norman triumph was clear, then 
led them away unscathed. Between 1085 and 1091, 
John Doukas, governor of Dyrrachion, defeated 
Constantine and according to Anna Komnene 
captured him. In 1092—94 Alexios I waged cam- 
paigns in Raška and Zeta, which weakened Con- 
stantine’s realm. The PRIEST OF DIOKLEIA men- 
tions Constantine’s strife with his relatives, which 
also contributed to the weakening of his power. 
LIT. A. Petrov, “Knjaz’ Konstantin Bodin,” Sbornik V. 1. 
Lamanskogo (St. Petersburg 1883) 239-64. B. Radojčić, “Peri 


tes exergeseos tou Konstantinou Mpontin,” 12 CEB (Bel- 
grade 1964) 2:185-87. -C.M.B., A.K. 


CONSTANTINE DRAGAŠ (Apayáons), Serbian 
nobleman and autonomous ruler; died 17 May 
1395. Together with his brother John Dragaš 
(died 1378/g), he ruled a large region of north- 
eastern Macedonia, inherited from their father 
the sebastokrator and despotes Dejan (Ferjančić, Des- 
poti 168—70). He was called gospodin (lord) in Ser- 
bian documents, kyr (Koutloum., no.40.15) or au- 
thentes (MM 2:260.8) in Greek texts. It is a matter 
of dispute whether he was ever given the title 
“despotes of Serbia” (cf. J. Darrouzés, REB 27 [1969] 
62.72—73 and n.; Ostrogorsky, infra 288f). With 
their mother Theodora-Eudokia, sister of Stefan 
Uroš IV Dušan, the Dragaš brothers generously 
endowed monasteries on Mt. Athos, esp. Hilan- 
dar, Panteleemon, and Vatopedi (S. Novaković, 
Zakonski spomenici [Belgrade 1912] 446—48, 452— 
57, 510-15, 676, 738-40). After the battle of 
Marca in 1371, Constantine and John were forced 
to become vassals of Murad I; Constantine was 
fighting on the side of the Turks when he fell in 
battle at Rovine. His lands were subsequently 
annexed by the Ottoman Empire. 

Despite their Ottoman vassalage, the Dragaš 
brothers maintained close relations with Byz. 
Probably after 1386, Constantine took as his sec- 
ond wife Eudokia Komnene, daughter of Alexios 
III of Trebizond (I. Djuri¢, ZRVI 22 [1983] 259— 
72), and in 1392 he gave Helena, his daughter by 
his first wife, in marriage to Manuel II Palaiolo- 
gos. Their son Constantine XI bore the family 


506 CONSTANTINE LASKARIS 


name Dragases in addition to Palaiologos. Helena 
died on 13 Mar. 1450 as the nun Hypomone; 
several Byz. rhetoricians wrote funeral orations 
in her memory. 

LIT. Soulis, Dušan 100-102. G. Ostrogorsky, “Gospodin 
Konstantin Dragaš,” ZbFilozFak 7.1 (1963) 287-94. H. Ma- 
tanov, Jugozapadnite biilgarskt zemi prez XIV vek (Sofia 1986) 
115-28. -J.S.A. 


CONSTANTINE LASKARIS. See under Con- 
STANTINE XI PALAIOLOGOS. 


CONSTANTINE OF KERKYRA, theologian 
condemned in Jan. and Feb. 1170 for his heretical 
interpretation of John 14:28, “The Father is greater 
than I.” Stressing the hypostatical unity of the 
Father and the Son, Constantine denied that the 
Son was inferior on account of the real and con- 
crete humanity which he assumed in the incar- 
nation (RegPatr, fasc. 3, no.1113). According to 
V. Grumel (EO 28 [1929] 283-94), Constantine 
wrote the treatise On the Orthodox Creed (Napisanie 
o pravoj vere) preserved in Old Church Slavonic 
and ascribed to CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER; 
S. Kos (De auctore expositionis verae fidei S. Constan- 
tino Cyrillo adscriptae [Ljubljana 1942]; cf. B. 
Schultze, OrChrP 9 [1943] 229-31) rejects this 
identification and considers the author a disciple 
of METHODIOS, perhaps KLIMENT OF OnRID. Even 
more questionable is the identification of Con- 
stantine with Constantine Bykinator, an official 
(kanstrisios) of Hagia Sophia and archbishop of 
Bulgaria mentioned by Michael Gazes in 1203 (C. 
Giannelli, EEBS 23 [1953] 224-32). 


LIT. J. Gouillard, “Synodikon” 221f. ~A.K. 


CONSTANTINE OF RHODES, poet; born ca.870 
or 880 at Lindos, Rhodes, died after 931. Con- 
stantine began his civil career as secretary of Sa- 
monas and his literary career as a satiric poet, 
accusing Leo CHOIROSPHAKTES of paganism and 
mocking a eunuch called Theodore the Paphla- 
gonian. Later, as Constantine VII's asekretis, he 
produced an ekphrasis (surviving perhaps in an 
unfinished form) consisting of two sections: de- 
scriptions of the Seven Wonders of Constantino- 
ple and of the Church of the HoLy Apost es. In 
full conformity with the encyclopedic tendencies 


of 10th-C. literature, his descriptions are a catalog 
of elements rather than an emotional perception 
of the achievements of architects and painters (A. 
Epstein, GRBS 23 [1982] 81f). Constantine’s de- 
scription of the Seven Wonders was used by Keg- 
DRENOS, probably through an intermediary source. 
His satiric poems are inelegant, being essentially 
lists of the base qualities of his opponents. 

_Ep. E. Legrand, “Description des oeuvres d’art et de 
FEglise des saints Apôtres à Constantinople par Constantin 
le Rhodien,” REGr g (1896) 36-65. G. Begleri, Chram 
sujatych Apostolov i drugie pamjatniki Konstantinopolja po opi- 
saniju Konstantina Rodija (Odessa 1896), corr. G. Bartelink, 
Byzantion 46 (1976) 425f. Matranga, AnecGr 2:624—32. 

LIT. G. Downey, “Constantine the Rhodian: His Life 
and Writings,” LCMS 212-21. —A.K. 


CONSTANTINE OF SICILY, gth-C. poet, named 
also grammatikos and philosopher. He wrote Ana- 
creontic verses to which Krumbacher (GBL 723) 
ascribes a vivid naturalness. Constantine mentions 
Arab attacks on Sicily. Lemerle (Humanism 199- 
200, n.95) attributes to him, although reluctantly, 
a poem in which the author regards PHOTIOs as 
his teacher. Constantine was also involved in a 
polemic against his teacher, Leo the Philosopher; 
his vitriolic verses charge Leo with paganism and 
threaten him with Hell, where he will meet his 
friends, ancient poets and scholars. The identifi- 
cation of both Constantine and Leo is difficult: 
Lipšic (Očerki 355) is inclined to see in Leo the 
Philosopher Leo CHOIROSPHAKTES and to connect 
Constantine’s invectives with the polemic of ARE- 
THAS and CONSTANTINE OF RHODES against the 
latter; Lemerle identifies Constantine’s teacher with 
Leo THE MATHEMATICIAN. M.D. Spadaro (infra 
183-92) hypothesizes that the author of the po- 
lemical verses was CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSO- 
PHER. 

ED. M.D. Spadaro, “Sulle composizioni di Costantino il 
Filosofo del Vaticano 915,” SicGymn 24 (1971) 198-202. 
Cramer, Anec.Gr.Paris., vol. 4 (Oxford 1841) 380-83. Ma- 
tranga, AnecGr 2:689—98. 

LIT. R. Anastasi, “Costantino Siculo e Leone il Filosofo,” 
SicGymn 16 (1963) 84—89. -A.K. 


CONSTANTINE THE JEW, saint; born Synada, 
Phrygia, died on Bithynian Mt. Olympos 26 Dec., 
after 886. Born to a Jewish family, Constantine 
adopted Christianity. His conversion began when 
he spontaneously imitated a merchant who crossed 


his mouth while yawning; “the power of the sign” 
was such that Constantine without baptism ac- 
quired a fervent belief in Christ (cols. 62gF—630A). 
Constantine’s relatives forced him to marry, but 
on his wedding night he fled to the Phlouboute 
monastery near Nicaea, where he was baptized, 
became a monk, and stayed 12 years. He was 
ordained a priest and tried to convert Jews living 
in Nicaea. When Constantine attempted to move 
to Olympos, he was brought back as a fugitive 
and put in chains. Prompted by St. Spyridon in a 
vision, Constantine traveled via Attaleia to Cyprus 
and returned with a relic, the right hand of Pa- 
lamon (an otherwise unknown martyr), which he 
gave to the monastery of St. Hyakinthos at Nicaea. 
Although he settled on Olympos (at Atroa, later 
at Bolion-Balaios), he still attempted to influence 
affairs in Constantinople: he supposedly recon- 
ciled the emperors Basil | and Leo VI. 

His anonymous Life, apparently written during 
Leo’s reign, eulogizes the emperor (648F); since 
the author, in describing the region of Nicaea, 
speaks of “our desert” (645C), he must have be- 
longed to a Nicaean monastic community. He 
sympathizes with the upper stratum of the pro- 
vincial population and stresses that Constantine 
found support first of all among “those who were 
noble by nature and fortune and earthly distinc- 
tion” (644A-B). The hagiographer avoids vivid 
detail, but the miracles are unusual—a girl who 
tried to seduce Constantine fainted at the sign of 
the cross; some books fell from Constantine’s pouch 
into a torrent, but were brought to his feet un- 
damaged. No mere humble compiler, the author 
incessantly comments upon his story, asserts that 
his hero deserves an exquisite logos, not a medio- 
cre composition (628C), and boasts that no one 
could have done the job much better than himself 
(6510). 

SOURCES. AASS Nov. 4:628-56. Synax.CP 345f. 


LIT. BHG 370. Starr, Jews 119-22. —A.K. 


CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER (monas- 
tic name Cyril), missionary to the Slavs and saint; 
born Thessalonike 826/7, died Rome 14 Feb. 869; 
feastday 14 Feb. Constantine and his brother 
METHODIOS were the sons of the droungarios Leo 
and Maria, who may have been a Slav. Displaying 
remarkable intelligence as a youth (he reputedly 
memorized the works of Gregory of Nazianzos), 


CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER | 507 


ca.842 Constantine journeyed to Constantinople, 
where he gained the favor of the eunuch THEO- 
KTISTOS and received an advanced education; the 
tradition that he studied philosophy under Leo 
THE MATHEMATICIAN and PHOTIOS is, however, 
disputed (Lemerle, Humanism 185-91). He was 
ordained priest and became chartophylax of Hagia 
Sophia under Patr. Ignatios, but was later ap- 
pointed a teacher of philosophy at the school of 
the Macnaunra. His legendary erudition brought 
him prominence: he reportedly defined PHILOSO- 
PHY in secular terms for Theoktistos (I. Ševčenko 
in For Roman Jakobson [The Hague 1956] 449- 
57), bested Jonn VIL Grammartikos in a debate 
over IconociasM, learned Hebrew, disputed 
Muslim theologians at the caliph’s court at Sa- 
marra, and debated Jewish spokesmen before the 
khagan of the KHAzars. 

In 863 Michael sent him and his brother Metho- 
dios to Moravia to comply with the request of 
Rastislav for missionaries. In preparation, Con- 
stantine devised the GLaGotiTic alphabet and a 
literary language, CHURCH SLAVONIC, into which 
he translated numerous Greek works, including 
the so-called liturgy of John Chrysostom, selected 
daily offices, the Psalter, the New Testament, and 
perhaps Leo IIs Ectoca. In Moravia, Constan- 
tine and Methodios organized a native church 
using the local Slavic tongue, but under pressure 
from the Frankish clergy they journeyed to Rome 
in 867, where Constantine died, having been ton- 
sured shortly before his death. He was buried in 
the Church of St. Clement, whose relics he had 
discovered in Cherson in 860 and brought to 
Rome. His gth-C. Church Slavonic vita, perhaps 
composed by Methodios, draws heavily on Greek 
sources (I. Ševčenko in To Honor Roman Jakobson, 
vol. 3 [The Hague 1967] 1817). The existence of 
Constantine’s original Greek works, esp. con- 
cerned with St. Clement’s relics, can only be de- 
duced from references or surviving fragments in 
Church Slavonic sources. 


sources. T. Lehr-Sptawinski, Żywoty Konstantina i Meto- 
dego (Poznań 1959) 3—93. F. Grivec, F. Tomšić, Constantinus 
el Methodius Thessalonicenses: Fontes (Zagreb 1960). 

LIT. Kirilometodievska bibliografija 1940—1980, ed. I. Dujčev 
et al. (Sofia 1983). V. Vavřínek, B. Zástěrová, “Byzantium’s 
Role in the Formation of Great Moravian Culture,” BS 43 
(1982) 1621—88. F. Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantin et de 
Méthode vues de Byzance? (Hattiesburg, Miss., 1969). Idem, 
Byzantine Missions among the Slavs (New Brunswick, N.J., 
1970) 53—145. Vlasto, Entry 26—66. —P.A.H. 


508 | CONSTANTINE TICH 


CONSTANTINE TICH, Bulgarian monarch 
(1257—77), whose reign coincided with a period 
of bitter internal feuding and repeated foreign 
invasions. After the murder of Tsar Michael Asen 
and the brief reign of Sebastokrator Koloman 
(probably murdered), Constantine was pro- 
claimed tsar by a group of boyars. No sooner had 
he suppressed a revolt by a certain Mico, son-in- 
law of John Asen IJ, than he was faced by a 
Hungarian invasion, in which he lost much of 
northwestern Bulgaria to the Hungarians. By dy- 
nastic marriages, successively to Irene, daughter 
of Theodore II Laskaris, and to Maria, niece of 
Michael VIII, Constantine sought in vain to as- 
sure himself of Byz. support. In 1263 the Byz. 
invaded Thrace, took PHILIPPOPOLIS, and ad- 
vanced toward Sofia, but the Hungarians drove 
them back. In desperation Constantine made an 
alliance with the Moncor Golden Horde in south- 
ern Russia. Their combined forces advanced nearly 
to Constantinople, but when the Mongols with- 
drew with their booty, Constantine had to fall 
back empty-handed. Exploiting Bulgarian weak- 
ness, the Hungarians extended their rule and that 
of their Bulgarian puppet Svetoslav. All that was 
left to Constantine was the territory between the 
Danube and the Balkan range east of the river 
Iskir, and from 1271 even that was regularly 
raided by the Mongols, with whom Michael VIII 
had allied. By the end of his reign Constantine 
was a virtual vassal of the Mongols. 

LIT. Fine, Late Balkans 172-183. P.S. Srećković, “Ras- 


prava o Konstantinu Tehu,” Srpska Kraljevska Akademija, 
Glas 2 (1888) 1—90. Zlatarski, Zst., vol. 3 (1940) 476-551. 
-R.B. 


CONSTANTINOPLE. [This entry treats the his- 
tory and development of the city of Constanti- 
nople. For a discussion of its public monuments, 
city walls, and cisterns, see CONSTANTINOPLE, 
Monuments or. The capture of the city by the 
Turks is treated in CONSTANTINOPLE, SIEGE AND 
Fat oF. Individual monasteries and churches are 
the subject of independent entries.] 

Capital of the Byz. Empire, Constantinople 
(Kwvoravrwovrokts, Turk. Istanbul) was founded 
by Constantine I in 324 on the site of the Greek 
city of ByzanTION and dedicated on 11 May 330. 
The creation of imperial seats of government in 
the provinces was in line with the policy of the 
Tetrarchy; Diocletian had already established his 


residence in nearby NIKOMEDEIA. If Constantine 
was not satisfied with Nikomedeia, it was probably 
because he considered Byzantion to be strategi- 
cally more advantageous. It commanded access to 
the Black Sea and lay at the juncture of two 
military highways, the European Via EGNATIA and 
the road leading from CHaLcepon to Nikomedeia 
and points farther east. Yet the site of Byzantion 
also had the great weakness of being unprotected 
on the landward side by any natural barrier—g 
factor that came into play barely 50 years later 
and posed thereafter a constant threat. 

Constantinople was formed by the expansion of 
Byzantion. The new center of imperial authority, 
consisting of the complex of the GREAT PALACE 
and HIPPODROME, was placed within the ancient 
city. From there a colonnaded street, already built 
by Septrmius Severus, ran to the old city gate. 
Constantine laid out a circular forum outside the 
gate and continued the main artery (later named 
Mestr) in a straight line westward. About 1.2 km 
west of the forum a Capitolium was set up. There 
the street forked, one arm extending southwest 
to the Golden Gate (near the mosque Isakapi 
Mescidi; to be distinguished from the Theodosian 
GoLpEN Gate), the other northwest to meet a new 
line of walls that described an arc from the Pro- 
pontis to the Golden Horn, roughly from the 
modern quarter of Samatya (PSAMATHIA) to that 
of Cibali. No maritime defenses were put up since 
at the time there was no threat from the sea. 

Constantine envisaged a sharp increase in the 
population and made arrangements for grain 
supply from Egypt amounting to 80,000 rations— 
perhaps a target rather than the figure requisite 
at the time. Indeed, the population did climb 
steeply in the 4th-5th C., a process that is re- 
flected in gradually expanded harbor capacity, 
granaries, and water supply. It is difficult to de- 
termine when it reached its peak or to estimate a 
maximal population figure (opinions have ranged 
between 250,000 and 1,000,000). Clearly, so large 
a center of consumption could be maintained only 
thanks to a complex and potentially vulnerable 
system of provisioning dependent on Egypt. In 
addition to the subsidized supply of BREAD (and 
oil?) such comforts as were expected in the biggest 
cities (i.e., luxurious public baths and entertain- 
ment in theaters and the-circus) attracted people 
to Constantinople. 

The oft-repeated statement that Constantine 


willed his new residence to have from the start a 
purely Christian character is not substantiated by 
the evidence. The old pagan temples on the 
Acropolis and elsewhere were not disturbed and 
the Capitolium, which may be attributed to Con- 
stantine, had a clearly pagan character. Constan- 
tine probably built no more than three churches: 
St. IRENE to serve as cathedral, and two martyria 
dedicated to local martyrs, St. Akakios (near the 
Golden Horn) and St. Moxros in the cemetery 
area outside the land walls. The Church of the 
Hory AposTLes was built by Constantius II next 
to Constantine’s mausoleum. 


A 


CONSTANTINOPLE | 509 


ES 
rx? 
ise 





The Gothic invasion and the defeat of the em- 
peror Valens at Adrianople (378) served to 
underline the vulnerability of Constantinople and 
necessitated new defensive measures, esp. to pro- 
tect the water supply only recently guaranteed by 
the construction of a network of AQUEDUCTS ex- 
tending as far as Bizye in Thrace and possibly 
farther west, a distance of some 100 km. It was 
probably to this end, and not because of a multi- 
plication of exposed suburbs, that by 413 the land 
walls were extended 1.5 km to the west of the 
Constantinian circuit. The wide belt of land that 
was added to the city appears to have been sparsely 


510 CONSTANTINOPLE 





CONSTANTINOPLE. Hagia Sophia and the Golden Horn, viewed from the southeast. 
To the right, the Church of St. Irene. The bridges lead across to Galata. 


populated and much of it was taken up by cem- 
eteries. Three enormous open-air cisterns were 
there—with a total capacity of approximately 
1,000,000 sq. m—those of Aetios (421), Aspar 
(459), and St. Mokios (ascribed to Anastasios I). 
Somewhat later, a forward defensive line was built 
from SELYMBRIA to the Black Sea at a distance of 
65 km from the city: this was the so-called Anas- 
tasian or Lonc WALL, 45 km long. Fairly effective 
for a time, it was abandoned in the 7th C. because 
of the difficulty of keeping it manned and re- 
paired. 

The emperors of the Theodosian line made a 
sustained effort to embellish Constantinople and 
provide it with further public works such as gran- 
aries and the great Theodosian harbor on the 
Propontis. Simultaneously members of their fam- 
ily and government officials invested heavily in 
real estate, building for themselves mansions of 
princely magnificence. The only extant statistical 


account of the city, the NOTITIA URBIS CONSTAN- 
TINOPOLITANAE, dates from this period (ca.425): 
it describes briefly the 14 urban Regions and lists 
the principal monuments contained in each one. 
Twelve of the Regions were within the Constan- 
tinian walls; the 13th was at Sykai (GALATA), the 
14th at an unknown location (Eyüb?) up the Golden 
Horn. All in all there were 5 palaces, 14 churches, 
8 public and 153 private baths, 4 forums, 4 har- 
bors, 52 major colonnaded streets, 322 other 
streets, and 4,388 domus (substantial masonry 
houses?). Multistory tenement houses clearly ex- 
isted, for their height was limited by law to 100 
ft., and specific regulations protected the right to 
a view of the sea, governed the distance between 
houses, the width of streets, etc. (Cod.Just. VIII 
10.12, reign of Zeno). Constantinople was becom- 
ing overcrowded. 

The second half of the 5th C. ushered in a 
period of mounting civil strife and frequent FIRES, 


the most serious being that of 465, which de- 
stroyed about half the city. Circus riots became 
common: the Nika REvoLT of 532 left the center 
of the city in ashes—allowing Justinian I to in- 
dulge his passion for building. Prokopios (Build- 
ings, bk.1) provides a detailed description of Jus- 
tinian’s (and Justin I’s) constructions, which 
suggests, apart from such public buildings as had 
to be rebuilt after the fire, a shift towards churches, 
33 of which are mentioned. The churches built 
or rebuilt under Justinian include Hara SOPHIA, 
Sts. SERGIOS AND Bakcuos, and St. Irene. Another 
large church built in the Justinianic period was 
St. PoLyEuKTos. The population of the city was, 
however, gravely depleted, perhaps halved by the 
PLAGUE Of 542. 

Building activity at Constantinople continued 
until ca.600, then ground to a halt. In 618 grain 
supply from Egypt was permanently discontin- 
ued. In 626 Constantinople suffered its first siege, 
the cutting of its major source of water (restored 
only in 768), and the devastation of both its Eu- 
ropean and Asiatic suburbs. In 674—78 Arab fleets 
blockaded it. In 715 Anastasios II, foreseeing 
another Arab attack, expelled all inhabitants who 
were unable to lay up provisions for three years: 
only a shrunken population could have survived 
the Arab siege of 717-18. In 740 a terrible earth- 
quake threw down a considerable portion of the 
walls; the catastrophic plague of 747 followed. 

Practically no building, other than defensive, is 
recorded for the period ca.600—ca.780. By the 
end of the period of Iconoclasm, Constantinople 
must have had a population of a few tens of 
thousands living amid the ruins of past glories. 
Only one public granary appears to have survived, 
and one harbor (out of four) continued to func- 
tion for nonmilitary purposes. The great public 
baths and theaters were abandoned. Limited con- 
struction was resumed under Irene; Theophilos 
repaired the sea walls; Basil I undertook a sus- 
tained effort of rebuilding mostly churches that 
had fallen into ruin (31 are named). The pattern 
of imperial munificence, already foreshadowed by 
Justinian, shifted decisively to imperial palaces, 
churches, and hospices for the poor and the ill; 
what had earlier been the “civic” sphere was aban- 
doned. 

Doubtless Constantinople started to recover in 
the gth C., with a gradual rise in population and 
an expansion of commercial and artisanal activi- 


CONSTANTINOPLE 511 


ties. The Book OF THE Eparcu, while silent about 
many crafts, mentions the importation of com- 
modities both from the provinces and foreign 
countries (silk, linen, unguents, honey, wax, soap). 
The textile industry was active, but exports se- 
verely discouraged. Shops along the main street 
were beginning to charge high rents (N. Oiko- 
nomides, DOP 26 [1972] 345-55). Probably the 
opening up of the Black Sea by the Kievan princes, 
for all the dangers it brought (witness the attacks 
on Constantinople in 860, 941, and 1043), bene- 
fited trade. Even so, little was built in the 10th C. 

The 11th—12th C. witnessed further expansion. 
Artisanal occupations became profitable, trades- 
men exerted a growing influence on political af- 
fairs, and new crafts were developed (e.g., the 
manufacture of bronze Doors), some of which 
were exported to Italy. Of greater importance 
was the installation of foreign trading colonies. 
While the Rus’ in the 10th C. were kept at arm’s 
length at St. Mamas on the lower Bosproros, the 
Amalfitans, Venetians, Pisans, Genoese, Anconi- 
tans, and Germans gained concessions along the 
Golden Horn, opposite Galata, acquiring their 
own landing facilities, storehouses, and churches. 
The size of the colony of Latins in the late 12th 
C. has been estimated at about 7,000 (Hendy, 
Economy 593f), although much higher figures are 
given in some sources. 

In terms of construction a feature of the 11th— 
12th C. is the establishment by emperors and 
members of the aristocracy of great urban “ab- 
beys”—monasteries in name, they also served ed- 
ucational, welfare, and financial functions. Such 
were the monasteries of the Virgin PERIBLEPTOS, 
of Kosmas AND DamMiIANOS, of the MANGANA, and 
of Christ PANTOKRATOR, and the ORPHANAGE of 
St. Paul (enlarged by Alexios I), the last so big 
that a tour of it required a whole day. 

The great fire of 1203 and the Latin occupation 
(1204-61) destroyed the prosperity of the Kom- 
nenian city, which was subjected to systematic 
spoliation. The initial recovery under the Palaio- 
logoi is mostly reflected in further imperial and 
aristocratic monasteries, some of which survive 
(St. Andrew in Krisei, the Virgin PAMMAKARISTOS, 
Christ of the CHora, etc.). By the middle of the 
14th C. decay had set in. Travelers from abroad 
(CLavyo, Pero Tarur, BERTRANDON DE LA Bro- 
QUIÈRE, Buondelmonti) describe a partially de- 
serted city contrasting with the bustle of Genoese 


512 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: CONSTANTINOPLE I 


Pera across the water. When it was stormed by 
the Turks in 1453, Constantinople probably had 
a population of 50,000. 

LIT. Janin, CP byz. Janin, Églises CP. Miiller-Wiener, 
Bildlexikon. C. Mango, Le développement urbain de Constanti- 
nople (Paris 1985). A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople 
(London 1899). G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale (Paris 
1974). J. Ebersolt, Constantinople byzantine et les voyageurs du 
Levant (Paris 1918). A.M. Schneider, Byzanz (Berlin 1936). 
E. Mamboury, “Les fouilles byzantines à Istanbul,” Byzan- 
tion 11 (1936) 229-83; 13 (1938) 301-10; 21 (1951) 425- 
59- -C.M. 


CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF. Con- 
stantinople was the site of many ecumenical and 
local councils. 


CONSTANTINOPLE I. Summoned by THEODo- 
sios I (May—9 July 381), this second ecumenical 
council of some 150 bishops had as its object the 
final settlement of the Arian controversy. Al- 
though no Western representatives attended, by 
451 the council was deemed important enough to 
be universally accepted as ecumenical. Under the 
presidency of Meletios, bishop of Antioch (360— 
81), the synod endorsed the faith of the First 
Council of Nicaea as well as the full consubstan- 
tiality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. In effect, 
both PNEUMATOMACHOI and followers of APOLLI- 
NARIS were condemned. Probably the so-called 
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creep, which CHAL- 
CEDON later attributed to the council, was origi- 
nally a local baptismal profession of faith contain- 
ing the Nicene formula. It may in fact have existed 
as early as 362. Finally, the council proclaimed 
Constantinople as the second see of Christendom 
with honorary precedence over all other sees, 
except the elder Rome (canon 3). The basis of 
this primacy, as the canon succinctly states, was 
the city’s political standing—‘“because it is New 
Rome.” The acts of the council either did not 
survive, or, more probably, never existed. 

LIT. Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles 2:1~48. J.N.D. Kelly, Early 
Christian Creeds (New York 1981) 296-331. GOrThR 27.4 
(1982) 359-453 (fascicle dedicated to the council). A.M. 
Ritter, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol (Göttin- 
gen 1965). E. Chrysos, “Die Akten des Konzils von Kon- 
stantinopel I (381), Romanitas-Christianitas (Berlin—New 
York 1982) 426-35. —A.P. 


CONSTANTINOPLE II. The fifth ecumenical 
council (5 May—2 June 553) was convened by 
JUSTINIAN I to reconcile the proponents of Mon- 
OPHYSITISM by convincing them that the Council 


of CHALCEDON had not lapsed into NESTORIANISM 
or denied the Council of EpHesus. Therefore the 
council condemned the THREE CHAPTERS (the 
person of THEODORE oF Epgssa, and some writ- 
ings of THEODORET OF CyrruHus and IBAs of 
Edessa), which the Monophysites had viewed as 
anti-Cyrillian and hence Nestorian. Although ini- 
tially apprehensive that the council was rejecting 
Chalcedon, Pope ViciLius eventually accepted the 
council’s decisions (Dec. 553). As a matter of plain 
fact, the posthumous condemnation of the three 
5th-C. authors of the Three Chapters reaffirmed 
and preserved the authority of Chalcedon and 
CYRIL of Alexandria. Thus the modern criticism 
(C. Moeller) that the council’s NEO-CHALCEDONISM 
opposed authentic Chalcedonian Christology and 
somehow betrayed Chalcedon is unwarranted. The 
council also anathematized OrIGEN. This was aimed 
at the Origenist monastic parties of Egypt and 
Palestine, who had proposed their own heretical 
solution to the Christological problem. 

Reconciliation, however, proved impossible, as 
Monophysitism was by then too deeply en- 
trenched to be influenced by the emperor's des- 
perate bargains or anti-Nestorian zeal. The Egyp- 
tians, as SOPHRONIOS of Jerusalem put it, were 
not a race to change their minds or end their 
hostility toward the central government of Con- 
stantinople. 

sources. Mansi 9:171—657. PG 86:945—93. E. Schwartz, 
Drei dogmatische Schriften [ustinians (Munich 1939). ACO 4:1. 

uit. C. Moeller, “Le chalcédonisme et le néo-chalcédon- 
isme en orient de 45) à la fin du VIF siècle,” in Grillmeier- 
Bacht, Chalkedon 1:637—720. E. Chrysos, Die Bischofshsten 
des V. ökumenischen Konzils (553) (Bonn 1966). Idem, He 
ekklesiastike politike tou Toustinianou kata ten erin pert ta tria 
kephalaia kai ten E’ oikoumeniken synodon (Thessalonike 1969). 
F.X. Murphy, P. Sherwood, Constantinople II et III (Paris 


1974) 9-190. E. Zettl, Die Bestätigung des V. ökumenischen 
Konzils durch Papst Vigilius (Bonn 1974). —A.P. 


CONSTANTINOPLE III. The sixth ecumenical 
council (7 Nov. 680-16 Sept. 681) was convoked 
by CONSTANTINE IV to settle the controversy over 
MONOTHELETISM. This doctrine was used by the 
government early in the 7th C. to conciliate the 
dissident Monophysites. The council drew up a 
comprehensive decree in which the reality of 
Christ’s two wills and two energeiai (operations), 
one divine and the other human, were acknowl- 
edged and declared inseparably united to one 
another (Mansi 11:637B). For if there were two 
natures in the incarnate Christ, as Chalcedonian 


CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: Loca. Council oF 815 513 


Christology affirmed, there had to be two wills. 
All those accused of Monotheletism were anath- 
ematized, including Pope Honorius (625-38), who 
had given his written approval to the doctrine, 
and four patriarchs of Constantinople (e.g., SER- 
cios I and PyrruHos). The earlier opponents of 
Monotheletism, MaxiMos THE CONFESSOR, Pope 
Martin I, and SopHronios of Jerusalem, were 
thus vindicated. To complete its work and to issue 
disciplinary canons, the TRULLO council convened 
in 691-92. 

source. Mansi 11:189—922. 

Lit. W.M. Peitz, “Martin 1. und Maximus Confessor: 
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Monotheletenstreites in den 
Jahren 645-668,” HisiJb 38 (1917) 213-36, 429-58. V. 
Grumel, “Recherches sur l'histoire du monothélisme,” FO 
27 (1928) 6-16, 257-77; 28 (1929) 19-34, 272-82; 29 
(1930) 16—28. F.X. Murphy, P. Sherwood, Constantinople II 
ei III (Paris 1974) 133-260. R. Riedinger, Die Präsenz- und 
Subscriptionslisten des VI. oekumenischen Konzils (680/81) 
(Munich 1979). -A.P. 


Councit oF 869-70. Basit I convoked this 
council (5 Oct. 869-28 Feb. 870) to settle the 
Photian schism and to restore communion with 
Rome. In the presence of three papal legates, 
Patr. PHotios was deposed and anathematized 
and his predecessor IcnaTros reinstated. Despite 
protests from the Roman delegation, it was an- 
nounced at the council that Bulgaria was placed 
under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constanti- 
nople. In addition, 27 canons were issued endors- 
ing such matters as the theory of the PENTARCHY 
and the veneration of images (canons 3 and 21). 

Following the restoration of Photios, the deci- 
sions of 869-70 were annulled at the council of 
Constantinople of 87g—80 (see below). The coun- 
cil of 869—70 was therefore omitted from the list 
of ecumenical councils recognized by the Latin 
church, until the second half of the 11th C. After 
the dispute with MıcnaeEL I Kerourarios, the 
West began to include it among the ecumenical 
councils. This interpretation was due (as Dvornik 
conclusively demonstrated) to Western canonists, 
who thought the council had not been annulled 
in 87g. Except for a synopsis of the original Greek 
text (Mansi 16:308—420), the council’s acts survive 
only in the Latin translation of Anastasius BIB- 
LIOTHECARIUS. 

SOURCE. Mansi 16:1:—208. 

tir. Dvornik, Photian Schism 132-58. D. Stiernon, Con- 
stantinople IV (Paris 1967). Der Kampf um das Menschenbild. 


Das achte Gkumenische Konzil von 869/70 und seine Folgen, ed. 
H.H. Schéffler (Dornach 1986). -A.P. 


Councit oF 879-80. This council composed 
of 383 bishops solemnly recognized PHoTios as 
patriarch and annulled the decisions of the anti- 
Photian council of Constantinople of 869-70 (see 
above). As Dvornik has shown, its rehabilitation 
and vindication of Photios definitively ended the 
Photian schism, because the pope, Jonn VIII, 
never repudiated the council’s decisions, to which 
two papal legates had subscribed. Thus the “sec- 
ond schism” described by subsequent “legend” 
never occurred. On the contrary, the council suc- 
ceeded at achieving reunion and was even rec- 
ognized in Rome as “ecumenical” until the Gre- 
gorian Reform, when the official Roman tradition 
was abandoned in favor of the council of 86g. 

Likewise with Rome’s full endorsement, the 
council anathematized anyone who would tamper 
with the original text of the creed (Mansi 17:520E— 
521A). Although the “privileges” of Rome were 
recognized, the canonical and judicial authority 
of pope and patriarch were defined in terms of 
equality (canon 1). Papal jurisdiction over the Byz. 
church was thus excluded. The council’s decisions 
were inserted in every subsequent Orthodox col- 
lection of canon law and normally followed those 
of the first seven ecumenical councils. It is re- 
ferred to as “ecumenical” by some Byz. authors. 

SOURCE. Mansi 17:373—526. 

LIT. Dvornik, Photian Schism 159-201. J. Meijer, A Suc- 
cessful Council of Union: A Theological Analysis of the Photian 
Synod of 879-880 (Thessalonike 1975). J-L. Boojamra, “The 
Photian Synod of 87g~80 and the Papal Commonitorium 
(879),” BS/EB g (1982) 1—23. V. Peri, “Il concilio di Cos- 
tantinopoli dell’87g—80 come problema filologico e storio- 
grafico,” AnnHistCon 9 (1977) 29-42- -A.P. 


LocaL COUNCIL oF 754. See HIERIA, LOCAL 
COUNCIL OF. 


LocaL CounciL oF 815. This council, which 
met in Hagia Sophia in spring 815, marks the 
second restoration of IconocLasM. The iconodule 
patriarch N1kEPHOROS I was deposed shortly be- 
fore the council and replaced by the Iconoclast 
TuHEOvoTOs l. Promoted by Leo V, who was con- 
vinced that the military disasters of his imperial 
predecessors, IRENE and NIkKEPHOROS I, were 
caused by their support of images, the council 
repudiated the decisions of Nicaea II (787) and 
reaffirmed those of Hreria (754). Although a 
committee headed by Jonn (VII) GRAMMATIKOS 
had assembled a florilegium in preparation for the 
council, its renewed opposition to image venera- 


514 | CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: Loca CounciL oF 843 


tion was based on a repetition of the Christological 
arguments of Hieria: an icon either depicts the 
uncircumscribable Godhead, or else divides the 
Lord’s humanity from his divinity, thus com- 
pounding the evil (Ostrogorsky, infra 50). The 
council’s doctrinal definition (Horos) called icons 
“spurious” and ordered their destruction, but (un- 
like Hieria) refrained from declaring them idols. 
Only fragments of the acts of 815 survive. 

SOURCE. Ostrogorsky, Bilderstr. 46—60. 

LIT. P.J. Alexander, “The Iconoclastic Council of St. 


Sophia (815) and Its Definition (Horos),” DOP 7 (1953) 
35-66. —A.P. 


Loca. COUNCIL OF 843. Summoned by the 
widowed empress THEODORA on the first Sunday 
of Lent (11 March 843), this council marks the 
official destruction of IconocLasm and the solemn 
restoration of image veneration in the Byz. church. 
The deliberations of this assembly are lost. Its 
restoration of images was understandably based 
on the authoritative decisions of Nicaea II (787). 
Hence its excommunication of all those who stub- 
bornly clung to the belief that the incarnate Lord 
was “indescribable.” The council also deposed the 
patriarch Jonn VII GRAMMATIKOS, replacing him 
with MeTHODIOS I. Later the liturgical text of the 
SYNODIKON OF ORTHODOXY was composed to com- 
memorate the TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY. 


LIT. C. Mango, “The Liquidation of Iconoclasm and the 
Patriarch Photios,” in Iconoclasm, 133-40. -A.P. 


Loca. Council or 920. The council settled 
the controversy over the TETRAGAMY OF Leo VI, 
which had divided the Byz. church for nearly two 
decades. In effect, it successfully resolved the 
schism between, on the one hand, Nicuo.as I 
MystTrkos and his followers, who had been un- 
willing to sanction either the union of Leo VI 
with ZOE KARBONOPSINA or its issue, and, on the 
other, the bishops supporting EurHymrios, who 
had granted the desired dispensation. Specifically, 
fourth marriages were explicitly banned by the 
council’s Tomos oF UNION (9 July 920). Although 
third marriages were condemned, childless wid- 
owers under 4o years of age were exempt, while 
those with children were subject to a four-year 
penance. The council, according to Nicholas’s cor- 
respondence (ed. Jenkins and Westerink, ep.94, 
361.20~22), also made provisions for restoring 
bishops expelled from their sees during the con- 
troversy. 


SOURCE. Tomos unionis—Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constant. 
nople: Miscellaneous Writings, ed. L.G. Westerink (Washing. 
ton, D.C., 1981) 56-85, with Eng. tr. A.P. 


LocaL Councit oF 1094. This council was 
convened by Alexios I in Blachernai in order to 
resolve the case of Leo oF CHALCEDON. The chro- 
nology of the synod is obscure: Grumel (RegPatr, 
fasc. 3, no.g67) and Beck (Kirche 57) date it in 
1092, Gautier (infra) at the end of 1094, A. Gla- 
binas (He epi Alexiou Komnenou [1081-1118] peri 
hieron skeuon, ketmelion kai hagion eikonon eris (‘Thes- 
salonike 1972] 179-82) at the beginning of 1095. 

ED. and LIT. P. Gautier, “Le synode de Blachernes 
(finiog4). Etude prosopgraphique,” REB 29 (1971) 213- 
84. -A.K. 

LocaL Councu. oF 1156—57. The two ses- 
sions, 26 Jan. 1156 and 12 May 1157, met to 
discuss the teaching of the patriarch-elect Soteri- 
chos PANTEUGENOS concerning Christs sacrifice 
on the Cross. The council affirmed through its 
spokesman, NICHOLAS OF METHONE, that the sac- 
rifice of the Cross and the eucharistic sacrifice 
(which were one and the same) were offered to 
the entire Trinity, rather than to the Father alone 
as Panteugenos maintained. The council reasoned 
that the redemptive or “economic” activity of God, 
of which Christ’s oblation was the expression, was 
a Trinitarian action involving all three persons of 
the Trinity. In addition, the council (quoting the 
liturgical formula of the CHEROUBIKON) argued 
that because of the single hypostatic union of 
Christ, the Logos both “offers and is offered, 
receives and is received.” The anathemas con- 
demning Panteugenos were entered into the SYN- 
ODIKON OF ORTHODOXY (Gouillard, “Synodikon” 
72—74, 210-15). 

SOURCES. Acla—PG 140:148—201. Patmiake Bibliotheke, ed. 
I. Sakkellion (Athens 1890) 316-28. 

LIT. P. Ceremuchin, “Konstantinopol'’skij Sobor 1157,” 


Bogoslouskie Trudy 1 (Moscow 1960) 87—109. RegPatr, fasc. 
1, nos. 1038, 1041. —A.P. 


LocaL Councit oF 1166-67. This council 
involved a series of meetings summoned by Emp. 
MANUEL I KoMNENOS to pronounce on the mean- 
ing of the text, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 
14:28). The origins of the controversy lie in the 
active political and ideological relations with the 
West during Manuel’s reign. It is usually agreed 
that his ambassador, DEMETRIOS OF LAMPE, intro- 
duced this controversy in Byz. after discussing the 
question with Western theologians during his mis- 


CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: LocaL Counci oF 1341 515 


sions to Italy and Germany. In the debate, the 
opposition argued that the Son could not be in- 
ferior to the Father because Christ’s humanity 
had been deified and was thus “one” with his 
divinity. The council found this interpretation 
close to MonopHysirisM and unacceptable. Spe- 
cifically, the reality of Christ’s humanity, as con- 
crete humanity—“created and mortal”—was in- 
ferior to God. The hypostatic union of Christ’s 
two natures (as defined by the Council of CHAL- 
CEDON) did not erase the differences between 
Christ’s humanity and divinity; his divinity was 
greater. Likewise, in Trinitarian theology proper, 
the Father was considered “greater” than the Son 
inasmuch as he is hypostatically the unique cause, 
the principium divinitatis of both the Son and the 
Spirit. Finally, the council also found unaccept- 
able the following three interpretations: that the 
Johannine text separated intellectually Christ's 
human from his divine nature; that it underlined 
his kenosis, or condescension, during the Incar- 
nation; and that it indicated his position (due to 
his shared humanity) as God’s favored Son. The 
council’s condemnation of the opposition was sub- 
sequently inserted in the SYNODIKON OF ORTHO- 
poxy. The marble plates on which its decision 
was inscribed were placed in Hagia Sophia (C. 
Mango, DOP 17 [1963] 317-30). The problems 
of this council continued to be discussed during 
the session of Feb. 1170. 

sources. PG 140:201—84. S.N. Sakkos, “He en Konstan- 
tinoupolei synodos tou 1170,” in Theologikon Symposion in 
Honor of P. Chrestou (Thessalonike 1967) 313-52. Gouil- 
lard, “Synodikon” 76—80, 216-26. 

LIT. S.N. Sakkos, “Ho Pater meizon mou estin” B’. Erides 
kai synodoi kata ton IB‘ aiona (Thessalonike 1968). P. Classen, 
“Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner,” 
BZ 48 (1955) 339-68. RegPair, fasc. 1, nos. 1060, 1062, 
1065, 1076. G. Thetford, “The Christological Councils of 


1166 and 1170 in Constantinople,” SVTAQ 31 (1987) 143- 
61. -A.P. 


LocaL CounciL oF 1285, also known as the 
Second Council of Blachernai (5 Feb.—Aug. 1285). 
Presided over by Patr. Grecory II, the council 
was convoked at BLACHERNaI to decide whether 
the expression “from the Son” (Lat. FILIOQUE) was 
equivalent to the patristic phrase “through the 
Son” advocated by the Unionist ex-patriarch JOHN 
XI Bexkos, who held that the hypostatic existence 
or procession of the Spirit was “through” or “from” 
the Son. The council pronounced this unaccept- 
able, for the Spirit’s eternal mode of origin is an 


act of the hypostasis of the Father and not of the 
essence. Rather than revealing the Spirit’s per- 
sonal procession, the phrase “through the Son” 
simply refers to the Spirit’s energetic, eternal 
manifestation by the Son—an activity common to 
all three divine persons (Tomos, PG 142:240C-— 
D). Only in this sense is the Spirit said to proceed 
through or even from the Son (ex patre filioque). 
Besides condemning Bekkos, the assembly for- 
mally repudiated the Council of Lyons (1274). 
Although several ecclesiastics subsequently op- 
posed the synodal Tomos of 1285, penned by 
Gregory himself, the church never altered or re- 
jected it. Thus it holds a permanent place in 
Orthodox tradition. The council, in fact, is of 
major importance as the only official conciliar re- 
action of Byz. to the filioque. It should be noted 
that the same distinctions among ENERGY, HYPO- 
STASIS, and SUBSTANCE, which Gregory made and 
the council endorsed, were later elaborated and 
developed by Gregory PALAMAS. 

sources. Tomos—PG 142:233—-46. V. Laurent, “Les 
signataires du second synode des Blachernes (été 1285),” 
EO 26 (1927) 129-49. 

uit. Papadakis, Crisis in Byz. 62-101, 155-67 (tr. of 
Tomos). —-A.P. 


LocaL CounciL oF 1341. The council was 
convoked (10 June) under the presidency of Emp. 
ANDRONIKOS III to resolve the dispute between 
Gregory PaLamas and BARLAAM OF CALABRIA. Both 
Patr. Jonn XIV Kaekas and future Emp. JOHN 
VI KANTAKOUZENOS were present. The one-day 
session was unfavorable to Barlaam, who there- 
fore soon left Constantinople. A second council, 
with the same participants, convened in Aug. and 
condemned Gregory AKINDYNOS, who had contin- 
ued the struggle on Barlaam’s departure. Since 
Andronikos had died days after the June debate, 
Kantakouzenos presided. 

The synodal Tomos published after the Aug. 
meeting is unmistakably Palamite in content (cf. 
PG 151:680B, 688C), reflecting the victory won 
for HESYCHASM. Because it concentrates solely on 
the June meeting and fails to mention the second 
council in Aug. and its formal condemnation of 
Akindynos, its authenticity has been questioned. 
Indeed, M. Jugie (DTC 11 [1932] 1778-84) criti- 
cized the document as unreliable, a tampered 
version of the June debate that Kantakouzenos 
had forced Kalekas to sign. J. Meyendorff, how- 
ever, has argued that the political rivalry between 


516 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: Loca Council or 1347 


Kalekas and Kantakouzenos for control of the 
regency explains the shape of the Tomos. Specif- 
ically, Kalekas refused to present the Aug. synod 
as official because his adversary had usurped an 
imperial prerogative by presiding over it; ac- 
knowledging the second council would have im- 
plied support of Kantakouzenos’s imperial ambi- 
tions. Kalekas, therefore, accepted only the earlier 
synod—excluding the Aug. session—simply be- 
cause it was the one at which Andronikos had 
presided, hence the shape of the Tomos. 

SOURCE. Tomos—PG 151:679-92. 

uit. J. Bois, “Le synode hésychaste de 1341,” EO 6 


(1903) 50-60. Weiss, Kantakuzenos 103-12. Meyendorff, 
Palamas 42—62. —A.P. 


LocaL Councit oF 1347. This council of 8 
Feb. reconfirmed the decisions of 1341, which 
had settled the controversy between Gregory Pa- 
LAMAS and BARLAAM OF CALABRIA Over HESY- 
CHASM. These decisions had been overturned by 
the regency of ANNA oF Savoy and Patr. JOHN 
XIV Karexas during the long civil war (1341- 
47). The synodal Tomos of 1347 actually incor- 
porates the decisions reached by an earlier assem- 
bly (2 Feb.), days before the triumphant entry of 
Joun VI Kantakouzenos into Constantinople. 
Favoring PALAMIsM, these decisions include the 
deposition of Kalekas and the excommunication 
of Axinpynos. The text gives a Kantakouzenist 
version of the civil war by blaming Kalekas alone, 
rather than Anna or Alexios APOKAUKOS, both of 
whom are viewed as the patriarch’s victims. Aside 
from its “legitimist” interpretation of the war, the 
Tomos also ratifies the doctrinal decisions of the 
local council of Constantinople of 1341 (see above) 
and lifts Kalekas’s excommunication of Palamas. 
The document contains signatures of three sets 
of bishops: those present on 2 Feb., those who 
signed before the enthronement of the new he- 
sychast patriarch Isipore I (17 May), and those 
who signed afterward, including Palamas as newly 
elected archbishop of Thessalonike. 


Meyendorff, Byzantine Hesychasm (London 
—A.P. 


SOURCE. J. 
1974) pt. VII (1963), 209-27. 


Loca CounciL or 1351. Although the church 
had approved PALaMIs» as early as the local coun- 
cil of Constantinople of 1341 (see above), political 
circumstances had denied it a conclusive victory. 
The anti-Palamite camp and its leading spokes- 
man, Nikephoros Grecoras, continued their op- 


position even after the second approval of the 
doctrine (1347) and the condemnation of its ear. 
lier opponents, BARLAAM OF CALABRIA and Gre. 
gory AKINDYNOS. Therefore Emp. JOHN VI Kay. 
TAKOUZENOS convened the synod in Blachernaj 
(28 May) to reaffirm the decisions of 1341 and 
1347. Gregory PALAmMas, Patr. KALLISTos I, and 
the opposition were all present. The dissidents 
were heard in several sessions, then finally con. 
demned (g June); the council assembled in July 
without them. 

This session approved Palamas’s theology in 
detail. Specifically, it sanctioned both his defense 
of the deification of man in Christ and his dis- 
tinction between substance and energies; it also 
categorically denied the claim that the uncreated 
energy introduced a complexity (syntheton) in God 
(PG 151:732AB). The synodal Tomos incorpo- 
rating these decisions, evidently written by Pur- 
LOTHEOS KOKKINOS, metropolitan of Herakleia, was 
signed in Aug. in Hagia Sophia (Reg 5, no.2982). 
Jonn V PaLaloLocos, who was not in Constan- 
tinople then, signed in Feb. or Mar. 1352 (RJ. 
Loenertz, BZ 47 [1954] 116). The council's deci- 
sions were later inserted into the SYNODIKON oF 
OrTHODOxyY. By the end of the century, the whole 
Eastern church had recognized and accepted this 
unconditional canonization of Palamite doctrine. 

SOURCE. Tomos—PG 151:717-63. 

LIT. F. Délger, “Ein byzantinisches Staatsdokument in 
der Universitatsbibliothek Basel: ein Fragment des Tomos 
des Jahres 1351,” HistJb 72 (1953) 205-21. A. Dold, Das 


Geheimnis einer byzantinischen Staatsurkunde aus dem Jahre 
1351 (Beuron 1958). Meyendorff, Palamas 94—101. 


CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF. The 
architectural monuments of Constantinople may 
be considered from the point of view of the fol- 
lowing three topics: public monuments, cisterns, 
and walls. The principal churches and palaces are 
the subject of independent entries. 


PUBLIC MONUMENTS. The architectural devel- 
opment of Constantinople may be divided into 
three main periods. 

First Period (4th—early 7th C.). Constantinople 
was built as a late antique city with all the normal 
features of contemporary urbanism, only more 
magnificent. A straight avenue bordered by co- 
lonnades (EMBOLOI!) was obligatory: at Constanti- 
nople this was the Mese, which ran from the arch 


CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF: PuBLic MONUMENTS | 517 


of the Milion near the H1ppopRoME to the Capi- 
tolium, a distance of 1.7 km, then as far again to 
the Constantinian Golden Gate. This longitudinal 
avenue was crossed at right angles by another 
(later called emboloi tou Domninou), with a tetra- 
pylon at the intersection. At intervals along the 
main avenue were squares, or forums (see AGORA), 
each adorned with suitable monuments. Two of 
these were inherited from ancient BYZANTION, 
namely the Strategion, later remodeled by Theo- 
dosios I, and the TeTrasTroon, which became the 
AUGUSTAION. 

The umbilicus of Constantine’s city consisted of 
a circular forum (called simply ho Phoros) bor- 
dered by porticoes. At its center stood a column 
(see COLUMNS, HonoriFic) made of drums of 
porphyry and supporting a statue of the emperor 
wearing a radiate crown. The column is still pre- 
served in a truncated form (Turk. Cemberlitas). 
On the north side of the Phoros was the SENATE 
House with a porch of porphyry columns; facing 
it on the south was a monumental fountain (nym- 
phaeum). The next forum to the west (Forum 
Tauri, corresponding to modern Beyazit) was laid 
out by Theodosios I in imitation of Trajan’s Forum 
in Rome: it had a triumphal arch on each side 
(parts of the west one are preserved; see ARCH, 
MONUMENTAL), a basilica and, on axis, a gigantic 
column covered with spiral reliefs commemorat- 
ing the emperor’s military exploits (destroyed 
Ca.1500). 

The next two forums to the west, the Forum 
Bovis (ho Bous) and the Amastrianos, are poorly 
documented. Then, on the city’s seventh hill (Xe- 
rolophos), was the Forum of Arkadios, with a 
second spirally decorated column (pedestal pre- 
served). At the western limit of the walled city, 
the GoLpEN Gate (both Constantine’s original and 
that constructed by Theodosios II farther west) 
had the form of a triumphal arch; evidence in- 
dicates that the processional way linking the two 
gates also received a monumental treatment. 

Nearly every emperor from Constantine I to 
Phokas commemorated his reign by erecting 
monuments in the capital. Beyond those already 
mentioned, only two survive: the so-called Col- 
umn of the Goths on the Seraglio Point, which 
may be Constantine’s, and Marcian’s Column. The 
colossal Corinthian capital discovered in 1959 in 
the courtyard of the Seraglio has been linked to 
a column of Leo I and the Barletta Colossus (U. 


Peschlow in Studien Deichmann 1:21—33). Justinian 
I was glorified by a column and equestrian statue 
in the Augustaion; Justin II erected a column of 
his own in the quarter called Deuteron and started 
to build another one (not completed) near the 
baths of Zeuxippos; Phokas put up a column near 
the Tetrapylon. In addition to imperial monu- 
ments, several statues of pagan gods, mythological 
figures, philosophers, and so on were imported 
from other cities by Constantine and his succes- 
sors and placed in public baths, forums, the Hip- 
podrome, and elsewhere. New honorific statues 
of persons other than emperors were also made, 
the last recorded one being a statue of Niketas, 
cousin of Herakleios (ca.614). A monumental 
weathervane called the ANEMODOULION was dec- 
orated with bronze statues. These display monu- 
ments were put up for the city’s adornment but 
also to express certain ideological messages (e.g., 
imperial victory, the wisdom of the senate, etc.) 
and to provide an appropriate setting for cere- 
monial occasions. 

Public buildings of an ornate character included 
the two Senate Houses; the BASILIKE next to the 
Augustaion, which appears to have been a vast 
stoa with a gilded roof surrounding a central 
courtyard; the theaters (of which little is known); 
the Roman amphitheater (Kynegion) and the 
HipPoDROME; the public BATHS, the biggest of 
which may have been the Constantianai (begun 
345, completed 427) and which also included the 
Karosianai (built by Valens in 375), the Arkadi- 
anai (395), the Honorianai (412), the Helenianai, 
and the bath of Dagistheos (started by Anastasios 
I, completed by Justinian in 528) in addition to 
the famous baths of ZEuxippos and the ancient 
bath of Achilles near the Strategion. The con- 
struction of baths was a favored sector of imperial 
munificence because of the popularity of bathing. 

Also constructed in the capital during the 4th 
through 6th C. were the GreaT PaLace and the 
Hormisdas, Antiochos, and Lausos palaces. The 
principal churches erected in this period were St. 
Mary of BLACHERNAI and St. Mary at CHALKOPRA- 
TEIA, the Basilica of St. John at the Stoupios 
MONASTERY, St. POLYEUKTOS, HAGIA SOPHIA, St. 
IRENE, Sts. SERGIOS AND Baxkcuos, and the HoLy 
APOSTLES. 

Second Period (7th—12th C.). The construction 
of display monuments ended in the early 7th C., 
by which time the city or, at any rate, its main 


518 | CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF: CISTERNS 


avenues and squares must have resembled a vast 
stage set. The “dark age” that followed caused 
the abandonment of earlier urbanistic practices, 
the gradual ruination of public buildings, and a 
shift in popular mentality: the monuments that 
remained were no longer understood for what 
they were and assumed a mythic character. They 
were invested with occult power, either beneficent 
or maleficent, and interpreted as presages of things 
to come. The cryptic messages they conveyed could 
be decoded only by “philosophers.” It is in this 
manner that they are interpreted in the PATRIA 
OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 

The so-called Macedonian Renaissance brought 
a few instances of the collection and reuse of 
earlier pieces of sculpture and one recorded case 
of the restoration of a monument (the masonry 
obelisk of the Hippodrome by Constantine VII) 
but did not return to the monumental tradition 
of antiquity. The Macedonian and Komnenian 
dynasties, however, constituted a period of con- 
siderable construction activity, during which the 
Mancana and BLACHERNAI palaces were built in 
Constantinople and the Bryas palace in the sub- 
urbs. New churches and monasteries of this time 
include the NEA EKKLESIA, MYRELAION, LIPS MON- 
ASTERY, KALENDERHANE CAMII, and PANTOKRATOR 
MONASTERY. 

Third Period (13th—15th C.). Following the 
Fourth Crusade and the period of Latin occupa- 
tion of Constantinople (1204—61), during which 
numerous buildings were damaged or fell into 
disrepair, a surge of new construction occurred 
under Michael VIII and Andronikos II. Perhaps 
to symbolize his work of restoration, Michael VIII 
erected a group of statuary near the Church of 
the Holy Apostles representing the emperor of- 
fering a model of the city to St. Michael. In 
addition to the palace of TEKFUR Sarayı, several 
new monasteries and churches were built, most 
notably the South Church at the Lips monastery, 
PAMMAKARISTOS, CHORA, and the Besaias ELPI- 
DOS NUNNERY. 

LIT. Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikon. Janin, CP byz. C. Mango, 
Le développement urbain de Constantinople (Paris 1985). Idem, 


“Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,” DOP 17 
(1963) 55-75. Dagron, CP imaginaire. -C.M. 


CISTERNS (xworépvar). Constantinople, with no 
rivers, few springs, and fast runoff of rainwater, 
needed reservoirs to tide the city over dry spells 
and lengthy sieges, when aQuEDUCTS might 


be threatened. Water from forests west of the city 
was introduced into open cisterns (total Capacity 
approximately 900,000 cubic m [Janin, infra 202])) 
and more than 80 covered cisterns (capacity ap. 
proximately 160,000 cubic m). Constantinople’s 
daily consumption of water was about 10,000 cu- 
bic m. Most cisterns were built between the late 
4th C. and early 7th C. as population burgeoned. 
The largest open cistern was that of Aetios (prob- 
ably the eparch of the city in 41g): built in 421, it 
measured 244 X 85 X about 14 m deep and had 
a capacity of between 250,000 and 300,000 cubic 
m. Covered cisterns included Binbirdirek (Philo- 
xenos), whose superposed columns reached a 
height of 12.4 m and were set in 16 rows of 14 
columns each (capacity about 40,000 cubic m), 
and the BasILikE (Yerebatan Sarayı), whose 336 
columns, 8 m high and set in 12 rows of 28 each, 
supported a chamber capable of holding approx- 
imately 78,000 cubic m. 

The major cisterns, usually placed on hills, sup- 


CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF: Cisterns. The Basi- 
like cistern (Yerebatan Sarayı). 





CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF: WALLS 519 


plied water to about 40 public baths as well as 
monasteries and churches. The use of columns 
rather than the brick and cement piers used by 
the Romans reduced maintenance costs; IMPOST 
BLOCKS make an early appearance in cisterns. Hy- 
draulic cement (opus signinum) lined the struc- 
tures. 

LIT. Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikun 278-85. Janin, CP byz. 
201-15. P. Forchheimer, J. Strzygowski, Die byzantinischen 


Wasserbehdlter von Konstantinopel (Vienna 1893). 
-K.M.K,, W.L. 


WALLS. The first fortifications of Constantino- 
ple, on the land side only, were started by Con- 
stantine | and completed by Constantius II. In 
the reign of Theodosios II the Land Walls were 
extended about 1.5 km to the west so as to de- 
scribe a huge arc, 6 km Jong, extending from the 
Proponus to the Golden Horn. Completed by 413 
and repaired on numerous occasions (notably after 
the earthquakes of 447, 740, 989, etc.), they con- 
tinued to protect the city throughout the Byz. 


period and parts of them are still standing. They 
consist of an inner wall 11 m high with towers at 
intervals of about 70-75 m, a lower outer wall 
also furnished with towers, and a moat. The walls 
are built of bonded masonry with bands of brick 
(five successive courses going right across the wall) 
alternating with bands of cut-stone facing, enclos- 
ing a core of mortared rubble. The only section 
of the Theodosian walls that has not survived was 
in the area of BLACHERNAI, where, as documented 
both in texts and visible remains, their original 
line was brought forward by Herakleios to enclose 
the Church of the Virgin and by Manuel I to 
protect the imperial palace. The Land Walls were 
pierced by six main gates, including the GOLDEN 
GATE, and a number of secondary posterns. 

The Sea Walls, both along the Propontis and 
the Golden Horn, consist of a single line of for- 
tifications and are today poorly preserved. They 
were first built in 439 and repaired many times, 
notably under the emperors Anastasios II and 


CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF: Walls. Western land walls of the city, first built 


under Emp. Theodosios II in 412/13. 





“Fe 


ee wm 






520 CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCHATE OF 


Theophilos. About 65 km west of Constantinople 
the Lonc WALL was built to defend the imperial 
capital from attack from that direction. 

tir. A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls 
of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites (London 1899). B. 
Meyer-Plath, A.M. Schneider, Die Landmauer von Konstan- 
tinopel, vol. 2 (Berlin 1943). A-M. Schneider, “Mauern und 
Tore am Goldenen Horn zu Konstantinopel,” NachGott 
(1950) 65-107. F. Dirimtekin, Fetihden önce Marmara surları 
(Istanbul 1953). Idem, Fetthden önce Haliç surları (Istanbul 
1956). Miiller-Wiener, Bildlexikon 286-319. -C.M. 


CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCHATE OF. 
Constantinople was one of the four major PA- 
TRIARCHATES of the eastern Mediterranean. 

History. According to legend, the see of Con- 
stantinople was founded by the apostle ANDREW, 
who ordained a certain Stachys as the first bishop 
of Byzantion. However, the information concern- 
ing the first bishops of the city, including two 
contemporaries of Emp. Constantine I, Metro- 
phanes and Alexander, is mostly legendary. Canon 
3 of the Council of Constantinople (381) estab- 
lished Constantinople’s place of honor in the ec- 
clesiastical hierarchy right after Rome; neverthe- 
less, the patriarch of Constantinople (if we can 
believe the statement of Sokrates [HE 5.8.14] that 
the bishop of Constantinople was already called 
patriarch at this time) had under his jurisdiction 
only the “megalopolis” and probably Thrace, 
whereas Pontos, Cappadocia, and Asia formed 
independent eparchies. Canon 28 of the Council 
of Chalcedon (451) confirmed the precedence of 
Constantinople over the patriarchates of ANTIOCH 
and ALEXANDRIA and its jurisdiction over all of 
Asia Minor. 

The bitter rivalry during the 5th C. between 
the patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexan- 
dria was a major factor—in addition to theological 
and cultural causes—in the controversy over 
MoNoPHYSITISM; the papacy’s support of Con- 
stantinople in this conflict contributed much to 
the defeat of Alexandria. In the 6th C. the polit- 
ical situation in Italy, which was first subordinated 
to the Ostrogothic kings and then conquered by 
the Byz. army, paved the way for Constantino- 
politan supremacy; this new status was reflected 
in the acceptance by the bishop of Constantinople 
of the title “of the New Rome” and esp. ECUMEN- 
ICAL PATRIARCH. 

The fall of Alexandria, Antioch, and JERUSALEM 


to the Arabs in the 7th C. deprived these three 
patriarchates of political significance. The patri- 
arch of Constantinople, however, was unable to 
profit from this situation and expand his role 
further, since he was restricted by the same factor 
that had previously promoted his power, that is, 
his proximity to the imperial throne. Meanwhile, 
the papacy, more or less emancipated from op- 
pressive political tutelage, was slowly gaining mo- 
mentum. From the 8th C. onward the popes as- 
sumed an independent attitude toward the Byz. 
emperors, developed further the concept of PRI- 
Macy, and endeavored to intervene in Byz. inter- 
nal affairs (ICONOCLAaSM, conflict between the pa- 
triarchs PHoTios and IGNATIOS, the TETRAGAMY 
oF Leo VI). Ideologically, Constantinople count- 
ered the concept of primacy with the doctrine of 
the PENTARCHY, the theoretical equality of the five 
patriarchates. For a time the patriarchate of Con- 
stantinople, taking advantage of the political power 
of the emperor, was able to expand its authority: 
it acquired jurisdiction over ILLYRICUM and south- 
ern Italy (8th C.), as well as newly converted 
Bulgaria (gth C.). In the 11th C., however, Roman 
influence started to penetrate into the Balkans, 
then into Syria and Palestine. Tensions between 
the papacy and the patriarchate of Constantinople 
came to a head in 1054 with the mission of Car- 
dinal Humperr to the Byz. capital and his excom- 
munication of Patr. MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS, re- 
sulting in a deep conflict between the two churches 
(see SCHISM). 

After the Fourth Crusade in 1204 a Latin pa- 
triarchate was established in Constantinople and 
the Orthodox patriarchate was forced to go into 
exile in Nicaea. Following its restoration in 1261 
the patriarchate of Constantinople never regained 
its former splendor. It was beset by controversies 
over the ARSENITES, UNION OF THE CHURCHES, 
and PaLamMisMm, which caused deep rifts among 
the faithful. Although its theoretical sphere of 
influence, which extended to Moscow, was much 
greater than that of the Palaiologan emperors, 
the patriarchs gradually lost even their authority 
over Slavic countries. The Serbs, for example, 
established an independent patriarchate at Peć in 
the mid-14th C. Nevertheless the patriarchate of 
Constantinople survived the political fall of the 
Byz. capital in 1453.- 

Organization and Jurisdiction of the Patriar- 
chate. The patriarch was in theory elected by the 


CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCHATE OF 521 


metropolitans of his patriarchate, and only they 
had the power to depose him. The metropolitans. 
however, were entitled only to nominate a slate 
of three candidates from whom the emperor would 
select the new head of the church, and in practice 
the emperor had the final say in both the appoint- 
ment and deposition of patriarchs. The patriarch 
administered the territory under his jurisdiction 
from his headquarters at Hagia Sophia, the GREAT 
CHURCH. In theory his right hand and potential 
successor was the SYNKELLOS; in practice the chief 
offices were held by the priests and deacons of 
Hagia Sophia—oIKONOMOS, SKEUOPHYLAX, SAKEL- 
LARIOS, CHARTOPHYLAX, KANSTRISIOS, REFERENDA- 
RIOS, etc. The metropolitans, whose number var- 
ied over the centuries (the Corpus of Laurent 
records 66 metropoleis), expressed their views 
through the councits and through the ENDE- 
MOUSA SYNODOS. The tensions between the offi- 
cials of Hagia Sophia and metropolitans (V. Tif- 
uxoglu, BZ 62 [1969] 25—72) reflected the conflict 
between centrifugal and centripetal tendencies. 
The revenues of the patriarchate of Constanti- 
nople came from lands located in various parts of 
the empire and from donations of the imperial 
treasury that amounted to between 180 and 200 
pounds of gold in the 11th C. 

The rights of the patriarch, besides his function 
as the bishop of the capital, included appeal in 
both ecclesiastical and secular cases, the STAU- 
ROPEGION, and the interpretation and elaboration 
of CANON LAW. From the 5th C. onward the pa- 
triarch of Constantinople played a role in the 
ceremony of the imperial CORONATION, but he 
actually crowned the emperor only in the absence 
of a senior emperor. In addition, the patriarch 
wielded an exceptional moral authority, although 
the extent of his influence depended on the real 
balance of power between the emperor and the 
church, the degree of popularity of the patriarch, 
his connection with the monastic establishment, 
etc. The theory of two powers—those of the em- 
peror and patriarch—emerges in the EPANAGOGE 
but did not find a consistent application in Byz. 
ideology: the bishops of Constantinople displayed 
a wide range of behavior, including cowardly sub- 
servience to a powerful ruler (ATTIKOs), fruitful 
collaboration with the throne (SERGIos I, ATHANA- 
sios I), and bold opposition to the imperial will 
(MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS). 

The Patriarchs, 300—1204. From the beginning 


of the 4th C. to 1204 there were 100 patriarchs; 
the average duration of a patriarchate was thus 
nine years. Of these patriarchs, 35 died after 
resigning or having been deposed and five were 
deposed temporarily. Data concerning the patri- 
archs’ social and ethnic background are incom- 
plete: at least one (Fravitas [488—89]) seems to 
have been a Goth and another (Niketas I [766— 
80]) of Slav origin; four were Italians, three came 
from Armenia or were of Armenian stock; three 
from Alexandria (all within the 4th—6th C.); six 
from Syria, including THEODOsIOS BORADIOTES 
(counted already as Armenian); one from Tarsos, 
one from Trebizond, five from Cappadocia, Pisi- 
dia (?), Phrygia, and Isauria, two from Cyprus, 
one from Aegina; approximately 12 were natives 
of Constantinople, even though the origin of some 
(e.g., CONSTANTINE III LEICHOUDES) has not been 
definitely established. Very few originated from 
the Balkans—Paut I was from Thessalonike and 
MICHAEL III possibly from Anchialos. 

Of the 100 patriarchs, 30 were former hegou- 
menot, hieromonks, or simple monks. L. Bréhier 
(6 CEB 1 [Paris 1950] 223) counts 45 patriarchs 
of monastic background during the period 705— 
1204, but he evidently included men of other 
status in this group. The “monastic patriarchs” 
are unevenly distributed over time: only five in 
the 4th—8th C.; seven from 815 to 912; only four 
in the 10th C.; and 14 in the 11th and 12th C. 
Ten patriarchs were former bishops transferred 
from other sees—seven of these belong to the 
earlier period, 341—766; later this practice almost 
ceased. Another ten patriarchs were former priests. 
The Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical administra- 
tion produced 27 patriarchs: at least four were 
synkelloi, 17 were administrators (skeuophylakes, oi- 
konomot, sakellarioi, etc.). Distribution of this cate- 
gory over time is also uneven: seven patriarchal 
officials became patriarchs in the 5th—6th C., 
whereas the undeveloped 4th-C. administration 
produced none; the 7th C. presents the highest 
number—ten in 607—715; only two are known 
from 730-80 and none in the gth—1 1th C. (unless 
we count the monks and synkellot EurHymios and 
Antony III [974-79] as officials). Patriarchal of- 
ficials reappear in the 12th C.—six between 1111 
and 1189. 

Among the former laymen were two princes— 
Stephen, son of Leo VI, and THEOPHYLAKTOS, 
son of Romanos I (both within the short period 


522 CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCHATE OF 


Patriarchs of Constantinople, 381-1465 





Name 


NEKTARIOS 

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 
Arsakios 

ATTIKOS 

Sisinnios I 
NESTORIOS 
Maximian 

PROKLOS 

FLAVIAN 

Anatolios 
Gennapios I 
AKAKIOS 

Fravitas 

Euphemios 
Makedonios II 
Timothy I 

John II Kappadokes 
Epiphanios 
Anthimos I 

MENAS 

EuTYCHIOS 

JOHN II] ScHoLasrixos 
Eutychios (2nd patr.) 
Joun IV NESTEUTES 
Kyriakos 

Thomas I 

SERGIOS I 

PykRHOS 

Paul II 

Pyrrhos (2nd patr.) 
Peter 

Thomas II 

John V 

Constantine I 
Theodore I 

George l 

Theodore I (2nd patr.) 
Paul II] 

Kallinikos I 

Kyros 

John VI 

GERMANOS I 
ANASTASIOS 
Constantine H 
Niketas I 

Paul IV 

TARASIOS 
NIKEPHOROS I 
THEopotos I KASSITERAS 
Antony I KASSYMATAS 





Tenure 


381-397 
398-404 
404-405 
406—425 
426-427 
428—431 
431-434 
434°—-446 
446-449 
449-458 
458-471 
472-489 
489-490 
490-496 
496-511 
511-518 
518—520 
520—535 
535—530 
536-552 
552—565 
565-577 
577-582 
582-595 
595/6~—606 
607-610 
610-638 
638-641 
641-653 
654 

654-666 
667-669 
669-675 
675-677 
677-679 
679-686 
686-687 
688—694 
694-706 
706-712 
712—715 
715—730 
730-754 
754—766 
766—780 
780—784 
784-806 
806-815 
815-821 


821-837? 











Name 


Jonn VII GRAMMATIKOS 
METHODIOS 

IGNATIOS 

PHorios 

Ignatios (2nd patr.) 
Photios (2nd patr.) 
Stephen I 

Anrony II KAULEAS 
NıcHoLas I Mystikos 
EUTIIYMIOS 

Nicholas I (2nd patr.) 
Stephen II 

Tryphon 
THEOPHYLAKTOS 
POLYEUKTOS 

Basil I Skamandrenos 
Antony III Stoudites 
Nicholas I] Chrysoberges 
[vacancy 

Sisinnios II 

Sergios II 

Eustathios 

ALEXIOS STOUDITES 
MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS 
CONSTANTINE ITI LEICHOUDES 
Jonn VIII XIPHILINOS 
Kosmas | 

Eustratios Garidas 
NricHocas ILI GRAMMATIKOS 
John IX Agapetos 

Leo Styppeiotes 

Michael II Kourkouas 
Kosmas II Attikos 
NicHoLas IV MouzALONn 
Theodotos II 

Neophytos I 


Constantine IV Chliarenos 
Loukas CHRYSOBERGES 
MIcHaEL ITI 

Chariton Eugeniotes 
THEODOSIOS BORADIOTES 
Basil If Kamateros 
Niketas H Mountanes 
Dositheos of Jerusalem 
Leontios Theotokites 


Dositheos of Jerusalem (2nd patr.) 
George II Xiphilinos ` 
JOHN X KAMATEROS 


Tenure 


837?—843 
843-847 
847-858 
858-867 
867-877 
877-886 
886-893 
893-901 
901-907 
907-912 
912-925 
925-927 
927-931 
933-956 
956-970 
979-974 
974-979 
979-991 
991-996] 
996-998 

1001—1019 

1019—1025 

1025—1043 

1043—1058 

1059—1063 

1064—1075 

1075—1081 

1081—1084 

1084-1111 

1111-1134 

1134-1143 

1143-1146 

1146-1147 

1147-1151 

1151/2-1153/4 
one month in 
1153/4 

115471157 

1157—1169/70 

1170-1178 

1178-1179 

1179-1183 

1183-1186 

1186-1189 
Feb. 1189 


Feb./Mar.—Sept/ 
Oct. 1189 


1189-1191 
1191-1198 
1198-1206 


CONSTANTINOPLE, SIEGE AND FALL OF 523 


Patriarchs of Constantinople (continued) 














Name Tenure Name Tenure 
MICHAEL IV AUTOREIANOS 1208-1214 Isaias 1323-1332 
Theodore H Eirenikos 1214-1216 Jonn XIV KALEKAS 1334—1347 
Maximos II 1216 ISIDORE | BOUCHEIRAS 1347-1350 
Manuel I Sarantenos 1216/17-1222 Karuısros I 1350—1353 
GERMANOS II 1223—1240 PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS 1353—1354 
Methodios II 1240/1? Kallistos I (2nd patr.) 1355—1363 
Manuel H 1243/4?-1254 Philotheos Kokkinos (and patr.) 1364—1376 
ARSENIOS AUTOREIANOS 1254—1260 Makarios 1376/7—1379 
Nikephoros II 1260~1261 NEILOS KERAMEUS 1380-1388 
Arsenios Autoreianos (2nd patr.) 1261—1265 Antony IV 1389—1390 
Germanos HHI 1265—1266 Makarios (2nd patr.) 1390-1391 
Joseru I 1266-1275 Antony IV (2nd patr.) 1391—1397 
Jonn XI Bekkos 1275-1282 Kallistos II Xanthopoulos 1397 
Joseph I (2nd patr.) 1282-1283 MATTHEW I 1397-1402, 
GREGORY II or Cyprus 1283-1289 1403-1410 
ATHANASIOS I 1289—1293 Euthymios II 1410—1416 
John XII Kosmas 1294—1303 Joser H 1416—1439 
Athanasios I (2nd patr.) 1303—1309 Metrophanes II 1440-1443 
NIPHON 1310—1314 Gregory III Mammes 1443—1450? 
Jonn XIII GLykys 1315—1319 Athanasios II 1450 
Gerasimos I 1320—1321 GENNADIOS IT SCHOLARIOS 1454-1456, 1463, 
1464-1465 





Based on Grumel, Chronologie 435-37, with modifications. 


of 886—956); to their numbers could be added 
Ignatios, but he was son of a deposed ruler and 
by the time of his election was a hegoumenos. In 
addition to these princes, 13 other laymen were 
elected: four in the 4th—6th C., only one in the 
7th C., seven between 784 and 1063, and only 
one, Bası II KaMaTerRos, the supporter of An- 
dronikos I, during the final 150 years of the 
period. 

The Patriarchs, 1204—1453. Thirty-five patri- 
archs ascended the throne of Constantinople dur- 
ing these 150 years, for an average reign of seven 
years. Especially after the Palaiologan restoration, 
service as patriarch proved to be risky. On account 
of the tumultuous history of the Orthodox church 
in this period, fully half of the patriarchs between 
1261 and 1453, 14 in all, either were deposed or 
abdicated under pressure. Seven of these were 
later reinstated. Reflecting the shrunken bound- 
aries of the empire, virtually all the patriarchs 
were of Greek ancestry, with the exception of 
Joseph II, who was Bulgarian. The vast majority 
of the Palaiologan patriarchs (80 percent) came 
from a monastic background; a number served 
as hegoumenot or metropolitans before being se- 


lected as patriarch (F. Tinnefeld, JOB 36 [1986] 
89—115). The only layman to become patriarch 
in this period was JOHN XIII Gryxys, a former 
logothetes tou dromou. 

LIT. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople. I. 
Les actes des patriarches, ed. V. Grumel, V. Laurent, J. Dar- 
rouzés, 6 fasc. (Paris 1972—79). Beck, Kirche 60—78. M. 
Gedeon, Patnarchkoi pinakes (Constantinople 1890). G. Every, 
The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1204 (London 1947). Gen- 
nadios, Historia tou oikoumenikou patriarcheiou, vol. 1 (Athens 
1953). Maxime de Sardes, Le patriarcat oecuménique dans 
l'église orthodoxe {Paris 1975). —A.K., A.M.T. 


CONSTANTINOPLE, SIEGE AND FALL OF. 
The Ottoman sultan MEHMED 11 resolved as early 
as autumn 1451 to attack Constantinople, but 
officially proclaimed his intent only in Jan. 1453. 
By 5 Apr., he positioned an army allegedly 80,000— 
100,000 strong outside the land walls of Constan- 
tinople, while an armada of more than 120 ships 
patrolled the coastal waters. CONSTANTINE XI, with 
the help of the Venetian commune and other 
foreign allies (notably the Genoese Giovanni Grus- 
TINIANI LONGO), defended Constantinople with 26 
warships and fewer than 7,000 fighting men. The 


524 CONSTANTIUS IT 


Genoese in Pera remained neutral, and schemes 
of Western Catholic powers to render aid were 
ineffective. 

Mehmed opened the siege on 6 Apr., but his 
numerical superiority did not bring instant vic- 
tory. Within a fortnight, the attackers had de- 
stroyed the outer wall in the Lykos Valley, using 
large cannons cast by Urbinus, a Hungarian en- 
gineer (see FIREARMS). The defenders, however, 
erected a stockade in front of the inner wall and 
repeatedly fought off enemy advances. Even 
Mehmed’s spectacular penetration of the Golden 
Horn on 22 Apr. gave him no decisive advantage. 
Indeed, on 25 May his grand vizier, Halil Pasha, 
counseled retreat. Mehmed, however, persevered 
with a final attack on Tuesday, 29 May, about 
1:30 A.M. 

During the next four hours, two futile charges 
were made on the landward defenses. Toward 
dawn Mehmed dispatched the Janissaries to breach 
the stockade. About an hour later, Constantino- 
ple’s defenses cracked at two points. A small band 
of Turks slipped through the unattended Ker- 
koporta Gate and took control of the Blachernai 
fortifications. Meanwhile the Janissaries breached 
the stockade and mounted the inner wall, near 
the Gate of St. Romanos (Top Kapı). By noon, 
most of Constantinople was conquered or had 
submitted; Constantine XI himself fell in battle 
shortly after the defenses were breached. That 
afternoon, Mehmed made his triumphal proces- 
sion to Hagia Sophia; his troops looted the city 
well into the evening. 

Contemporaries rationalized the halosis (“con- 
quest”) of 1453 with a variety of theocentric as 
well as secularizing explanations. Generally, the 
event compelled many to reject, reconsider, or 
refashion the traditional axioms of Byz. political 
and ecclesiological ideology. As a national trag- 
edy, moreover, it evoked a series of THRENOI, or 
laments, expressed variously in prose, poetry, and 
song. 


sources. J.R.M. Jones, The Siege of Constantinople 1453: 
Seven Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam 1972). La caduta 
di Costantinopoli: Le testimonianze dei contemporanei, ed. A. 
Pertusi, 2 vols. ([Rome-Milan] 1976). Testi inediti e poco noti 
sulla caduta di Costantinopoli, ed. A. Pertusi (Bologna 1983). 

LIT. S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople, 1453 (Cam- 
bridge 1965). Bombaci-Shaw, L'Impero ottomano 348-65. 
M.T. Gökbilgin, JA 5.2:1185-gg. E. Methuen, “Der Fall 
von Konstantinopel und der lateinische Westen,” HistZ 237 
(1983) 1-35. —S.W.R. 


CONSTANTIUS II (Kwvorávrios), caesar (from 
8 Nov. 324) and augustus (from g Sept. 337); 
born 7 Aug. 317, died Mopsoukrene, Cilicia, 3 
Nov. 361. The son of CONSTANTINE I and Fausta, 
he was married three times, to the daughter of 
Julius Constantius (name unknown), to Eusebia, 
and to Faustina. Perhaps responsible for the mur- 
der of his rivals after Constantine I’s death, Con- 
stantius was originally assigned Oriens, Pontica, 
Asiana, and Thrace. He became ruler of the en- 
tire empire after the overthrow of Constang | 
and the defeat of MAGNENTIUS in 353. Constantius 
fought the Persians throughout his reign and 
waged successful campaigns against the Germans 
in Gaul and the Sarmatians on the middle Dan- 
ube. He named GALLUS as caesar in 351 and 
JULIAN in 355 after the usurpation of Silvanus. 
Constantius was influenced by moderate ARIAN- 
1sM and resisted the urging of his brothers who 
wanted to recall ATHANASIOS of Alexandria. Con- 
stantius tried to restore unity to the church by 
councils held in Ariminium and Seleukeia in 359- 
60, but the supporters of the HOMOOUSION re- 
mained intransigent. Constantius is remembered 
as a persecutor of the Orthodox. His reign was 
important in the development of Constantinople, 
whose senators were granted equality with those 
of Rome in 357. He was responsible for the con- 
struction of the original church of Hacia SopHia; 
the Chronicon Paschale records his lavish donations 
at the dedication of the basilica in 360. Constan- 
tius died in Cilicia in 361 on his way to the West 
to deal with the usurpation of Julian. His best- 
known portrait is on a largitio dish now in Len- 
ingrad (Iskusstvo Vizanti, vol. 1, no.34). 

uit. R. Klein, Constantius I]. und die christliche Kirche 
(Darmstadt 1977). C. Vogler, Constance H et l'administration 
impériale (Strasburg 1979). M. Michaels-Mudd, “The Arian 


Policy of Constantius II and its Impact on Church-State 
Relations in the Fourth-Century Roman Empire,” BS/EB 6 


(1979) 95-111. -T.E.G. 


CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS, or Marcus Flavius 
Valerius Constantius, augustus (305-06); born 
Dacia Ripensis ca.250, died York 25 July 306. A 
fiction of Constantinian date made him a descen- 
dant of Claudius II Gothicus (268—70). Constan- 
tius had a typical military career, becoming gov- 
ernor of Dacia and then, in 288, praetorian prefect 
to MAXIMIAN in Gaul. In response to the usur- 
pation of Carausius and the loss of Britain as well 


as a part of Gaul, DiocLeTian proclaimed him 
CAESAR and member of the TETRARCHY on 1 Mar. 
293- At the same time he was adopted by Maxi- 
mian as part of the “Herculian Dynasty.” Later in 
that year Constantius drove Carausius from Gaul 
and in 296 reunited Britain to the empire. In 
practice though not in theory the Western prov- 
inces were divided between Constantius and Max- 
imian. Constantius was responsible for Britain 
and Gaul from his primary residence at Trier, 
but he campaigned regularly against German in- 
vaders south of the Rhine. Constantius was a 
devotee of SoL Invictus but apparently did not 
actively persecute the Christians. There is, how- 
ever, no reason to credit later Christian testimony 
that Constantius was a Christian. 

Upon the abdication of Diocletian and Maxi- 
mian in 305, Constantius became senior emperor 
in the West and apparently added Spain to his 
territories. In the same year Constantius crossed 
over to Britain and campaigned against the Picts 
in the north, where his son Constantine joined 
him. Constantius had children by two women, first 
HELENA the mother of CONSTANTINE I, and later 
(by 289) Theodora, the stepdaughter of Maxi- 
mian, with whom he had six children; one of 
them was named Anastasia (Resurrection), an in- 
dication of Jewish or Christian sympathy. 

LIT. Barnes, New Empire 35-37, 60f, 125f. R. Syme, 


“The Ancestry of Constantine,” Bonner Historia-Augusta- 
Colloquium 1971 (1974) 237-53- -T.EG. 


CONSTELLATIONS. The standard constella- 
tions referred to in Byz. texts are the 48 listed by 
Ptolemy in the Almagest (7.5—8.1): 21 northern 
constellations (Arktos mikra, Arktos megale, Dra- 
kon, Kepheus, Boötes, Stephanos boreios, Ho en 
gonasin [Herakles], Lyra, Ornis, Kassiopeia, Per- 
seus, Heniochos, Ophiouchos, Ophis, Oistos, Ae- 
tos, Delphis, Hippou protome, Hippos {Pegasos], 
Andromeda, and Trigonon); the 12 signs of the 
zodiac (Krios, Tauros, Didymoi, Karkinos, Leon, 
Parthenos, Chelai [Zygon], Skorpios, Toxotes, Ai- 
gokeros, Hydrochoos, and Ichthyes), and 15 
southern constellations (Ketos, Orion, Potamos 
[Eridanos], Lagoos, Kyon, Prokyon, Argo, Hydra, 
Krater, Korax, Kentauros, Therion, Thymiateri- 
on, Stephanos notios, and Ichthys notios). 
Another set of constellations, however, is re- 
ferred to by RHETORIOS oF EcypT in his descrip- 


CONSUL 525 


tion of the stars that rise simultaneously with each 
of the 36 decans (paranatellonta); these and others 
are found in several related Byz. astrological texts 
(F. Boll, Sphaera [Leipzig 1903; rp. Hildesheim 
1967] 5-294). Finally, in a calendar for sailors 
ascribed to a protospatharios and strategos of the 
Kibyrrhaiotai theme, the stars are named after 
the saints or religious events on whose feast days 
they are first visible (A. Olivieri, CCAG 2:214- 
16). 

There are numerous catalogs of the individual 
stars that constitute the constellations. In astro- 
nomical contexts they are derivatives from the 
catalog in the Almagest (some, including lists of 
astrolabe stars, being transmitted through Arabic 
and thereby acquiring an altered nomenclature, 
but one that is still equivalent in meaning), while 
in astrological contexts, aside from the paranatel- 
lonta tradition mentioned above, they are derived 
from the associations of planets with stars found 
in Ptolemy’s Astrological Effects (1, 9). The astrol- 
ogers frequently confine their lists to 30 “bright 
stars” (P. Kunitzsch, ZDMG 118 [1968] 62-74). 

The constellations are seldom depicted in Byz. 
art. The available evidence was assembled by H. 
Stern (Le calendrier de 354 [Paris 1953]). A 14th- 
C. MS at Milan preserves unusual miniatures of 
the constellations (D.Pingree, JWarb 45 [1982] 185— 
92). (See also STARS.) -D.P. 


CONSUBSTANTIALITY. See Homoousios. 


CONSUL (raros), supreme magistrate of the 
Roman Republic. By the later empire the consul- 
ship lost its functions and the term was trans- 
formed into an honorific title. The emperors ap- 
pointed two consuls each year (Justinian I, nov. 
105.1); Sometimes one consul was named in the 
West and another in the East. After completing 
his term the consui retained his honorific titie. 
Election as consul was a great honor, often as- 
sumed by the emperor; it required enormous 
financial resources since the consul was obliged to 
arrange a banquet, distribute consular DIPTYCHS, 
and—the most burdensome duty—organize pub- 
lic games, such as CHARIOT RACES, at the Hippo- 
drome. Prokopios (SH 26.13) calculates this last 
expense at more than 20 kentenaria of gold, part 
of which was supplied by the state. The consul 
remained eponymous for official dating until 537 


526 | CONSULARIA ITALICA 


when the system of INDICTIONS and years of the 
emperor’s reign was introduced, at first alongside 
the old system of consular dating. The last epon- 
ymous consul was Basil the Younger in 541; after 
him only emperors assumed the hypateia. The last 
recorded instance is Constans II in 632, but Stein 
(Op. minora 340—48) suggests the office continued 
to exist until the gth C. when Leo VI, in novel 
94, abolished the institution as a contradiction of 
the existing political structure. After this time the 
term HYPATOS acquired a completely different 
meaning. 

LIT. B. Kübler, RE 4 (1901) 1133-38. R. Bagnall et al., 
Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta, Ga., 1987). 


Guilland, Institutions 2:44—67. Stein, Op. minora 248-53. 
~A.K. 


CONSULARIA ITALICA. See ANNALS oF Ra- 
VENNA. 


CONSULARIS (izrarix6s), Roman title bestowed 
on a former consuL. In the grd C. it became 
customary to designate as consularis the governor 
of a province where several legions were assigned. 
Consulares were considered of higher rank than 
other governors (praesides and correctores}, they 
were accorded the title of CLARissimus. Among 
the provinces under consulares ca.400 were Pales- 
tina I, Phoenicia, Syria I, Cilicia 1, Cyprus, Pam- 
phylia, Hellespont, Lydia, Galatia, Bithynia, Eu- 
ropa, Thrace, Macedonia, Dacia Mediterranea, 
Crete, and Pannonia. By the 6th C. Pannonia was 
removed from this list and placed under a praeses, 
while several other provinces became consular; 
according to HIEROKLES, they were Epirus Nova, 
Lycia, Caria, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Pacatiana, 
Phrygia Salutaris, Cappadocia I, Helenopontus, 
and Arabia. Justinian I’s novel of 535 gives a 
different list, however. The term Aypatikos appears 
on some seals, for example, a 7th-C. seal with a 
Latin legend (Zacos, Seals 1, no.1197). The title 
was abandoned when the Roman provincial ad- 
ministration gave way to the new system of THEMES. 
The equivalent term proconsul was translated as 
ANTHYPATOS. 


LIT. B. Kubler, RE 4 (1901) 1138-42. —A.K. 


CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE. See Vira CONTEM- 
PLATIVA. 


CONTINUATIONES ISIDORIANAE anni 741 
and anni 754, two closely related Latin chronicles 
compiled in Spain after the Islamic conquest, which 
continue the Chronicle of ISIDORE OF SEVILLE. They 
derive from an eastern Mediterranean original 
that may have been written in Greek by a Mono. 
physite author; their treatment of Arab, Byz., and 
Visigothic affairs from HERAKLEIOS on favors the 
Umayyads. On the Byz.-Arab conflict they show 
points of contact with the Breviarium of Patr. Nir- 
KEPHOROS I and the Chronographia of THEOPHANES 
THE CONFESSOR (C.E. Dubler, Al-Andalus 11 [1946] 
283-349). The Continuatio Isidoriana [Byzantia- 
Arabica] anni 741 treats events down to Leo III, 
while the Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana anni 754, 
which repeats and alters much of the material in 
the first continuation, adds considerable material 
about the VisiGotrus and reaches the revolt of 
ARTABASDOS against CONSTANTINE V and the death 
of Caliph Marwan II. 

ED. T. Mommsen, MGH AuctAnt 11:332-68. Crónica 
mozárabe de 754, ed. J.E. López Pereira (Saragossa 1980), 
rev. G.V. Sumner, Emerita 49 (1981) 61—64. 


LIT. J.E. López Pereira, Estudio crítico sobre la Crónica 
mozárabe de 754 (Saragossa 1980). ~M.McC. 


CONTORNIATE (from It. contorno, “rim”), the 
name given since the 18th C. to the large copper- 
alloy coinlike objects, approximately 5 cms. in 
diameter, manufactured in some quantity at Rome 
between the middle of the 4th C. and the last 
quarter of the 5th, although certainly not prod- 
ucts of the official mint. They have on one side 
the head of an emperor, usually of the 1st or end 
C., or of some well-known literary or historical 
figure (e.g., Homer, Alexander the Great), and 
on the other a representation of a mythical or 
historical event or of a scene from the circus or 
public life. Their name derives from the deep 
groove that always marks their edge, but the pur- 
pose of this, as indeed of the objects themselves, 
is unknown. Because their designs are conspicu- 
ously pagan, Alföldi has argued that contorniates 
were propaganda medalets issued in connection 
with the public games by the senatorial aristocracy 
of Rome. They are of special interest to art his- 
torians through the contrast between their sim- 
plified iconography and the more sophisticated 
treatment of artistic themes on the gold and ivory 
objects apparently produced for members of the 
same senatorial classes. The contorniates often 


bear, as a countermark, the letters PEL in mon- 
ogram form, probably for palma et laurus, signi- 
fying victory in the games. 
ur. A. Alföldi, Die Kontorniaten (Budapest 1943). A. and 
E. Alféldi, assisted by C.L. Clay, Die Kontorniat-Medaillons, 
t1: Katalog (Berlin 1976). H.-L. Marrou, “Palma et laurus,” 
MEFR 58 (1941-6) 109-31. —Ph.G. 


CONTRACEPTION. The use of contraception 
was condemned by church fathers. The Penitential 
ascribed to Jonn IV NESTEUTES considers it a 
form of infanticide, categorizing several kinds of 
birth control: application of an ointment ([?] trim- 
mata) that is perceived as the least heinous; drink- 
ing a potion (pharmakon); and the worst—the use 
of herbs to induce ABORTION (PG 88:1g04C). An- 
other text attributed to the same author (col.1924A) 
required sinners to confess their desire to remain 
‘childless, induce an abortion, or use contraceptive 
herbs. John Chrysostom calls the use of contra- 
ception “a murder before birth” (PG 60:626.50— 
#1) and views it as harmful not only because it 
prevents procreation but also because it leads to 
involvement in contraceptive magic and idolatry 
(ibid., 627.6—8). The practice of contraception 
was usually limited to prostitutes and to women 
tempted to break their vows of chastity or of 
marital fidelity. Married couples, however, some- 
times abstained from or restricted sexual inter- 
course after having produced a child or two. EPI- 
PHANIOS of Cyprus (Panarion 26.5.2—6) describes 
with indignation (and evidently with strong ex- 
aggeration) the habits of heretical Gnostics who 
did not wish to bear children but fornicated for 
the sake of pleasure, using coitus interruptus or 
abortion as a means of contraception; they are 
even reported to have ground up the embryo in 
a mortar, mixed it with honey, pepper, and other 
spices, and to have eaten it at their loathsome 
assemblies. 

Byz. medical writers, esp. PAUL OF AEGINA in 
the 7th C., transmitted the theories and tech- 
niques of contraception outlined by the 2nd-C. 
Gynaikeia of Soranos, which recommended vaginal 
wool suppositories and the application of olive oil, 
honey, cedar resin, alum, balsam gum, or white 
lead to prevent sperm from passing into the uterus. 
Paul, however, provided only one herbal contra- 
ception recipe, whereas DIOSKORIDES had 20. In 
the 6th C. AETIos oF AMIDA recommended mag- 


CONTRACT | 527 


ical protection, such as wearing an AMULET of cat’s 
liver or a womb of a lioness in an ivory tube. 

uT. E. Patlagean, “Birth Control in the Early Byzantine 
Empire,” in Biology of Man in History, ed. R. Foster, O. 
Ranum (Baltimore 1975) 1-22. K. Hopkins, “Contracep- 
tion in the Roman Empire,” Comparative Studies of Society 
and History 8 (1965—66) 124-51. J.T. Noonan, Jr., Contra- 
ception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians 
and Canonists® (Cambridge, Mass.~London 1986) 13-19, 
78f, 83—85. —J.H., A.K. 


CONTRACT. In the first half of the 4th C. the 
late Roman state eliminated earlier Roman for- 
mulary procedure (Cod. Just. II 57.1 of 342) and 
in its place brought into general use the previously 
“extraordinary procedure”: the examination of 
judicial matters by public officials (cognitio extra 
ordinem). Over the following two centuries this 
developed into a written procedure (libel suit) that 
endured in its main features until the fall of Byz. 
The consequence of this process was that ACTIONS 
lost their function and were severed from OBLI- 
GATIONS, whereupon obligations were freed from 
the constraint of a certain typology. By making 
the STIPULATION a written act and thereby making 
all pacra equal with the contract obligation, there 
arose a new, unitary conception of contractus (syn- 
allagma), for which the older forms of establish- 
ment (consensus, verba, res, litterae) no longer played 
any role, despite their repeated mention in the 
sources. 

Instead, the specification of the contract as oral 
or written, being of particular procedural impor- 
tance, became decisive. Consequently, from the 
time of Justinian I the tendency increases of re- 
quiring a written form for important transactions 
(DOWRY, SURETYSHIP, DIALYSIS, etc.); Leo VI only 
ordained what had long been the case when he 
asserted the binding force of every written agree- 
ment (Nov. Leo VI 72). At the same time the oral 
contract remained valid and in use, esp. in the 
area of everyday buying and selling, but also as a 
transaction with witnesses. Limits on what could 
be contained in a contract were determined by 
possible violations of moral standards and nu- 
merous legal prohibitions (concerning minors, 
rights of preemption, prohibitions against alien- 
ation, etc.). Breach of contract led to sentences 
requiring payment or compensation (in kind or 
monetary), which were assigned case by case with 
considerable flexibility. -D.S. 


528 | CONTRITION 


Types of Contract. Roman and Byz. law distin- 
guished various types of contract. The first group 
formed “real” contracts, that is, loan, commodatum, 
deposit, and pignus; stipulation was the main form 
of the oral contract; consensual contracts included 
sale, contracts of letting or hiring a thing, service 
contracts (contracts for paid labor—see mis- 
THOSIS), partnership, and mandatum. 

Extant Contracts. Multiple late Roman and Byz. 
contracts survived in original form and in contem- 
porary copies. From the earlier period those are 
primarily on both Greek and Latin papyri (see 
RAVENNA Papyri); from the later period are ex- 
tant certain contracts (mainly purchase deeds) 
preserved in monastic archives (Mount Athos, 


Lembiotissa, etc.). (See Acts, DOCUMENTARY.) 
—A.K. 


CONTRITION (7évé@os), in Byz. spirituality, is 
the remorseful heart or the gift of tears, whereby 
one mourns not only for one’s own sins and the 
sins of the world, but also for the suffering of 
Christ. This is not a metaphor of the earthly life 
as “the vale of tears,” but a real weeping and 
shedding of tears. The Byz. believer sees in the 
beatitude, “Blessed are they who mourn, for they 
shall be comforted” (Mt 5:4), the promise of com- 
fort obtained through tears. Accordingly, contri- 
tion must be united with unceasing prayer (e.g., 
the Jesus prayer characteristic of HESYCHASM) in 
order to advance in the spiritual life and to attain 
its goal, HESYCHIA. “In death, God will not re- 
proach us if we have performed no miracles, or 
if we are not theologians or mystics, but most 
certainly will we render account to Him if we have 
not ceaselessly bewailed our sins” (John Klimax, 
PG 88:816D). 

In the APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM and in hagiog- 
raphy in general one often encounters the gift of 
tears. The Abbot Isaac, for example, sought the 
gift of being able to weep continuously, as did 
Mary under the Cross (PG 65:357B). For SYMEON 
THE THEOLOGIAN, in whose spirituality the expe- 
rience of spiritual perception or azsthesis gains 
significance, the gift of tears is as necessary for 
salvation as the sacrament of baptism, for that is 
the baptism of the Spirit. Thus Niketas STETHA- 
Tos, in his vita of Symeon (go.7—8, OrChrAn 12 
[1928] 124), likens Symeon’s tears to the flowing 


waters of baptism. Symeon recommended his own 
practice to his monks as the ideal: daily prayer 
and the cultivation of a contrite heart. 

LiT. I. Hausherr, Penthos: La doctrine de la componction 
dans l'Orient chrétien (Rome 1944). P.-R. Régamey, “La ‘com. 
ponction du coeur, ” La Vie Spirituelle, supp. 44 (1935~36) 
[1-16], [65-84]. Idem, Portrait spirituel du chrétien (Paris 
1963) 76-116. M. Lot-Borodine, “Le mystère du ‘don des 
larmes’ dans !’Orient chrétien,” La Vie Spirituelle, supp. 48 
(1936) [65-110]. P. Adnés, DictSpir g:290-95. -K.-H.U. 


COOKING WARE, ceramic vessels used for the 
preparation and serving of food. Byz. cooking 
pots developed directly from traditional late Ro- 
man shapes, although one cannot exclude the 
possible influence of wares from the barbarian 
north. Most were locally produced and are diffi- 
cult to date except in the most general terms. The 
pots were simple in design, with a flat or more 
commonly rounded bottom, round or vertical sides, 
and a simple often outturned rim on which a lid 
could be placed; two horizontal or vertical handles 
were generally added. Cooking ware was com- 
prised of a coarse clay, normally with a liberal 
admixture of sand and small stones, which usually 
fires black; the pots were often placed directly in 
the fire for cooking and it is not always possible 
to tell if blackening came from the firing process 
or from use. From the 7th C. onward, cooking 
pots were commonly glazed on the interior with 
a yellow glaze that fires a dark brown. (For cook- 
ing wares made of metal, see TOOLS anD HOUSE- 
HOLD FITTINGS.) 

Lit. T.S. MacKay, “More Byzantine and Frankish Pot- 


tery from Corinth,” Hesperia 36 (1967) 288-300. 
-T.E.G. 


COPTIC ART AND ARCHITECTURE, a con- 
ventional designation for the art and architecture 
of Christian Egypt. 

Christian art in Egypt derived from late Roman 
provincial art and was fully dependent upon the 
Graeco-Roman traditions developed along the 
Mediterranean littoral. Once Constantinople had 
become securely established as the cultural center 
of the empire, however, its influence in Egypt 
increased: in ALEXANDRIA, the seat of Byz. civic 
and military administration and a center of Hel- 
lenic culture from the time of its foundation, 
artistic developments in Constantinople were in- 


troduced early and rapidly displaced local tradi- 
tions. 

The earliest surely datable churches are the 
transept basilica of HERMOPOLIS MaGna and the 
church of the Dayr Anba Shintda (the so-called 
White Monastery) near Souac (both first half of 
the 5th C.). Most of the remaining churches be- 
long to the 6th and 7th C., while those in Old 
Cairo do not date from earlier than the last de- 
cade of the 7th C. For the most part these churches 
are conventional three-aisled basilicas, but they 
have an aisle across the west end (the so-called 
“return aisle,” not to be confused with a narthex), 
a distinctive feature originating in Ptolemaic and 
Roman cemetery architecture. Few churches have 
an atrium. The east end is normally straight, since 
the apse is usually flanked by PASTOPHORIA. A 
good number, however, have a triconch sanctuary 
(Sohag, Dendera, and the Monastery of the Syri- 
ans in WADI Natron), and a secondary triumphal 
arch before the entrance into the triconch; from 
the spatial division this arch caused in front of 
the sanctuary was to develop the Ahirus (choir, 
from Gr. choros) of the early medieval Egyptian 
church (e.g., SAQQARA). Exceptions to the simple 
basilican plan are the transept basilicas at Her- 
mopolis Magna, ABU MINA, and Marea, and the 
two tetraconch churches at Abt Mina; these plans 
were evidently imported from abroad. 

The churches at monastic sites are usually rather 
simple (Sohag is an exception, and the two five- 
aisled basilicas of the Pachomian monastery at 
PBow are impressive only for their size). Each 
form of monasticism in Egypt developed its own 
particular type of accommodation: while ana- 
choretes lived in small separate houses containing 
individual sleeping rooms, oratories, and kitchens 
(as at KELLIA), cenobites were accommodated in 
larger lodging-houses, occasionally in common 
dormitories (e.g., Dayr al-Balayza). 

Great quantities of architectural sculpture, such 
as friezes, niche-heads, and capitals, have been 
found in Bawit and Saqqara (most now housed 
in the Coptic Museum in Cairo). Stylistically these 
pieces are dependent on artistic developments in 
Constantinople: even the interlaced foliage friezes 
considered peculiar to Egypt derive from East 
Roman acanthus branches. Only the form of the 
door-lintel shows a continuation of Pharaonic de- 
sign. Spolia were used extensively, and by the end 


COPTIC ART AND ARCHITECTURE 529 


of the 8th C. local production of stone architec- 
tural sculpture seems to have come to an end. 
Figural sculpture found particularly in AKHNAS 
and OxYRHYNCHUS appears mainly in sepulchral 
contexts, incorporated into an architectural 
framework in the form of stelae or niche-heads. 
Pagan themes are common in works of the 4th 
and 5th C.; in the 6th and 7th C. the figures are 
completely surrounded by ornament. 

A few wall paintings have survived in catacombs 
and ecclesiastical buildings; these show the influ- 
ence of Alexandria. In churches and monastic 
buildings somewhat later in date than the cata- 
combs, there are frontally posed representations 
of saints and important figures of Egyptian mon- 
asticism. Even the images of Daniel in the Lions’ 
Den, the Holy Rider, or St. Menas between two 
camels are more iconic than narrative in charac- 
ter. Compositions in the niches of the little chapels 
at Bawit and Saqqara are often of high quality, 
and most echo large-scale models. Though the 
famous Egyptian mummy portraits belong en- 
tirely to the pagan period, their encaustic tech- 
nique was adapted in early Christian Icon paint- 
ing. The portrait of Apa ABRAHAM, bishop of 
Hermonthis, in the Louvre (ca.600) follows Byz. 
models such as the icon of Sts. Sergios and Bak- 
chos from Sinai, now in Kiev (Weitzmann, Sinai 
Icons, B.g). 

Many early Coptic TEXTILES have survived, 
thanks to the dry climate of Egypt. Though fi- 
gural motifs of pagan origin were still in use even 
in the Christian period, these textiles are deco- 
rated primarily with ornamental motifs. Egyptian 
pottery, which is relatively mediocre because of 
the poor quality of the local clay, follows late 
Roman types known from the Mediterranean lit- 
toral. Many painted bowls have been found dating 
from the 5th and 6th C. Of much higher standard 
are the Egyptian works in 1vory; the majority of 
these was produced in Alexandrian workshops 
and had considerable artistic value even outside 
of Egypt. 

The patrons of Christian art during the 5th and 
6th C. in Egypt were mostly local magnates of 
hellenized Egyptian or partly Greek origin; they 
were continuously receptive to new developments 
in Constantinople and lent Coptic art its simulta- 
neously classicizing and Christian character. The 
art from monastic sites shares this blend of clas- 


530 | COPTIC LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 


sical and Christian elements, though it is executed 
in materials more modest than those used in the 

opulent city cemeteries. 
uT. P. du Bourguet, The Art of the Copts (New York 
1967). L.-A. Hunt, “Coptic Art,” DMA 3:585-93. H.-G. 
Severin, “Frihchristliche Skulptur und Malerei in Agyp- 
ten,” Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, supp. 1 (Berlin 1977) 243- 
53- Beyond the Pharaohs: Egypt and the Copts in the 2nd to 7th 
Centuries A.D., ed. F.D. Friedman (Providence, R.I., 1989). 
—P.G. 


COPTIC LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. 
Coptic is the latest stage of the Egyptian language, 
written in the Greek alphabet plus seven signs 
derived from demotic. Originally five major dia- 
lects—Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyiamic, Akhmimic, and 
Lycopolitan (Subakhmimic)—were recognized; 
modern scholarship has detected several more 
idiolects (R. Kasser, Muséon 93 [1980] 53-112, 
237-97; 94 [1981] 91—152). Beginning with grd- 
C. horoscopes, Coptic became the language of 
Christian EcyptT, attaining classic literary status 
by the 5th C. in the writings of SHENOUTE. From 
early versions of the Bible and the liturgy, Coptic 
writings came to include homilies, hagiography, 
biblical commentary, panegyric and apocalyptic, 
both translations from Greek and Syriac and orig- 
inal productions by Egyptian writers. However, 
not much original theological writing survives. 
The rich Gnostic literature found at Nac Ham- 
MADI and elsewhere was written partly in Coptic. 
The extent to which Coptic was part of the bi- 
lingual society of Byz. Egypt is seen in the enor- 
mous volume of Coptic financial and legal docu- 
ments and letters, as well as inscriptions, surviving 
from the period of Byz. control and down to the 
gth C. The immediate post-conquest period pro- 
duced more hagiography, hymnody, and lection- 
ary texts. Coptic persisted among the Christian 
community after the Arab conquest but was 
inexplicably moribund by the 11th C. A little 
survives, memorized but uncomprehended, in the 
present-day liturgy of the Coptic church. 

ur. T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic (Atlanta 
1983). W.E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford 1939). W. 
Vycichl, R. Kasser, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte 
(Louvain 1983). H.J. Polotsky, Etudes de syntaxe copte (Cairo 
1944). Idem, Collected Papers (Jerusalem 1971). A. Shisha- 
Halevy, Coptic Grammatical Categories (Rome 1986). T. Or- 
landi in Roots of Egypt. Christ. 51-81. A.A. Schiller, “A 
Checklist of Coptic Documents and Letters,” BASP 13 
(1976) gg-123. W. Kammerer, A Coptic Bibliography (Ann 
Arbor 1950), continued by T. Orlandi, Bibliografia copta 
(Rome yearly). -LS.B.MacC. 


COPTS, the name, derived from Greek Aigyptioi 
via the Arabic Qibt, of the autochthonous Chris. 
tians of Egypt, descendants of the population of 
Pharaonic times; since the 5th C., they have been 
adherents to a non-Chalcedonian church later 
termed “Coptic Orthodox.” The term “Copts” jg 
really an anachronism for the Byz. period but 
serves to designate those who used Cop ic as their 
principal language (or bilingually with Greek) and 
as a major vehicle of culture, thought, and the. 
ology. As a label “Copt” does not carry an auto. 
matic class or confessional connotation. A Copt 
was not necessarily a peasant, an Upper Egyptian 
(as opposed to an Alexandrian), or a Monophys- 
ite; ATHANASIOS and CyRIL of Alexandria were 
Copts as were PacHOMIos and SHENOUTE. The 
Copts constituted a culturally vigorous and cre- 
ative ethnic group within the empire, producing 
highly original visual art and abundant literature; 
the submergence of their language and culture 
after the Muslim conquest has not been explained. 
Some eight million Copts survive in Egypt today; 
large diaspora communities live in North America 
and Europe. 

Lit. A. Bowman, Egypt after the Pharaohs (Berkeley 1986). 
Beyond the Pharaohs: Egypt and the Copts, 2nd—7th Centuries 
A.D., ed. F.D. Friedman (Providence 1989). The Coptic En- 
cyclopaedia, ed. A.S. Atiya (New York 1990-). The Roots of 


Egyptian Christianity, ed. B. Pearson, J. Goehring (Philadel- 
phia 1986). —L.S.B.MacC. 


COPY, OFFICIAL (icov). Major CHANCERIES kept 
RECORDS of outgoing documents and could pro- 
vide official copies of them. In the imperial chan- 
cery copies were identical to the originals but 
lacked the emperor’s signature (and eventually 
replaced the gold seal by a lead one). The patriar- 
chal chancery produced excerpts of the synod’s 
minutes signed by the CHAKTOPHYLAX or copies 
of documents signed by him and his NOTARIES. 
Lay administrations had similar practices. Certi- 
fied copies of all documents could also be deliv- 
ered by bishops or other public officials, who 
signed at the bottom or on the verso. These copies 
could be used instead of the originals even in 
tribunals (at least from the 10th C. onward) as 
Byz. had broken with the Roman tradition of 
banning copies as evidence. 

For reasons of security, individuals or institu- 
tions (e.g., monasteries) had their archival docu- 
ments copied on kontakia (long rolls of parchment 


or paper) or in volumes (see Koprx) that consti- 
tuted chartularies (such as those of NEA MONE OF 
cuios, of St. John Prodromos on Mt. MENOIK- 
gion, of MAKRINITISSA on Pelion, of Hiera/Xero- 
choraphion and of Latmos near Miletos, of Lem- 
bos [LEMBIOTISSA] near Smyrna, of VAZELON in 
the Pontos, etc.). Only some were certified by a 
superior authority, but all may have been seen as 
having some probatory value. 

ut. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 129-34. 
Darrouzés, Offikia 517-25. I. Medvedev, “Vizantijskie i 
postvizantijskie kopijnye knigi,” Vspomogatel’nye istoriceskie 
discipliny 6 (Leningrad 1974) 307-18. -N.O. 


CORBEL, a stone projecting from the face of a 
wall and used as a support; a series of brick 
courses progressively stepped forward above one 
another for the same purpose. Corbels, sometimes 
elaborately carved, provide footing for roof beams 
(as at QALB LawzaH), for projecting balconies 
(A.N. Popov, VizVrem 28 [1968] 192-94), for the 
columns of decorative blind arcades, or for elab- 
orate projecting cornices. A series of corbels sup- 
porting small arches at the top of a wall creates a 
corbel-table frieze. -W.L. 


CORDOBA (Lat. Corduba), capital of the Roman 
province of Baetica in southern Spain in the late 
grd and early 4th C., later replaced by Hispalis 
(Seville). Ossius (or Hosios), bishop of Cordoba 
(died 357/8), was a staunch supporter of Nicaean 
orthodoxy and an influential adviser of Constan- 
tine I. Little is known of the city’s history in late 
antiquity, but it was probably an object of Vandal 
and Visigothic raids. In 550/1 it was attacked by 
Agila, king of the Visigoths; the inhabitants of 
Cordoba defeated him and captured the royal 
treasure. Justinian I used the situation as a pretext 
to send a small army into Spain under command 
of Liberios, although there is no clear evidence to 
indicate that Cordoba was ever directly occupied 
by Byz. In 572 Cordoba was seized by King Leo- 
vigild, but by 584 it was again independent and 
the refuge of Hermenegild, Leovigild’s rebellious 
son. Hermenegild was betrayed and taken pris- 
oner, and Cordoba fell to the king. 

In 711 it was conquered by the Arabs and in 
716 became the administrative center of al-Andalus. 
After several riots against the Umayyad caliph of 
Spain, 15,000 Muslim refugees from Cordoba, 


CORINTH | 531 


including women and children, settled (814-15) 
near Alexandria. In 818 they occupied Alexan- 
dria but were expelled from the city and sometime 
between 824 and 827 landed in Crete. In 839— 
40 Emp. Theophilos sent an ambassador to Cor- 
doba. In Sept. 947 a Byz. embassy led by the 
eunuch Salomon arrived in Cordoba and was re- 
ceived by the caliph ‘Abd al-Rahman III. Among 
the gifts brought by Salomon were a Greek MS 
of Dioskorides and a Latin MS of Orosius. The 
caliph, in response, sent to Constantinople a group 
of envoys headed probably by the bishop of Car- 
thage. It is possible that this exchange of ambas- 
sadors was somehow connected with the Byz. 
abortive expedition against Crete in 949. Al-Iprisr 
(tr. P. Jaubert, 2:60) reported that the gibla of the 
Great Mosque at Cordoba was decorated with 
mosaic tesserae sent to ‘Abd al-Rahman by “the 
emperor of Constantinople.” 

LIT. Thompson, Goths 320-34. R.C. Knapp, Roman Cor- 
doba (Berkeley 1983) 69—73. S. Keay, Roman Spain (Berke- 
ley 1988) 202-17. A. Lippold, “Bischof Ossius von Cordoba 
und Konstantin der Grosse,” ZKirch g2 (1981) 1-15. V. 
Christides, The Conquest of Crete by the Arabs (Athens 1984) 
81—92. E. Lévi-Provencal, “Un échange d’ambassades entre 


Cordoue et Byzance au IXe siècle,” Byzantion 12 (1937) 1— 
24. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2:324—-31. —-R.B.H., A.C. 


CORFU. See KERKYRA. 


CORINTH (Kópivðos), city on the Isthmus of 
Corinth in the northeastern Peloponnesos; it en- 
joyed the protection of the powerful citadel of 
Acrocorinth and had harbors at Lechaion on the 
Gulf of Corinth and at Kencureali on the Saronic 
Gulf. The commercial and strategic location of 
the city made it important throughout the Byz. 
period. 

In late antiquity it was capital of the province 
of Acnara. The city was devastated by earth 
quakes in 365 and 375 and by ALaric in 396; 
afterward the civic center was rebuilt on a mon- 
umental scale, but a new city wall encircled only 
part of the ancient area (T.E. Gregory, Hesperia 
48 [1979] 264-80). At least four churches are 
known in the ancient city, another on Acrocor- 
inth and an enormous 5th-C. basilica at Lechaion 
(D. Pallas, Ergon [1961] 141-48; [1965] 105-12). 
From the late 6th C. Corinth declined. A tomb of 
the 7th C. found near the walls belonged to a 
warrior and contained non-Byz. objects; these finds 


532 | CORINTH 


raised the question of whether the city was cap- 
tured in the 7th C. (G.D. Weinberg, Hesperia 43 
[1974] 512-21); a mutilated inscription, perhaps 
honoring the victory of Constans II, led to the 
hypothesis that he recaptured Corinth. The ques- 
tion of the ethnic origin of the invaders has also 
been discussed, although archaeology can rarely 
establish the ethnicity of skeletons found in tombs 
(K-M. Setton, Speculum 25 [1950] 502—43; 27 [1952] 
351-62; J.-H. Kent, ibid. 25 [1950] 544-46). 

The primary settlement may have shifted to 
Acrocorinth in the 7th C. Corinth was perhaps 
capital of the theme of HELLas from the late 7th 
C. and was capital of the theme of PELOPONNESOS 
from the early gth C. Numismatic evidence sug- 
gests that the economy of the city began to recover 
in the gth C. (D.M. Metcalf, Hesperia 41 [1973] 
180—251). 

The city of the 1ıth—~ı2th C. differed signifi- 
cantly from late antique Corinth: public buildings 
(except churches) disappeared, streets became 
narrow, and the old Roman marketplace was cov- 
ered by small shops. Shops also moved to colon- 
nades along the major streets, and tombs slowly 
began to encroach upon the ancient civic center. 
From the gth C. onward the settlement aban- 
doned the ancient city plan, as shops, workshops, 
gardens, churches, and monasteries jostled one 
another without any apparent order. Workshops 
for the production of ceramics (with remains of 
kilns) and glass (G.R. Davidson, AJA 44 [1940] 
297-324), as well as smithies, have been exca- 
vated. Narrative sources emphasize the existence 
of a flourishing silk industry in the 12th C. The 
city continued to function as an important harbor. 

In 1147 Rocer II of Sicily attacked Corinth: 
the inhabitants fled to Acrocorinth, which fell as 
a result of the incompetence of the commander 
Nikephoros Chalouphes. Roger carried off both 
Corinthian notables and artisans (particularly the 
city’s famed silk weavers) as well as considerable 
wealth, including an icon of St. Theodore. The 
city apparently did not fully recover from the 
sack of the Normans. Leo Scouros took Corinth 
in 1202. 

In 1205 the Crusaders, nominally under the 
authority of Boniface of Montferrat, began a siege 
of Acrocorinth, defended by Sgouros. The attack- 
ers built a castle at Penteskouphi, but the siege 
dragged on until ca.1210 when Theodore Kom- 
nenos Doukas, brother of despotes Michael I of 


Epiros, gained control of Acrocorinth, presum- 
ably by treaty; the city became part of the prin- 
cipality of Achaia, and is termed a capitanate in 
the Assizes of Romania. Little is known of Corinth 
under Frankish rule, as it was not one of the great 
baronies; the mint was, however, located at Cor- 
inth until it was moved to Clarence (Clarenza). 
The city and castle were formally surrendered to 
the Byz. in 1262 by WittiaM II VILLEHARDOUIN, 
but the local commander refused to relinquish 
control. Corinth was ceded to Philip I of Taranto 
ca.1300 and in 1305 a great tournament was held 
at the Isthmus. In 1358 the city was given to 
Niccolò AcciajuoLI, who strengthened the de- 
fenses. In 1395 Theodore I Palaiologos, despotes 
of the Morea, gained control of Corinth for Byz. 
In 1397 he surrendered the city to the Hospt- 
TALLERS, who held it until 1404, when they re- 
turned Corinth to Byz. control (J. Chrysosto- 
mides, Byzantina 7 [1975] 81—110). Around 1443 
the future emperor Constantine XI appointed a 
certain John Kantakouzenos as governor in Cor- 
inth. The territory was ravaged by the Turks in 
1446. Mehmed II attacked the city in 1458, and 
on 8 August the residents surrendered Acrocor- 
inth to him. 

The bishop of Corinth was metropolitan of the 
Peloponnesos and of the province of Achaia (L. 
Duchesne, MEFR 15 [1895] 375—78). He was pre- 
sent at most of the early councils; in 431 he was 
the only bishop from the Peloponnesos and in 
680 the only representative from Greece (Mansi 
11:689). In the crisis after the Slavic invasions the 
bishop of PaTras contested control over the Pe- 
loponnesos with Corinth, and in the 1oth C. the 
suffragans of Corinth were restricted to the east- 
ern Peloponnesos and the Ionian Islands (Notitiae 
CP 7.488-95, 9.371-99). 

There was a sizable monastery of St. John in 
the area of the ancient center, and literary sources 
and seals refer to an important Church of St. 
Theodore whose site has not been identified. None 
of the Byz. churches of Corinth has survived 
intact. The fortifications of Acrocorinth rest largely 
on ancient foundations, but many sections of Byz. 
masonry, probably of the 6th—7th C., can be seen, 
esp. along the inner western wall. 


uit. J.H. Finley, “Corinth in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 
7 (1982) 477-99. R. Scranton, Medieval Architecture in the 
Central Area of Corinth (Princeton 1957). R. Carpenter, A. 
Bon, The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town (Cam- 


bridge, Mass., 1936). M.S. Kodroses, Symbole sten historia kai 
topographia tes perioches Korinthou stous mesous chronous (Ath- 
ens 1981). T.A. Gritsopoulos, Ekklesiastike historia kai Chris- 
tianika mnemeia Korinthias, vol. 1 (Athens 1973). -T.E.G. 


CORIPPUS, more fully, Flavius Cresconius Co- 
rippus, Latin poet; died after 567. Corippus was 
a native of the province of Africa, where he was 
a small-town teacher and/or wandering poet. 
Probably in 549 he recited to the dignitaries of 
Carthage his epic poem the Johannis, eight books 
on the just-concluded war of the Byz. general 
John TroG.ita against the Berbers. He then dis- 
appeared from view until ca.566 when he turned 
up in Constantinople, celebrating in four hexa- 
meter books, with two prefaces, to the emperor 
and the quaestor Anastasios, respectively, the 
accession of Justin II on 14 Nov. 565. Some 
scholars equip him with distinguished patrons and 
imperial office, but this is mere speculation. Like- 
wise, it is hard to know how biographical or rhe- 
torical are his complaints about old age and pov- 
erty. 

Although a competent versifier with predictable 
classical debts, Corippus commands attention 
mainly as a contemporary historical source. The 
Johannis is a mine of information on African to- 
pography and Berber customs, while the pane- 
gyric on Justin is a very important source for 6th- 
C. ceremonial. Several of Corippus’s EKPHRASEIS, 
notably that of Justinian I’s funeral robe, orna- 
mented with scenes of imperial TRIUMPH, seem to 
depend as much on artistic representations as on 
the poet’s experience. The text thus “replaces” 
lost images of a critical equipoise in art history, a 
moment when realism was not yet dead and sym- 
bolism not yet overweening, even as it describes 
Justin as an emperor who is at once Roman consul 
and imago Christi. 


ED. fJohannidos seu De bellis Libycis libri VII, ed. J. Diggle, 
F.R.D. Goodyear (Cambridge 1970). G.W. Shea, “The Jo- 
hannis of Flavius Cresconius Corippus. Prolegomena and 
Translation” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ., 1966). In laudem 
Iustini Augusti Minoris, ed. Av. Cameron (London 1976), 
with Eng. tr. 

LIT. U.J. Stache, Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem 
Iustini Augusti minoris. Ein Kommentar (Berlin 1976). B. Bald- 
win, “The Career of Corippus,” CQ 28 (1978) 372—76. Av. 
Cameron, “The Career of Corippus Again,” CQ 30 (1980) 
534-39. Eadem, “Corippus’ lohannis: Epic of Byzantine 
Africa,” Liverpool Papers 4 (1983) 167-80. Y. Moderan, 
“Corippe et l'occupation byzantine de l'Afrique,” AntAfr 22 
(1986) 195-212. ~B.B., A.C. 


CORONATION 533 


CORNICE, the upper part of the ENTABLATURE 
of a colonnade or of a door-frame. By the 6th C., 
the use of cornices was extended to define archi- 
tectural space by marking the level of galleries or 
the springing of arches, domes, and vaults. A 
variant on cornices of the Corinthian order ap- 
pears in Hacia Sopuia, Constantinople, and other 
Justinianic monuments, with characteristic mod- 
illions decorated with acanthus leaves (L. Butler, 
Ayasofya Müzesi Yilhg 10 [1985] 27—32). Less am- 
bitious churches display cornices with plain torus 
or cyma recta profiles decorated with a wide range 
of acanthus leaves, palmettes, and anthemia, etc. 

Simplified cornices continued to be used in 
domed, cross-in-square churches or Greek cross- 
octagons after the gth C. Those in the church of 
Constantine Lips in Constantinople have traces of 
gilding and color, constituting a revival of 6th-C. 
forms (C. Mango, E.J.W. Hawkins, DOP 18 [1964] 
306-09). The katholikon of Hosios Loukas retains 
cornices cast in plaster, while that of DAPHNi shows 
champlevé cornices with colored inlay evoking 
opus sectile (Grabar, Sculptures II, pl.X XXIV). 

uit. Orlandos, Palaiochr. basilike 2:374—79. Grabar, 


Sculptures I 62-64, 103f. Grabar, Sculptures H 64. 
—L.Ph.B. 


CORON. See Korone. 


CORONATION (srépipov, orefpavwors), impe- 
rial accession CEREMONY (together with ACCLAMA- 
TION, ADVENTUS, SHIELD-RAISING, BANQUETS, Cir- 
cus spectacles, and ANOINTING), whose significance 
reflects that of the CROWN as imperial INSIGNIA. 
From the time of Julian to the 6th C., the coro- 
nation shared the imperial election’s military char- 
acter, as soldiers crowned the new EMPEROR with 
a TORQUE during his acclamation and shield-raising. 
From the 5th C. the patriarch of Constantinople 
blessed the insignia and participated in the coro- 
nation, but a constitutional interpretation of his 
role (P. Charanis, Byzantina 8 [1976] 37—46) seems 
unlikely (e.g., C. Tsirpanlis, Kleronomia 4 [1972] 
63-91). It reflects, rather, the church’s prestige 
and individual patriarchs’ political stature (F. 
Winkelmann, Kko 60 [1978] 467-81). Patriarchal 
coronations occurred only when there was no 
senior emperor, a minority of cases from 450 to 
1000. The shift of coronations (De cer. 410-33) 
from the HEBpOMON to the HIPPODROME in the 


534 CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS 


5th or 6th C. reflects Byz.’s changing political 
structure. As late as 776, Constantine VI was 
crowned co-emperor in the Hippodrome between 
ceremonies in Hagia Sophia. 

The coronation of Constans II in the ambo of 
Hagia Sophia (641) began a long series of coro- 
nations at the Great Church and reveals imperial 
legitimacy’s religious element, underscored by the 
scheduling of coronations to coincide with holy 
days like Christmas or Easter, and by imperial 
epithets like ¢heosteptos or a Deo coronatus (G. Rösch, 
Onoma basileias [Vienna 1978] 67, 140f). The well- 
documented Byz. coronation of the 10th C. (De 
cer., bk.1, ch.38, ed. Vogt 2:1-5, and Goar, Eu- 
chologion 726f) comprised receptions by officials 
and factions during a procession to Hagia Sophia; 
the patriarch crowned the emperor in the ambo 
and the audience acclaimed him; the emperor 
then ascended a throne to receive the officials’ 
PROSKYNESIS. A eucharistic liturgy followed. The 
coronation of co-emperors was similar (De cer., 
bk.1, ch.38, ed. Vogt 2:3.1-19), except that, like 
empresses, they were crowned by the senior em- 
peror. Coronations of empresses took place in the 
Augustaion and at St. Stephen of Daphne (De cer., 
bk.1, ch.40, ed. Vogt 2:11-15). 

The Nicaean Empire temporarily abandoned 
the coronation of co-emperors and systematically 
added shield-raising and anointing to the ritual. 
The Palaiologoi restored co-emperors’ corona- 
tions. Their ceremony (Kantak. 1:196.8—204.3; 
cf. pseudo-Kod. 252-72) began with the em- 
peror’s subscription to a profession of Orthodoxy 
(his first use of his title), shield-raising, and accla- 
mation. Next, the emperor, enthroned on a 
wooden platform in Hagia Sophia, received the 
SAKKOS and diadem. Coronation was now inte- 
grated into the eucharistic liturgy during which 
the patriarch and church dignitaries performed 
the anointing in the ambo. Then the patriarch— 
assisted by the senior emperor if there was one— 
crowned the new emperor, who was acclaimed 
again, and the liturgy continued. A PROKYPSIS 
followed. Empresses were crowned by their hus- 
bands and then performed a proskynesis to them. 
Several days of festivities ensued. Commemora- 
tive coins were often issued in connection with 
coronation LARGESS; gth-C. Byz. coronations cus- 
tomarily involved large payments to the clergy of 
Hagia Sophia and to the bureaucracy and army 
(see, e.g., McCormick, Eternal Victory 229). 


LIT. A. Christophilopoulou, Ekloge, anagoreusis kai st sis 
tou byzantinou autokratoros (Athens 1956). J. Nelson, “Sym- 
bols in Context: Rulers’ Inauguration Rituals in Byzantium 
and the West in the Early Middle Ages,” SChH 13 (1 976) 


97—119- ~M.McC, 


Representation in Art. Depictions of corona- 
tions occur on a number of different objects (ivory 
plaques, MS frontispieces, silver vessels, coins, wall] 
paintings), the earliest probably being that of Basi] 
I in the Paris Grecory (Omont, Miniatures, 
pl-XIX). Most depictions show the emperor or 
imperial couple receiving the crown from Christ, 
the Virgin, or an archangel. The presentation of 
the emperor crowned by the divine power ex- 
presses the tendency to construe the fact not only 
as a historical event but as an image of the emperor- 
Godhead relationship and the selection of the 
emperor by God. The images on the ivory plaques 
and the coins were most likely commemorative of 
the historical event. The coins were first issued at 
the time of the coronation but often continued 
through the reign; the ivory panels were possibly 
given out as gifts to court officials to celebrate the 
occasion. There are several ivory plaques with the 
theme of coronation—for example, the Moscow 
panel of CONSTANTINE VII being crowned by 
Christ. In a similar manner the imperial couple 
of Romanos and Eudokia is crowned by Christ on 
an ivory plaque in the Cabinet des Médailles in 
Paris, which commemorates not only the corona- 
tion of Romanos (IV?) but also his marriage to 
Eudokia (I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, DOP 31 [1977] 
305-25). A number of coronation scenes illus- 
trated in the Madrid MS of John SkyLiTzEs are 
neither commemorative nor contemporary with 
the events they represent. These scenes accom- 
pany the chronicler’s narrative; they vary in detail 
but all show the historical ceremonial by depicting 
the patriarch crowning the emperor or the im- 
perial couple (Grabar-Manoussacas, Skylitzès, nos. 
266, 328, 542). 

LIT. Grabar, L'empereur 112-22, pls. XXIIJ-XXVI, 
XXVIL.2, XXVIIL.5, 6. -LK. 


CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, the name given from 
the 16th C. onward to the legislative work of 
Justinian I. It consists of the InsTITUTES, the Di- 
GEST, the CopEx JUSTINIANUS, and the NOVELS OF 
Justinian I. All four parts were taught in the LAW 
SCHOOLS of Berytus and Constantinople. The 
translations of the Latin text of the Corpus that 


were produced in both cities form the foundation 
of Byz. law and were incorporated into the Ba- 
sILIKA and its scholia. Considerable sections of 
later law books—transmitted mainly through the 
Basilika—can be traced back to the Corpus Juris 
Civilis. In western Europe the Corpus was forgot- 
ten soon after Justinian but was rediscovered in 
the 11th C. In many European countries it re- 
mained the authoritative source of law into the 
igth C. (see Law, Roman). 


ED. Corpus iuris civilis, ed. P. Krüger et al., 3 vols. (Berlin 
1928—29; rp. 1963, 1968). Eng. tr. S.P. Scott, The Civil Law, 
17 vols. in 7 pts. (Cincinnati 1932; rp. 1979). 


LIT. Wenger, Quellen 562-734. —M.Th.F. 


CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, COMMENTARIES 
ON THE. Evaluation of the writings of Justinian 
Ps contemporaries on the Corpus Juris Civilis de- 
pends on one’s opinion of how the Justinianic 
prohibition on commentary is to be interpreted, 
a matter that has long been controversial. The 
prohibition is found in the introductory consti- 
tutions to the Dicest: it forbids all commentarii 
and interpretationes except for translations (kata 
podas), summaries (indices), and indications of sup- 
plementary and parallel regulations (paratitla). The 
extensive legal literature produced in Justinian’s 
time seemingly provides ample evidence that the 
prohibition was not observed. The possibility can- 
not be excluded, however, that the prohibition 
was not directed at that literature at all. To this 
end, arguments of content or of form have been 
adduced. Arguments based on content claim that 
the surviving legal literature comments on the law 
affirmatively and does not represent divergent 
points of view; only the latter were forbidden, to 
avoid the danger of confusion. Arguments based 
on form claim that this legal literature consists of 
“private” lecture notes, not the published com- 
mentaries of professors. Another variant of the 
argument based on form has been put forward 
by Scheltema (infra), who argues that it was not 
the production of divergent opinions that are 
forbidden but rather their inclusion in MSS of 
the Digest. Given that the prohibition is found 
only in the Digest (which contained the harmo- 
nized remains of the controversies of classical 
jurists) and given its formulation (that contradic- 
tions should be avoided), an explanation based on 
content is preferable. The relevance of Justinian’s 


CORRUPTION 535 


directive remains questionable, however, since the 
uncritical summing up and exegetical character 
of juristic writings is probably due not so much 
to the prohibition on commentaries as to a general 
professorial mentality. (See also ANTECESSORES.) 
LIT. Wenger, Quellen 681-92. A. de Roberts, La inter- 
pretazione del Corpus iuris in Oriente e in Occidente (Naples 
1984). N. van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs du Code de 


Justinien (Groningen 1953). Scheltema, “Kommen- 
tarverbot.” -DS. 


CORRUPTION in the Roman and Byz. worlds 
was a means of exercising private power for the 
achievement of public or private purposes by ex- 
ploiting the latent compliance of state and eccle- 
siastical officials. The system was based on a sense 
of community within the bureaucratic officialdom 
and was enhanced by the intermixture of private 
and public elements of administration. The sys- 
tem worked .through favoritism (for relatives, 
friends, former servants or slaves, etc.); bribes, 
which could be official or semiofficial (grants, 
sportulae); fear; and moral pressure, sometimes 
effective for pious ends (e.g., the extortion of a 
donation for a monastery). The exploitation of 
subordinates also comes under this category (sol- 
diers exploited by a strategos, peasants by a local 
landowner, etc.). The illegal acquisition of private 
property, a portion of state taxes, or objects be- 
longing to the state (e.g., ropes or other parts of 
a ship) were widespread types of corruption and 
barely distinguishable from theft. The state might 
condone such practices and even institutionalize 
them (e.g., the payment of judges by litigants), 
but in some cases measures had to be taken to 
suppress dangerous excesses; thus, for instance, 
some emperors of the 1oth C. tried to limit cor- 
ruption in the form of seizure of land by the 
DYNATOI. 

Corruption is denounced bv Bvz. authors of all 
periods. They criticized not so much the purchase 
of titles and offices, which was always practiced to 
various extents and was often considered legiti- 
mate, but rather arbitrary administrative actions 
motivated by personal profit. In the sources, em- 
perors are accused of appointing the rich instead 
of the best or of practicing the abhorred sIMony 
to increase their own revenues; public officials, of 
accepting kickbacks; fiscal officials, esp. the tax- 
farmers, of crushing the rural populations by 
collecting unauthorized taxes or by other fraud- 


536 | CORVEE 


ulent practices. The most famous corruption 
scandal is that of the KRITAI KATHOLIKOI In 1337. 

tir. R. MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome 
(New Haven 1988) 58-121. P. Veyne, “Clientéle et corrup- 
tion au service de l'Etat: La vénalité des offices dans le Bas- 


Empire romain,” Annales ESC 36 (1981) 339-60. 
—A.K., N.O. 


CORVEE, compulsory, usually unpaid, day labor 
for the state or for one’s lord. State corvées, at- 
tested since the Roman period, most commonly 
involved the regular or occasional obligation of 
local inhabitants to furnish their labor (and their 
animals) for maintenance of the DRoMos. Such 
labor—included within the terms ANGAREIA, par- 
angareia (from the 11th C., services and animals 
provided for secondary roads), letourgia (“public 
service”), and douleia (“service”)—usually unre- 
munerated, was also supplied for the building of 
ships (katergoktisia, karabopoiia), fortifications (KAS- 
TROKTISIA), and perhaps for rural and urban guard 
duty (apoviglisis, vigla, paramonai). In particular 
areas, certain categories of persons (clergy, bak- 
ers, some peasants and soldiers, Jews on Chios in 
1049) were exempted (ExKOUSSATOI) from corvée, 
but this could be annulled in times of emergency 
(esp. due to war). Probably because of the rise of 
the paroikia, evidence of state corvée is rare after 
the 12th C. State officials, while traveling, de- 
manded (legally or illegally) labor services from 
the peasant and urban population: accommoda- 
tions, food, animals. Landlords needed special 
privileges to be exempted from such burdens. 
The novel of Constantine VII of 935 speaks of 
angareiai demanded by pynaTor (Zepos, Jus 
1:209.20) and considers them a form of oppres- 
sion. By the 11th C., state corvées were occasion- 
ally transferred to private landowners and bur- 
dened their dependent peasants. Documents from 
the 13th to 15th C. require paroikoi to work (with 
their animals) for their lords for a fixed number 
of days per year (ranging from 12 to 52 days, 
with 12 and 24 being the most common). Svo- 
ronos (in Lavra 4:165—68) estimates that in the 
early 14th C. corvées accounted for at most 20 
percent of the cultivation of the domain lands of 
the monastery of Lavra. The commutation of 
corvées for cash payments, attested throughout 
the Byz. era, became common in the last centuries 
of the empire (e.g., in the cadaster of LaMPSAKOS 
[1218/19], a ZEUGARATOS was compelled to replace 


his service obligation by a payment of 4 hyper- 


pyra). 
LIT. Ostrogorsky, Féodalité 364-67. Litavrin, VizObseestuo 
105f. —M.B. 


CO-SEIGNEURY. See Casaux DE PARGON. 


COSMETICS. The production of cosmetics was 
often associated with that of PERFUMES AND UN- 
GUENTS; those involved in this trade formed a 
guild (Bk. of Eparch 10.1—2). Simple cosmetics 
were prepared at home along with medications, 
unguents, concoctions to grow or dye hair, and 
so on, as described in various manuals (e.g., G. 
Litavrin, VizVrem 31 [1971] 249-301). Symeon 
SETH stated that women applied bean flour to 
wash their faces, and according to DIOSKORIDES, 
they anointed their skin with olive oil from Sik- 
yon. Empress Zor took a passionate interest in 
preparing perfume and unguents in her palace. 
Cosmetics—including hair dyes, skin emollients, 
makeup, and eye shadow—were widely used, esp. 
by women, to embellish their face and thus to 
stress their social status. The church took a neg- 
ative stand toward cosmetics that was retained as 
late as the 15th C., when John EuGEnIkos wrote 
a pamphlet against women who powdered their 
face, painted their lips, covered their cheeks with 
rouge, or even blackened their eyebrows to be- 
come more attractive (S. Eustratiades, EEBS 8 
[1931] 42—46). 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 4:375—85. Stockle, Ziinfte 38. 
—Ap.K., A.K. 


COSMOGRAPHER OF RAVENNA, anonymous 
Latin author of the 7th C. who compiled a book 
called Cosmography. After an introduction that di- 
vides the earth into 12 southern and 12 northern 
regions, he gives the geographic nomenclature of 
the known world: (1) a list of cities and rivers; (2) 
a PERIPLOUS of the Mediterranean, beginning with 
Ravenna; and (3) a list of islands in the various 
seas. The Cosmographer often draws upon the 
same source as the TABULA PEUTINGERIANA. He 
refers to many authors, patristic or otherwise, but 
his knowledge of ancient geographers is very 
questionable: he quotes only Protemy, whom he 
confuses with a king of Egypt. Some of the au- 
thorities (“philosophers”) whom he cites are imag- 


inary, and legendary data appear side by side with 
reliable information. The author’s goal, as he him- 
self formulates it, is to preserve for mankind ina 
time of general political disturbances the memory 
of geographic names; he makes no attempt to 
order the sites in a logical fashion. 

ED. Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia, ed. M. Pinder, G. 
Parthey (Berlin 1860; rp. Aalen 1962). 

LIT. E. Schweder, Uber die Weltkarte des Kosmographen von 
Ravenna (Kiel 1886). G. Funaioli, RE 2.R.1 (1920) 305-10. 
O.R. Borodin, “‘Kosmografija’ Ravennskogo anonima,” 
VizVrem 43 (1982) 54—63. B.H. Stolte, De cosmographie van 
den Anonymus Ravennas (Zundert 1949). G. Mansuelli, “I 
geografi ravennati,” CorsiRav 20 (1973) 3321—42. F. Staab, 
“Ostrogothic Geographers at the Court of Theodoric the 
Great,” Viator 7 (1976) 27—58. -A.K. 


COSMOLOGY, conventional term for the doc- 
trine of the structure or arrangement of the cos- 
Mos, classified by the Byz., like all knowledge of 
the past, as “human sciences,” the presupposition 
of THEOLOGY as a view of ultimate unity. The 
starting point for Byz. cosmology was the spher- 
ical model of Aristotle, as modified by Ptolemy, 
in which the earth, planets, sun, and moon follow 
orbits within a large finite sphere. The Alexan- 
drian theologians in general adopted this view. 
Origen at least knew of it and raised no objections. 
Clement of Alexandria used the spherical theory, 
for example, in the allegory of the ARK OF THE 
Covenant, hinting already at a fundamental con- 
trast with the Antiochene School, which saw the 
universe as a cube consisting of two tiers, HEAVEN 
and earth, separated by a firmament (stereoma) 
which divides the “waters above” and the “waters 
beneath.” 

These two views clashed shortly before the 
middle of the 6th C. The Alexandrian view was 
represented by John PHrLoponos, who inter- 
preted the first chapter of Genesis on CREATION 
against the background of Greek physics and as- 
tronomy. The Antiochene belief was represented 
by Kosmas INDIKOPLEUSTES, who argued from the 
Bible and yet actually followed ideas popular in 
the East and, without realizing it, borrowed from 
the Greek tradition. For Philoponos (De opificio 
mundi, ed. Reichardt, 78.20—26, 119.1—5), Moses 
is the teacher of Plato; according to Kosmas, Moses 
received the mandate from God to oppose the 
spherical cosmology of the Babylonians and Greeks 
(Topographia christiana, ed. Wolska-Conus, 1:437- 
39, 449-51). 


COSMOS | 537 


The antispherical trend was intensified in the 
6th C. through the condemnation of Origenism. 
At the very least, the presupposition inherent in 
the spherical image of the world, that the spheres 
are moved by intelligent minds, was anathema- 
tized by Justinian I. This conception of cosmos, 
altered in various ways, generally speaking was 
responsible for “the popular mind-set in the Middle 
Ages, and apparently displaced the conception of 
a spherical world in the Greek world up to the 
time of Photios and Psellos” (Wolska, infra 182). 
Naturally, there were exceptions, as, for example, 
John of Damascus (Exp. fidei 20.9-11, 42—50, ed. 
Kotter, Schriften 2:50—52). 

More important for Byz. spirituality and mys- 
ticism is the fact that theoria phystke, religious con- 
templation of the world, remained an essential 
element in the ascent to God. It served as the 
presupposition for attaining the vision of God 
(theologia), a possibility realized through perfected 
praxis. This means that the program of EvaGRios 
Pontixkos (A. Guillaumont, RHR 91 [1972] 50f) 
was preserved in the tradition of the church, esp. 
through Maximos the Confessor, in spite of the 
tendency of Byz. spirituality to disregard the world 
and history in order to find God immediately (cf. 
HESYCHASM, PALAMISM). 

Lit. W. Wolska, La Topographie Chrétienne de Cosmas In- 
dicopleustès (Paris 1962). H.U. von Balthasar, Kosmische Li- 
turgie, Das Weltbild Maximus’ des Bekenners? (Einsiedeln 1961). 
A. Delatte, “Un manuel byzantin de cosmologie et de géo- 
graphie,” BAcBelg 18 (1932) 189—222. -K.-H.U. 


COSMOS (xkéap0s, lit. “world”). The fundamen- 
tal Greek world view emphasized the unity, har- 
mony, and beauty of reality. In the Platonic tra- 
dition, the perceptible cosmos is conceived as an 
image of the world of noetic ideas in the divine 
INTELLECT, composed of preexistent matter. 
Christian tradition, in contrast, developed its no- 
tion of CREATION “out of nothing,” without re- 
ducing the cosmos to “the world of man” (a ten- 
dency observed in late antiquity); it did not view 
the cosmos as fundamentally evil, as did GNosTI- 
cısM. The cosmos was seen in a more external, 
material, eschatologically or ontologically tran- 
sient character, in contrast to the inner, spiritual, 
eternal life yet to come. Inasmuch as the cosmos 
was conceived as a universe, or as the embodiment 
of all things, the use of a holistic model suggests 
itself to conceptualize the cosmos as analogous to 


538 | COSTUME 


an organism possessing the attributes of a “World- 
soul.” The problem for Byz. authors who sought 
to preserve the holistic model consisted in exclud- 
ing the notion of a World-soul (“neither divine 
nor rational”), and particularly in rejecting the 
doctrine of the World-soul as a third hypostasis, 
advocated by “the most eminent of the pagan 
theologians” (Joun ITALOS, Quaestiones quodlibe- 
tales, pars. 42.6, 68.1, ed. P. Joannou, pp. 52.27, 
109.2122), while maintaining, on principle, an 
organized totality. -K.-H.U. 

Representation in Art. In art the cosmos was 
depicted as a complex involving PaRaDISE and its 
rivers, Earth shown as a mountain below the fir- 
mament (stereoma) and surrounded by Ocean; the 
cosmos is represented as a many-leveled structure, 
as well as planimetrically, in MSS of Kosmas In- 
DIKOPLEUSTES. From the 14th C. onward “Kos- 
mos” is identified as a personification in images 
of the PENTEcosT. (See also COSMOLOGY.) -A.C. 

LIT. K. Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympatheia (Munich 1926). 
R. Loewe, Kosmos und Aion (Gütersloh 1935). W. Kranz, 


“Kosmos,” Archiv fiir Begriffsgeschichte 2.1 (Bonn 1955) 5- 
113. C. Haebler, “Kosmos,” ibid. 11 (1967) 101-18. 


COSTUME. Byz. clothing consisted generally of 
several layers of loose TUNICS and mantles (CHLA- 
MYS, HIMATION). The simplest was a knee-length 
belted chiton with short sleeves, which was worn 
by laborers, shepherds (including the youthful 
David in Psalter illustrations), and children. Slightly 
more formal dress was a full-length tunic adorned 
in the early period with stripes or CLavi and 
square ornaments at specified places; later tunics 
had tight sleeves and an embroidered hem and 
collar. This was the usual costume for ordinary 
city dwellers or provincial dignitaries. Over this 
could be thrown a mantle, whose form varied 
with the sex and social status of the wearer. TROU- 
SERS, a Germanic and Eastern fashion, are rarely 
depicted in art, but texts suggest that they were 
worn, at least occasionally, by the 12th C.; men 
also wore tight leather hose. Hats (see HEADGEAR) 
did not flourish until well into the 11th C. For 
FOOTWEAR, men wore boots reaching to mid-calf 
rather than sandals. 

Though the basic elements of costume, such as 
tunics, cloaks, BELTS, hats, and scarves, were com- 
mon to most social groups, both lay and ecclesi- 
astical, certain versions of these garments became 
associated over the course of time with specific 


offices and titles. In fact, costume in Byz. was so 
strictly regulated and determined by the wearer's 
office, or role in society, that the distinction that 
we might make today between costume on the 
one hand, and INsiGNIA or even liturgical vest. 
ments on the other, must have been blurred. 
Elements of costume, both lay and ecclesiastical, 
were awarded to the wearer in special rituals; on 
rare occasions, the emperor, as a special honor to 
a courtier of a certain rank, might grant him the 
right to wear a special hat or vestment properly 
belonging to the rank above, but this was incon- 
ceivable to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Being di- 
vested of one’s costume or forced to wear anoth- 
er’s could have the effect of “defrocking” and be 
a cause of humiliation: for example, Sergios and 
Bakchos were deprived of their maniakia (see 
Torque), and the general Theophilos Erotikos 
was forced after the failure of his revolt to appear 
in the Hippodrome in women’s clothes (Skyl. 
429.13~17). 

Imperial Costume. From the costume of a con- 
suL, whose office the emperor had assumed, im- 
perial costume derived the Loros; this jeweled 
stole, his red (purple) boots or TZANGIA, and the 
CROWN became the most distinctive elements of 
the imperial wardrobe. The loros was worn over 
a silk tunic, the DIVETESION or SAKKOS, either of 
which may in turn have been worn over another 
tunic of which only the embroidered (detachable?) 
cuffs are visible in representations. Other gar- 
ments, such as the SKARAMANGION (another form 
of tunic) and the chlamys or SAGION, were worn 
not only by the emperor but also by members of 
the court. For his coronation, the emperor wore 
the divetesion, the chlamys, and tzangia (Leo Gramm. 
246.19-21). The emperor donned full military 
dress (see ARMOR) on campaign as well as to 
celebrate a triumph upon his return to the capital; 
on such occasions his dress differed from that of 
his officers only with respect to his crown and red 
boots. 

PuRPLE was the prerogative of the emperor and 
his relations, and of his household attendants 
under certain conditions. Compromises on color 
could be arranged for political purposes: Nike- 
phoros III Botaneiates allowed strands of scarlet 
to be woven into the clothes of Constantine Dou- 
kas (whose father he had deposed as emperor), 
in honor of Constantine’s imperial lineage 
(An.Komn. 1:115.22—-293), and Alexios I Komne- 


nos later restored to Constantine as caesar the 
right to wear shoes entirely of red. 

Some imperial garments bore figural designs; 
for example, the mantle of Empress Theodora in 
the mosaic at S. Vitale, RAVENNA, is adorned with 
the figures of the Three Magi. In the 14th C. 
EAGLES made of pearls decorated the shoes of 
members of the imperial family. The imperial 
garments were so stiffened with gold embroidery 
and weighed down with gems as to render the 
emperor and empress virtually immobile. 

Aristocratic and Court Costume. Aristocratic 
dress differed from ordinary lay costume in the 
greater number of layers involved (usually a long- 
sleeved tunic was covered by another looser tunic, 
which in turn was topped by a chlamys), in the 
greater length of the tunics, in the richness of the 
materials, and probably in the brightness and 
variety of its colors. Aristocratic costume was in- 
trinsically valuable, not only for its stLk material, 
but for the large number of pearls and precious 
stones used to adorn the fabrics. Garments were 
decorated with gold embroidery along the hems, 
around the upper arm, and at the cuffs: rows of 
pearls also outlined the various sections of the 
garment, and collars were studded with gems. In 
fact, it is hard to determine whether these collars 
should properly be considered pieces of JEWELRY 
or parts of actual garments. The higher the offi- 
cial, the more gems on his clothing and the less 
his freedom of movement. Some court robes were 
adorned with lions or pictures of the emperor as 
well as the more usual floral patterns. 

At court, Oriental garments were much in vogue 
from at least the gth C. onward (N.P. Kondakov, 
Byzantion 1 [1924] 7—49): courtiers adopted a wide 
variety of long silk caftanlike garments (e.g., KAB- 
BADION), belted and highly patterned, as well as 
exotic headgear. Sources that indicate the names 
of these garments, if not their actual appearance, 
are the Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS (late gth C.), 
De ceremoniis (ioth C.), and pseudo-Kopinos 
(14th C.). The color of the costume was of para- 
mount importance, far more so than the pattern 
of its fabric: courtiers were lined up in processions 
by color, and sometimes only the color of their 
shoes, for example, served to distinguish the dress 
of two officials of differing rank. 

Monastic and Ecclesiastical Costume. The mo- 
nastic habit (see SCHEMA), provided by the mon- 
astery usually on an annual basis, consisted of a 


COSTUME 539 


long dark tunic of cotton or wool; the analabos, a 
sort of sleeveless vest comparable to the scapular; 
a dark cloak (MANDyas); the koukoullion, or hood; 
and black slippers (kaligia). 

Ecclesiastical vestments were again a series of 
tunics, mantles, and scarves, strictly determined 
by the rank of the wearer: the STICHARION and 
ORARION for a deacon; the sticharion, PHELONION, 
and EPITRACHELION for a priest; and these plus 
the OMOPHORION, EPIMANIKIA, and ENCHEIRION/ 
EPIGONATION for a bishop. 

Dress of Women. There seem to have been 
comparatively few variations in female dress. Most 
women wore a full-length long-sleeved tunic and 
the MAPHORION over a tight headdress to cover 
their heads. The distinction in dress between mar- 
ried women and Nuns was probably small: nuns, 
to judge by representations, wore the maphorion 
more tightly drawn about the neck, so that no 
part of their body was visible except face and 
hands. In artistic representations, maidservants, 
midwives, and the Samaritan woman, always a 
special paradigm of rural beauty, can have long 
unbound hair or a loose turban. Their tunics are 
often sleeveless, as are the tunics of various female 
PERSONIFICATIONS; they may wear a short knee- 
length tunic over a longer one. Female court attire 
other than that of the empress is rarely illustrated: 
the women dancing with Miriam in the 11th-C. 
Vat. Gr. 752, fol.449v (Spatharakis, Corpus, fig.123), 
wear tunics with extremely wide pointed sleeves, 
jeweled sashes or belts, and pillowlike head- 
dresses. Donor portraits of the 14th C. show 
women in beautifully woven silk Oriental tunics 
like those of the men. 

Nudity. The Byz. rejected the antique cult of 
the NuDE. In art, complete nudity is reserved for 
the images of Adam and Eve, for Christ in the 
scene of his baptism, and for figures in exile such 
as Job. Partai nudity is often associated with peo- 
ple on the fringes of society: wild-haired demon- 
iacs, the devil, certain extreme ascetics (Onou- 
phrios wore only palm fronds), martyrs stripped 
of their official robes and brought to desert places 
for execution, or for personifications of natural 
features, such as river gods. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 2.2:5-59, 6:267—94. M.G. Hous- 
ton, Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume and Decoration? 
(London 1947) 131—621. A. Carr, DMA 3:614-16. K. Wes- 
sel, Die Kultur von Byzanz (Frankfurt a.M. 1970) 222-25, 


411-14. J. Ebersolt, Les arts somptuaires de Byzance (Paris 
1923). Oppenheim, Ménchskletd. Braun, Liturgische Gewan- 


540 | COTRIGURS AND UTIGURS 


dung. Johnstone, Church Embroidery 12—19. Kazhdan-Epstein, 
Change 74-79. H. Mihăescu, “La terminologie d'origine 
latine des vêtements dans la littérature byzantine,” in Fest- 
schrift Stratos 2:587—99. -N.P.Š. 


COTRIGURS AND UTIGURS (Kovurzpiyovpo., 
Oùriyovpot), Turkic peoples, settled in the mid- 
6th C. north of the Black Sea, between the Dnie- 
per and the Don. At the request of their Gepid 
allies the Cotrigurs sent a large force against the 
Lombards in Pannonia. Urged by the Gepids, the 
Cotrigurs then raided Byz. territory in 551 and 
withdrew only when their eastern neighbors and 
kinsmen, the Utigurs, who lived east of the Don, 
were bribed by the Romans to attack their home 
territory. The Cotrigurs had seen the wealth of 
the empire, however, and realized its vulnerability 
to a fast-moving cavalry force. In 558/9 they crossed 
the frozen Danube near its mouth and advanced 
into Byz. territory in three columns. One swept 
into Greece as far as Thermopylae, the second 
entered the Kallipolis peninsula, and the third, 
commanded by ZABERGAN, approached the walls 
of Constantinople, where their arrival caused con- 
sternation until Belisarios drove them away. Dur- 
ing their return they were again attacked by the 
Utigurs; the hostility between the Cotrigurs and 
the Utigurs continued until both were subdued 
in the 560s by the Avars, who took some of the 
Cotrigurs with them to Pannonia. The Utigurs 
then became part of the Turkic confederation 
that captured Bosporos (Kerch) in 576, while the 
rest of the Cotrigurs became part of the Bulgar 
confederation settled north of the Azov Sea in 
the mid-7th C. 

LIT. Moravesik, Studia Byz. 84-118. V. BeSevliev, Die 
protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte (Amster- 
dam 1981) 95—99, 308-13. P.B. Golden, Khazar Studies 
(Budapest 1980) 1:30-34, 42—46. Moravcsik, Byzantinotur- 
cica 1:66f. D.1. Dimitrov, Prabiilgarite po severnoto i zapadnoto 
Cernomone (Varna 1987). —R.B. 


COTTON GENESIS. See GENESIS. 
COTYAEUM. See KOTYAION. 
COUCHES. See FURNITURE. 


COUNCILS (ovvodot), formal deliberative bodies 
of bishops and ecclesiastical representatives (priests, 
deacons, laymen, or monks) that gathered to dis- 


cuss and regulate disputed questions of church 
doctrine and discipline. Such assemblies, which 
could be ecumenical, metropolitan, episcopal, or 
patriarchal, expressed the essential nature of the 
church as community or koinonia. The church was 
indeed conceived as synodal or conciliar in struc- 
ture from the beginning. This pattern and prac- 
tice of conciliarity had in fact become the rule by 
the 3rd C. as regional meetings of several Chris- 
tian communities were convoked to discuss con- 
troversial issues, with nonparticipating churches 
being informed of their decisions. Presbyters, dea- 
cons, and laymen also attended, but probably only 
as “observers” or as advisers to the episcopal col- 
lege. 

Ecumenical Councils. Strictly speaking, the early 
church could only express its conciliar nature on 
a local rather than an “ecumenical” scale while 
Christianity was still an illegal religion. When it 
was recognized in the 4th C., however, universal 
or ecumenical councils representing—at least in 
theory—the entire episcopate of the empire be- 
came possible. Besides, as the church was seen as 
coextensive with the empire, reliable pronounce- 
ments became more urgent; exact definitions of 
faith were needed in order to determine imperial 
policy toward dissident or schismatic groups. This 
was Clearly the primary goal of these assemblies 
as far as the state was concerned. Accordingly, 
these larger convocations, unlike the pre-Nicene 
councils, were given imperial confirmation and 
the binding force of law. Nicaea I (325), convoked 
by CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT, was the prototype. 
Seven such councils—all held in the East—were 
recognized by the Byz. church as genuinely ecu- 
menical: Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, 
Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople HI, 
and Nicaea II. The eighth “ecumenical” council 
acknowledged by the West, the council of Con- 
stantinople of 86g—70, was annulled by the union 
synod of 879—8o. In contrast to the Byz. position, 
the Roman Catholic church considers as ecumen- 
ical several councils convoked by popes; four Lat- 
eran synods (1123, 1139, 1179, 1215), two coun- 
cils of Lyons (1245 and 1274), Vienna of 1311, 
Constance (1414—18), FERRARA-FLORENCE, etc. 
Two of them, the Second Council of Lyons and 
Ferrara-Florence, deliberated problems con- 
nected with Byz. (For articles on individual coun- 
cils, see under site of convocation: e.g., EPHESUS, 
COUNCILS OF.) f 


Significantly, none of the ecumenical councils 
was convened by a pope. The emperors, who 
often presided over them (either personally or 
through their representatives), summoned them. 
All, moreover, were extraordinary or occasional 
gatherings. This being so, the canonical literature 
lacked fixed rules (a typically Byz. phenomenon) 
concerning their convocation, composition, and 
organization. Byz. canon law has in fact no phi- 
losophy of ecumenical councils. 

Although the emperors hoped to use the ecu- 
menical councils as an immediate, binding au- 
thority to achieve unanimity or uniformity and 
cohesion throughout the empire, such councils 
and their decisions were not accepted mechani- 
cally in advance, as divine institutions de jure di- 
vino. Nicaea l, for example, was not universally 
acknowledged until 381, while others (SERDICA, 
HieriA, the “Robber” Council of Epuesus, Fer- 
rara-Florence) were eventually accepted as local 
councils, or rejected as outright heretical concilia- 
bula, even when they possessed all the criteria of 
ecumenicity. Their reception therefore was not 
based on any outward juridical notion of ecumen- 
icity, but on the truth they embodied as authentic 
organs of episcopal and ecclesial consensus. It was 
this alone—viewed as a manifestation of Christ’s 
abiding allegiance to his church—which eventu- 
ally caused them to be recognized as binding and 
infallible in authority (J. Meyendorff, SVThQ 17 
[1973] 267f). Councils quite simply were not above 
the church. 

Metropolitan Councils. Unlike ecumenical 
councils, provincial (or metropolitan) councils were 
a permanent institutionalized phenomenon: con- 
vocations of bishops of a particular province, 
meeting in the provincial capital under the pres- 
idency of the METROPOLITAN, were in place before 
the 4th C. They met to discuss controversial issues 
of common concern, but also for episcopal con- 
secrations, which required conciliarity, that is, the 
presence and participation of all bishops of an 
ecclesiastical area. Only with Nicaea I, however, 
were these metropolitan councils permanently es- 
tablished by being ordered to meet twice yearly 
(canon 5). This regulation was confirmed by Chal- 
cedon (canon 19), but was subsequently changed 
to a single annual convocation (TRULLO, canon 8; 
Nicaea II, canon 6). The duties of these councils 
were quite extensive, covering questions of faith, 
liturgy, morals, discipline, and organization. Ni- 


COUNCILS 541 


caea I likewise decreed that the election of a 
bishop to a vacant see be placed in the hands of 
all the neighboring bishops of the province (canon 
4). These canons mark the beginning of a distinc- 
tion in ecclesiastical law between different kinds 
of synods and are, as such, an important stage in 
the evolution of conciliar theory. 

Episcopal Councils. The episcopal council was 
the official assembly of the bishop and clergy of 
a single bishopric (parozkia). It was always under 
the authority and presidency of the bishop and 
was responsible for all matters concerning the 
parotkia. This type of council was affected consid- 
erably by the new legislation; although not en- 
tirely eliminated, it was certainly superseded by 
the metropolitan council, henceforth viewed as 
the superior authority. The latter indeed became 
the higher court of appeal for sentences gener- 
ated by the lower episcopal council (Nicaea II, 
canon 3). 

Patriarchal Synods. The 4th C. also saw the 
introduction of patriarchal synods, which were 
councils of the individual PATRIARCHATES con- 
voked and presided over by the patriarchs. The 
most important consultative body of the patriarch 
of Constantinople was the ENDEMOUSA SYNODOS. 
This was essentially a permanent “resident” synod 
with a continuous existence throughout the me- 
dieval period in which decisions were reached in 
collegiality. But regional or local patriarchal coun- 
cils were also important, particularly after the 
11th C. when no ecumenical councils were held 
because of the scuism. In contrast with the ende- 
mousa, these exceptional, more solemn assemblies 
held during major doctrinal disputes, included 
not only metropolitans and bishops, but often also 
the emperor and members of the senate. Their 
doctrinal definition (TOMOS) was sometimes in- 
cluded in the SYNODIKON OF ORTHODOXY. as was 
the case with the local councils of Constantinople 
of 1156-57, 1166—67, and 1351 (see under Con- 
STANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF). The authority of the 
Byz. church was not therefore restricted to the 
age of the seven ecumenical councils alone; essen- 
tially, regional councils could be and were ac- 
cepted as universally valid testimony of the Or- 
thodox faith. 

Time and Place. Normally circumstance and 
convenience determined the time and place of 
meeting for councils. This was the case with ecu- 
menical councils, which had to accommodate not 


542 | COUNCILS 


only large numbers, but individual participants 
traveling long distances. Provincial councils, how- 
ever, met at the capital of the province. They 
could also be convened “at the place where the 
bishop of the metropolis shall approve” (Chalce- 
don, canon 19; Trullo, canon 8). The actual con- 
vocation was held in a church such as Hagia 
Sophia, or in a building attached to the church, 
such as the baptistery or dzakontkon, with the im- 
perial residence or palace an alternative choice, 
as the councils held at Hieria, Blachernai, and 
Trullo illustrate. Often individual contingents (e.g., 
the Egyptian and Antiochian at Ephesus and 
Chalcedon) were housed in different buildings. 
This did not always prevent riots, bloodshed, or 
even separate or rump synods, which assembled 
in order to undermine the work of the majority 
or opposition (see SERDICA and Epuesus), for quite 
often bishops were accompanied by sizable over- 
zealous parties of supporters consisting of priests, 
monks, and laymen. It should be noted that this 
nonepiscopal (i.e., nonvoting) element was often 
invited to speak and join in the discussion. 

Documents. Minutes of the deliberations were 
carefully recorded by secretaries, although some, 
such as the acts of Nicaea I and Constantinople 
I, have not survived. Those of the endemousa were 
kept in the chartophylakeion of the patriarchate. 
The signing of these documents was determined 
by seniority of ordination or by the traditional 
order (taxis) of sees. The five major sees of the 
empire (PENTARCHY) took precedence over all oth- 
ers. A priest or deacon signed if he had attended 
as a representative of a particular see. In addition 
to doctrinal definitions, disciplinary canons regu- 
lating the life of both clergy and laity were also 
frequently issued by councils. Often collected sep- 
arately, these formed an important component of 
ecclesiastical law. Occasionally ANATHEMAS, EX- 
COMMUNICATIONS, or depositions (kathaireseis) di- 
rected against individuals or groups would be 
attached to the dogmatic decisions. Exile or im- 
prisonment in a monastery often accompanied 
such ecclesiastical punishments. 

Church and State. The secular power was rep- 
resented in most councils, esp. ecumenical and 
patriarchal ones. Given the close ties between 
church and state in Christian Byz., this was both 
natural and understandable. Imperial interest in 
the outcome of councils was no doubt one reason 
the public transportation system (cursus publicus) 


was placed at the disposal of the bishops at Nicaea 
I; it also explains why emperors often presided 
over some councils (cf. Marcian at Chalcedon) 
and even took part in their deliberations. True, 
abuses and even compulsion were not unknown 
(e.g., the submission of Pope VicILius to Justinian 
I at Constantinople II [see under CONSTANTINO- 
PLE, COUNCILS OF]). Despite the tension caused by 
such flagrant abuse of imperial power, however, 
the right of formal decision in matters of faith 
belonged to the episcopate. Indeed, the church 
was often successful (though not always immedi- 
ately) in resisting an emperor’s pressure. 

Representations in Art. Surviving depictions of 
councils assume a form closely related to that of 
other images of authority such as the PENTECOST 
and the Last JUDGMENT. Following Late Antique 
schemes such as the council of the gods in the 
Ambrosian Iliad (see HOMER) and the emperor’s 
presidency at the games on the base of the Os- 
ELISK THEODOSIOS, they show a semicircle of hier- 
archs meeting as a college and supervised by the 
emperor as epistemonarches. 

The earliest images of councils are known only 
from texts. Six councils were depicted in the MEsE, 
in Constantinople, set up, according to the author 
of the Life of Stephen the Younger, to edify 
“country folk, foreigners, and the common peo- 
ple” (PG 100:1172A). By the early 8th C. such 
pictures were fairly common, including mosaics 
of the First Council of Nicaea in an unknown 
church in that city. Mosaics showing structures 
symbolizing each of the seven ecumenical coun- 
cils, many reworked in the 12th C. and today 
fragmentarily preserved, survive in the Church 
of the Nativity in BETHLEHEM. After Iconoclasm, 
council scenes were no longer purely commem- 
orative. In the marginal PsaLTers, Leo V appears 
amid Iconoclastic bishops at the Council of 815 
to illustrate hypocrisy and bloodthirstiness (Ps 25:4), 
while Theodosios I presides over the First Council 
of Constantinople in a miniature in the Paris 
Grecory reflecting the concern of PHoTIos with 
both Iconoclasm and the FILIoQuE. Even more 
central is the position given to an Iconoclast shown 
condemned by Nicaea II, in the MENOLOGION OF 
Basix II (p.108). The Madrid MS of John Sky- 
litzes devotes a unique series of pictures (Grabar- 
Manoussacas, Skylitzès, nos. 310—12) to the council 
that forced the resignation of Patr. Tryphon (927— 
31). Frescoes of four councils—painted as usual 


in the narthex-——in the Metropolis at MISTRA may 
have liturgical significance (S. Dufrenne, Les Pro- 
grammes iconographiques des églises byzantines de Mis- 
tra [Paris 1970] 8, 59f). The miniature in Paris, 
B.N. gr. 1242 (Spatharakis, Portrait, fig.86), that 
shows john VI Kantakouzenos towering over 
identifiable metropolitans and Patr. Kallistos I at 
the Council of 1351 reasserts the traditional 
meaning of council pictures as images of imperial 
hegemony in matters of doctrine. 

SOURCES. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 
ed. J. Mansi, 31 vols. (Florence-Vienna 1759—98; rp. Paris 
1901-27). G.A. Rhalles, M. Potles, Syntagma ton theion kai 
heron kanonon, 6 vols. (Athens 1852-59). Acta Conciliorum 
Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz, 5 vols. in 32 pts. (Berlin- 
Leipzig 1922~84). : 

LIT. J. Zhishman, Die Synoden und die Episkopal-Amter in 
der morgenldndischen Kirche (Vienna 1867). C.J. Hefele, H. 
Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, 8 vols. (Paris 1907—21). F. 
Dvornik, “Emperors, Popes, and General Councils,” DOP 
6 (1951) 1-23. J. Hajjar, “Patriarche et synode dans l'Eglise 
byzantine,” PrOC 4.2 (1954) 118-44. B. Botte, H. Marat, 
et al., Le concile et les conciles (Chevetogne 1960). Histoire des 
conciles vecuméniques, 12 vols. (Paris 1962—). P. L’Huillier, 
The Church of the Ancient Councils (Crestwood, N.Y., 1986). 
J. Boojamra, “The Byzantine Notion of the ‘Ecumenical 
Council’ in the Fourteenth Century,” BZ 80 (1987) 59—76. 
C. Walter, Liconographie des conciles dans la tradition byzantine 
(Paris 1970). -A.P., A.C. 


COURT, LAW (ôikaorhpiov). The emperor was 
the source of law and the supreme judge who 
determined the right of APPEAL and of amnesty; 
the power to judge was thought to be delegated 
by him to individual institutions or officials. All 
government bureaus (SEKRETA) possessed to some 
extent the right to condemn and pardon, and 
even the GENIKON had its own court; since the 
heads of departments frequently had no profes- 
sional legal knowledge, they usually were given 
SYMPONOI as assistants (Balsamon in Rhalles-Potles, 
Syntagma 3:339.2—g). In the army, STRATEGO! and 
their subalterns exercised judicial authority. More 
specific judicial functions were fulfilled by the 
EPARCH OF THE CITY and the QUAESTOR, whereas 
the EPI TON DEESEON presided over petitions and 
appeals. As chief of police, the DROUNGARIOS TES 
VIGLAS had judicial duties. The imperial judges of 
the vELUM or Hippodrome (replaced later by the 
KRITAI KATHOLIKO]) constituted the highest court. 
In rare cases the SENATE discussed crimes of great 
importance. Bishops, aided by their staff, exer- 
cised ecclesiastical jurisdiction extending far be- 
yond CANON Law, and the precise demarcation 


CREATION 543 


between civil and ecclesiastical courts was not al- 
ways Clear. 

In the provinces, jurisdiction lay in the hands 
of the local administration, and governors fre- 
quently bore the title of JUDGE (krites) or PRAETOR; 
sometimes special magistrates arrived from Con- 
stantinople to hear local cases. Masters were con- 
sidered the judges of their slaves and servants, 
unless they were personally involved in the case 
(Peira 51.1). The concept of judicial IMMUNITY 
was never very highly developed in Byz. 

ut. Zacharia, Geschichte 353-89. Kaser, Zivilprozessrecht 
418-45. Oikonomides, Listes 319-23. A. Guillou, La civil- 
isation byzantine (Paris 1974) 149-57. Macrides, “Justice” 
99—204. Troianos, Ekklesiastike Dikonomia 7—48. Aik. Chris- 


tophilopoulou, “Ta byzantina dikasteria kata tous aiones 
I’-IA’,” Diptycha 4 (1986) 163-77. -A.K. 


CRAFTSMEN. See ARTISAN; GUILDS. 


CREATION (Kriss Ek Tod uù övros). The clas- 
sical formulation of the Christian doctrine of cre- 
ation states that the cosmos was brought into 
existence out of nothing through the omnipo- 
tence and free will of God. On the other hand, 
the divine generation (gennesis) of the Son and 
the Procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit, in- 
terpreted as “creation” and coming into existence 
by Arians and the PNEUMATOMACHOI, respec- 
tively, had to be distinguished from creation of 
world and mankind; at the same time any doctrine 
of emanation to explain creation had to be ex- 
cluded, since it does “not stem from the essence 
of God” (John of Damascus, Exp. fidei 8.57—78, 
81.6-11; ed. Kotter, Schriften 2:20f, 180). 
Emphasis on the FREEDOM and contingency of 
divine creation runs counter to the idea of its 
eternality and necessity. In this connection, the 
question as to the motive of creation (why did 
God create the world?) receives an answer in 
which the Platonic tradition and esp. pseudo- 
DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE, that is, the view that 
the Good continuously generates out of itself, are 
interpreted to mean that man cannot penetrate 
the transcendent essence of God who alone is 
good (Lk 18:19). The question, then, is met by 
referring to this notion of the essence of the 
Good: that God creates because he wills to, and 
not because he is good, an answer that emphasizes 
the apophatic character of theology (and not, as 


544 CREDITOR 


in the West, the possibility of theological cata- 
phatic statements). Finally, in connection with the 
emphasis on God’s freedom in the creation, the 
Platonic notion that the ideas within the divine 
mind serve the demiurge as models, insofar as it 
is given an anthropomorphic interpretation, is 
rejected. 

In spite of the tension that exists between the 
Platonic cosmological model (presumably based 
on Gen 1:2 LXX) and belief in the “sovereignty 
of God,” that is, the unlimited power of God in 
relation to the world, and in spite of (or even 
because of) the cosmological speculations of 
Gnosticism, there slowly developed in early Chris- 
tianity the doctrine of creation out of nothing that 
also served as a twofold front against both Gnos- 
ticism and philosophy. Nevertheless Plotinos’s 
interpretation of matter as the final emanation 
and pure privation (steresis), and Porphyry’s ar- 
guments against an eternally preexistent matter, 
led outwardly to an approach that, for example, 
in Alexandria in the 5th C., produced a formal 
(i.e., outward) synthesis in the philosopher Hier- 
okles, who taught that God eternally creates, yet 
not “out of preexistent matter,” but only on the 
basis of his will (PHoTIos, Bibl., cods. 214, 251, 
ed. Henry 3:126.22—26, 7:189.23—191.23). John 
PHILOPONOS sought, in opposition to PROKLOS and 
Aristotle (W. Wieland in Festschrift fiir Hans-Georg 
Gadamer [Tubingen 1960] 291—316), to provide 
the doctrine of creation with a philosophical basis 
to which he later gave an exegetical foundation 
by tying it to Basil the Great’s homilies on the 
HEXAEMERON. The cosmology he opposes is that 
of THEODORE OF MopsuEst1a and his disciple Kos- 
MAS INDIKOPLEUSTES. 

In the 11th C., under the influence of the Neo- 
platonic doctrine of emanation, creation is seen 
to be continually rooted in the procession and 
return to God, a “movement proceeding from its 
origin (arche)” (e.g., JOHN ITALOS, Quaestiones quod- 
libetales, par.6g, ed. P. Joannou, pp. 114-17), which 
constitutes the relationship of the creature to the 
Creator, except that the difference between them 
is not addressed. This is observed particularly in 
commentaries on theological statements of Gre- 
gory of Nazianzos. 


uit. H.J. Kramer, Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik® (Am- 
sterdam 1967). G. May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts (Berlin— 
New York 1978). P. Joannou, Die Illuminationslehre des Mi- 
chael Psellos und Johannes Italos (Ettal 1956) 39-78. J. Baudry, 


Le problème de l'origine et de l'éternité du monde dans la philo- 
sophie grecque de Platon à l'ère chrétienne (Paris 1931). M. 
Baltes, Die Weltentstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den 
antiken Interpreten, vol. 1 (Leiden 1976). —K.-H.U. 


Representation in Art. Based on the twofold 
account of Genesis 1:1—2:4 and 2:5—25, represen- 
tations of the Creation are found in numerous 
artistic contexts and may be divided into at least 
three categories, developed probably not much 
later than Basil the Great’s HEXAEMERON. This 
popular text is preserved in more than 100 MSS, 
but none of them received narrative illustration. 
The striking iconographic feature of the days of 
Creation personified as angels—e.g., in the Cotton 
Genesis—derived not from biblical exegesis but 
from Late Antique art (M.-T. d’Alverny, CahArch 
9 [1957] 271-300). In another variation type God 
is present and directs the Creation (Cappella Pala- 
tina, PALERMO, and MONREALE); in a third type, 
represented by the OcTaATEucus, the action is 
carried out by an unseen heavenly power. 

tir. C. Hahn, “The Creation of the Cosmos: Genesis 
Illustration in the Octateuchs,” CahArch 28 (1979) 29-40. 
J. Lassus, “La création du monde dans les Octateuques 
byzantins du douzième siècle,” MonPiot 62 (1979) 85-148. 
M. Bernabò, “Considerazioni sul manoscritto Laurenziano 
Plut.5.38 e sulle miniature della Genesi degli Ottateuchi 


bizantini,” AnnPisa* 8 (1978) 135-57. Weitzmann-Kessler, 
Cotton Gen. 47-58. ~J.H.L. 


CREDITOR (éavetornys), either a professional 
money-lender (ARGYROPRATES Or BANKER) OF any- 
one else to whom money was owed. In Justinianic 
law and later, social status determined the rate of 
INTEREST. One could get a Loan even from a 
monastery. Christian public opinion condemned 
usury and both legal texts and narrative sources 
describe the cruelty of creditors: Epanagoge 35.1 
prohibits creditors from exhuming corpses “un- 
der the rationale of DEBT,” and Demetrios Ky- 
DONES (Correspondance, ed. Loenertz 1:30.140—50) 
describes how a creditor dragged an insolvent 
debtor from beneath his bed, beat him, “shouted 
about silver, interest, and months,” and took him 
before a judge. The hagiographer of St. PHILA- 
RETOS THE MERCIFUL sympathizes with a peasant 
whose ox died and who wanted to run away be- 
fore his creditors (chreopheiletar) attacked him like 
wild beasts (M.H. Fourmy, M. Leroy, Byzantion 9 
[1934] 119-4—-7). 

As security the creditor usually received im- 
movables from the debtor—either as a mortgage 


or the actual physical possession. If the debtor 
proved to be insolvent, the ownership of the land, 
house, or other item was transferred to the 
creditor. -A.K. 


CREED (avpBodov), in the strict sense of the 
word, the short brief exposition of the principles 
of Christian belief as formulated at the ecumeni- 
cal councils of Nicata (325) and the First Council 
of Constantinople in 381 (see under CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE, COUNCILS OF), and as transmitted by the 
acts of the Council of CHALCEDON (451). Formulas 
representing the Nicaean “creed,” as cited by var- 
ious theologians, esp. in the commentary of THEO- 
DORE OF MOPSUESTIA, do not give a homogeneous 
text, and the concept of the Nicaean creed in the 
4th C. seems to have been relatively vague. The 
creed of Constantinople is also problematic: first 
of all, it is not mentioned until Chalcedon (an 
argument ex silentio); secondly, EPIPHANIOs of Cy- 
prus, in a book written seven years before Con- 
stantinople I, presents the creed in the same form 
as that of Constantinople rendered at Chalcedon, 
although the text of Epiphanios may be interpo- 
lated (B.M. Weischer, Theologie und Philosophie 53 
[1978] 407-14). Thus, the creed of Nicaea was 
developed only over time; it derived from (but 
did not eliminate) local creeds, probably the creed 
of Caesarea as attested by EUSEB10S OF CAESAREA. 
It served as a baptismal formula that eventually 
assumed the role of the line of demarcation from 
heresy—whether this happened by 38:1 or only 
451 is not clear. The text of the creed also sur- 
vived in papyri of the 5th (J. Kramer, ZPapEpig 
1 [1967] 131f) and 6th C. (O. Montevecchi, Ae- 
gyptus 55 [1975] 58-69). 

ED. G.L. Dossetti, Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli 
(Rome 1967). 

LIT. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds* (London 1972). 
D.L. Holland, “The Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople 
Reexamined,” ChHist 38 (1969) 248-61. Idem, “The Ear- 
liest Text of the Old Roman Symbol: A Debate with Hans 
Lietzmann and J.N.D. Kelly,” ChHist 34 (1965) 262-81. 


A.M. Ritter, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol 
(Göttingen 1965). -K.-H.U. 


CRETAN LITERATURE. Little is known of Cre- 
tan literary activity until the late 14th C.; by this 
time, following the division of territories in the 
aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, Venetian feudal 
overlords and Greek subjects had settled into a 


CRETE 545 


relationship in which the Italo-Venetian and Cre- 
tan Greek dialects and the Catholic and Orthodox 
faiths maintained a relatively harmonious coexis- 
tence. Of the earliest identifiable writers, Leo- 
nardo DELLA PorTa stands apart from Stephen 
SACHLIKES and Marinos FALIERI, a younger con- 
temporary, in that he employed a standard form 
of Greek whereas Sachlikes and Falieri preferred 
the Cretan dialect. Both the latter demonstrate 
other features that remained characteristic of Cre- 
tan literature until the end of its Golden Age. 
These are the use of rhymed POLITICAL VERSE and 
a delight in scenes of comic realism drawn from 
the back streets and brothels of urban Crete. Cut 
off from the mainstream of Byz. educational tra- 
ditions and open to influences from western Eu- 
rope, writers in Crete showed an acquaintance 
with the vernacular literatures of Byz., esp. the 
verse ROMANCES (probably also composed and 
copied on the fringes of the Byz. world), and an 
awareness of Venetian literary fashions (esp. 
sharply observed amatory dialogues) which was 
to culminate in the masterpieces of George Chor- 
tatzis (Erofili, Katzourbos) and Vincenzo Kornaro 
(Erotokritos). 

LIT. M. Manoussakas, He Kretike Logotechnia (Thessalo- 


nike 1965) 5—26. G. Morgan, “Cretan Poetry: Sources and 
Inspiration,” KretChron 14 (1960) 7—68. -E.M J. 


CRETE (Kp777), large island in the eastern Med- 
iterranean, midway between Greece and Africa. 
In the Roman period Crete was primarily agri- 
cultural, with industries producing mainly for the 
local market (I.F. Sanders, Roman Crete [War- 
minster 1982] 32—35); the island had numerous 
poleis—different sources give various figures, from 
22 to 2g—the most important being Gortyna and 
Knossos. Until 295—97 Crete formed a joint prov- 
ince with Cyrene but was then separated and 
under Constantine I included in the diocese of 
Macedonia. The administrative changes of the 7th 
C. are obscure: several seals of archontes of Crete 
are known (Zacos, Seals 1, no.1782) as well as one 
of a tourmarches of Crete (no.2059)—but this is 
not sufficient evidence to postulate the existence 
of a theme of Crete. The gth-C. Taktikon of Us- 
penskij lists both the archon and—separately—the 
strategos of Crete; this double governorship is still 
enigmatic. 

The island was attacked by the Goths in 268, 


546 | CRETE 


Vandals in 457, and Slavs in 623. Sometime be- 
tween 824 and 827/8 expatriate Spanish Arabs led 
by Aba Hafs landed in Crete, quickly conquered 
the whole island, and established their capital at 
CHANDAX. The Cretan Arabs had a highly devel- 
oped urban culture and tolerated Christianity. 
The Muslim occupation of Crete did, however, 
leave the whole of the AEGEAN SEA open to dev- 
astating raids from the island. After several ef- 
forts by his predecessor had failed, in g61 Nike- 
phoros (IJ) Phokas reconquered Crete and brought 
enormous treasure for his triumph to Constanti- 
nople (THEODOSIOS THE DEACON 2:8). After 961 
Crete was under the authority of a strategos; in 
the 10th-C. Taktikon of Escurial he is placed be- 
tween those of Cyprus and Hellas (Oikonomides, 
Listes 265.27). From the time of Alexios I Kom- 
nenos until 1204 Crete was administered by a 
doux or katepano. The bishop of Gortyna was arch- 
bishop of Crete from the beginnings of Christian- 
ity on the island, originally under the papacy and 
after 732/3 under the patriarch of Constantino- 
ple. 

Crete under Venetian Rule. After the Latin 
conquest of Constantinople in 1204, Crete was 
given to BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT, who sold it to 
Venice. The island became a source of agricul- 
tural products for the Republic, esp. grain, wine, 
olive oil, cheese, and wood (A. Laiou in Bisanzio e 
(Itaha [Milan 1982] 183-86); Venetian influence 
led to the commercialization of Cretan agricul- 
ture. The Greek inhabitants seem to have been 
less involved in commerce than the Latins and 
Jews; Laiou (supra 193) reckons that Greeks are 
named in 20 percent of the 14th-C. notarial acts 
that she studied. Crete was also an important base 
for Venetian trade with the Levant, esp. AYDIN, 
MENTESHE, and the Mamlak territories (E. Za- 
chariadou, Trade and Crusade [Venice 1983] xxxlii— 
iv). The harsh domination of Venice prompted 
several revolts in which not only the Greek pop- 
ulation but also some Venetian nobles partici- 
pated, as in 1363 (J. Jegerlehner, BZ 12 [1903] 
78-125); in 1453 Siffius Vlasto, a Greek from 
Rethymno, conspired to overthrow the Venetian 
government but his scheme was betrayed (M. 
Manoussakas, He en Krete synomosia tou Sephe Blas- 
tou [Athens 1960]). The Orthodox clergy in Crete 
was limited to 130 members who were under the 
jurisdiction of the Latin archbishop of the island 
(Z. Tsirpanles, Hellenika 20 [1967] 44—72). In spite 


of all the political and religious restrictions, Vene- 
tian Crete was a place where Greek and Latin 
cultural traditions came into contact, resulting in 
a revival of art and Greek literature, esp. in the 
vernacular, by such writers as Stephen SACHLIKEs 
and Leonardo DELLA PORTA. 

LIT. V. Christides, The Conquest of Crete by the Arabs (Ath- 
ens 1984). D. Tsougarakis, Byzantine Crete 5th—12th C. (Ox- 
ford 1984). K. Gallas et al., Byzantenisches Kreta (Munich 
1983). S. Borsari, // dominio Veneziano a Creta nel XIII secolo 
(Naples 1963). N. Tomadakis, “La politica religiosa di Ve- 
nezia a Creta verso i Cretesi ortodossi del XIII al XV 
secolo,” EEBS 38 (1971) 361-76. Jacoby, Recherches, pt.X 
(1971), 108-17. —T.E.G., A.K. 

Monuments of Crete. The monuments built on 
Crete before the Arab conquest of the island are 
impressive for their size and number (more than 
40 survive): the churches at Panormos and Gor- 
TYNA are large three-aisled basilicas built of care- 
fully dressed blocks, the former having a tripartite 


transept, atrium, and fine architectural carving. 


The far smaller medieval buildings were often 
built into the ruins of these grander structures. 
None can be dated before the restoration of Byz. 
rule in 961, and relatively few from the period 
preceding the Venetian domination, despite the 
missionary activity of John Xenos and NIKON HO 
“METANOEITE.” The Church of the Virgin at My- 
riokephala, part of a monastery founded by Xe- 
nos, has a layer of painting dating from the early 
11th C. (G. Antourakes, Haz monai Myriokephalon 
kai Roustikon Kretes meta ton parekklesion auton [Ath- 
ens 1977]). The Church of St. Panteleemon at 
Pege (formerly Bizariano) probably dates from 
the 12th C.; one of its columns was formed by 
piling four reused Corinthian capitals on top of 
one another. 

The churches erected under the Venetians are, 
for the most part, modest one-aisled barrel-vaulted 
structures lacking dome and narthex, built of 
stone or rubble masonry with little external dec- 
oration. The influence of the Venetians appears 
mainly on the façades, in the occasional pointed 
arch or ornamental carving. These churches served 
as private chapels, or were used by small village 
communities; as the many surviving inscriptions 
indicate, they were donated by groups of villages 
as well as by individuals and families. An adjoin- 
ing church was frequently constructed parallel to 
the first, and though the two were designed to 
communicate and could be virtually contempo- 
rary, each “aisle” had a different dedication and 


different donors. One of the relatively few domed 
structures is the cruciform Church of the Virgin 
Gouverniotissa at Potamies (mid-14th C.). 

The fresco decoration of these churches was 
both rich and surprisingly independent of West- 
ern influence (although there are three portraits 
of St. Francis). The earliest dated program is that 
of St. Anne at Amari (a.1225, S. Papadake- 
Oekland, DChAE* 7 [1973—74] 31-57); many later 
ones are also precisely dated, and many, esp. those 
of the 14th C., bear the names of the ARTISTS as 
well; the name of John Pagomenos appears in 
eight churches in western Crete over the years 
1313—47, and that of the Phokas brothers in three 
churches in eastern Crete from 1436 to ca.1453 
(T. Gouma-Peterson, Gesta 22 [1983] 159—70). 
The small scale of the churches led to a reduction 
in the scale of the paintings, but not of their 
content: some of the individual scenes in the grid 
of fresco panels adorning the barrel vaults are 
scarcely larger than portable icons. The lack of a 
dome meant that the bust of Christ Pantokrator 
was often displaced to the conch of the apse, 
where it was flanked by the supplicant Virgin and 
John the Baptist in a DEEsIs composition. The 
programs are not as laced with liturgical themes 
as are those at Mistra, for example, but are rich 
in narrative, esp. hagiographical subjects (M. Basi- 
lake, Kretike Hestia* 1 [1987] 60-83), including 
the life of the Virgin and local saints. 

The earliest frescoes of Crete reveal closer ties 
with the monastic centers of Asia Minor than with 
the art of Constantinople or even mainland Greece; 
13th-C. monuments such as St. George at Skla- 
vopoula (1290/1) are still provincial versions of 
12th-C. Komnenian painting. In the 14th C., how- 
ever, the successive trends in Palaiologan MONU- 
MENTAL PAINTING as evidenced in such centers as 
Constantinople, Thessalonike, Serbia, and Mistra 
came to Crete fairly promptly; apparently without 
any widespread importation of metropolitan art- 
ists, this art would take firm root on the island. 
In the north and south aisles of the Panagia Kera 
at Kritsa, the 11 scenes of the life of the Virgin 
and the elaborate Last Judgment are character- 
ized by multifigured compositions with imposing 
architectural backdrops, melodramatic poses, and 
exaggerated facial expressions reminiscent of the 
early 14th-C. works of MICHAEL (ASTRAPAS) AND 
Eutycuios (M. Borboudakis, Panagia Kera [Ath- 
ens, n.d.]; S. Papadake-Oekland, ArchDelt 22 [1967] 


CRIMEA | 547 


87—111), while the frescoes in the church of the 
Virgin at Sklavopoula (late 14th—early 15th C.) 
show the influence of the more graceful and wist- 
ful “mature” Palaiologan style favored in Con- 
stantinople and Mistra. This latter style was ulti- 
mately to lead to the development of the so-called 
Cretan school of painting of the 15th and 16th C. 

tit. K. Kalokyris, The Byzantine Wall Paintings of Crete 
(New York 1973). M. Chatzidakes, “Toichographies sten 
Krete,” KretChron 6 (1952) 59-91. G. Gerola, | monumenti 
veneti nell’isola di Creta, 4 vols. (Venice 1905—40). G. Gerola, 
K. Lassithiotakes, Topographikos katalogos ton totchographe- 
menon ekklesion tes Kretes (Heraklion 1961). Idem, “Ekklesies 
tes Dytikes Kretes,” KretChron 21 (1969) 177-233, 459-93; 
22 (1970) 133—210, 347-88; 23 (1971) 95—177. M. Catta- 
pan, “Nuovi elenchi e documenti dei pittori in Creta dal 
1300 al 1500,” Thesaurismata 9 (1972) 202-35. -N.P.S. 


CRIMEA, known in antiquity as Tauric Cher- 
sonese, a large peninsula situated between the 
Black and Azov Seas; in Byz. Greek texts the term 
KHAZARIA is sometimes used for Crimea. The 
interior was occupied in the 5th C. by the Huns, 
but in the early 6th C. Byz. established its power 
at least in the coastal cities of CHERSON and Cim- 
merian Bosporos. Justinian I ordered the resto- 
ration of walls and built phrowna at Alouston and 
Gorzoubitai to protect the coastal part of the 
Crimea (Prokopios, Buildings 3.7.10—11); the lo- 
cation of the frontier remains under discussion 
(e.g., E. Vejmarn, ADSV 17 [1980] 19-33). Byz. 
suzerainty was terminated ca.600, and the rem- 
nants of urban life dwindled, but it is plausible 
that the countryside flourished in the 7th—8th C. 
(A. Jakobson, Rannesrednevekovye sel’skte poseleniyja 
Jugo-Zapadnoj Tavriki [Leningrad 1970]). The 
Kuazars dominated Crimea from the 7th to 10th 
C., but from the gth C. onward Byz. struggled 
for hegemony, its stronghold being Cherson and 
the theme of Klimata (see KLIMA). 

The ethnic composition of Crimea was diversi- 
fied: besides Greeks and the remnants of Scythi- 
ans and Sarmatians, there were Goths in Dory, 
Bulgars in the region of Bosporos, Alans and 
Pechenegs in the interior, and Rus’ in nearby 
TMUTOROKAN. Armenians and Italians settled in 
cities of the peninsula from the 13th C. onward. 
The Byz. designated the local population of Cri- 
mea indiscriminately as “Tauroi” or “Tauroscy- 
thians.” 

After 1204 Crimea was at first within the eco- 
nomic sphere of Tresizonp; during the period 


548 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 


of Tatar political domination (after 1235) Gen- 
oese and Venetians used Crimean towns (esp. 
Soucpaia and Karra) as bases for long-distance 
trade. In 1475 the entire peninsula fell to the 
Ottomans. 

LIT. A. Jakobson, Srednevekovyj Krym (Leningrad 1964). 


Ju. Kulakovskij, Prošloe Tavridy? (Kiev 1914). D. Obolensky, 
“The Crimea and the North before 1204,” ArchPont 35, 


(1978) 123-33. -O.P. 


CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (éykAnparixy Six). 
The office of public prosecutor was unknown in 
Byz. law. Nevertheless, criminal procedures could 
be initiated by the authorities, but there were few 
laws governing how they were to be carried out. 
Punishable offenses were often prosecuted on ap- 
plication of a private person. The nature of the 
crime dictated who was entitled to prosecute: the 
injured or harmed person alone, or his relatives 
and anyone else. The accuser was, as a rule, called 
a kategoros, and the accusation to be recorded in 
court was an engraphe; however, the blurred dis- 
tinction between criminal and CIVIL PROCEDURE is 
reflected in the terminology of the sources. Crim- 
inal procedure differed from civil procedure in 
several ways: for example, there were variations 
in the arrangements for accusation and represen- 
tation; witnesses had to appear in person; TOR- 
TuRE played a large role; the accused could be 
held in custody; a trial could not last more than 
two years; and the unsuccessful accuser (syko- 
phantes) was threatened with the same punishment 
that would have befallen the accused had he been 
convicted (tautopatheia). 

Lit. Zacharia, Geschichte 406-08. D. Simon, “Die Melete 


des Eustathios Rhomaios über die Befugnis der Witwe zur 
Mordanklage,” ZSavRom 104 (1987) 559-95. -L.B. 


CRISPUS (Kpio7zos), more fully Flavius Julius 
Crispus, son of CONSTANTINE l and Minervina, 
probably the emperor’s concubine; born ca.305, 
died Pola 326. A pupil of Lactantius, he was 
caesar from 1 Mar. 317 together with the infant 
CONSTANTINE II. He was apparently put in charge 
of Gaul and acclaimed for victory over the Franks 
and Alemanni in 320 and 323. He is titled invictus 
on a milestone from Lorraine—probably an allu- 
sion to the cult of SoL INvicrus. As commander 
of the fleet Crispus played a notable role in the 
defeat of Licinius in 324, but in 326 was suddenly 


executed. Aurelius Victor says specifically that this 
was by order of his father, and many authors 
(John Chrysostom, Sidonius Apollinaris, etc.) saw 
a link between his death and the subsequent mur- 
der of his stepmother Fausta. Zosimos was the 
first to relate that Crispus came under suspicion 
of being involved with Fausta; when Constantine 
had him murdered, HELENA took the loss of her 
grandson very hard, and Constantine, in order to 
placate her, placed Fausta in an overheated bath 
where she suffocated. P. Guthrie (Phoenix 20 [1966] 
327f) dismisses any connection between the two 
murders, but his arguments are not convincing; 
Crispus must have committed or at least been 
charged with a serious crime, the nature of which 
remains uncertain. 

uit. H. Pohisander, “Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic 


End,” Historia 33 (1984) 79-106. O. Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 
1722—24. -T.E.G. 


CRITICISM, LITERARY, was stimulated in Byz. 
by the necessity to take a stand with regard to the 
literary heritage of antiquity. The first task was 
the assemblage, systematization, and categoriza- 
tion of the surviving texts; this took the form of 
compiling various LEXIKA and FLORILEGIA and es- 
tablishing the canon of selected authors and works. 
A greater challenge was the appreciation of clas- 
sical literature: rejected by radical Christians like 
Tatian owing to its allegedly amoral character, it 
was sanctioned—at least as a valid instrument in 
aiding logic and rhetoric—by such authorities as 
Gregory of Nazianzos, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil 
the Great, and, to a lesser degree, John Chryso- 
stom. The judgment was pronounced on the basis 
of ideological criteria, not literary ones; this ideo- 
logical approach survived in much later centuries 
as well and is exemplified by the refutation by 
Constantine AKROPOLITES of the Timarion. On the 
other hand, literary critics applied allegorical rein- 
terpretation to pagan texts, esp. to the antique 
and late antique ROMANCES, some of which were 
seen as the story of the soul’s longing for salvation 
(Poljakova, Roman. 43—48). Photios, in his BIBLI- 
OTHECA, included a literary evaluation of the books 
he had read as well as their moral significance (G. 
Kustas, Hellenika 17 [1962] 132-69). Psellos con- 
tributed much to literary criticism: he wrote a 
stylistic appreciation of the work of a hagiogra- 
pher, Symeon Metaphrastes; analyzed the rhetor- 
ical skill of Gregory of Nazianzos (Mayer, “Psellos’ 


Rede” 27—100); and compared George of Pisidia 
with Euripides (A. Dyck, Michael Psellus: The Essays 
on Euripides and George of Pisidia and on Heliodorus 
and Achilles Tatius [Vienna 1986]). Psellos empha- 
sized two contradictory principles of a successful 
literary style—its variety in vocabulary, meter, and 
form and its internal unity (Ljubarskij, Psell 138f). 
Eustathios of Thessalonike and Theodore Meto- 
chites also analyzed the style of ancient models, 
such as Plutarch and Synesios, and John Mer- 
kouropoulos (see JoHN VIII CHRYSOSTOMITES) 
tried to characterize the literary achievements of 
John of Damascus and Kosmas the Hymnogra- 
pher. 


LIT. J.W.H. Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, vol. 2 
(London 1952). Christ, Literatur 2.2:1075-94. —A.K., LS. 


CROATIA (Xpofaria), northwestern Balkan state, 
created by Croatian Slavs, who moved into the 
area in the 7th C. According to Constantine VII 
Porphyrogennetos (De adm. imp. 31.68—70, 83— 
84) there were two different Croatian states— 
Pannonian Great or White Croatia, which was 
pagan, and baptized Dalmatian Croatia; the latter 
included the kastra of Nin (Nona), Biograd (Be- 
legradon, one of many “white towns”), Velica (Be- 
litzin), and Skradin (Skordona). Constantine as- 
serts that the Croatians were settled there by Emp. 
Herakleios. 

The early centuries of Croatian history are ob- 
scure. In Charlemagne’s time the region came 
under Frankish domination. After his death (814), 
a rebellion by Pannonian Croatians was crushed 
by the Franks, but Dalmatian Croatia gained 
strength under local princes. It obtained papal 
recognition of its independence in 879, under 
Prince Branimir (879-92). During the rule of 
Prince TomisLav (from between g10 and 914 to 
ca.g28) Dalmatian and Pannonian Croatia were 
united, thus creating a powerful state. In about 
g23 the Byz. emperor Romanos I sent an embassy 
to Tomislav to form an alliance with Croatia and 
Serbia against SYMEON OF BULGARIA; Symeon’s 
invasion of Croatia turned into a disaster for 
Bulgarian troops. It is unclear how and why, but 
Tomislav then abandoned his Byz. alliance and 
sought papal support; by 925 Rome acknowl- 
edged him as a king. 

Probably the danger of Venetian penetration 
persuaded Tomislav’s successors to turn again to 


CROSS: THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS | 549 


Byz.; at any rate, King Peter Kresimir IV (1058— 
74) acted as representative of the Byz. emperor 
in Byz. Dalmatia. Culturally Croatia became fur- 
ther removed from Constantinople when two ec- 
clesiastical conventions in Split (1060 and 1074) 
condemned and prohibited the Slavonic liturgy, 
but it survived in many peripheral churches. This 
anti-Byz. attitude was further developed by King 
ZVONIMIR (1075—89/g0), under whom Croatia en- 
tered a period of internal instability and Hungar- 
ian intervention. In 1102 Croatia became united 
with Hungary, but remained a distinct state, with 
the Hungarian king being separately elected and 
crowned as king of Croatia (until 1235). There- 
after Croatia had no further involvement with 
Byz. affairs. 

ur. Fine, Early Balkans 248-91. N. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata 


u ranom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb 1971). Idem, Povijest Hrvata 
u razvijenom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb 1976). -B.K., A.K. 


CROSS (oravpós), symbol of the CRUCIFIXION of 
Jesus Christ. From the earliest years of Christian- 
ity the paradox that through his death on the 
cross Christ destroyed the power of death and 
offered the hope of eternal life to mankind has 
made the cross a symbol of Christianity. 


THEOLOGY OF THE Cross. Although the cult 
of the cross (see Cross, CULT OF THE) did not 
blossom until the 4th C., theological development 
of the symbolism of the cross had already begun 
in the writings of the Apostolic period, with par- 
ticular reference to Old Testament prototypes 
(prefigurations) of the cross as, for example, Moses’ 
attitude of prayer in the victory over the Amale- 
kites, the Tree of Life, and the bronze serpent. 
The numerous Byz. sermons pertaining to the 
Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross are devoted 
chiefly to these prototypes. Surviving examples of 
these homilies represent a kind of hymnic litany 
extolling the cross as the sign of victory and sal- 
vation (e.g., Makarios CHRYSOKEPHALOS, PG 
150:177C). The church fathers repeatedly ex- 
press their wonder that what was once a symbol 
of shame became in Christianity a symbol of honor 
for both crowned heads and simple people, and 
is treated as such in every church and square and 
found even on clothing and ordinary utensils (see 
“The Cross in Everyday Life,” below). The danger 
that the symbol of the cross might degenerate 
into something meaningless and commonplace is 


550 CROSS: Tue Cross IN EVERYDAY LIFE 


expressed, among other ways, in a decree of Emp. 
Valentinian III (Cod.Just. I 8, a.427) and in a 
resolution of the Council in Trullo (canon 73) 
forbidding incorporation of the cross into a church 
floor where it could be trampled underfoot. 

Perhaps the most significant theology of the 
cross is that of Jonn Curysostom. In many of his 
sermons, devoted wholly or in part to this theme, 
he treats the multifaceted mystery of the cross. 
Beginning with the worldwide spread of Chris- 
tianity, he emphasizes the central position of the 
cross as the work of philanthropia, or the symbol 
of God’s providential care (kedemonia) for the world. 
Rooted in the cross is the salvation of the world 
because Christ gave his life (psyche) as ransom for 
the enemy (Chrysostom, PG 58:622.53-55). Re- 
ferring to St. Paul (Col. 2:14), Chrysostom pro- 
claims that the baptism and the cross canceled the 
contract that pledged us to the Law and that stood 
against us: “Not only was it canceled but torn to 
pieces, the nails of the cross cleft it, made it 
invalid” (PG 50:462.54—-463.1). Through the 
erection of the cross the air is purged of demons, 
the citadel of the Devil destroyed. Thus, the cross 
became the monument to the flight of the enemy. 
As the Devil conquered Adam through the wood 
of the Tree of Life, so Christ overcomes Hell 
through the wood of the cross, leading men who 
are held captive there to freedom. Through Christ, 
the SOL JUSTITIAE, the cross is also immersed in 
the transfigured light of God. This theological 
conception yields the artistic form of the crux 
gemmata, that is, the cross of gold or mosaic over- 
laid with pearls and precious stones (A. Lipinsky, 
FelRav*® 30 [1960] 5—62). Chrysostom also con- 
siders it obvious that the “sign of the Son of Man” 
is the cross that precedes Christ in his PAROUSIA 
or Second Coming. 

The veneration of the cross was furthered sig- 
nificantly through Constantine | the Great’s vision 
of the cross at the MILVIAN BRIDGE in 312, by 
Helena’s discovery of the TRUE Cross, and by the 
development of the cult of the cross in the 4th C. 
and later. It was also advanced by liturgical de- 
velopment in the Feast of the Exaltation of the 
Cross, whose status was further intensified by 
Emp. Herakleios’s recovery of the True Cross 
from the Sasanians and its restoration to Jerusa- 
lem in 631. For a brief time IcoNocLasmM also 
contributed to the portrayal of the cross as an 
alternative to icons. The Christian attitude of 


prayer facing east was fixed by mounting a cross 
in this direction; it also counteracted the orienta- 
tion of the Jewish Temple and the Marcionites 
and PHOUNDAGIAGITES, who prayed facing west, 

The liturgy of the triumphal cross was taken as 
a model for the acclamations for the victorious 
emperor returning home. The emperor bore the 
cross on his diadem as a symbol of Christ’s soy- 
ereignty, while the monks wore this symbol on 
their headgear or koukoulion (J. Engemann in 
Theologia crucis—Signum crucis: Festschrift E. Dinkler 
[Tübingen 1979] 137-53). The PATRIA oF Coy- 
STANTINOPLE describes the erection of the cross in 
the public square of the capital city (probably 
done first under Theodosios I). The sign of the 
cross, which was used in all the sacraments, but 
particularly in the administration of baptism, was 
made as the eschatological seal of righteousness 
in the name of Christ. A sermon on the life-giving 
cross (pseudo-Chrysostom) gives a comprehensive 
description in one particular passage: “We [ie 
Christians] have for our ship [anti skaphous] the 
Old and New Testaments, the cross as our helm, 
Christ as our helmsman, the Father as our cap- 
tain, the Holy Spirit as our west wind, grace as 
our sail, the disciples as our sailors, the prophets 
as our soldiers; we direct ourselves, therefore, 
beyond the ship into the ocean of thought not to 
extract a pearl, but something more valuable even 
than the pearl” (PG 50:817). 

uit. G.Q. Reijners, The Terminology of the Holy Cross in 
the Early Christian Literature as Based upon Old Testament 
Typology (Nijmegen 1965). E. Peterson, “Das Kreuz und 
das Gebet nach Osten,” in Frithkirche, Judentum und Gnosis 
(Rome 1959) 15—35. P. Stockmeier, Theologie und Kult des 


Kreuzes bei Johannes Chrysostomus (Trier 1966). J. Moorhead, 
“Iconoclasm, the Cross and the Imperial Image,” Byzantion 


55 (1985) 165-79. -G.P. 


THE Cross IN Everypay Lire. The sign of 
the cross dominated every aspect of daily life: it 
marked churches, graveyards, religious founda- 
tions in general, and house altars. Believing it to 
be the only true weapon against demonic and evil 
powers, the faithful wore it around their necks or 
had it stamped or embroidered on their clothes. 
To ward off misfortune, the sign of the cross was 
engraved or carved in a prominent place on city 
walls, public buildings, bridges, dangerous passes, 
and private homes. The Second Council of Nicaea 
ruled that the cross is properly-set up not only in 
churches and on sacred vessels and images but 


also “in houses and on streets” (Mansi 13:377CD). 
At times of pestilence, drought, or flooding the 
faithful carried crosses in litanies led by the clergy. 
Miraculous salvation from such natural catastro- 
phes was affirmed with the sign of the cross, as 
when THEODORE OF SYKEON gave a blessing and 
made the sign of the cross after concluding a 
miracle (vita, ed. Festugiére, ch.43.56). On the 
banks of a flooded river, at the boundaries of 
vineyards or cultivated fields ready for harvest, 
or at a place from which evil spirits had previously 
escaped, a cross would be erected or carved to 
ensure protection against demonic powers (Ibid., 
ed. Festugiére, ch.43.45, ch.45.21-22, ch.53.5, 
ch.114.41, ch.144.4, ch.155.15—16). Similarly, a 
newly launched ship bore the sign of the cross on 
its masts, bow, and stern. Farm animals were also 
blessed with the sign of the cross. 

Marks of the cross have been widely found in 
quarries, apparently used to lend spiritual strength 
to the workers’ technical skills (Sodini et al., Aliki 
I 124-26). They were painted on the walls of 
churches—together with inscribed prayers at To- 
kali Kilise in GGreme—before being covered with 
more elaborate decoration. Replacing the LaBa- 
RUM, the cross was a common sign of faith on 
weapons. Gregory Abu’l-Faraj noted among the 
loot taken by the Arabs from the Byz. in 887 gold 
and silver crosses from the heads of their spears. 
During a celebration in honor of the True Cross 
that lasted from 28 July to 13 Aug., the houses, 
walls, and other buildings in Constantinople were 
blessed (De cer. 539.19—21). The illiterate signed 
documents by simply drawing a cross; inscriptions 
and the signatures of the literate on documents 
were usually preceded by a cross. 

Occasionally there were acts of impiety such as 
swearing and taking false oaths on the cross (Kou- 
koules, Bios 3:363, 377) or even faking miracles— 
discovering supposedly hidden crosses and pre- 
senting them to the faithful, thereby exploiting 
their piety (vita of Lazaros of Mt. Galesios, AASS 
Nov. 3:512f). 


LIT. Hunger, Reich 182-84. —Ap.K., A.C. 


CROSS, CULT OF THE. Though John Chryso- 
stom says that Christ “did not leave the Cross on 
earth but seized it and carried it up to heaven” 
(PG 49:403.61-3), legends of the finding and 


CROSS, CULT OF THE 551 


identification of the True Cross by HELENA in 
the first half of the 4th C. abound. By the second 
half of the 4th C. relics of the Cross, used as 
AMULETS—though the practice was condemned by 
canon 36 of the Council of Laodikeia ca.360-—go 
(Mansi 2:570; Gregory of Nyssa, Vie de sainte Ma- 
crine, ed. P. Maraval [Paris 1971] 240f, n.2)—had 
spread from Jerusalem to Antioch, Cappadocia, 
and Constantinople. Circa 384 Eceria described 
the beginnings of the liturgical cult of the Cross 
on Good Friday in Jerusalem: on Golgotha behind 
the chapel of the Cross the bishop took his seat, 
and the Wood of the Cross and the Title were 
taken out of their box and placed on a table. The 
relics were guarded by deacons to prevent the 
pilgrims from biting off a piece as they passed to 
kiss the Wood (Diary 37:2-3). Egeria also fur- 
nishes our earliest description of the 14 Sept. feast 
of the Cross in Jerusalem, where it celebrated the 
finding of the Cross, associated with an earlier 
13—14 Sept. dedication feast of the cathedral com- 
plex on Golgotha. 

The rite of the Elevation of the Cross is first 
attested at the Golgotha martyrion in the 6th C. 
(ed. H. Usener, Der hl. Theodosios, Schriften des 
Theodoros u. Kyrillos {Leipzig 1890] 71). The 7th- 
C. CHRONICON PASCHALE speaks of the exposition 
of the Cross (staurophaneia) on 14 Sept. (1:531.9— 
12), and testifies to the exaltation (Aypsosts) rite in 
Hagia Sophia on that day in 614 (705.3—6). In 
the rite of Constantinople this exaltation theme 
overshadowed the earlier inventio motif, and the 
ritual exaltation became the central ceremony, 
celebrated with the greatest solemnity (Mateos, 
Typicon 1:24; De cer., bk.1, ch.31 [32]). For four 
days (10—13 Sept.) the wood of the Cross was 
exposed for veneration, and the Sunday before 
and after the feast and its vIGIL (paramone) were 
all directed toward the celebration. On 14 Sept. 
itself, at ORTHROS in Hagia Sophia, the patriarch 
entered in solemn procession bearing the relic of 
the Cross, escorted by the emperor and court 
dignitaries bearing candles. They formed an honor 
guard along the ambo and solea as the patriarch 
mounted the ambo with “the precious wood.” 
After prostration and prayer, the patriarch ele- 
vated the relic of the Cross thrice to the four 
corners of the earth, then the people came for- 
ward to venerate the relic. After the service the 
emperor offered a banquet in the Triklinos of 
Justinian (Oikonomides, Listes 222f). In the 14th 


552 CROSS, CULT OF THE 





Cross, CULT oF THE. The Elevation of the Cross. Miniature in the Menologzon of 
Basil I (Vat. gr. 1613, p.35). Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. The patriarch of Con- 
stantinople is shown celebrating the feast of the Elevation of the Cross. 


C. the exaltation rite took place on a platform 
erected in the Triklinos (pseudo-Kod. 239-40). 

In the SaBaITIC TYPIKA this feast is one of the 
12 Byz. Great Feasts and the only nonbiblical 
dominical feast. It does not celebrate Jesus’ pas- 
sion, like Goop Fripay, but the Cross as instru- 
ment of salvation, the triumphant symbol of Jesus’ 
victory over death. 

One of two Byz. FEASTS that are fast days, the 
Exaltation is solemnized by a forefeast with agryp- 
na and a week-long afterfeast with apodosis. The 
festive propers for 14 Sept. in the MENAION are 
repeated on Holy Cross Sunday in the TRIODION, 
the Third Sunday of Lent (but cf. Mateos, Typicon 
2:38—45). 

Historical Development. The veneration of the 
Cross was concentrated on two “historical” events— 
the vision of the Cross by Constantine I the Great 
on the eve of his victory over Maxentios in 312 
and the appearance of the Cross in Jerusalem in 


351 as described by Cyril of Jerusalem in his letter 
to Constantius II (E. Bihain, Byzantion 43 [1973/ 
4] 264-96). To this a third “historical” event was 
added—the discovery of the Cross by St. Helena 
and Makarios, “patriarch” of Jerusalem. The relic 
of the True Cross was captured by the Persians 
who seized Jerusalem in 614, but recovered by 
Herakleios and restored to Jerusalem in 631. 
Enormous literature has been devoted to the ven- 
eration of the Cross, the treatise of ALEXANDER 
THE Monk being one of the most important works 
on the subject; unfortunately, the traditional dat- 
ing in the mid-6th C. cannot be substantiated. 
The cult of the Cross acquired a particular signif- 
icance under the Iconoclast emperors of the 8th 
C., when the Cross was treated as the symbol of 
the Christian church—on the other hand, the 
Iconodules emphasized that the Cross is only one 
of a number of symbols and no more important 
than the 1con. The Iconoclasts stressed the mili- 


tary function of the Cross as the instrument of 
victory; this victory-giving role of the Cross is 
developed also in the hymns of Kosmas THE Hym- 
NOGRAPHER, whereas John of Damascus remained 
lukewarm with regard to this theme. A legend of 
the Iconoclast period recounts that Constantine 
the Great erected in Constantinople three crosses 
named Jesus, Christ, and Victory (Herakleios re- 
named the latter Aniketos, Unvanquished); these 
crosses were located in the Forum, Philadelphion, 
and Artopoleion, places that served as stations 
during the victory celebrations of the gth C. The 
Cross remained a military symbol throughout the 
ioth C. 

LIT. A. Frolow, La relique de la vraie croix. Recherches sur 
le développement d'un culte (Paris 1961). H. Leclercq, DACL 
3,2:3131—39. P. Bernardakis, “Le culte de la Croix chez les 
grecs,” EO 5 (1g01—02) 193-202, 257-64. J. Hallit, “La 
croix dans le rite byzantin. Histoire et théologie,” Parole de 
lorient 3 (1972) 261-311. J. Straubinger, Die Kreuzauffin- 
dungslegende (Paderborn 1912). A. Korakides, He heuresis 
tou timiou staurou (Athens 1983). A. Kazhdan, “ ‘Constantin 
imaginaire, ” Byzantion 57 (1987) 199f, 218-30, 242f. J. 
Moorhead, “Iconoclasm, the Cross and the Imperial Im- 
age,” Byzantion 55 (1985) 165-79 with add. by P. Speck, 
Byzantion 56 (1986) 521, n.11. N. Thierry, “Le culte de la 
croix dans l’empire byzantin du VIIe siècle au Xe dans les 


rapports avec la guerre contre l’infidéle,” RSBS 1 (1980/1) 
205-28. —R.F.T., A.K. 


CROSS, PROCESSIONAL. The carrying of 
crosses in procession is attested at least as early as 
499, when clergy, monks, and lay persons of both 
sexes, armed with such emblems, traversed Edessa 
to appease the Providence that had caused an 
earthquake ( JoshStyl 27). Crosses were carried in 
churches during the LrrrLe ENTRANCE and through 
cities, as in the procession of the patriarch of 
Constantinople from Hagia Sophia to the Forum 
of Constantine (De cer. 29.16-17). A miniature in 
the MENOLOGION oF Basix II (p.142) depicts a 
deacon bearing through the streets a huge pearled 
cross with pendant jewels, supported by a strap 
around his neck. 

Surviving processional crosses, made of a vari- 
ety of metals, may be identified by a tang at the 
base for insertion in a staff and sometimes by 
their decoration on both sides. At least two crosses 
of the 1oth—11th C. are referred to as a signon in 
the texts inscribed upon them (C. Mango, infra 
42). In inventories they may be called litanzkoi 
(will of Eustathios Borras) or baiophorikoi staurot 
(Diataxis of Michael ATTALEIATES). Such docu- 


CROSSING OF THE RED SEA | 553 


ments suggest their role in the liturgies of even 
small churches and chapels, when they may have 
been of quite modest size. Preserved processional 
crosses of the 6th—7th C. average 30—60 cm in 
height; they often have flaring arms terminating 
in small knobs and have suspension holes for 
pendants—sometimes the Apocalyptic letters al- 
pha and omega. Usually made of hammered silver, 
some bear dedicatory inscriptions (Mango, Silver 
87-91, 235, 249). Post-Iconoclastic crosses in both 
silver and bronze retain these features but fre- 
quently have disks at the ends of their arms or 
melon-shaped fittings (DOCat 1:50f). 

Most surviving examples in silver consist of sheets 
wrapped around an iron core (L. Bouras, The 
Cross of Adrianople [Athens 1979]) that may be 
decorated in repoussé on the obverse and with 
niello and gilding on the reverse, as on the so- 
called Cross of Micuaer I KERoutartios. Elabo- 
rate processional crosses could be decorated with 
the DEEsIs or with scenes pertaining to their do- 
nor or the patron saint of a church. The most 
impressive post-Iconoclastic specimen is the mon- 
umental cross of Nikephoros Il Phokas in the 
Lavra on Mt. Athos (A. Grabar, CahArch 19 [1969] 
99—125), which is embellished with gems and busts 
of saints in repoussé. 

tir. E.C. Dodd, “Three Early Byzantine Silver Crosses,” 
DOP 41 (1987) 165-79- C. Mango, “La croix dite de Michel 


le Cérulaire et la croix de Saint-Michel de Syké6n,” CahArch 
36 (1988) 41-49. —L.Ph.B., A.C. 


CROSSING OF THE RED SEA, the escape of 
the Israelites from Egypt across the Red Sea, 
whose waters parted miraculously (Ex 14:15—30). 
This event offered a promise of salvation, both 
personal and collective, that was visualized as early 
as the 4th C. in the Via Latina catacomb and on 
numerous SARCOPHAGI. Didymos the Blind (PG 
39:691—8), John Chrysostom, and others treated 
the Crossing as a type of BAPTISM (F. Dölger, 
Antike und Christentum 2 [1930] 63-69). As an 
image of salvation, the passage was chanted in the 
ambo of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, on Holy 
Saturday (Mateos, Typicon 2:84—86). The main 
application of the image derived from the analogy 
drawn with Constantine I’s triumph at the Milvian 
Bridge (Eusebios, HE 9.9.8); it provided a basis 
for imperial victory celebrations in the mid-1oth 
C. (De cer. 610.2—5). Contemporaneously, the 
triumphal song chanted by Moses entered ODE 


554 | CROSS-IN-SQUARE CHURCH 


illustration. A miniature in the Parris PSALTER 
shows NicHT (Nyx), BytHos, and other personi- 
fications participating in the Israelites’ triumph. 
With or without these additions, the Crossing 
remained a standard component of Psalter and 
other OLD TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATION. 


uit. K. Wessel, RBK 2:1~—g. Grabar, L'empereur gf, 236f. 
A. Weckwerth, LCI 1:554-58. -}J.H.L., A.C. 


CROSS-IN-SQUARE CHURCH. See CHURCH 
PLAN TYPES. 


CROTONE (Kporwv), also called Cotrone, coastal 
city in CALABRIA. It was an important stronghold 
during the Gothic wars in Italy: Totila’s army 
besieged it in 551/2, but Justinian I sent a special 
fleet that saved the city (Prokopios, Wars 4.25.24- 
26.2). During the Lombard invasion the Byz. con- 
tinued to hold Crotone. Several important battles 
were waged near the city: Gay (Italie 337) suggests 
that in g82 Otto II chased the Arabs from Cro- 
tone but was defeated the same year; in 1052 the 
Normans routed ArGyros, son of Melo, at Cro- 
tone. 

Legend has it that Dionysios the Areopagite, on 
his way from Athens to Paris, stopped at Crotone 
and was for a while its bishop. The city’s first 
attested bishop, however, was Jordanes in 551. 
Bishops of Crotone attended councils at Constan- 
tinople in 680, 787, and 870. When the metropolis 
of ReGcio-CaLaBria was created in the early gth 
C., Crotone was one of its suffragans. -A.K. 


CROWN (o7é¢avos, otéuua), with purple robes 
and boots, the imperial INSIGNIA par excellence. 
Coins are the best guide to the chronology of 
changes in crown design, which evolved from 
simple to complex. Various terms designate crowns 
of different types, but their rigor and the exact- 
ness of modern identifications of terms and de- 
signs is unclear. Constantine I adopted the Hel- 
lenistic symbol of the diadem and its evolution 
dominated crowns down to the 12th C. It con- 
sisted essentially of a circle of jeweled panels with 
hanging ornaments called prependoulia and sur- 
mounted by a cross; it was sometimes combined 
with helmets. A 10th-C. ceremonial book (De cer., 
bk.1, ch.37, ed. Vogt 1:175.10—178.15) refers to 
red, white, blue, or green crowns, perhaps indi- 


cating cloth linings. The TORQUE was used as a 
crown in coronations from 360 to the 6th C. ang 
may have developed into the collar depicted in 
imperial portraiture from the 11th C. Modern 
studies of the late Byz. crown call it kamelaukion 
and emphasize its golden top that covered the 
head. The MopDIOLOs seems to have been used 
from the 5th to 13th C. Another kind of crown, 
the crested roupHa, was particularly associated 
with military events. Empresses’ crowns resem- 
bled emperors’ diadems, except that they nor- 
mally showed triangular elements projecting up- 
ward from the circle. Late Roman caesars shared 
other imperial insignia, but not the diadem (Zo- 
sim. 6.13.1, ed. Mendelssohn, 293.10—-12; Vita 
Marcelli 34, ed. G. Dagron, AB 86 [1968] 316); 
Byz. heirs presumptive wore some kind of head- 
gear, for example, the kamelaukion (De cer., bk.2, 
ch.27, ed. Reiske, 628.5—10) and phakiolion (De 
cer., “Append.,” ed. Reiske, 500.12—15). 

Crowns were worn during ceremonies. Em- 
perors possessed several, of which particular crowns 
do not seem to have been handed down, as in the 
West. Some were buried with the emperor, others 
given to churches as votive offerings (Theoph. 
281.16-20, 453.27—30). Late Roman emperors 
removed their crown as a sign of mourning (Malal. 
421.16—21; Theoph. 173.1—7), penance, and usu- 
ally—to the 10th C. at least—when they went to 
church. This custom had changed by Palaiologan 
times, when it was specified (pseudo-Kod. 268.4- 
20) that the emperor should remove the crown 
during communion. When not worn, crowns, like 
other insignia, were entrusted to court eunuchs. 
The praipositos usually crowned or uncrowned the 
emperor (Theodosius in Jtzneraria et alia geogra- 
phica [Turnholt 1965] 123.13—124.6). Crowns were 
kept in cases called korniklia (De cer., bk.1, ch.1, 
ed. Vogt, 1:4.17). 

Client rulers received crowns and other insignia 
thanks to Byz. diplomacy. The Hellenistic custom 
of offering golden crowns or wreaths to em- 
perors, as at ADVENTUS, became a tax (aurum co- 
ronarium) and, in the gth and 10th C., a symbolic 
exchange (McCormick, Eternal Victory 211f). 

—M.McC. 

Surviving Examples of Byz. Crowns. Whereas 
representations of Byz. diadems are copious on 
diptychs, coins, wall paintings, miniatures, and so 
forth, few actual specimens have been preserved. 
Some pieces of an imperial crown were found in 


1860 near the Hungarian village of Nyitraivanka; 
it is unclear how this diadem came to Hungary— 
as an imperial gift or after the looting of Con- 
stantinople in 1204. Z. Kadar (Folia archaeologica 
16 [1964] 121f) reconstructs the iconography of 
the crown as follows: in the center was the Pan- 
tokrator flanked by personifications of Modesty 
(Tapeinosis) and Truth (Aletheia); below them 
was a portrait of Constantine IX Monomachos 
with Zoe and her sister Theodora; on the back 
King David was represented with Sophia and Pro- 
pheteia; the three dancing women beneath them 
suggest that it must have been a festive event 
(wedding or coronation) that caused the crown to 
be made. 

The lower part of the so-called Hungarian crown 
of St. Stephen (corona graeca) contains portraits of 
Michael VII Doukas, his brother or son Constan- 
tine, and the Hungarian king Géza I; it was prob- 
ably sent from Constantinople between 1074 and 
1077 as a present to the ruler of Hungary, al- 
though Deér (2nfra) questions that the object was 
originally intended to be a crown. 

Imperial crowns are made of precious metals 
and ornamented with precious stones and enamels. 
Much more modest are two tin-plated copper 
crowns (in the Byz. Museum of Athens) with in- 
scriptions mentioning the spatharokandidatos Ro- 
manos, his wife, and children; the objects, prob- 
ably of the 11th C., may have served either as an 
altar decoration or aS MARRIAGE CROWNS. -—A.K. 

LIT. DOC 2:80-84, 3.1:127-30. E. Piltz, “Insignien,” 
RBK 3:373-498. T. Kolias, “Kamelaukion,” JOB 32-33 
(1982) 493—502. J. Deér, Die heilige Krone Ungarns (Vienna 
1966) 33—88, 139-49. E. Kovacs, Zs. Lovag, The Hungarian 
Crown and Other Regalia (Budapest 1980) 18-42. G. See- 
wann, “Die Sankt-Stephans-Krone, die Heilige Krone Un- 
garns,” SiidostF (1978) 170f. P.A. Drossoyianni, “A Pair of 
Byzantine Crowns,” JOB 32.3 (1982) 529-38. 


CROWNING. See MARRIAGE RITE. 


CRUCIFIXION. Christ’s death on the Cross 
(cTtavpwots), the culminating event of the Pas- 
SION OF CHRIST, was not depicted until the 5th C.; 
the earliest surviving representations are from the 
late 6th C. (RaBBULA GospPELs, fol.13r; SANCTA 
SANCTORUM RELIQUARY; AMPULLAE). They include 
Many participants—the Virgin Mary, JOHN the 
Apostle (or Theologian), thieves, soldiers playing 
dice, the lance- and the sponge-bearer—and most 


CRUSADER ART AND ARCHITECTURE 555 


versions show Christ with open eyes, in spite of 
the open wound on his side as the unmistakable 
sign of death. This is explained by the theology 
of the cross of John Chrysostom, who provided 
a profoundly Antiochene stamp: “Because God 
loved the world (Jn 3:16), his temple, endowed 
with a soul, was crucified” (PG 59:159.7—-8). The 
anti-Monophysite emphasis on Christ’s mortal 
corporeality attests, through the simultaneously 
opened eyes, the inseparability of the divine Lo- 
gos from the body and soul of the dead Christ 
(only the body of Christ sleeps on the cross, while 
his divinity remains awake). Post-Iconoclastic im- 
ages show Christ dead with closed eyes, blood and 
water flowing from his side, to demonstrate his 
humanity (J. Martin in LCMS 189-96). In these 
representations he wears a loincloth rather than 
the earlier COLOBIUM. 

In the marginal Psa.Ters scenes of Christ being 
led to the cross, and its raising, indicate that 
narrative cycles of the Crucifixion existed by the 
gth C. In the 1oth—12th C., when the scene had 
become the feast icon for Goop Fripay, the com- 
position focused on the figures of Christ, Mary, 
and John, only sometimes adding further, sym- 
bolic motifs: mourning MyRROPHOROI; the cen- 
turion Longinus (the first person converted by 
Christ’s death); personifications of ExkLesia and 
Synagogue; Mary fainting beneath the Cross. In 
Palaiologan art the narrative is again enriched 
with crowds of onlookers and additional scenes 
(cf. the long cycles of the Crucifixion at STARO 
Nacoricino and GRAČANICA). A crucifix was placed 
on top of the TEMPLON from the 12th C. onward. 

LIT. A. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image 
(Princeton 1986) 33-68. K. Wessel, Die Kreuzigung (Reck- 
linghausen 1966). K. Weitzmann, Studies in the Arts at Sinai 
(Princeton 1982), pt.XIV (1972), 23-36. R. Haussherr, 
“Der tote Christus am Kreuz: Zur [konographie des Gero- 
kreuzes” (Ph.D. diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Uni- 
versitaét, Bonn, 1963) 125-42. -G.P.. A.W.C. 


CRUSADER ART AND ARCHITECTURE. The 
presence of CRUSADER STATES in Syria and Pales- 
tine between 1099 and 1291 set the stage for 
vigorous artistic activity, esp. at the LOCA SANCTA 
in JERUSALEM, BETHLEHEM, and NAZARETH, for- 
merly under Byz. control and at that time pos- 
sessed by the Latin Kingdom. Crusader art was 
sponsored mainly by the resident Franks, but the 
artists who carried out these commissions in- 


556 CRUSADER ART AND ARCHITECTURE 


cluded western Europeans, indigenous Christians, 
Frankish artists born in the Crusader states, Ar- 
menians, and Byz. Greeks. 

After the capture of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099, 
the Crusaders were challenged to settle and de- 
fend newly won territory. From 109g to 1231 
defensive architecture was a high priority, but 
church building was also attended to. After 1112 
in Jerusalem, Crusader architects boldly unified 
the great Byz. rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre with 
the Calvary chapel to create a pointed-arch, rib- 
vaulted French type of pilgrimage church, reus- 
ing portions of the Byz. mosaic program. In Beth- 
lehem, the Church of the Nativity was captured 
intact in 1099; the Crusaders used this Justinianic 
building for their early coronations and decorated 
it starting in 1130 with fresco painting in Roman- 
esque styles on the nave columns. In Nazareth, 
by 1107 TANCRED had rebuilt the Church of the 
Annunciation on ruins of Byz. buildings. The 
barrel-vaulted Latin basilica with transepts is used 
at Nazareth and in Jerusalem in the Church of 
St. Anne, started shortly after 1113. 

The richest and most diverse artistic output of 
the Crusaders was in the 12th C., esp. between 
1131 and the early 1180s. When Melisende (died 
1161), eldest daughter of BaLtpwin II and his 
Armenian wife Morfa, came to the throne in 
1131, her personal patronage apparently stimu- 
lated much activity in and around Jerusalem. The 
most famous work directly associated with her is 
the Psalter (London, B.L. Egerton 1139), com- 
pleted by 1143. Three artists executed the illus- 
trations, all Western-trained, but strongly if dif- 
ferently influenced by Byz.; one of them, Basilius, 
signed the DEEsIs image in Latin. Taken together, 
the paintings, the text of the calendar with its 
notable English features, and the ivory covers with 
a Byz.-looking prince engaged in works of mercy, 
a Western iconographical concept, epitomize the 
mélange of East and West that characterizes Cru- 
sader art. 

Completing the Holy Sepulchre was the most 
important project of the 1130s and 1140s. The 
double portal of the main façade echoes the Byz. 
design of the Golden Gate in Jerusalem. The rich 
sculptural decoration included elements from Ro- 
man, Early Christian, and Arab sources along with 
Byz.-inspired mosaics in the west tympanum, 
acanthus capitals, and two Romanesque lintels. At 
its dedication on 15 July 1149, the Holy Sepulchre 


must have been a spectacular monumental state- 
ment of the interpenetration of artistic traditions 
that characterized the new Frankish art. Else- 
where in Jerusalem, sculpture in a robust French 
style decorated the Hospitaller complex, while on 
the Haram al-Sharif some of the most beautiful 
nonfigural Crusader sculpture, featuring a wet- 
leaf acanthus motif in an Italo-Provengal manner, 
seems to have been sponsored by the Templars, 

At Tyre the Byz. church was rebuilt, while at 
Ramla and nearby Lydda (Diospo.is) the smaller 
churches of St. John and St. George, respectively, 
demonstrated the more typical Romanesque- 
Levantine basilica with a flat stone roof and a 
Near Eastern vocabulary of architectural sculp- 
ture. Some of the best known CRUSADER CASTLEs, 
such as Saone, Krak des Chevaliers, and Belvoir, 
were begun or rebuilt in these years. Finally, Naz- 
areth and Bethlehem emerge between 1150 and 
1187 as major centers of sculpture and painting 
respectively. The Nazareth capitals, reflecting Ro- 
manesque style, Byz. iconography, and Islamic 
muqarnas, are the best-preserved examples of a 
major atelier from which nearly 100 figural frag- 
ments survive (J. Folda, The Nazareth Capitals and 
the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation [University 
Park, Pa.—London 1986]). The frescoes painted 
on the nave columns in the Church of the Nativity 
include a series in the Byz. style and extensive 
mosaics signed by Basilius and EpHRam. They 
were completed by 116g under the patronage of 
the local bishop, King AMa.ric I, and Emp. Man- 
uel I Komnenos. The strong Byz. influence here 
and nearby in the frescoes of the Hospitaller 
church at Abu-Ghosh, along with the contempo- 
rary products of the Holy Sepulchre scriptorium, 
reflect the close ties between the Latin Kingdom 
and the Byz. Empire from the mid-1160s to the 
death of Amalric (1174). 

Saladin’s conquest drastically reduced the artis- 
tic output of the Crusaders. Only a few places 
held out, including the castles of Krak des Che- 
valiers and Margat where frescoes in Byz. style 
were completed despite the difficult circum- 
stances. Tripoli, Tyre, and Antioch also remained 
in Crusader hands and the Third Crusade quickly 
restored Acre (1191), but not Jerusalem. For a 
century Acre was the major port and the political 
and artistic center of the Latin Kingdom. 

Artistic activity in the Crusader states was thus 
diminished until the mid-1g3th C. Castle building 


continued of necessity but only one important 
church was completed, Nétre-Dame of Tartus. 
Only one major MS has been attributed to the 
period: the psalter, possibly commissioned ca.1235 
by Frederick II, combining English and Byz. as- 
pects—notably a thoroughly Byz. Nativity and 
prophets holding scrolls with texts translated from 
the Septuagint—with a German approach to 
the program of scenes (Buchthal, Latin Kingdom 
40-43). 

Artistic output, esp. painting, increased sharply 
after 1250, stimulated by Louis IX who resided 
in the Latin Kingdom from 1250 to 1254. The 
illustrations for an Old French Bible apparently 
commissioned by Louis are in an accomplished 
Franco-Byz. style strongly related to frescoes 
painted in KALENDERHANE CAMII in Constantino- 
ple during the period of Latin occupation. Icons 
on wood panels demonstrate Byz. influence, while 
the strength of the Italo-Byz. style reflected the 
Italian presence in the merchant quarters of Acre. 
Paralleling developments in the West, secular cod- 
ices became increasingly popular. A Histoire Uni- 
verselle, possibly prepared as a gift for Henry IJ 
of Lusignan, has a frontispiece showing the im- 
pact of ISLAMIC ART. Surprisingly, the last impor- 
tant painter in Acre used a purely French Gothic 
style for the Hospitallers. Recently arrived from 
Paris, he worked in Acre in the decade before its 
fall in 1291. 

LIT. The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, ed. H. 
Hazard [HC, vol. 4] (Madison, Wisc., 1977). Crusader Art in 
the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda (Oxford 1982). K. Weitz- 
mann, “Crusader Icons and Maniera Greca,” in Byz. und 


der Westen 143~70. The Meeting of Two Worlds, ed. V. Goss, 
C. Bornstein (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1986). -J.F. 


CRUSADER CASTLES. In the East the Crusad- 
ers, familiar with the motte-and-bailey castle, en- 
countered Byz. and Arabic FORTIFICATIONS, esp. 
a descendant of the Roman castra (rectangular, 
with corner towers) and the irregular mountain- 
crest castle, usually with several defensive lines on 
the weakest approach. A vast Byz. crag-type for- 
tification, perhaps 1oth C., became the castle of 
Saone (Sahytiin, between Laodikeia and the 
Orontes). In the 13th C., this pattern was used on 
a peninsula at Chateau Pèlerin (‘Atlit, between 
Haifa and Caesarea). In Frankish Greece, after 
1204, the Crusaders adapted these plans to their 
needs. Refortified classical and Byz. sites include 


CRUSADES | 557 


the Acropolis of ATHENS and Acrocorinth (see 
CORINTH). CHLEMOUTSI (Clermont) in Elis is an 
irregular hollow hexagon crowning a low hill. 
KaRYTAINA is a crest-type castle above a gorge in 
the central Peloponnesos; PLATAMON and Bov- 
ponirza defend the vale of Tempe and a pass 
near Thermopylae, respectively. 

LIT. T.S.R. Boase, “Military Architecture in the Cru- 
sader States in Palestine and Syria,” and D.J. Wallace, 
T.S.R. Boase, “The Arts in Frankish Greece and Rhodes: 
A. Frankish Greece,” in HC 4:140-64, 208-28. M. Ben- 
venisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land (New York-Jerusalem 
1970) 277-339. Bon, Morée franque 601-84. -C.M.B. 


CRUSADER STATES. The states first founded 
by the Crusaders were on former Muslim terri- 
tory, where the principal vestiges of Byz. rule 
were the Christian minorities (MELCHITES, JACO- 
BITES, MARONITES). These states included the 
kingdom of JERUSALEM, the principality of ANTI- 
oc, the county of Epgssa, and the county of 
TRIPOLI. 

Upon lands that the Crusaders later conquered 
from Byz., the Crusaders founded the kingdom 
of Cyprus, the Larin Empire of Constantinople, 
the kingdom of THESSALONIKE, the principality of 
Acuala, the duchy of ATHENS, the duchy of Naxos, 
and various lesser feudal units. Venice assumed 
direct rule over Crete, Methone and Korone in 
the Morea, and eventually Euboea, while Genoa 
acquired Chios, Lesbos, and Phokaia. Rhodes 
passed to the HospiTaL.ers. The populations of 
these states and dependencies were Byz. or par- 
tially byzantinized Slavs and Vlachs. In the Cru- 
sader states an aristocracy of Western knights and 
lords was superimposed on the local society. While 
the aristocracy followed Western feudal customs, 
enshrined in the Assizes of JERUSALEM and of 
Romanza, the populace generally observed Byz. 
law, paid dues modeled on what they had paid 
the emperors, and maintained their Orthodox 
religion. 

LIT. D. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale: Les ‘Assises 


de Romanie’ (Paris 1971). J. Prawer, The Crusaders’ Kingdom 
(New York 1972). —C.M.B. 


CRUSADES were military expeditions launched 
by popes, initially against infidels for the recovery 
of the Holy Sepulchre in JERUSALEM. The term 
“bearer of the Cross” (staurophoros), known from 
Greek texts from the 4th C. onward, has been 


558 CRUSADES 


construed as referring to monastic life, not Cru- 
saders. The idea of the holy war prevailed during 
Herakleios’s expeditions against the Persians. This 
idea reappeared in the West in the writing of 
Pope GREGORY VII and assumed final form in the 
proclamation of Pope Urgan II. 

ALEXIOS I was partially responsible for inspiring 
the Crusades. In March 1095 his envoys met Ur- 
ban II at Piacenza and appealed for Western help 
against the Seljuk Turks. The pope publicly urged 
assistance to Byz. On 27 Nov. 1095, at Clermont, 
Urban renewed his appeal for aid to the Eastern 
Christians and called for the rescue of the Holy 
Sepulchre. 

The armies of the early Crusades passed through 
Byz. territory, traveling either from BRANIČEVO 
on the Danube through Sofa to Constantinople, 
or from DyRRACHION via Thessalonike. Crossing 
the straits, they marched through Byz. and Turk- 
ish territory to Antioch and the Holy Land. The 
Byz. attempted to provide markets where the 
Crusaders could purchase provisions, while re- 
straining them from pillaging the countryside. 
Nevertheless, the undisciplined Westerners often 


ni 

\ A 

N oy EN 
ko CORSICA NS 





First Crusade (1096—99) 
Second Crusade (1147-49) 
Third Crusade (1189-92) 
Fourth Crusade (1202—04) 


Miles 400 





300 600 km 
a r 


plundered; policing (usually by Pecheneg horse- 
men) was brutal. Skirmishes in which both sides 
suffered losses led to ill feeling. 

Forerunners of the First Crusade (1095~1099) 
were bands led by PETER THE HERMIT and others 
that reached Constantinople in 1096. Faced with 
their turbulence, Alexios transferred them to An- 
atolia, where they were largely destroyed by the 
Turks. The survivors blamed the emperor. 

The portions of the First Crusade led by nobles 
such as GopFREY OF BouILLON and BOHEMUND 
reached Constantinople in late 1096 and early 
1097. As they arrived, Alexios sought to gain each 
leader’s favor by gifts, induce him to swear fealty 
to the emperor, and make him urge later arrivals 
to do the same. Those who took the oath pledged 
to return to Byz. all territories recently seized by 
the Turks. Some, like HUGH OF VERMANDOIS and 
Bohemund, readily agreed; others, like Godfrey, 
demurred. Godfrey, after his followers quarreled 
with the Byz., attacked Constantinople, but was 
beaten off; reconciled with Alexios, he took the 
oath. 

The Crusaders and Byz. jointly attacked Nicaea 


` i ROUTES OF THE 
we’) FIRST FOUR CRUSADES | 
x aS ae oe i 





(May-June 1097); the former were displeased 
when the city surrendered to the Byz., but Alexios 
appeased them with gifts. He dispatched TATI- 
Kios and a small force to support their march 
across Anatolia. During the siege of Antioch, Ta- 
tikios was forced to withdraw and Bohemund 
later used this action to justify his seizure of An- 
tioch. The Crusaders succeeded in capturing Je- 
rusalem on 15 July 1099. 

An expedition of Lombards and some French 
nobles that set out from Europe in 1100 encoun- 
tered difficulties in crossing Byz. territory; some 
Lombards even attacked the Blachernai Palace. 
In 1101 the Crusaders’ rash conduct in Asia Mi- 
nor brought them disaster. Alexios was charged 
with treacherously betraying them to the Turks. 
Byz. claimed Antioch and strove until 1180 to 
subordinate its princes. Alexios I’s attacks caused 
Bohemund to join with the pope and launch a 
Crusade against Byz.; it was defeated in 1108. 

The Second Crusade (1147—1149) consisted of 
a German contingent led by Conran III and a 
French one led by Louis VII. In 1147 Conrad’s 
followers clashed with the Byz. in Thrace, and 
Manuel I was pleased to transport them over the 
Bosporos before Louis arrived. Although the 
French enjoyed a friendly reception from Man- 
uel, Bp. Godfrey of Langres proposed the seizure 
of Constantinople. Germans and French suffered 
heavy losses at the hands of the Turks in Anatolia. 
Manuel provided shipping to transport the sur- 
vivors from Attaleia to Antioch (Jan. 1148), but 
the Byz. were blamed for betraying the Crusade. 
In July the French withdrew from Damascus after 
an unsuccessful attack. 

In subsequent decades, as pressure on the Cru- 
sader states from Nor at-DIn and SALADIN in- 
creased, the kings of Jerusalem sought alliance 
with Byz. BALpwin III married a Komnene, as 
did his successor AMALRIC I. A joint Crusader- 
Byz. force attacked Damietta (1169), but disagree- 
ments and mutual distrust caused the expedition 
to fail. Amalric did homage to Manuel in Con- 
stantinople in 1171. In 1177 Manuel attempted 
to renew the alliance, but the weakness of Amal- 
ric’s successors prevented any action. 

After Saladin’s conquest of most of the king- 
dom of Jerusalem (1187), Isaac II attempted a 
rapprochement with him. To obtain Saladin’s good 
will, Isaac lured the portion of the Third Crusade 
(1189~1192) led by FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA into 


CRUSADES | 559 


Thrace, then attempted to destroy it (1189). En- 
raged, Frederick wrote to his son HENRY VI or- 
dering him to bring a fleet for an attack on Con- 
stantinople. Isaac, however, soon yielded and 
allowed Frederick to proceed, but he drowned in 
Cilicia (10 June 1190) and his army scattered. 
Another section of the Third Crusade, led by 
RICHARD | LIONHEART, seized Cyprus from its 
Greek ruler, Isaac KOMNENOs. The French and 
English forces failed to regain Jerusalem but did 
capture Acre on 12 July 1191. In 1195-97 Henry 
VI planned a Crusade and used it to blackmail 
Byz. Only Henry’s death saved the empire from 
having to pay the ALAMANIKON tribute. 

Byz. hostility to the Crusades, evident in the 
writings of Anna Komnene and Kinnamos, and 
with some qualifications in Niketas Choniates, was 
reciprocated, as shown by Western authors such 
as Raymond of Aguilers, Odo of Deuil, and Ans- 
bert. Bohemund and Frederick I had proposed a 
Crusade against Byz. (S. Kindlimann, Die Erober- 
ung von Konstantinopel als politische Forderung des 
Westens im Hochmittelalter [Zurich 1969]). Pope In- 
nocent III was ready to threaten a Crusade as a 
means to bring about church unity (A.J. Andrea, 
I. Motsiff, BS 33 [1972] 6—25). The Crusades had 
made Constantinople’s wealth known in the West. 
PHILIP OF SwaBia and his ally BONIFACE OF MONT- 
FERRAT had ambitions in the East. Venetian mer- 
chants wanted an assured monopoly in Constan- 
tinople (Lilie, Handel und Politik 557-95). Philip, 
Boniface, and Doge Enrico DanpoLo of Venice 
assisted the refugee Alexios IV; they easily won 
the support of many members of the Fourth 
Crusade (1202—04) for a diversion against Con- 
stantinople. After Alexios IV and his successor 
Alexios V proved hostile, the Crusaders seized 
Constantinople for themselves (12 Apr. 1204) and 
cruelly sacked it. The hostility of the Byz. popu- 
lace to the Latin Empire established by the Cru- 
saders contributed to its short life (1204—61). The 
Crusader principalities founded in the Morea, 
however, such as the principality of ACHAIA, en- 
joyed greater success. 

After the Latin Empire fell, the Turkish men- 
ace to the West was recognized and the defense 
of Constantinople prompted several Crusades. In 
1344 Smyrna was won, but the Crusade of 1396 
ended in a crushing defeat at Nikopolis (see N1- 
KOPOLIS, CRUSADE OF). A final attempt to save 
Constantinople resulted in the Ottoman victory 


560 | CRUSADES, WESTERN HISTORIANS OF THE 


at VARNA (1444) that assured the Turkish con- 
quest of Byz. 

Economically, the Crusades stimulated the de- 
velopment of Venice and Genoa at the expense 
of Constantinople. While cultural exchange be- 
tween Byz. and the West increased, their mutual 
hostility furthered the scuHism. Originally in- 
tended in part to rescue Byz. from the Turks, the 
Crusades contributed substantially to its downfall. 

LIT. H.E. Mayer, Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Kreuzzüge 
(Hanover 1960). M.A. Zaborov, Istoriografija krestovych po- 
chodov (Moscow 1971). A History of the Crusades?, ed. K.M. 
Setton, vols. 1-5 (Madison, Wis., 1969-85). C. Erdmann, 
The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (Princeton 1977). R.-J. Lilie, 
Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten (Munich 1981). Idem, “Noch 
einmal zu dem Thema ‘Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaat- 
en, ” Varia 1 (Bonn 1984) 121-74. -C.M.B. 


CRUSADES, WESTERN HISTORIANS OF THE. 
The First Crusade focused Western imagination 
on the seemingly providential events in Palestine 
(and secondarily in Byz.), stimulating new depar- 
tures in Latin literature (G. Spreckelmeyer, Das 
Kreuzzugslied des lateinischen Mittelalters [Munich 
1974]). Letters, like the one that Count Stephen 
of Blois sent his wife about Constantinople (ed. 
H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 
1088—1100 [Innsbruck 1901] 138—40), or oral 
and written reports, like the Gesta FRANCORUM, 
brought new knowledge of Byz. shaped by the 
confrontation of differing civilizations and con- 
flicting objectives. Crusader admiration or hostil- 
ity centered initially on Alexios I rather than the 
Byz. people, reflecting the emperor’s all-pervasive 
position. The Gesta was rewritten in the polished 
style required by the so-called 12th-C. renaissance 
for a burgeoning audience of educated clergy. 
Although some added little more than literary 
trappings, others, such as ALBERT OF AACHEN and 
GUIBERT OF NOGENT, supplied new material de- 
riving from local Crusaders and, possibly, early 
vernacular epics. By interpreting Byz. in terms of 
Western society, they also unconsciously distorted 
it. Even non-Crusader historians such as ORDERIC 
Vira.is, Caffaro (see ANNALES IANUENSES), and 
ROGER OF HOVEDEN incorporated the Levant into 
their historical productions. The classicizing lit- 
erary climate revived antique stereotypes about 
shifty, effeminate Greeks who were tacitly assim- 
ilated to the modern-day Byz. emperor. But early 
Crusaders did not emphasize religious differ- 


ences, and the relative serenity of a Lotharingian 
theologian like RuPERT oF Devuvz typifies the early 
12th C. 

The growth of administrative kingship and lit- 
eracy meant that, from the Second Crusade, cler- 
ical record-keepers accompanied Western rulers. 
Some histories, like that of Opo or DEUIL, the 
diarylike material of TaceNno, and the Historia 
DE EXPEDITIONE FRIDERICI, reflect the royal reti- 
nues’ contacts with Constantinople, while other 
Crusaders authored personal accounts like the 
ITINERARIUM PEREGRINORUM. Religious hostility 
toward Byz. swelled dramatically as Western the- 
ology’s accelerating development and obsession 
with local heretics affected differences between 
the Byz. and Latin churches, exacerbating politi- 
cal conflicts. The old stereotypes now encom- 
passed the Byz. people, increasingly considered 
as an ethnic unit. The classicizing ideals of the 
12th C. revived the Trojan legend and reinforced 
assimilation of contemporary Byz. and ancient 
Greeks even as it sharpened hostility, since the 
“Franks” believed their ancestors came from Troy. 
The Crusader states, however, produced Latins 
who knew Byz. directly and could be essentially 
positive, like FULCHER OF CHARTRES, or reflect 
political tensions, like RADULF OF Caen. This mi- 
lieu explains the masterful portrayal of Byz. by 
WILLIAM OF TYRE. 

Although epic overtones already pervade Al- 
bert and Radulf, written vernacular Crusader 
poems emerge only late in the 12th C. with the 
CHANSON D’ANTIOCHE and the verses of AM- 
BROISE. Western fantasies of Byz. and its riches 
worked their way into fictional works like the 
VOYAGE DE CHARLEMAGNE and the tales of Walter 
Map, even as the Third Crusade’s failure dimin- 
ished expectations from such enterprises. The 
fascination peaked tragically with the Fourth Cru- 
sade as Byz. treasures flooded Western society, 
accompanied by reports of the conquest like the 
DEVASTATIO CONSTANTINOPOLITANA and the ac- 
count of GUNTHER OF Parris. Count Baldwin’s 
court in Hainault had pioneered vernacular lit- 
erary innovation, and his role in the conquest 
combined with the primacy of French as the Cru- 
sader states’ vehicular language to encourage prose 
histories like the Esrorre D’ERACLEs; the works of 
Geoffrey VILLEHARDOUIN, HENRI DE VALEN- 
CIENNES, ROBERT DE CLARI; and, later, the CHRON- 
ICLE OF THE Morea. 


LIT. M.A. Zaborov, Vvedenie v istoriografiju krestovych po- 
chodov (latinskaja chronografija XI—XII vekov) (Moscow 1966). 
B. se Byzantium in westerse ogen, 1096—1204 
(Assen 1971). J. Richard, Les récits de voyages et de pèlerinages 
(Turnhout 1981). D. Jacoby, “La littérature francaise dans 
les états latins de la Méditerranée orientale à l'époque des 
croisades [diffusion et création],” in Essor et fortune de la 
chanson de geste dans l’Europe et l'Orient latin, vol. 2 (Modena 
1984) 617-46. —M.McC. 


CRYPT (from xpvzry, “concealed place,” also 
“vault”), a chamber beneath the main floor of a 
church, usually containing relics or tombs. Al- 
though never a requisite feature, crypts are found 
in Byz. churches of all periods and in a variety of 
locations. Most of the early basilicas of Constan- 
tinople were provided with a small cruciform crypt 
located directly beneath the altar, as in the 5th-C. 
Srouptos basilica. The entry into these crypts was 
usually by means of a narrow stairway opening in 
the interior of the arse, though in other churches, 
such as the 6th-C. Church of St. John in HEBDO- 
MON, access was obtained from outside the build- 
ing. The spacious crypt under the transept of the 
5th-C. Basilica of St. DEMETRIOS in Thessalonike 
enclosed a part of a Roman bath in which the 
saint was believed to have suffered his martyr- 
dom. The function of many later crypts is not 
clear; those under such churches as the katholikon 
of Hosios Loukas, the ossuary of the PETRITZOS 
MONASTERY, and the Taxiarches in Thessalonike 
were designed expressly for funerary purposes. 
LIT. Mathews, Early Churches 27, 32, 34, 57, 60, 109. 
Grabar, Martyrium 1:436-87. N. Brunov, “K voprosu o 


bolgarskich dvuchetažnych cerkvach-grobnicach,” Izv- 
BilgArchinst 4 (1926—27) 135-44- -M.J. 


CRYPTOGRAM, an encoded text. The most fre- 
quent system of cryptography in Byz. MSS origi- 
nated in MAGIC papyri from the grd/4th C. and is 
based on the use of Greek letters as NUMBERS. 
The numerals are distributed in three lines, each 
with nine letters, which switch places within the 
line: alpha (i.e., one) becomes theta (nine), beta 
(two) becomes eta (eight), etc. The letter in the 
middle (epsilon, nu, phi) cannot change its place. 
This “three-line system” also occurs as early as 
the Job MS of Patmos (Patmos gr. 171) of ca.800. 
Another method, also based on the Greek nu- 
merals, replaces one letter by two with half of the 
numerical value (e.g., iota [ten] becomes epsilon- 
epsilon [five and five]). This kind of cryptography 


CULTURE 561 


is attested in dated subscriptions of the 11th—12th 
C. Scribes of the 14th—15th C. invented a personal 
cryptography by contorting the Greek letters. 
LIT. Devreesse, Manuscrits 43—45. J. Noret, “Le crypto- 
gramme grec du Laurentianus, XXVIII 16,” Scriptorium 30 


(1976) 45f. V. Gardthausen, “Zur byzantinischen Krypto- 
graphie,” BZ 14 (1905) 616-19. -E.G. 


CUBICULUM. See Korron; PRAEPOSITUS SACRI 


CUBICULI. 


ČUČER. See NIKITA, MONASTERY OF SAINT. 


CULTURE encompasses all forms and results of 
human activity: modes of production, food, cloth- 
ing, and shelter, which constitute the material 
aspects of life; behavior with its norms—ethics 
and law as well as ceremonial and religious rite; 
education as the means to transmit the normative; 
spiritual life—visual arts, literature, music, sci- 
ence, philosophy, and theology. The terms “cul- 
ture” and “civilization” are used interchangeably 
with regard to Byz. 

For a long time Byz. culture was considered a 
mechanical agglomeration of independent phe- 
nomena. In the standard textbook, S. Runciman’s 
Byzantine Civilisation (New York 1933), as well as 
in many similar works, government and law, social 
life, church and monasticism, literature, science, 
and art form independent sections of a multistory 
construction, with no staircase leading from one 
floor to another. The first modern attempt to 
integrate, rather than merely to juxtapose, the 
various aspects of Byz. culture, was H. Hunger’s 
Reich der neuen Mitte (Graz-Vienna-Cologne 1965). 
The structure of books that followed Hunger (A 
Kazhdan, Vizantyskaja kuľ tura X—XIlI vv. [Moscow 
1968] and A. Guillou, La civilisation byzantine [Paris 
1974]) differed drastically from that of Runci- 
man; the authors dealt with economy (“the ac- 
quisition of the world”), social ties, power of the 
state, and what Guillou calls “culture,” that is, 
spiritual culture, and what in Kazhdan’s book is 
divided into “the image of the world” and AEs- 
THETICS. 

If Byz. culture is perceived not as an agglom- 
eration but as a unified entity, the question arises 
as to the nature of this entity. Hunger, while 
situating the problem on a purely spiritual plane, 


considered Byz. culture as an ancient civilization 
in the process of transformation into a Christian 
one. H.G. Beck (infra) shifted the emphasis: in 
his view, Byz. culture was determined by the role 
of the state, which created an atmosphere of po- 
litical orthodoxy and left very little room for non- 
conformity; Byz. literature and theology, wrote 
Beck, reflected this political and ideological uni- 
formity. 

Kazhdan began his analysis of Byz. culture from 
a different point: according to him, social group- 
ings (microstructures) played in Byz. a lesser role 
than in antiquity or in Western medieval coun- 
tries, whereas FAMILY links were stronger and 
more stable. This situation contributed to the de- 
velopment of individualism, which, however, de- 
prived of the support of any hierarchy and of 
social groupings, gave way to the omnipotent power 
of the state and became an “individualism without 
freedom.” An extreme ambivalence with regard 
to cardinal concepts and a search for stability 
within the world of imagination determined the 
main lines of Byz. spiritual life. 

Every culture includes traditional elements 
(heritage) side by side with INNOVATIONS. The 
problem of their interrelationship in Byz. has 
been hotly discussed. The well-established view, 
that Byz. culture was determined by the continuity 
of ancient elements (Greek and/or imperial Ro- 
man), was developed by G. Weiss (HistZ 224 [1977] 
529-60) and continues to be dominant. On the 
other hand, A. Toynbee (Constantine Porphyrogen- 
itus and his World [London 1973] 510—74) empha- 
sized the radical differences, “the antithesis be- 
tween the Byz. spirit and the Hellenic spirit,” as 
expressed in such cultural phenomena as prosky- 
nesis, dress, architecture, visual art, etc. This an- 
tithesis could be explained by Beck’s omnipotent 
state and political orthodoxy, but Averincev (Po- 
etika), following Hunger rather than Beck, inter- 
preted the non-Greek elements of Byz. culture as 
oriental, penetrating the empire via the Bible. 

Both Weiss and Toynbee, regardless of their 
disagreement, dealt with Byz. as a unity, whether 
inherited from antiquity or replacing antiquity; 
Averincev also believed that previously existing 
“culture circles” were interconnected to form the 
phenomenon of Byz. culture. Kazhdan and Mango 
(infra) have a different approach, perceiving Byz. 
culture as a historical rather than metaphysical 
event. Both acknowledge the decline of ancient 


urban civilization, the cultural crisis, and the sub. 
sequent revival of culture; for both of them, an- 
cient tradition is not a simply and automatically 
inherited treasure, but wealth that was almost lost 
and later regained. 

Although a unity, that is, having a common 
denominator, Byz. culture was far from absolute 
uniformity; on the contrary, a permanent ambiy- 
alence, an inner contradiction, was typical of it 
(H. Hunger, Byzanz, eine Gesellschaft mit zwei Gesich- 
tern (Copenhagen 1984]), as of any living civili- 
zation. This ambivalence was caused by various 
factors: the opposition of centripetal and centri- 
fugal forces, that is, the capital and the province, 
or a rigid asceticism and a joyful and tolerant 
approach to life, of the hermitage and koinobion, 
of patristic tradition and Hellenic heritage, of 
totalitarianism and nonconformity and, finally, by 
ethnic, linguistic, and religious divergences, as 
well as conflicts between classes and social groups. 

LIT. Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 1-22. C. Mango, Byzan- 
tium: The Empire of New Rome (London 1980). Idem, Byzan- 
tium and its Image (London 1984). H.G. Beck, Das byzantin- 
ische Jahrtausend (Munich 1978). Kul’tura Vizanti, ed. Z.V. 
Udal’cova, G.G. Litavrin, 2 vols. (Moscow 1984—89). A. 
Kazhdan, A. Cutler, “Continuity and Discontinuity in Byz- 
antine History,” Byzantion 52 (1982) 429-78. M.W. Weith- 
mann, “Strukturkontinuitét und -diskontinuitaét auf der 
griechischen Halbinsel im Gefolge der slavischen Land- 
nahme,” Münchner Zeitschrift fiir Balkankunde 2 (1979) 141— 
76. ~A.K. 


CULTURE, DIFFUSION OF. Different kinds of 
diffusion of Byz. culture may be distinguished. 

1. Diffusion of material objects does not in itself 
indicate any assimilation of culture. Byz. coins (see 
Corn Finps) and metalwork have been discovered 
as far north as Scandinavia and as far east as 
Inpia and Cuina. They may have found their 
way there through trade, as loot, or as the re- 
muneration of mercenaries. 

2. The impact of Byz. on neighboring non- 
Christian countries was exercised both through 
trade and Christian communities established there, 
as in Sasanian Persia, whose kings were anxious 
to profit from higher Byz. expertise in the crafts 
and even to emulate a Byz. way of life. The 
Muslim world proved more resistant to Byz. cul- 
tural influence, though it showed interest in an- 
cient and late antique Greek philosophical and 
scientific writings. 

3. A higher degree of penetration was achieved 


in Christian countries of Roman Catholic obedi- 
ence, esp. in Italy, parts of which were Byz. for a 
long time, less so in Germany, Hungary, and 
Scandinavia. This is most noticeable in art (paint- 
ing and mosaics more than architecture) that was 
spread either by migrant Byz. craftsmen or by the 
importation of objects (e.g., bronze Doors), giving 
rise to local imitations. The West showed little 
interest in Byz. writings, except for the several 
translations made in the gth C.: those by Anas- 
rasiuS BIBLIOTHECARIUS (chronicles, acts of the 
Council of 787), the two translations of pseudo- 
Dionysios the Areopagite (one of them by John 
Scotus Eriugena), and a few works of hagiogra- 
phy. Forced symbiosis between Greeks and Latins, 
beginning with the Third Crusade, led to a greater 
assimilation of Latin culture by the Greeks than 
vice-versa. In the 14th and 15th C. a number of 
Greek scholars, who were attracted by Italian hu- 
manism, studied Latin and taught Greek in Italy; 
some (e.g., Manuel CHRYSOLORAS, GEORGE TRA- 
PEZOUNTIOS) became distinguished teachers of 
Greek, others (Michael APOSTOLES, BESSARION) 
collected Greek MSS for Italian libraries, or, like 
Theodore Gazes and George Trapezountios, made 
translations of Greek authors, primarily Plato and 
Aristotle (see TRANSLATION). An exceptional case 
is that of Armenia, which, though non-Orthodox, 
was so intimately tied to the empire as to become 
profoundly influenced by it. 

4. The most thorough diffusion was achieved 
in Orthodox, mostly Slavic, countries (Bulgaria, 
Serbia, Kievan, Halyč, and Muscovite Rus’ as well 
as Romania, Alania, and Georgia); the countries 
of this cultural Byz. commonwealth owed the bulk 
of their civilization to Byz., including religion, 
ceremonial, art, alphabet, and literature. Byz. 
writings in Greek translated into an Old Church 
Slavonic koine circulated throughout the Slavic 
Orthodox world (with the Balkans, esp. Bulgaria, 
being the main source of such translations). In 
the case of Georgia, some translations were made 
from the Arabic as well. In Orthodox countries 
the diffusion of Byz. culture (esp. in art and 
literature) continued well beyond the fall of Con- 
stantinople; in some countries (Bulgaria, Serbia, 
Romania) it is attested as late as the 18th C. 


LIT. P. Grierson, “Commerce in the Dark Ages: A Cri- 
tique of the Evidence,” Transactions of the Royal Historical 
Society 9 (1959) 123-40. W. Ohnsorge, Abendland und Byzanz 
(Darmstadt 1958). “Abendland und Byzanz,” in RB, Reihe 


CUMANS | 563 


A, vol. 1, fasc. 3-6. G. Cavallo et al., Z Bizantini in Italia 
(Milan 1982). O. Demus, Byzantine Art and the West (New 
York 1970). D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: 
Eastern Europe 500—1453 (New York 1971). J. Irmscher, 
“Die Ausstrahlung der spatbyzantinischen Kultur,” 15 CEB 
Rapports 4.2 (Athens 1980). -C.M., 1.8., A.M.T. 


CUMANS (Kovpavor; in Byz. works of the 11th 
to 13th C. often “Scythians”; Turkic Qipéak, Slavic 
Polovtsy), a confederation of Eurasian nomadic 
and seminomadic tribes who replaced the PEecH- 
ENEGS in the east European steppe ca.1050—60 
and were, in turn, subjected by the MONGOLS in 
1222—37. Cattle breeders and warriors (their cap- 
ital was located near present-day Khar’kov, 
Ukraine), the Cumans were also involved in trade 
(esp. slave trade), for example, with SouGDAIA 
and CHERSON. The Cumans appeared on the Byz. 
frontier on the Lower Danube at the end of the 
11th C., first as allies of the Pechenegs with whom 
they plundered Thrace in 1087. In 1091, how- 
ever, Alexios I Komnenos used the Cumans against 
the Pechenegs: the alliance remained ephemeral 
and Cuman invasions continued at least until 1160. 
Diaconu (infra) hypothesizes that ca.1122 the Cu- 
mans destroyed DINOGETIA. At the same time the 
Cumans began to settle on Byz. territory; some 
of them were granted pronoial (Ostrogorsky, Féo- 
dalité 48—54). After the Mongol invasion, the Cu- 
man influx into Byz. increased: in 1241 John II] 
Vatatzes reportedly settled 10,000 Cumans in 
Thrace and Asia Minor, and in 125g Cuman 
contingents played an important role in the battle 
of PELAGoNIA. Cumans were famous as skillful 
archers. Their loyalty, however, was sometimes 
doubtful: in 1256 at Didymoteichon they deserted 
to the Bulgarians (Angold, Byz. Government 188f). 

The Cumans participated in the anti-Byz. revolt 
in Bulgaria in 1186, but it is difficult to prove that 
Peter and Asen I were of Cuman origin (P. Mu- 
taftiev, Izbrani proizvedenya 2 [Sofia 1973] 162— 
68), even though “Asen” was evidently a Turkic 
name. Archaeologically the Cumans are little 
known, and their tombs difficult to distinguish 
from those of the Pechenegs. The MAMLOK dy- 
nasty that ruled Egypt and Syria from 1250 to 
1517 was partially composed of former slaves 
(mamlik) of Cuman origin. 

LIT. P. Diaconu, Les Coumans au Bas-Danube aux XIe et 
Xle siècles (Bucharest 1978). D. Rasovskij, “Les Comans et 


Byzance,” IzuBilgArchInst 9 (1935) 346-54. O. Pritsak, “The 
Polovcsians and Rus’,” Archivium Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982) 


564 CURIA 


321-80. P.B. Golden, “Cumanica 1: The Qipéags in Geor- 
gia,” Archivium Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4 (1984) 45-87. A. 
Savwvides, “Hoi Komanoi (Koumanoi) kai to Byzantio, 1 10s— 
1308 ai. m.Ch.,” Byzantina 13.2 (1985) 937-55. E.C. Skriin- 
skaja, “Polovcy. Opyt istoriéeskogo istolkovanija etnikona,” 
VizVrem 46 (1986) 255-76. —O.P. 


CURIA (BovA%), city council. In late antiquity 
curiae administered CITIES and their territories, 
controlled local expenditure, sent embassies to the 
emperor, issued honorific decrees, and appointed 
urban teachers (sophists). Their heaviest respon- 
sibilities were the provision and maintenance of 
public works and services, and collection of taxes, 
for which the members had collective responsibil- 
ity. Curiae selected their own members, CURIALES 
or decurions, who sat for life. In the East, curiae 
were large, often with 500 members; Antioch had 
1,200. None of the curiae’s activities involved ma- 
jor policy decisions, which were decided by the 
governor and his representatives. The financial 
obligations of service in the curia made citizens 
increasingly reluctant to serve and anxious to find 
any avenue of escape; consequently, the curiae 
declined in size and prestige, and governors came 
to run cities through their own officials. A law of 
Anastasios I effectively substituted the collective 
responsibility of church and landowners for the 
curia. According to Joun Lypos, the curiae were 
a memory by the mid-6th C. In actuality they 
continued to exist, but only for ceremonial pur- 
poses. Leo VI issued a novel abolishing curiae, but 
their activity is revealed in various later sources. 
Curiae met in bouleuteria, commonly theaterlike 
buildings that were kept in good repair through 
the 6th C. 

LIT. Jones, LRE 724-31, 757-63. Kazhdan-Epstein, 


Change 50f. A. Bowman, The Town Councils of Roman Egypt 
(Toronto 1971). -C.F. 


CURIALES (Bovdevrat), members of the local 
council or CURIA (Gr. boule) of a municipium in the 
late Roman empire; the term replaced the former 
decuriones. Constantine I transformed the curia 
into a body in its own right by giving its members 
specific rights and obligations and prohibiting them 
from changing status (e.g., becoming SENATORS, 
military officers, or clergymen). The major pur- 
pose of this legislation was to preserve the class 
of urban landowners who were responsible for 


the normal functioning of the city’s institutions 
(finance, food supply, public works, entertain- 
ment). This concern was underscored in the law 
of 386 (Cod.Theod. XII 3.1) prohibiting curiales 
from selling their land and slaves. The obligations 
of curiales were burdensome, esp. their responsi- 
bility for local tax-collecting, but at the same time 
they possessed some fiscal and legal privileges. 
LIBANIOS presents the curiales of Antioch as an 
active and efficient body; probably they were less 
influential in the West, but even there SALVIAN of 
Marseilles (5th C.) described curiales as exploiters 
of the surrounding population. 

The diminishing number of curiales and increas- 
ing state requirements in the qth C. forced the 
government to take coercive measures, including 
the forcible subscription of criminals to the curia, 
along with official complaints on the avoidance by 
curiales of their duty. With regard to the later 
status of curiales, Bowman and Liebeschuetz em- 
phasize the state’s encroachments on the rights of 
the curiales, the introduction of offices {such as 
the DEFENSOR CIVITATIS) that held an intermediary 
position between the central government and the 
city, and the subjugation of the city to government 
control. Kurbatov, on the other hand, stresses the 
differentiation among the curiales and the ap- 
pearance of an upper echelon which he identifies 
with feudal seigneurs. The curia as an institution 
disappeared after the 6th C., and Leo VI abro- 
gated legislation concerning the municipal boule 
(nov.46), but the elements of MUNICIPAL ADMIN- 
ISTRATION remained in Byz. 

LIT. W. Schubert, “Die rechtliche Sonderstellung der 
Dekurionen (Kurialen) in der Kaisergesetzgebung des 4.- 
6. Jahrhunderts,” ZSavRom 86 (1969) 287-333. Liebe- 
schuetz, Antioch 163, 165f, 181-83. A. Bowman, The Town 
Councils of Roman Egypt (Toronto 1971). G. Kurbatov, Os- 
novnye problemy unutrennego razvitija vizantijshogo goroda v 
IV—VII vv. (Leningrad 1971) 119-71. 1. Hahn, “Immunität 


und Korruption der Curialen in der Spatantike,” Korruption 
im Altertum (Munich-Vienna 1982) 179-99. -A.K. 


CURRICULUM. The meaning of enkyklios pat- 
deia, “general education,” had already begun to 
narrow in Hellenistic times and continued to do 
so in late antiquity. John Tzerzes (Historiae 11:518— 
28) plainly stated that the term enkyklios paideia 
(or mathemata), which previously encompassed the 
seven “liberal arts,” now designated GRAMMAR only. 
The traditional three-tiered education that had 
still functioned in the 4th—6th C. was simplified 


after the 7th C. and consisted of two stages: the 
teaching of the elementary skills of literacy (read- 
ing, writing, and knowledge of sections of the 
Bible) and enkyklios paideia, primarily grammar. 
Since the SCHOOL was predominantly private, var- 
iations and complementary components were often 
introduced. The revival of the ancient curriculum 
(including the QUADRIVIUM) probably began in the 
gth C.: the professors of the MaGnaura school 
taught some of these disciplines on the secondary 
level. As a result the gth C. witnessed the trans- 
mission of mathematical and astronomical MSS 
before those of historians and poets (Wilson, 
Scholars 85—88). The attempt to resuscitate ter- 
tiary education in the 11th C. and the organiza- 
tion of philosophy and law schools in Constanti- 
nople had only a limited effect; the curriculum 
remained oriented toward grammar, PHILOSOPHY, 
and RHETORIC, with casual sallies into the quad- 
rivium, MEDICINE, and some exotic sciences such 
as optike, katoptrike (see MATHEMATICS), and kentro- 
barike (e.g., Mich.Ital. 157.10). 

uit. A. Moffatt, “Early Byzantine School Curricula and 
a Liberal Education,” in Mél.Dujéev 275-88. Lemerle, Hu- 
manism 111—117, 292-96. Marrou, Education 266f, 274- 
77, 400f, 568. A. Garzya, “ ‘Enkyklios paideia’ in Palladio,” 
AB 100 (1982) 259-62. —A.K. 


CURSING (kxatapacots), the imprecation of evil 
or damnation on a person or thing. Church fa- 
thers endeavored to soften the passages involving 
cursing in the Bible and to demonstrate that such 
curses were not acts of hatred but merely predic- 
tions of the future. Nevertheless, cursing re- 
mained a regular element of life, and the Tima- 
RION (ed. R. Romano, p.67.478) says that the Byz. 
were particularly fond of it. Cursing was used to 
protect contracts, property, tombs, and so on; the 
curse (ara) of the 318 Fathers of the First Council 
of Nıcara is commonly invoked on purchase 
charters and in MSS to keep the document from 
being stolen. Cursing was also used to strengthen 
church discipline (against heretics, violators of 
canon law, etc.), ANATHEMA being its strongest 
form. Cursing was thought to bring forth the 
anger of God and relegate the accursed to the 
power of the Devil. Cursing could also be an act 
of evil persons, and Muhammad, among others, 
was accused of cursing. The EUCHOLOGION con- 
tained prayers for the lifting of curses (ed. Goar, 


545-49, 693-96). 


CUSTOM 565 


LIT. W. Speyer, RAC 7:1240—88. Koukoules, Bios 3:326— 
46. -R.F.T., A.K. 


CURSIVE, a style of Greek script, the origin of 
which can be traced back to the script used in 
business PaPYRI. In the 4th C. Greek cursive evolved 
from the chancery script; it is contained within 
four parallel lines and shows typical features for 
the letters beta, eta, iota, kappa, and delta, and 
esp. for the epsilon with the upper stroke in the 
form of a beak. This script occurs in Egyptian 
papyri of the 6th—8th C. The MINUSCULE evolves 
from the cursive; this development can be seen 
already at the end of the 7th C. in the subscrip- 
tions of the members of the Third Council of 
Constantinople (680), written partly in minuscule, 
partly in uNCIAL. The 8th- or gth-C. Vat. gr. 2200 
is a unique codex exhibiting an alternative to the 
minuscule, a cursive script used for literary rather 
than chancery purposes (L. Perria, RSBN 20-21 
[1983—84] 25-68). Cursive elements survived in 
the regular minuscule, for example, MSS copied 
by Ephraim in the mid-toth C. or texts written in 
scholarly hands. N.G. Wilson was able to assign 
an earlier date to codices written by scholars by 
comparing them with dated documents showing 
cursive features (in PGEB 221-39). 

LIT. Hunger, “Buch- und Schriftwesen” 86-93. C.M. 


Mazzucchi, “Minuscole greche corsive e librarie,” Aegyptus 
57 (1977) 166-89. -EG., LŠ. 


CURTAIN. See KATAPETASMA. 


CUSTOM (ovv7éera). Byz. legal theory recog- 
nized the normative force of custom but tried to 
set strict limitations on it. Like a law, a customary 
regulation could achieve recognition only when it 
had been examined and approved judicially or 
sanctioned directly by an emperor. When a cus- 
tom hindered the efficacy of a certain law, it was 
interpreted as a procedural error on the part of 
the people to whom the law was addressed, not 
as the legal establishment of a counterregulation. 
Thus, a law based on legislation could be ren- 
dered ineffective by contrary custom, but it could 
not be abrogated. The high theoretical value placed 
on statutory law, closely linked with the concept 
of the emperor as the living law through God’s 
grace, was contradicted in practice by an enor- 


566 CUSTOMS 


mous mass of customary regulations. This pro- 
fusion could be explained by the inaccessibility of 
the legislation, the difficulty of its language, the 
complexity of its content, and its contradictory 
nature. A further explanation lies in its inability 
to adapt to the social developments of the Byz. 
state, for which only a very small proportion of 
the Roman imperial and late antique norms were 
appropriate. Finally, there were a great number 
of special local or ethnic regulations which the 
central government was unable to override in the 
provinces through equivalent legal measures. 

Custom in Byzantine Documents and Novels. 
Although the Byz. clearly distinguished between 
the law (nomos) and custom (synetheia), they often 
treated them as parallel and noncontradictory 
concepts (e.g., Docheiar., no.6.60—-61, 4.1118, 
no.40.41, a.1370/1). The legislators, however, had 
to cope with the cases of discrepancy between the 
two: many of the NoveLs or Leo VI dealt with 
synetherai—in 16 cases he approved of customary 
regulations and only in five or six cases rejected 
them. Passages in many documents state that a 
particular tax was levied or should not be levied, 
or a particular procedure had been performed or 
had not been performed kata ten synetheian, “ac- 
cording to custom.” 

LIT. D. Simon, “Balsamon zum Gewohnheitsrecht,” in 
Scholia: Studia D. Holwerda (Groningen 1985) 119-33. J. de 
Malafosse, “La loi et la coutume a Byzance,” Travaux et 
recherches de l’Institut de droit comparé de l'Université de Paris 


23 (1963) 59—69. K. Polyzoides, To ethimon eis to plasion tes 
Orthodoxou Ekklesias (Thessalonike 1986). -A.K., M.B. 


CUSTOMS. Imports and exports were tightly 
controlled and taxed in Byz. This was done at the 
frontiers, in special markets, the KOMMERKIA, at 
the entrance of the straits leading to Constanti- 
nople (Abydos, Stena Pontikes Thalasses), and 
later in ports, such as Thessalonike. At least until 
634, the circulation and sale of merchandise in 
the empire was subject to the OCTAVA (12.5 per- 
cent duty) collected by the octavarii. This was later 
(before ca.800) replaced by the kommerkion (10 
percent and, in the mid-14th C., 2 percent) 
and other TITHES (esp. on wine), collected by a 
series of officials such as the ABYDIKOS, the KOM- 
MERKIARIOI, the PARATHALASSITES, the limenitai, 
the eleoparocho, etc. These officials supervised the 
circulation of merchandise and prevented all un- 
authorized exports, esp. those of precious or 


“strategic” materials, the kekolymena or “prohibited 
items” (gold, silk, weapons, iron, lumber, etc.); 
from the 13th C. onward, the export of wheat 
from Constantinople was also prohibited if its 
price surpassed a certain level. Western mer- 
chants, starting with the Venetians in the 11th C., 
obtained privileges exempting them from the pay- 
ment of these custom duties that were mandatory 
for almost all Byz. (except some privileged mon- 
asteries). Other burdens on merchandise were toll 
payments (diabatikon, poriatikon), port duties (nau- 
los, antinaules, limentatikon, skaliatikon), sales tax 
(pratikion), dues for measurement of weighing, 
etc. 

tir. H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Recherches sur les douanes à 


Byzance (Paris 1963). H. Ahrweiler, “Fonctionnaires et bu- 
reaux maritimes à Byzance,” REB 19 (1961) 239-52. 


CYCLE, in art, a conventional term for a sequence 
of images recounting events in the lives of biblical 
and other sacred figures and, in HISTORY PAINT- 
ING, of emperors. Christian cycles were, to some 
extent, successors to representations of the vitae 
of pagan mythological heroes. They existed as 
early as the 4th C.: the LIPSANOTHEK at Brescia 
displays a sequence of pictures drawn from the 
Passion of Christ, while events from the lives of 
Moses and Peter are excerpted on SARCOPHAGI of 
the period. Even at this stage, as in the PALESTIN- 
IAN CHRISTOLOGICAL CyYcLE, dogmatic and typo- 
logical considerations outweighed narrative im- 
pulses in the selection of scenes. The early existence 
of cycles of the lives of JosHua and Davip has 
been hypothesized; the latter was certainly in ex- 
istence by the time of the Second Cyprus TREA- 
surE (early 7th C.). The concept of cycles finds 
full development in CHURCH PROGRAMS OF DECO- 
RATION, icons, and manuscript illumination in and 
after the gth C. Cycles of the Infancy, Ministry, 
and Passion of Christ, and of the lives of the 
Virgin Mary and of some saints (see HAGIOGRAPH- 
ICAL ILLUSTRATION), pervade the remaining cen- 
turies of Byz. art. Cycles in the literal sense of the 
term may then be said to exist in that the sequence 
of GREAT FEAST scenes appears to be correlated 
with the recurring liturgical year. In the Palaio- 
logan era cycles multiply both in the recondite 
nature of their contents and in number, some- 
times drawing on hymnographic material such as 
the AKATHISTOS HYMN. 


LIT. Demus, Byz. Mosaic. Underwood, Kariye Djami 4:161— 
goz. Weitzmann, Roll and Codex 193—205. -AC. 


CYNEGETICA. See Opplian. 


CYNEGIUS MATERNUS, staunch supporter of 
THeEODOsIos I and praetorian prefect 384-88; 
died Constantinople or en route to Constantino- 
ple, March 388. Probably of Spanish origin, Cy- 
negius was an active adversary of paganism, no- 
torious for demolishing pagan temples in Syria 
and for his anti-Semitic attitude. According to J. 
Matthews (JThSt n.s. 18 [1967] 438-46), Theo- 
dosios brought to Constantinople from Spain not 
only Cynegius but an entire clan of his relatives, 
who went on to dominate court life in the capital. 
One of Cynegius’s relatives was Aemilius Florus 
Paternus, proconsul of Africa (393), who kept the 
province loyal to Theodosios when Italy was in 
revolt. Matthews also postulates a family connec- 
tion between the clan of Cynegius and Serena, 
Theodosios’s niece and the wife of STILICHO. An- 
other Cynegius, a zealous Christian, was a mem- 
ber of the consistorium under Arkadios. 

LIT. PLRE 1:235f, 2:331f. J-M.-F. Marique, “A Spanish 
Favorite of Theodosius the Great: Cynegius, Praefectus 
Praetorio,” Classical Folia 17 (1963) 43-59. B. Gassowska, 
“Maternus Cynegius praefectus praetorio Orientis and the 
Destruction of the Allat Temple in Palmyra,” Archaeologia 
33 (1982) 107—230. -—A.K. 


CYPRIAN. See KIPRIAN. 


CYPRUS (Kvzpos), island in the northeastern 
Mediterranean, an important way station between 
East and West, with good ports, rich agricultural 
land, and significant mineral deposits, esp. cop- 
per. Cyprus, which constituted a province within 
the prefecture of Oriens, enjoyed considerable 
prosperity in late antiquity and urban life appar- 
ently flourished during the period. A series of 
terrible earthquakes devastated the island in the 
mid-4th C., but urban life did not collapse. Sa- 
lamis in the northeast, rebuilt and renamed Con- 
stantia by Constantius II, became the capital; re- 
structured urban centers continued at Kourion, 
Paphos, and elsewhere. In 536 Justinian I re- 
moved Cyprus from the jurisdiction of the prefect 
of Oriens and placed it, along with five other 
provinces, under the newly created quaestor exer- 


CYPRUS | 567 


citus. Cyprus continued to play an important po- 
litical and economic role in the 6th and early 7th 
C., since it was at first spared the military up- 
heavals that afflicted the rest of the empire. 

The rise of Arab sea power, however, meant 
the end of peace, and Cyprus became a battlefield 
between Byz. and Islam. In ca.647 the island 
began to be the target of Arab raids, whose success 
forced the abandonment of many of the cities and 
the dislocation of others (e.g., the removal of 
Kourion to nearby Episkope). Justinian II reset- 
tled some Cypriots in the area around Kyzikos 
and in 688 he signed a treaty with the caliph ‘ABD 
AL-MALIK, by which Cyprus seems to have become 
a no-man’s-land in which taxes were paid both to 
Byz. and to the caliphate and in which both pow- 
ers had access to ports (which they might use to 
mount attacks on each other). In the gth C., 
however, pressure built within Byz. for recon- 
quest of Cyprus, and after several false starts Basil 
I finally accomplished the task (at an uncertain 
date), incorporating Cyprus into the theme sys- 
tem; after seven years, however, the island re- 
sumed its former status. In 965, Nikephoros II 
Phokas brought Cyprus firmly within the Byz. 
sphere; it became a province governed by a ka- 
TEPANO. In the 11th—12th C. there was some 
economic recovery, and new cities were founded 
on the coasts near the deserted sites of antiquity: 
Ammochostos near Salamis, Lemessos near Ama- 
thos, while Nikosia (Leukosia) in the center of the 
island became the capital. Monasteries and 
churches sprang up throughout the island as wit- 
nesses of this new-found prosperity and cultural 
vigor. 

In the 11th and 12th C. the Cypriots felt heavily 
burdened by Byz. administrative and fiscal poli- 
cies, even though the complaints of Patr. NicHo- 
LAS IV MouzaLon seem to be exaggerated. In 
1043 Cyprus revolted, and the protospatharios 
Theophylaktos, “judge and praktor of the state 
revenue,” was murdered (Skyl. 429.4—12). In 1092 
Cyprus and Crete simultaneously rebelled against 
Alexios 1 Komnenos, but the uprising was quelled 
by John Doukas. Rhapsomates, the leader of the 
Cypriots, was taken captive, and Alexios sent Eu- 
stathios Philokales with a strong garrison to the 
island. In 1184 Isaac Komnenos seized control 
of Cyprus and proclaimed the island indepen- 
dent. 

In the 12th C. the island became a focal point 


568 CYPRUS 


in the struggle for domination over Syria. In 1148 
the Venetians acquired trade privileges in Cyprus. 
Renauld of Chatillon, the Crusader prince of An- 
tioch, raided Cyprus in cooperation with T‘oros 
II of Lesser Armenia in 1155 or 1156; in 1161 
pirates equipped by Raymond, count of Tripoli, 
attacked Cyprus. In 1191 RICHARD I LIONHEART 
occupied the island. The next year Richard sold 
Cyprus to the Knights of the Temple, then pre- 
sented it to Guy de Lusicnan. Under Lusignan 
rule, most of the land was handed out as feudal 
grants and the Catholic hierarchy appropriated 
all the larger sees, relegating the Orthodox clergy 
to villages and remote areas. The Lusignan period 
nevertheless seems to have been prosperous, as 
attested by numerous archaeological sites 
throughout the island: not only churches and 
fortresses, but also villages and medium-sized 
farmsteads. The remains bear witness to consid- 
erable cultural contact, particularly with Italy and 
the Levant. In fact, during those years Cyprus 
was, after Palestine, the most important Western 
outpost in the East, the staging ground for what- 
ever Crusader aspirations still remained. 

The data concerning connections between Cy- 


CYPRUS 





As Bop 
Koutsovendis 


Nikosia X 


Ç. Arnautis Peristerong 


ne a 


(Limassol) 


C Gata 


prus and Byz. in the 13th—15th C. are scanty, 
Letters addressed by the Orthodox patriarch (prob, 
Neophytos) and by Henri Lusignan to John IU 
Vatatzes (K. Chatzepsaltes, KyprSp 15 [1951] 63— 
81), though limited in factual content, show friend] 

relations between the two states and the allegiance 
of the Cypriot church to Nicaea; the patriarch 
does not complain of the situation of the Greek 
church in Cyprus. Byz. influence at the court of 
Nikosia seems to have increased during the reign 
of Jean II Lusignan (1432-58) who was married 
first to Medea, daughter of the half-Greek mar- 
quis of Montferrat John-James Palaiologos, and 
then to Helena, daughter of Theodore IJ Palaio- 
logos, despotes of Morea, who managed to place 
her adoptive brother Thomas as grand chamber- 
lain; in her circle an idea arose to replace the 
Latin archbishop of Nikosia, Hugh (died 1442), 
with an Orthodox Greek (A. Vacalopoulos, Prak- 
tika tou A’ diethnous kyprologikou synedriou, vol. 2 
[Leukosia 1972] 277-80). 

Even though tradition claimed that the evan- 
gelization of Cyprus was the result of the activity 
of St. Paul and his disciple BARNABAS, no data on 
the Cypriot ecclesiastical hierarchy before 325 are 


a 
C. Andreas 


*Rizokarpaso 





AMMOCHOSTOS 


Salamis 
{Constantia 
BAY 


MESAORIA 
Ammochostos 





C. Greko 








known. Since administratively Cyprus was under 
the government of the diocese of Oriens, its church 
was placed under the jurisdiction of Antioch. In 
the 5th C. the metropolitans of Cyprus led a 
struggle for ecclesiastical independence, taking 
advantage of the conflict between Antioch and 
Alexandria and appealing to the authority of Rome 
and Constantinople (G. Downey, PAPAS 102 [1958] 
224-28). Antioch tried to retain its jurisdiction 
before the Council of Ephesus in 431, but the 
Cypriots elected Rheginos their metropolitan, and 
in Ephesus he joined the cause of Cyril of Alex- 
andria. PETER THE FULLER tried again to recover 
Antiochene jurisdiction expecting help from Emp. 
Zeno, but Anthemios, the metropolitan of Cyprus, 
stubbornly resisted. In 488 the tomb of the apostle 
Barnabas was discovered; it also contained a copy 
of St. Matthew’s Gospel that Anthemios immedi- 
ately sent to the emperor. Zeno proclaimed the 
church of Cyprus autocephalous (a decree con- 
firmed by Justinian I); the metropolitan received 
special signs of respect: a garment of purple silk, 
a scepter instead of a staff, the right to sign his 
letters in red, and the title of makariotes (“beati- 
tude”). Greek archbishops existed in Cyprus until 
1260 (V. Laurent, REB 7 [1949] 33-41). 


Lir. G.F. Hill, A History of Cyprus, vol. 1 (Cambridge 
1940) 244—329; vol. 2 (Cambridge 1948). Jenkins, Studies, 
pt.XIV [1953], 1006-14. C.P. Kyrris, “The Nature of the 
Arab-Byzantine Relations in Cyprus,” Graeco-arabica 3 (1984) 
149-75. R. Browning, “Byzantium and Islam in Cyprus in 
the Early Middle Ages,” EKEE g (1977—79) 101-16. J. 
Richard, “Une économie coloniale? Chypre et ses res- 
sources agricoles au Moyen-Age,” ByzF 5 (1977) 331-52. 
Idem, “Culture franque et culture grecque: Le royaume 
de Chypre au XVème siècle,” ByzF 11 (1987) 399-416. 
M.B. Efthimiou, “Greeks and Latins on Thirteenth-Cen- 
tury Cyprus,” GOrThR 20 (1975) 35—52. J. Hacket, Ch.I. 
Papaioannou, Historia tes orthodoxou ekklesias Kyprou, 3 vols. 
(Piraeus 1923-32). -T.E.G. 


Monuments of Cyprus. Several large ecclesias- 
tical complexes of the 4th—5th C. have been ex- 
cavated on the island. Among the most impressive 
is Salamis. The Basilica of St. Epiphanios, which 
probably functioned as the cathedral of the city, 
is the largest Christian building discovered on 
Cyprus. Other important sites include a 4th-C. 
ecclesiastical complex at nearby Kampanopeta; 
Kourion, with a large 5th-C. episcopal] basilica and 
baptistery; Pegia, with two basilicas, a baptistery, 
and a bath dated to the late 5th or early 6th C.; 
Soloi and Gialousa. 


CYPRUS 569 


Mosaics ascribed to the 6th or 7th C. at Kiri 
and LyTHRANKOMI were incorporated in churches 
rebuilt either before the Arab invasions of the 7th 
C. or during the Arab-Byz. treaty period (688/g— 
mid-1oth C.). Similarly unclear in chronology are 
the monuments of the Karpas peninsula, includ- 
ing a cross-in-square church near Rizokarpaso, 
and three vaulted basilicas, all built over the ruins 
of earlier churches. 

A group of triple-domed basilicas including St. 
Lazaros at Larnaka, St. Barnabas at Salamis, Sts. 
Barnabas and Hilarion at Peristerona, and St. 
Paraskeve at Geroskipos, may be very tentatively 
ascribed to the period before the Byz. reconquest 
of the island by Nikephoros II Phokas in g65. 
After the reconquest there is little evidence of 
artistic activity before the early 11th C., when the 
cross-i-square katholikon of St. Nicholas tes Steges 
received its first fresco phase, including a GREAT 
Feast cycle. At the beginning of the 12th C., the 
image of St. Nicholas with a monastic donor was 
painted on a masonry partition inserted between 
the diakonikon and the naos. Later in the 12th C. 
a narthex decorated with a Last Judgment was 
added. 

Perhaps in response to the rebellion of Rha- 
psomates in 1092 and the advancing armies of 
the First Crusade, there was much construction 
on the island during the reign of Alexios I. For 
example, Saranda Kolonnes, the fortress protect- 
ing Paphos harbor, which was initially erected in 
the gth C. (?), was rebuilt (the Crusaders would 
make further additions to this castle after they 
took the island in 1191). At Koutsovendis, the 
monastery of Hagios Chrysostomos, founded on 
g Dec. 1090 by a hegoumenos George, was fortified. 
The complex included a domed-octagon katholi- 
kon built partially in cloisonné-brick with a parek- 
klesion. The high-quality decoration of the latter 
dates from the late 11th or early 12th C. Astnou 
and a Jarge number of other churches with fres- 
coes stylistically related to those at Koutsovendis 
further attest to rebuilding on the island in the 
late 11th and early 12th C. 

The second half of the 12th C. is also rich in 
monumental remains. The Holy Apostles at Pera- 
chorio, a small, single-naved, domed church, was 
decorated with a feast cycle in the grd quarter of 
the century. The unpublished church at Kato 
Lefkara also seems to date from this period. The 
rich, painted programs of the Enkleistra of St. 


570 | CYPRUS TREASURE: First Cyprus TREASURE 


NEOPHYTOS ENKLEIsSTOS and LAGOUDERA date to 
the end of the 12th C. 

Before the Latin occupation of Cyprus, its art 
and to a lesser degree its architecture were in- 
formed by a tension between Constantinopolitan 
and local traditions. In contrast, 13th-C. painting 
on the island represents a distinctively regional 
development. The monastery of St. John Lam- 
padistes at Kalopanagiotes is a complex of three 
churches. The first surviving phase of fresco dec- 
oration of St. Herakleidios, a cross-in-square church 
constructed probably in the 11th C., dates from 
the 13th C. The Panagia at Moutoullas, a small, 
rectangular, wooden-roofed structure, was deco- 
rated with scenes from the life of Christ for John, 
son of Moutoullas, and his wife Irene on 4 July 
1280. The small monastic church of Panagia 
Amasgou at Monagri received its principal medi- 
eval decoration in the 13th C., though a few fresco 
fragments of the early 12th C., stylistically related 
to the paintings at Asinou, also remain. 

LIT. Soteriou, Mnemeia ide! ales A. and J.A. Stylianou, 
The Painted Churches of Cyprus* (London 1985). A. Papa- 
georghiou, “L’architecture paléochrétienne de Chypre” and 
“L'architecture de la période byzantine a Chypre,” CorsiRav 
32 (1985) 299-324, 325-35. A-H. Megaw, “Le fortificazioni 
bizantini a Cipro,” CorsiRav 32 (1985) 199-231. Idem, 
“Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Met- 
ropolitan or Provincial?” DOP 28 (1974) 57-69. -A.J.W. 


CYPRUS TREASURE. Two treasures of the 6th 
to 7th C. are known by this name. 


FIRST CYPRUS TREASURE. Found at the end 
of the 19th C. at Karavas, a village close to Lam- 
bousa (anc. Lapithos) west of Kyrenia in Cyprus, 
the First Cyprus Treasure included 39 silver ob- 
jects (plate, censer, bowl [with SILVER STAMPS of 
578-82, 605-10, 641-51, respectively], and 36 
spoons) of which all but 11 spoons entered the 
British Museum in 1899. In 1906 a find of three 
silver plates (all with stamps of 610-30) decorated 
with a monogram (read as “Theodore A”) was 
associated with this treasure by Dalton, as was 
eventually the Second Cyprus Treasure. Several 
spoons have inscribed names, including that of 
Theodore, and one set of 11 spoons has a series 
of running animals. Although the single plate, 
bowl, and censer have Christian decorations (cross, 
busts of Christ, and saints), none is inscribed with 
a dedication to a church and the treasure is prob- 


ably domestic silver PLATE with pious ornamen- 
tation like that in the Canoscio TREASURE. 

tir. O.M. Dalton, “A Byzantine Silver Treasure from 
the District of Kerynia [sic], Cyprus now preserved in the 
British Museum,” Archaeologia 57 (1900) 159-74. Idem, 
“Byzantine Silversmith’s Work from Cyprus,” BZ 15 (1906) 
615-17. Dodd, Byz. Silver Stamps, nos. 28, 35, 37— 3%, T 
Mango, Silver, nos. 103-05. - 


SECOND CYPRUS TREASURE. Discovered in 1902 
very close to the find-spot of the First Cyprus 
Treasure, this second find consisted of two lots: 
11 silver plates concealed in a walled niche and 
eight pieces of gold JEWELRY buried in a pot nearby. 
Eight bronze objects (lampstand, two lamps, five 
ewers) also formed part of the group. The silver 
objects, now divided between the Nikosia and 
Metropolitan Museums, included the nine Davin 
PLATES of 629/30 and two dinner plates, one bear- 
ing the monogram of a certain John (with SILVER 
STAMPS of 605) and one bearing a small cross 
(with stamps of 613-30). The jewelry included a 
belt and a chain containing consular and imperial 
MEDALLIONS of Maurice (584, 585). The second 
treasure was probably part of the contemporary 
First Cyprus Treasure (which contains similar din- 
ner plates) and belonged to a highly placed family 
that received imperial gifts in 584—85 and 629/30 
and acquired other objects between 578 and ca.641. 
The objects were probably buried when the island 
was invaded by the Arabs in ca.647. 

LIT. O.M. Dalton, “A Second Silver Treasure from Cy- 
prus,” Archaeologia 60 (1906) 1—24. Dodd, Byz. Silver Stamps, 
nos. 33, 54, 58-66. A. and J. Stylianou, The Treasures of 


Lambousa (Vasilia, Cyprus, 1969). Age of Spirit., nos. 61, 
285, 287, 292. —M.M.M. 


CYRENAICA (Kup7vn). The Roman province of 
Cyrenaica comprised the plateau of Djebel Akh- 
dar on the east coast of Libya. Under Diocletian 
it was divided into two provinces: Libya Superior 
or PeNTAPOLIS and Libya Inferior. Both provinces 
suffered from frequent attacks by the Austuriani 
in the 4th and 5th C., leading to the establishment 
of a dux Libyarum ca.383 and, by the late 5th C., 
of a dux Libyae Pentapoleos. Regulations regarding 
the provisioning of troops on the limes of the 
province, published in the reign of Anastasios I 
(Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, g.1 [Leiden 
1938] no.356), indicate the continuing interest of 
Constantinople in maintaining control over Cy- 
renaica. Anastasios and Justinian I also undertook 


the refortification of some towns in Cyrenaica in 
response to new barbarian attacks, most notably 
by the Mazikes (see Mauri). Despite these attacks, 
archaeological evidence from the cities indicates 
that trade, largely with the Aegean and northeast 
Mediterranean areas, continued from the earlier 
Roman period, although never in great volume. 
The main export was perhaps grain, but olive oil 
and seafood products may also have been traded. 
Much archaeological work remains to be done on 
the rural history of Cyrenaica in the late Roman 
period, our prime source of information still being 
SynEsios, bishop of Cyrene in the late 4th and 
5th C. 

Cyrenaica was subordinated to the church of 
Alexandria and thus affected by Egyptian reli- 
gious controversies. In the 4th C. Arianism ob- 
tained support among Cyrenaican bishops. Zeno’s 
HENOTIKON is addressed to both Cyrenaican and 
Egyptian clergy, indicating the existence of a strong 
Monophysite church in Cyrenaica in the 5th C. 
In 609 Herakleios marched from Cyrenaica into 
Egypt in his revolt against Phokas. The history of 
Roman Cyrenaica ends with the Arab invasions 
of 642 and 645. 

LIT. P. Romanelli, La Cirenaica romana (96 a.c.—642 d.c.) 
(Rome 1971). Cyrenaica in Antiquity, ed. G. Barker, J. Lloyd, 
J. Reynolds (Oxford 1985). D. Roques, Synestos de Cyrène et 
la Cyrénaique du Bas-empire (Paris 1987). M. Fulford, “To 
East and West: The Mediterranean Trade of Cyrenaica 
and Tripolitania in Antiquity,” Libyan Studies 20 (1989) 
169-92. ~R.B.H. 


CYRIACUS OF ANCONA, or Ciriaco de’ Pizzi- 
colli, Italian merchant; self-taught humanist and 
epigrapher fascinated by antiquities; born Ancona 
ca.1391, died Cremona ca.1455. From 1412 to 
1454 he traveled incessantly over the territories 
once or still controlled by Byz. Beginning ca.1424, 
he kept in Latin a detailed diary, the Commentaria, 
that recorded his movements; the people he met, 
including John VIII Palaiologos (K.M. Setton, 
Speculum 33 [1958] 227f and n.14), Gemistos PLE- 
THON, and other Byz. potentates and scholars; the 
places and monuments he saw and sketched; and 
passages from Greek (for example, B. Baldwin, 
Scriptorium 37 [1983] 110-12 on the Athos MS of 
Nonnos) and Latin MSS he consulted. Most im- 
portant of all, he transcribed vast numbers of 
Greek and Latin INSCRIPTIONS, for many of which 
he is the oldest or only witness. In all these do- 


CYRIL | 571 


mains he collected Byz. material no less avidly 
than classical, although his honesty has sometimes 
been questioned. 

Of the multivolumed original diary only a small 
fragment about the Peloponnesos (1447—48) sur- 
vives; more is preserved in autograph extracts 
that Cyriacus sent to various acquaintances, and 
sections of the account of his travels in Greece 
(1435-37) survive in copies. This complex and 
fragmentary textual tradition complicates the ex- 
ploitation of his myriad materials. He avidly col- 
lected Greek MSS in such places as Constantino- 
ple, Thessalonike (M. Vickers, BMGS 2 [1976] 
75—82), Chios, and Mt. Athos, where he also made 
a list of the MSS he examined in Nov. 1444 (ed. 
Bodnar-Mitchell, 49.859—56.1041). 

Cyriacus, who attended the Council of Ferrara- 
Florence (1438—39), was devoted to church union 
and a crusade against the Turks despite his ex- 
cellent personal relations with the sultans (F. Pall, 
BSHAcRoum 20 [1938] 9-68); he supposedly en- 
tertained Mehmed II on the eve of the conquest 
of Constantinople (E. Jacobs, BZ 30 [1929-30] 
197—202). Cyriacus wrote some works in Greek, 
for example, a treatise on the Roman calendar 
(1448) for Constantine (XI) Palaiologos, despotes 
of Morea (ed. G. Castellani, REGr g [1896] 225- 
30), and one or two poems (D.A. Zakythinos, BZ 
28 [1928] 270—72; cf. Bodnar, infra [1960] 62). 
For his handwriting, see D. Harlfinger, Specimina 
griechischer Kopisten der Renaissance, vol. 1 (Berlin 


1974) 21f. 


ED. R. Sabbadini, “Ciriaco d'Ancona e la sua descrizione 
autografa dei Peloponneso trasmessa da Leonardo Botta,” 
in Miscellanea Ceriani (Milan 1910) 181—247. Classici e uma- 
nisti da codici Ambrosiani (Florence 1933) 1—48. E. Bodnar, 
C. Mitchell, Cyriacus of Ancona’s Journeys in the Propontis and 
the Northern Aegean, 1444-1445 (Philadelphia 1976). 

LIT. M.E. Cosenza, Biographical and Bibliographical Dictio- 
nary of the Italian Humanists? (Boston 1962) 1169-71. J. 
Colin, Cyriaque d'Ancône: Le voyageur, le marchand, lU'humaniste 
(Paris 1981). E. Bodnar, Cyriacus of Ancona and Athens (Brus- 
sels 1960). C. Smith, “Cyriacus of Ancona’s Seven Drawings 
of Hagia Sophia,” A7tB 6g (1987) 16-32. —M.McC. 


CYRIL, bishop of Jerusalem (ca.348/5,0-386/7) 
and saint; born near Jerusalem ca.313; feastday 
18 Mar. Accused both of theological submission 
to his Arian superior Akakios, bishop of Caesarea, 
and of harboring pro-Nicene sentiments, Cyril 
was thrice deposed (357, 360, 367) and thrice 
restored (358, 362, 378). His major extant work 


572 CYRIL 


is a series of 24 catechetical lectures, transcribed 
by a listener, which were delivered as Lenten and 
Easter instructions for catechumens. The last five, 
the Mystagogical Catecheses, may have been written 
wholly or partly by his successor as bishop, JOHN 
I of Jerusalem. Cyril’s lectures provide much 
information on both the liturgy and the topog- 
raphy of 4th-C. JERUSALEM. His observations on 
the EUCHARIST are particularly important, as he 
was the first theologian to discuss transubstantia- 
tion and to emphasize its sacrificial nature. His 
lectures include much on the theory and practice 
of Baptism, which for him was a prerequisite for 
salvation. His Christology is Nicene, although he 
notably eschews the term HOMOOUSIOS, more in 
opposition to Sabellianism than Arianism. The 
word does, however, appear in his letter to Con- 
stantius II describing the apparition of a cross of 
light in the sky over Jerusalem on 7 May 351; this 
letter also refers to Helena’s discovery of the True 
Cross (ed. E. Bihain, Byzantion 43 [1973] 264-96; 
the letter is also preserved in a Syriac version, ed. 
J.F. Coakley, AB 102 [1984] 71-84). The presence 
of the term homoousios here may imply a Cyrilline 
change of mind, or simply an interpolation. A 
homily on the paralytic also survives. 

ED. PG 33:331-1176. Catéchéses mystagogiques,” ed. A. 
Piédagnel (Paris 1988), with Fr. tr. by P. Paris. Lectures on 
the Christian Sacraments, ed. F. L. Cross (London 1951; rp. 
Crestwood, N.Y., 1977), with reproduction of Eng. tr. by 
R.W. Church (Oxford 1838). Eng. tr. L.P. McCauley. A.A. 
Stephenson, The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 2 vols. 
(Washington, D.C., 1969—70). 

ur. H.M. Riley, Christian Initiation (Washington, D.C., 
1974). E-A. Boulgarakes, Hai katecheseis tou Kyrillou Hiero- 
solymon (Thessalonike 1977). A.A. Stephenson, “S. Cyril of 
Jerusalem’s Trinitarian Theology,” StP 11 (1972) 234-41. 
J.H. Greenlee, The Gospel Text of Cyril of Jerusalem (Copen- 
hagen 1955). —B.B. 


CYRIL, patriarch of Alexandria (from 18 Oct. 
412), theologian, and saint; born Mahalla in Egypt 
378, died Alexandria 27 June 444; feastday g 
June. He succeeded on the patriarchal throne his 
uncle THEOPHILOs whom he had attended at the 
Synod of the Oak (403), which deposed John 
Chrysostom. His early years in office (up to 428) 
were marked by conflicts with Jews, Novatians, 
and pagans, the last provoking suspicion that he 
was involved in the murder of Hypatia (415). In 
later years (between 433 and 441), Cyril wrote a 
detailed refutation of Against the Galilaeans by Ju- 


lian, thus revealing the tenacity of Egyptian pa- 
ganism. 

The early writings of Cyril were mainly biblical 
commentaries, allegorical in method though less 
so than those of ORIGEN, and polemics against 
ARIANISM, in which he developed the Trinitarian 
views of ATHANASIOS. While Athanasios had to 
deal primarily with the question of the Trinity, 
Cyril wrestled with Christological problems. Nes- 
TORIOS consistently separated the God-Logos in 
the incarnate Christ from the Man, accepting only 
the synapheia or “contact” of the two natures. Cy- 
ril’s aim was to preserve the concept of unity of 
the God-Man as a necessary condition of salvation. 
For this purpose he employed the term Hypos- 
TASIS (introduced by APOLLINARIS) and asserted 
that the Logos and the flesh (he preferred these 
words to “god” and “man”) in Christ were not in 
contact but in hypostatic unity (Richard, Opera 
minora 2, NO.42, pp. 243-52). Accordingly, Cyril 
insisted that the Vircin Mary had given birth not 
only to the man Jesus but to God and therefore 
deserved the appellation THEoToKos. Cyril did 
not distinguish clearly, however, between the con- 
cepts of hypostasis and nature, and sometimes 
assumed that Christ possessed one hypostasis or 
nature (physis). Formulations of this kind allowed 
for a MONOpHYSITE interpretation of his doc- 
trines. This Monophysite cast to Cyril’s writings 
accounts for the preservation of a great many of 
his works in Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Cop- 
tic. As S. Gero (OrChr 62 [1978] 77-97) demon- 
strated, there is no evidence to support the theory 
that Cyril encouraged icon veneration. 

Representation in Art. Portraits of Cyril, with 
his dark pointed beard, resemble those of Basil 
the Great, but Cyril wears a special pointed bon- 
net, the prerogative of the patriarch of Alexan- 
dria. The bonnet is often decorated with crosses. 


ED. PG 68—77. Opera, ed. P.E. Pusey, 7 vols. (Oxford 
1868—77). Select Letters, ed. L. Wickham (Oxford 1983), 
with Eng. tr. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters, tr. J.1. Mc- 
Enerney, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C. , 1987). Uber den rechten 
Glauben, ed. B.M. Weischer, Germ. tr. O. Bardenhewer 
(Munich 1984). CPG, nos. 5200-5438. 

LIT. Quasten, Patrology 3:1 16-42. M. Simonetti, “Alcune 
osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo d’Alessandria,” Au- 
gustinianum 22 (1982) 493-511. A. Kerrigan, St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament (Rome 1952). W.J. 
Malley, Hellenism and Christianity (Rome 1978) 237-423- 
R.L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study 
of Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis and Theology (New Haven 
1971). —B.B., A.K., N.P.S. 


CYRIL, jurist of the time of Justinian I. Cyril was 
the author of a Greek paraphrase of the DIGEST, 
many fragments of which have been preserved in 
the scholia to the Basitixa. His paraphrase of 
books 41 to 50 of the Digest appears to have been 
the basis for certain sections of the Basilika text as 
well. 


LIT. Heimbach, Basil. 6:16, 56-59. Wenger, Quellen 687. 
-AS. 


CYRIL (saint). See CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSO- 
PHER. 


CYRIL HI, patriarch of Antioch (29 June 1287— 
ca.1308?). The third of his name to sit on the 
throne of Antioch (not the second; cf. V. Grumel, 
MéUniv]os 38 [1962] 260, n.3), Cyril was metro- 
politan of Tyre until his election as patriarch in 
1287. A rival claimant, Dionysios I, was elected at 
the same time in Cilicia. In 1288 Cyril went to 
Constantinople, where Patr. Grecory II and 
ATHANASIOS I refused to recognize his election. 
He lived in Constantinople at the HODEGON mon- 
astery and was finally recognized in 1296 by Patr. 
John XII Kosmas (1293—1303). He resided in the 
capital until his death or resignation ca.1308. 
Athanasios remained hostile to him and accused 
him of causing a schism in the church (ep.69, ed. 
Talbot). The chronology of the patriarchate of 
Antioch in the early 14th C. is not yet fully re- 
solved; PLP (no.14053) suggests that Cyril may 
have resumed the patriarchate between 1310 and 
1314. 

LIT. V. Laurent, “Le patriarche d’Antioche Cyrille II,” 
AB 68 (1950) 310-17. -A.M.T. 


CYRIL OF SKYTHOPOLIS, monk and hagiog- 
rapher; born Skythopolis (in Palestine) ca.525?, 
died after 559?. Cyril’s father, a lawyer named 
John, supervised his early religious education. 
When still a young child, Cyril met St. SaBas, who 
strongly influenced his future monastic career. 
According to Flusin (infra), Cyril became an an- 
agnostes shortly after 532 and in 543 was tonsured 
as a monk. He left almost immediately for Jeru- 
salem, where he met St. John the Hesychast, whose 
biography he would later write. In 544, after 
spending some months as a hermit in a lavra near 
the Jordan, he entered the cenobitic monastery 


CYRIL PHILEOTES 573 


of St. EUTHYMIOS THE GREAT at Jericho, where he 
spent the next ten years. Following the condem- 
nation of ORIGENISM in 553, Origenist monks 
were expelled from the New Lavra of St. Sabas 
and replaced in 555 by Orthodox monks, among 
them Cyril. In 557 he moved to the Great Lavra 
of Sabas, where he died shortly thereafter. 

Despite his short life Cyril wrote a number of 
biographies of Palestinian monks, such as Sabas, 
Abraham, Kyriakos (also preserved in Georgian), 
Theodosios, and Theognios. His evident aim was 
to produce a corpus of vitae of Palestinian saints, 
an ambition fostered both by local patriotism and 
a firm belief in the relationship between holiness 
and the pDEsErt. The historical details in his Lives, 
where verifiable, are accurate. He is informative 
on topics ranging from the phylarchs of the Par- 
embole in Palaestina I to the movements of HE- 
SYCHIOS OF JERUSALEM. Cyril is occasionally illu- 
minating on Constantinople, as in the story of 
“the liberating of the polis and the church” (ed. 
Schwartz 176.1—2) from the three heresies—of 
Arius, Nestorius, and Origen. 

ED. Kyrillos von Skythopolis, ed. E. Schwartz (Leipzig 1939). 
Fr. tr. A.-J. Festugiére, Les moines d'Orient, vol. 3 (Paris 
1962-63). “La version Géorgienne de la vie de S. Cyriaque 
par Cyrille de Scythopolis,” ed. G. Garitte, Muséon 75 (1962) 


399-440. 
LIT. B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dans l'oeuvre de Cyrille de 


Scythopolts (Paris 1983). —B.B., A.M.T. 


CYRIL OF TUROV. See KIRILL. 


CYRIL PHILEOTES, saint; born in Philea near 
Derkos €a.1015, died 2 Dec. 1110 [1120, accord- 
ing to Karlin-Hayter, infra]. A holy man who 
remained a long time in the world, Cyril spent 
three years as a sailor; he had a wife and children 
but was very devoted to monastic life and consis- 
tently restricted both his sexual hfe and diet. From 
his homeland he frequently visited Constantino- 
ple, but he traveled even further, to Chonae and 
even to Rome. Cyril was connected with the Kom- 
nenoi and some of their supporters: Eumathios 
PHILOKALES, George Palaiologos, Michael Doukas, 
etc. He took the habit at the monastery founded 
at Philea by his brother Michael and received 
there his monastic name of Cyril; his secular name 
is unknown. Alexios I granted the monastery a 
confirmation of the independence of all its pos- 
sessions from the treasury. 


574 | CYRRHUS 


Cyril’s Life, written by Nicholas KATASKEPENOS 
(died after 1143), has an unusual structure: every 
chapter or paragraph begins by stating a fact in 
Cyril’s biography, followed by a series of patristic 
quotations that tend to emphasize the general 
significance of this fact. Kataskepenos presented 
a rigoristic approach to salvation: his hero per- 
formed not only traditional fasting and vigils but 
also self-flagellation with rope and club (e.g., 
ch.5.7). Unlike SYMEON THE THEOLOGIAN, Cyril is 
said to have approved of monastic FRIENDSHIP and 
to have eagerly practiced charity. 

sources. La Vie de saint Cyrille le Philéote moine byzantin, 
ed. E. Sargologos (Brussels 1964), with notes by P. Karlin- 
Hayter, Byzantion 34 (1964) 607-11; A. Kazhdan, VizVrem 
28 (1968) 302-04; A.-J. Festugiére, REGr 80 (1967) 430- 
44; 81 (1968) 88-109. 

uT. V. Gjuzelev, “Svedenija za istorijata na Varna i 
Anchialo (Pomorie) prez XI v. v Zitieto na Kiril Fileot,” 
IzvInstBiilgist 28 (1972) 315-23. —A.K. 


CYRRHUS (Kvppos, also Hagioupolis, now Huru 
Pegamber in eastern Turkey), city of northern 
Syria in the province of EuPHRATENSIS. Bishops 
of Cyrrhus are known from 325 onward; between 
460 and 570 it became an autocephalous metrop- 
olis. Libanios speaks of it as a small city that had 
formerly been great; its function as the region’s 
fortress was usurped, under Constantius II, by 
HIERAPOLIS. THEODORET OF CYRRHUS, who was 
the city’s bishop in the 5th C., describes the city 
primarily as a residence of hermits; his own build- 
ing activity there included the construction of 
stoas, two bridges, an aqueduct, and the mainte- 
nance of public baths. Some revival took place 
under Justinian I, who stationed a garrison at 
Cyrrhus and ordered the repair of the city walls 
and the construction of a roofed aqueduct. Sev- 
eral inscriptions have been found in Cyrrhus 
bearing the names of Justinian, Theodora, and 
Belisarios. The martyrion of Sts. Kosmas and 
Damianos near Cyrrhus, first mentioned by Theo- 
doret, was later called a “wonder of the world” by 
Arab writers; its materials were removed by al- 
Walid (705-15) for his mosque at BERRoIA. The 
circuit walls and the remains of two large basilicas, 
all from the period of the 4th to 7th C., still stand 
at Cyrrhus; a residential quarter by the cardo has 
been excavated; and two bridges survive in the 
area. The remains of a large basilica and traces 
of an aqueduct have also been discovered. 


The Arabs took Cyrrhus in 637. From the 10th 
C. onward the Byz. tried to regain it: in gos, 
Andronikos Doukas plundered Cyrrhus and took 
its inhabitants captive. Romanos II] was defeated 
in this region in 1030. In the 12th C. Armenians 
and Crusaders fought over “Guris’/‘Qurus”; 
thereafter it is not mentioned by historians. 

ur. E. Honigmann, RE 12 (1925) 199—204. E. Frézouls, 
“Recherches historiques et archéologiques sur la ville de 
Cyrrhus,” AnnArchSyr 4—5 (1954-5) 106-28. “L’explora- 
tion archéologique de Cyrrhus,” in Apamée de Syrie, ed. J. 
Balty (Brussels 1969) 81—92. —M.M.M. 


CYZICUS. See Kyzikos. 


CZECH LITERATURE. CuurcH SLAVONIC as a 
liturgical and literary language coexisted with Latin 
in the Bohemian (Czech) church until its use was 
banned in 1096/7. The basic texts were probably 
imported from Moravia. The earliest Church Sla- 
vonic MS of indisputably Czech provenance, the 
11th-C. GLAGOLITIC Prague Fragments, is a Byz. 
liturgical text translated from Greek. All other 
extant Czech translations are from Latin works, 
although some translators may have known Greek 
(F. Mareš, BS 24 [1963] 2477—50). Native literature 
is esp. notable for its hymnography (the Canon to 
St. Vaclav [Wenceslas], the hymn Hospodine pomiluj 
ny) and hagiography (numerous Latin and Church 
Slavonic vitae of Vaclav [died 929], of Vaclav’s 
grandmother Ludmila [died ca.g21], and proba- 
bly of St. PRokopios). Translated and original 
Czech literature was exported to the Slavic Or- 
thodox world, particularly to Rus’ (P. Devos, AB 
72 [1954] 427-38; B. Florja, BS 46 [1985] 121- 
30). Most Church Slavonic works of Czech origin 
survive in Eastern Slavic MSS, the earliest dating 
from 1095/6. (See also KONSTANTIN MIHAILOVIĆ 
OF OSTROVICA). 

ED. F. Mare’, An Anthology of Church Slavonic Texts of 
Western (Czech) Origin (Munich 1979). 


LIT. Magna Moravia (Prague 1965) 435—566. Vlasto, En- 
try go—92, 105-13. -S.C.F. 


CZECHIA. In the gth C., when reached by Byz. 
missionaries, Czechia was a vassal state of Great 
Moravia. According to legend, METHODIOS con- 
verted Borivoj of Prague and his wife Ludmila. 
After the Hungarian invasion and collapse of 
Moravia (ca.go6) two independent princedoms 


emerged: one under the Premyslid dynasty of 
Prague and another (until gg1) under the Slavnik 
dynasty of Libica. Constantine VII seems to have 
had some information about Czechia: his “White 
Serbloi” who lived beyond “Turkey” in a place 
called Boiki (or Boimi?—De adm. imp. 32.2—4) may 
be the Slav inhabitants of eastern Bohemia. 
Twelfth-century Byz. authors speak of the Tze- 
choi who were allied with Hungary and Kiev 
against Manuel I (e.g., Lampros, “Mark. kod.” 
174, no.320.6—7), though Kinnamos (Kinn. 223.5— 
8) implies that the “king of the Tzechoi” was the 
empire’s 1110s at the time of the Second Crusade. 
Vincent of Prague (MGH SS 17:681) records that 
a noble Czech, Boguta of Moravia, served Manuel 
and was granted several castles. In 1273 Byz. and 
Czechia negotiated concerning a union of the 


CZECHIA | 575 


churches and the organization of a crusade. In 
1451—52 a Hussite emissary, probably Matthew 
English, came to Constantinople and after lengthy 
defense of the Hussite creed obtained a letter 
dated 18 Jan. 1452, signed by seven church dig- 
nitaries and inviting the Hussites to join the Greek 
church. The letter, however, satisfied only the 
most moderate leaders of the Czech movement. 
Chalkokondyles conveys some data about the 
Tzechoi or Boemoi (Ditten, Russland-Exkurs 56f), 
asserting, for instance, that they were fire 
worshipers. 

ut. F. Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe? 
(Gulf Breeze, Fla., 1974). M. Paulová, “Die tschechisch- 
byzantinischen Beziehungen unter Přemysl Otakar II,” ZRVI 
8.1 (1963) 237—44. F.M. Bartoš, “A Delegate of the Hussite 
Church to Constantinople in 1451-1452,” BS 24 (1963) 
287-92; 25 (1964) 69-74. —S.C.F., A.K, 


seas ye Ay apui 


D 





DABATENOS, or Diabatenos (A(uaBarnves, fem. 
A(uaBarnvy), a family that flourished in the sec- 
ond half of the 11th C., possibly of Armenian 
origin. A certain Davatanos, doux of Edessa, fell 
in battle ca. 1062; his brother Levon held the same 
position in the 1070s. We do not know whether 
he is to be identified with Leo Diabatenos, a gen- 
eral under Romanos IV, and another Leo, gov- 
ernor of Mesembria in 1080. Another Dabatenos, 
under Alexios I, served as topoteretes of Herakleia 
in Pontos and of Paphlagonia (1081); perhaps he 
was the same Dabatenos who more than 20 years 
later was doux of Trebizond. Even less certain is 
his identity with Michael Dabatenos, protonobelts- 
simos in 1094/5 (P.Gautier, REB 29 [1971] 245f). 
Several Dabatenoi left seals with such titles as 
sebastos, protokhouropalates, and katepano. Soon after 
1100 the family position declined, and the Dia- 
batenoi attested in the 13th and 14th C. were 
parotkoi, priests, or owners of small farms (PLP, 
nos. 5365—70). 

LIT. Kazhdan, Arm. 114-16. V.A. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 
Armjane-chalkidonity na vostoénych granicach Vizantyskoj imperiti 
(Erevan 1980) 141-43. —A.K. 


DACIA, the territory north of the Lower and 
Middle Danube. It was conquered by Trajan and 
then abandoned by the Romans in the mid-grd 
C. Aurelian, however, created the province of 
Dacia Ripensis on the south bank of the Danube 
between Moesia I and Moesia II. Its major cities 
were Ratiaria and Oescus; Priskos of Panion (fr.1) 
called Ratiaria a large and densely populated city. 
Military camps and forts, rather than cities, were 
typical of the province. Dacia Ripensis Hourished 
in the mid-4th C., and the Romans even managed 
to recover some fortresses on the north bank of 
the Danube. Gothic FOEDERATI penetrated into 
Dacia, and some settlements probably belonging 
to them (e.g., a fortified village at Vit) have been 
excavated. This system of Germanic settlements 
continued after the battle of Adrianople (378), as 
in Sucipava, where the last Roman coins are of 


577 


408-23; probably thereafter the system of forts 
was demolished by the Huns. The empire re- 
newed the construction of strongholds north of 
the Danube at the end of the 5th C. and was able 
to maintain them through the end of the 6th, 
when Dacia was occupied by the Avars and Slavs 
(O. Toropu in g CEFR [1974] 71-81). 

Dacia Mediterranea lay south of Dacia Ripensis 
and was probably created sometime later. Its cap- 
ital was SERDICA and its major cities were NAISSUS, 
Pautalia, and Remesiana. Dacia Mediterranea was 
more urban and more Greek than Dacia Ripensis 
and played a larger role in ecclesiastical develop- 
ment. 

LIT. H. Vetters, Dacia ripensis (Vienna 1950). E. Chirilă, 
M. Gudea, “Economie, populație si societate in Dacia post- 


aureliană,” Acta Musei Porolissonensis 6 (1982) 123-54. 
-A.K. 


DACO-GETANS, autochthonous population on 
both banks of the Lower Danube. Ancient authors 
considered them a single group, speaking a dialect 
of the Thracian language, but recent scholars 
distinguish three ethnic elements: Thracian, Illy- 
rian, and Daco-Moesian (C. Poghirc in L’ethno- 
génèse des peuples balkaniques [Sofia 1971] 171f). 
Despite romanization of the region, old Getic tra- 
ditions, esp. old forms of ceramics, survived in 
ScyrHia Minor and in Moesia through the 6th 
C. (C. Scorpan, Thracia 2 [1974] 131-34). From 
the 7th C. onward, the Slavs settled on the Dan- 
ube, assimilating a substantial part of the autoch- 
thonous population, then the Bulgars and Pech- 
enegs moved into the area. The ancient Daco- 
Getans mingled with these peoples, even though 
some Daco-Getans, esp. in mountainous regions, 
retained their latinized language and certain cul- 
tural traditions, eventually emerging as VLACHS. 

The ethnic name Dakes reappears in the 10th— 
11th C. to designate PECHENEGS; in the 12th—15th 
C. it was applied primarily to the Hungarians 
(Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica 2:116) and, in the 15th 
C., even to the Danes (E. Trapp, JOB 36 [1986] 
301f). 


578 | DAKTYLOS 


ut. D. Protase, Problema continuității in Dacia (Bucharest 
1966). G. Stefan, “Le probléme de la continuité sur la 
territoire de la Dacie,” Dacia 12 (1968) 347~—54. Transylvania 
and the Theory of Daco-Reman-Rumanian Continuity, ed. L. 
Léte (Rochester, N.Y., 1980). —A.K. 


DAKTYLOS (ákos, “finger”), the smallest Byz. 
unit of length, equal to 1/16 pous [= 1.95 cm], 
also called monas (unit). 


urr. Schilbach, Metrologie 16. -E. Sch. 


DALASSENE, ANNA, mother of ALexios I Kom- 
NENOS; born ca.1025, died 1 Nov. 1100 or 1102. 
Her father was Alexios Charon, her maternal 
grandfather Adrianos Da.assenos (N. Adontz, 
Byzantion 10 [1935] 171-85). She married John, 
brother of Isaac I KOMNENOs, in 1040 or 1045; 
their children included Manuel, Maria, Isaac, Eu- 
dokia, Theodora, Alexios, Adrianos, and Nike- 
phoros. After Isaac I’s abdication, Dalassene op- 
posed the Doukas family, who had succeeded to 
the throne; she even disliked Alexios’s marriage 
to IRENE Doukaina. She actively encouraged Isaac 
and Alexios’s revolt against NIKEPHOROS III (14 
Feb. 1081) and had to seek refuge in Hagia So- 
phia and then the PeTRION monastery. Upon Al- 
exios I’s accession, she became powerful at court. 
During his campaigns (beginning in Aug. 1081), 
he granted her sweeping administrative powers 
(Reg no.1073): written or verbal, rational or ridic- 
ulous, her orders were to be obeyed as the em- 
peror’s own. A copy of her prrTakion for CHRIS- 
TODOULOS OF PaTMos (May 1088) survives (Patmou 
Engrapha 1:342—51, no.4g), and in 1095 she or- 
dered the blinding of Nikephoros DIOGENES 
(An.Komn., 2:201.16—22). After popular charges 
of misgovernment seemingly disturbed her rela- 
tionship with Alexios (Zon. 3:746.4—7), she re- 
tired to the PANTEPOPTES MONASTERY. Her piety 
and patronage of monks were renowned; Anna 
KOMNENE greatly admired her. 


LIT. Skoulatos, Personnages 20-24. ~C.M.B. 


DALASSENOS (Aadacanvos, fem. Aatacanvn), 
a noble Byz. lineage originating from Dalasa-Talas 
on the Euphrates and known from the late 10th 
C. Adontz’s hypothesis that the family was of 
Armenian stock can neither be proved nor re- 
futed. The magistros Damianos and his son the 


patrikios Constantine were governors of Antioch 
in gg6—gg8 and in 1025, respectively. Constan- 
tine, called “the lord of the Eastern land” in con- 
temporary epigrams, was an important land- 
owner; Constantine VIII regarded him as his 
heir, but in the 1030s Constantine Dalassenos fell 
from imperial favor and was arrested by Michael 
IV. His brother Theophylaktos was doux of An- 
tioch according to a seal; the third brother Ro- 
manos was katepano of Iberia. In the 1060s and 
70s the Dalassenoi served in the Balkans: Theo- 
dore as doux of Thessalonike and Serres, Dami- 
anos as doux of Skopje. Anna DALASSENE was mar- 
ried to John Komnenos and became mother of 
Alexios I Komnenos. Thereafter the Dalassenoi 
ceased to be military commanders: the sebastos 
Theodore served as a judge in 1196; another 
Theodore, sebastos (and eparch), is known froma 
seal; a third Theodore is mentioned in TIPOUKEI- 
Tos as a lawyer in Eudokia’s court (1067), but the 
high title of protonobelissimos makes this attribution 
dubious (see NoBeE.issimos). In the later period 
the name Dalassenos is rare and used only in a 
low level of society (PLP, nos. 5035—36). 


_ LIT. Cheynet-Vannier, Etudes 75-115, 121f. Adontz, 
Etudes 163—77. Kazhdan, Arm. 92—97- -A.K, 


DALMATIA (Acdpyatia), Roman province on the 
eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea whose capital 
was SaLona. After brief domination by Odoacer, 
and then by the Ostrogoths, ca.538 Dalmatia be- 
came a Byz. proconsular province, consisting of 
coastal cities and nearby islands, from Istria to 
Kotor. It prospered through maritime trade. In 
the early 7th C. when Slavs and Avars invaded 
the hinterland and destroyed the coastal cities 
(Salona, Epidauros), these centers were replaced 
by new ones (SPLIT, Dusrovnik). Both cities and 
islands remained under Byz. rule, but their eccle- 
siastical jurisdiction alternated between Rome and 
Constantinople. The metropolis became Zadar 
(Zara) administered by a prior or archon. Whether 
he was a Byz. functionary or local magnate re- 
mains unclear. In the early gth C. Charlemagne 
subjugated Dalmatia, and the dux Jaderae briefly 
functioned there as Frankish representative; in 
812 the Franks returned Dalmatia to Byz., but it 
remained practically independent until the late 
860s when Basil I established a Byz. theme there. 
Ecclesiastically it formed the metropolis of Ke- 


phalia under the jurisdiction of Constantinople 
(Notitiae CP, no.3.54). 

The area consisted of several independent eco- 
nomic and political zones: the northern centers 
tended to be pro-Venetian; the mid-Dalmatian 
cities, mostly autonomous, wavered in their loy- 
alties between Venice and Hungary; Dubrovnik 
temporarily formed a special Byz. theme; the 
southern cities were linked with Serbia and Zeta. 
After a short-lived Venetian conquest in 1000, the 
Byz. presence in Dalmatia weakened. Various 
forces—Venice, Croatia, Hungary, the Nor- 
mans—contended for domination over the area, 
and in the 1060s real Byz. authority disappeared, 
except in Dubrovnik. After the union of Croatia 
with Hungary (1102), northern Dalmatia was un- 
der Venice; the central area under Hungaro- 
Croatian kings; the southern area nominally Byz., 
but in fact autonomous. Croatian impact on Dal- 
matian cities and islands intensified. Brief resto- 
ration of Byz. influence in the mid-12th C. col- 
lapsed in 1180. From 1204 to 1358 Venice 
dominated Dalmatia, after which all the area ex- 
cept Dubrovnik was conquered by Hungary. 
Venetian domination returned in the early 15th 
C. and lasted until 1797. 

ur. J. Hahn, J. Ferluga, Z. Rapani¢, LMA 3:444~-57. J. 
Ferluga, L’amministrazione bizantina in Dalmazia (Venice 1978). 
N. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb 
1971). Idem, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku 


(Zagreb 1976). L. Steindorff, Die dalmatinischen Städte im 
12. Jahrhundert (Cologne-Vienna 1984). —B.K. 


DALMATIC OF CHARLEMAGNE. Neither a 
dalmatic nor belonging to Charlemagne, the so- 
called Dalmatic of Charlemagne, a piece of silk 
dating ca.mid-14th C., is a patriarchal SAKKOS 
presumably from Constantinople; documented in 
Vatican inventories from 1489, it is currently in 
the Treasury of St. Peter’s. Its association with 
Charlemagne is purely legendary. The dark blue 
silk sakkos is decorated with an extensive gold- 
embroidered figural cycle on the theme of Sal- 
vation, The complex iconography begins with the 
TRANSFIGURATION on the back of the garment, 
continues with the Communion of the Apostles 
(see Lorp’s SUPPER) on the shoulders, and ends 
with the Parousia, the Second Coming of Christ 
on the front. Embroidered inscriptions include 
Matthew 26:26-27, John 11:25, and Matthew 


25:34. 


DAMAGE BY QUADRUPEDS 579 


LIT. G. Millet, La Dalmatique du Vatican (Paris 1945). E. 
Piltz, Trois sakkot byzantins (Stockholm 1976) 28f, 42- 45» 
figs. 5-7, 9-10. -A.G 


DALMATOU MONASTERY, an important early 
monastery, evidently the first to be constructed in 
Constantinople. Dalmatou (Aœàuárov, Aahya- 
ttov) was founded in 382 by the Syrian saint Isaac 
outside the Constantinian walls in the eastern part 
of the Psamathia quarter. After Isaac’s death 
ca.406, he was succeeded as superior by his dis- 
ciple Dalmat(i)os, a former officer of the imperial 
guard (died 438), after whom the monastery was 
named. In the 5th C. Dalmatou was a bastion of 
Orthodoxy, and its superior was given the title of 
ARCHIMANDRITE Or EXARCH, supervisor of the other 
monasteries of the capital. Beginning in the late 
7th C., the monastery was frequently used as a 
place of confinement for political prisoners, such 
as the deposed emperors Justinian II, Leontios, 
and Philippikos. During the Iconoclastic contro- 
versy, the Dalmatou monastery was persecuted 
because of its fervent support of images and even 
closed for a time. In the oth C. the vita (unpub- 
lished) of Hilarion (died 845), a superior of Dal- 
matou and iconodule confessor, was written by a 
certain Sabas (BHG 2177, 2177b). In the late 12th 
C. Dalmatou was transformed into a nunnery; in 
1182, Maria, widow of Manuel I Komnenos, was 
confined there. Thereafter the monastery disap- 
pears from the sources. 

LIT. G. Dagron, “Les moines et la ville: Le monachisme 
a Constanunople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine (451),” 
TM 4 (1970) 229-76. Beck, Kirche 213, 558. Janin, Eglises 
CP 82-84. -A.M.T. 


DAMAGE BY QUADRUPEDS. Roman law reg- 
ulated wrongful damage to property by the Lex 
AQuUILIA, which deals primarily with the killing of 
another person’s slave or animal and with damage 
by the burning, breaking, or destruction of an- 
other’s property. To these two categories Byz. law 
added the specific case of praida (mpaîða). The 
word is derived from Latin praeda (meaning 
“booty,” and metaphorically “gain”) and was used 
in late Roman texts in its original sense of “booty” 
(e.g., John Moschos, PG 87:3024B). The FARMER’S 
Law, however, lends to this term a new legal 
sense, that of damage by quadrupeds, and regu- 
lates the punishments and compensations due on 


580 DAMASCUS 


both sides when an animal wanders onto a neigh- 
bor’s land and causes damage or is injured (pars. 
25, 48-53, 58). Some of these norms were ac- 
cepted in (Italian?) provincial law. Where this 
“original and practical rule of arbitration” (Simon, 
infra) first arose is unclear. It could be a borrowing 
from neighboring countries—it exists in the Lom- 
bard Edictum Rothari and in its Greek translation 
(MGH Leges 4:231)—or a local Byz. development 
due to similar rural conditions. 


LIT. Simon, “Provinzialrecht” 102-10. -A.K. 


DAMASCUS (Aauackos), ancient city in south- 
ern Syria situated 100 km inland from the Med- 
iterranean between the coastal mountains and the 
desert, in an oasis watered by the Barada River. 
An important military stronghold on the eastern 
frontier, Damascus was one of four cities of Or- 
IENS with an arms factory (NotDign 11.18—23). 
The city was the metropolitan bishopric of the 
province of Phoenicia Libanensis, which was un- 
der the civil administration of Emesa. Little re- 
mains of Byz. Damascus. The Roman temple of 
Zeus Damaskenos was closed by Theodosios I and 
a church (later named for John the Baptist) was 
built within its precincts. Sauvaget (infra) dem- 
onstrated that the ancient street grid of Damascus 
evolved into an irregular “oriental” system, but 
subsequent attempts to date this change to the 
5th—6th C., rather than later (H. Kennedy, ByzF 
10 [1985] 170, n.g1), are conjectural. SOPHRONIOS 
of Jerusalem was a native of Damascus. 

The city was under Persian rule from 612 to 
628 and was taken by the Arabs in 635. There 
are several conflicting accounts of the siege—in- 
cluding one that emphasized the role of the father 
of Jonn oF Damascus—and the peace terms made 
between the victors and the people of Damascus 
(payment of tribute, division of property), as quoted 
in some sources, may be of dubious authenticity 
(Donner, Conquests 131-45, 246f). Soon after its 
conquest Damascus became the capital of the 
Umayyad Caliphate (661—750). In 708 the Church 
of John the Baptist was replaced by the Great 
Mosque, which was decorated with wall mosaics 
attributed by some scholars to Byz. craftsmen. In 
the 10th C. Damascus passed to the Ikhshidids 
and FATimips of Egypt, and, while briefly con- 
trolled by the Turk Afteqin, was placed under 
Byz. protection in 975. From 1154 the city was 


the base of Nur at-Din, and from 1174 it sup- 
ported SaLapin, who died there. 

LIT. N. Elisséef, EI” 2:279—86. C. Watzinger, K. Wulzin. 
ger, Damaskus, die antike Stadt (Berlin-Leipzig 1921) 77- 
101. J. Sauvaget, “Le plan antique de Damas,” Syria 26 
(1949) 314-58. R.A.C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture?, 
vol. 2 (Oxford 1969) 323-72. —M.M.M. 


DAMASCUS CHRONICLE. See IBN AL-QaLaAn- 
IST. 


DAMASKENOS, PETER, monk and ascetic writer, 
fl. ca.1156/7. His major works, of the type of the 
PHILOKALIA, were entitled “Admonition [Hypom- 
nesis] addressed to his own soul” and “Sayings in 
alphabetical order.” They are based on tradition 
(the latest author cited is the 10th-C. SYMEON 
METAPHRASTES) and treat primarily the problem 
of salvation. Although Damaskenos’s world view 
is optimistic and he argues that the way of salva- 
tion is open to lay persons (biotikoi), he ascribes 
the highest esteem to solitary (hesychastic) monks. 
The ideal way of salvation is neither social nor 
that achieved in a monastic community, but indi- 
vidual. The first stage of this path is the purifi- 
cation of body and soul, in which reading forms 
an important element; the second stage, called 
theoria or gnosis, is reached not only through med- 
itation but through divine grace: beginning with 
the contemplation of Christ’s passion, the soul 
soars up to the contemplation of God in his attri- 
butes. Damaskenos was very popular in both late 
Byz. and Russia. 

TR. Eng. tr., The Philokalia, G. Palmer, P. Sherrard, K. 
Ware, vol. 3 (London-Boston 1984). 


LIT. J. Gouillard, “Un auteur spirituel byzantin du XIIS 
siècle, Pierre Damascène,” EO 38 (1939) 257-78. —A.K. 


DAMASKIOS (Aaudoxios), or Damaskios Dia- 
dochos, last scholarch of the ACADEMY OF ATHENS; 
born Damascus ca.460?, died after 538. Damas- 
kios both studied and taught rhetoric at Alexan- 
dria, also studying Plato with AMMonios. Moving 
to Athens, he studied several subjects, including 
mathematics, under Marinos. He eventually headed 
the Neoplatonist school. Sometime after Justini- 
an’s closing of the Academy in 529, he emigrated 
with six fellow traveling philosophers to the Per- 
sian court. Soon disillusioned, they returned to 


Byz. territory in 532 under a special treaty giving 
them safe-conduct and freedom of expression. 
An epigram that he wrote at Emesa (AnthGr 7:553) 
shows him still alive in 538. 

His biography of his colleague Isidore can be 
reconstituted from fragments in Photios (Bibl., 
cods. 181, 242) and the Soupa. Of his Platonic 
commentaries, that on the Philebus is wholly ex- 
tant, those on the Parmenides and Phaedo partly 
so. A treatise On First Principles also survives. Sev- 
eral lost works include four books of mirabilia, 
thought by Photios (Bibl., cod.130) to be concisely 
written and good of their kind. Damaskios’s lit- 
erary versatility continues the tradition of the 
SECOND SopuisTic, while his wedding of science 
and superstition is typical of late NEOPLATONISM. 

ED. Vitae Isidori reliquiae, ed. C. Zintzen (Hildesheim 1967). 
Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis, in Platonis Par- 
menidem, ed. C.E. Ruelle, 2 vols. (Paris 1889). Problèmes et 
solutions touchant les premiers principes, tr. A.E. Chaignet, 3 
vols. (Paris 1898). Traité des premiers principes, I: De l'ineffable 
et de l'un, ed. L. Westerink, Fr. tr. J. Combes (Paris 1986). 
The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, vol. 2, ed. L.G. 
Westerink (Amsterdam 1977), with Eng. tr. 

LIT. Westerink, Prolegomena xi-xii, xv-xviii. R. Ström- 
berg, “Damascius: His Personality and Significance,” Eranos 


44 (1946) 175-92. —B.B. 


DAMILAS, NEILOS, hieromonk of the monas- 
tery of Karkasina at Hierapetra (Crete); died 
ca.1417. In 1399 Damilas (Acptrés) established 
nearby, at Baionaia, a nunnery dedicated to the 
Theotokos Pantanassa and composed a ¢typikon for 
the nuns. His rule emphasized the cenobitic life, 
proper psalmody, daily reading, and strict super- 
vision of the nuns to prevent unauthorized con- 
tact with men, whether monks, lay workers, or 
relatives. 

Damilas knew Latin as well as Greek, and took 
an interest in contemporary theological contro- 
versies. He composed a treatise, addressed to 
Maximos CHRYSOBERGES, supporting the Ortho- 
dox position on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 
A bibliophile and scribe, he included in his will 
of 1417 (ed. S. Lampros, BZ 4 [1895] 585-87) an 
inventory of books, probably bequeathed to the 
nunnery at Baionaia. His library numbered 41 
volumes, primarily liturgical or theological, but 
included one lexikon and a MS of the works of 
Cato, Boethius, and Manasses. In the inventory 
he noted that six of the MSS were in his own 
hand. 


DANAE 581 


ED. Typrkon—ed. S. Pétridés, /RAIK 15 (1911) 92-121. 
Treatise—ed. Arsenios of Novgorod, EkAl 19 (1895-96) 
382f, 391f; 20 (1896—97) 7f, 31f, 61-63. 

LIT. PLP, no.5085. Beck, Kirche 750f. N.B. Tomadakes, 
Ho Ioseph Bryennios kai he Krete kata to 1400 (Athens 1947) 
89-92. F. von Lilienfeld, “Das Typikon des Neilos Dami- 
las—ein Zeugnis des gemäßigten ‘sinaitischen’ Hesychas- 
mus,” Byzantinische Beiträge, ed. J. Irmscher (Berlin 1964) 
350-72. -A.M.T. 


DAMNATIO MEMORIAE, a modern term des- 
ignating a punishment for high treason or maies- 
tas, inherited from Rome. The name damnatio 
memoriae derives from the fact that traitors could 
be tried posthumously. As a formal procedure, 
damnatio memoriae is attested only in the late Ro- 
man period (e.g., /nstitutes 4.18.3; cf. Theophilos 
in Zepos, Jus 3:268.34—38). It entailed oblitera- 
tion of the condemned’s memory through de- 
struction of his images, erasure of his name from 
inscriptions, and cancellation of his legal acts 
(Cod.Theod. XV 14.1-13). Damnatio memoriae was 
carried out chiefly against usurpers and their ap- 
pointees, as the consular datings suggest (R.S. 
Bagnall et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire 
[Atlanta 1987] 25). In later centuries the formal 
procedure lapsed, but some of its features crop 
up in measures taken after a change of govern- 
ment, as when Emp. Alexander’s name was re- 
moved from literary works (J. Grosdidier de Ma- 
tons, TM 5 [1973] 229-42) and images of 
Nikephoros II Phokas were destroyed after his 
fall. Acts of Basi THE NoTHos were invalidated 
unless countersigned by Basil II (Reg 1, no.774). 
Likewise, certain names were suppressed or re- 
stored to the liturgical diptychs, depending on the 
doctrinal tendency of the moment. 

LIT. F. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kai- 
serzeit (Berlin 1936). C.A. Bourdara, “Quelques cas de dam- 


natio memoriae à l'époque de la dynastie macédonienne,” 
JOB 32.2 (1982) 337-46. —M.McC. 


DANAE, a mythological figure, daughter of the 
Argive king Akrisios. She was secluded by her 
father in a chamber and there conceived a child 
by Zeus, who visited her in a shower of gold. The 
image was used in Byz. literature in its direct 
form, for example, as a simile for a person im- 
prisoned and chained, “like Danaé by Akrisios of 
old” (Nik.Chon. 56.44). More important, the myth 
of Danaé had an impact on the creation of Chris- 
tian legends about noble girls secluded by their 


582 | DANCE 


fathers in a tower or an isolated palace where a 
visiting angel would initiate them into the Chris- 
tian creed. One of the “Christian Danaés” was St. 
BarBara; another was St. Irene-Penelope, daugh- 
ter of King Licinius, who was secretly baptized by 
Timotheos, disciple of the apostle Paul (BHG 952y- 
954¢). 

LIT. A. Wirth, Danaë in christlichen Legenden (Prague- 
Vienna-Leipzig 1892). -A.K. 


DANCE (6pxnots) was inherited by the Byz. from 
their Greco-Roman past. The attitude toward dance 
was hotly discussed in late antiquity, when the 
church fathers rejected dance together with the 
THEATER as an embodiment of immorality. On the 
other hand, in 361 LıBanios published an oration, 
On the Dancers (ed. R. Foerster, 4:420—98), de- 
fending both the art of dance and dancers. Al- 
though his oration was a refutation of Ailios ARI- 
STEIDES (J. Mesk, WzenSt 30 [1908-09] 59-74), 
he was definitely referring to contemporary mat- 
ters. Dancing on stage died out as did the theater, 
but dance performances survived in court festiv- 
ities. They are represented on several artifacts, 
such as the crown of Constantine IX Monomachos 
and the silver vase of the 12th C. from Berezovo; 
the dancers wear long dresses, usually with broad 
sleeves, and wave kerchiefs over their head. As 
part of court ceremonial, the members of factions 
(DEMO!) performed an “exotic” dance, the Gothic 
Pageant (De cer., ed. Vogt, 2:88f, 102-04, 149f, 
182-85). 

Despite rhetorical attacks on dance, it remained 
popular with different levels of Byz. society: the 
wife of Digenes Akritas danced for her husband 
on a small carpet (blattis) to the accompaniment 
of a lyre (kithara); the logothetes tou dromou John 
Kamateros is described by a 12th-C. historian 
(Nik.Chon. 113.95) as dancing the licentious kor- 
dax, “kicking his legs to and fro.” Lewd dances 
with suggestive movements and nudity are fur- 
ther documented by the 15th-C. Comedy of Kata- 
blattas (ed. P. Canivet, N. Oikonomides, Dzptycha 
3 [1982-83] 29.43—46, 43-194, 210, 73-647). Dance 
formed an indispensable element of all feasts— 
the CaLenps and Bruma.ia, for example—and 
esp. WEDDINGS. The festival of St. Agathe in- 
cluded dancing by women in the cloth-making 
trades (A. Laiou in Festschrift Stratos 1:112f); in 
TAVERNS men danced with women to the music of 
flute and cymbals and the clapping of hands. 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:206—44. Darkevit, Svetskoe iskus. 
stvo 177-80. ~Ap.K., A.K, 


DANDOLO, ANDREAS, jurist, historian, and 
doge of Venice (from 4 Jan. 1343); born go Apr, 
1306, died 7 Sept. 1354. As doge, Dandolo allied 
Venice with Cyprus and the Hospitallers against 
the Turks (1343—45) and waged war against Genoa 
in alliance first with John VI Kantakouzenos and 
then John V Palaiologos. In St. Mark’s, he spon- 
sored the restoration of the PALA D'ORO and com- 
missioned the baptistery mosaics and the chapel 
of St. Isidore. Dandolo ordered the overhaul of 
the statutes of Venice (Liber Sextus, 1343-46; Vol- 
umen statutorum legum ac iurium tam civilium quam 
criminalium DD. Venetorum [Venice 1709]) as well 
as a systematic collection of instruments relative 
to Venice’s role in the Levant, Liber albus, which 
is a precious source on Byz.-Venetian relations 
(e.g., the treaty of MANuEL I with Venice, Reg 2, 
no.1365), and Liber blancus, which is on Italy. 

Before becoming doge Dandolo had written a 
concise chronicle from Venice’s origins to 1342, 
but his most important work, the Chronica per 
extensum descripta (A.D. 48—1280) was begun after 
assuming power. Although its chronological 
framework derives from the universal chronicle 
of Paulinus, bishop of Pozzuoli (died ca.1344), it 
transcribes 40 documents and summarizes about 
240 others, including numerous Byz. instruments. 
Aside from the latter (e.g., Emp. Leo V’s order 
of an embargo on trade with the Arabs, 144.31- 
33; Reg 1, no.400), this chronicle provides most 
valuable evidence for the period after that cov- 
ered by the CHRONICON VENETUM, which it used. 
Dandolo organized his account after the 8th C. 
by reigns of doges; he is favorable to the Byz. 
monarchy at the outset, but his account becomes 
hostile in the second half of the 12th C. owing to 
Byz.’s religious deviance; his glorification of the 
policies of his ancestor Enrico DANDOLO may re- 
flect anti-Turkish projects afoot at the time of the 
work's composition (F. Thirtet, RESEE 10 [1972] 
5—15). 

ED. G.L.F. Tafel, G.M. Thomas, Der Doge Andreas Dan- 
dolo und die von demselben angelegten Urkundensammiungen 
zur Staats- und Handelsgeschichte Venedigs (Munich 1856) 1— 
167. Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. E. Pastorello [= 
RIS? 12.1] (Bologna 1938-58). 

LIT. Karayannopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde 2:497. G. Ra- 
vegnani, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 32 (Rome 1986) 
432—40. L. Margetić, “Vjerodostojnost vijesti Andrije Dan- 


dola o Dalmaciji u XI st.,” ZRVI 19 (1980) 117-46. 
—M.McC. 


DANDOLO, ENRICO, doge of Venice (1192- 
1205); born Venice ca.1107 or later, died Con- 
stantinople ca.2g May 1205. Before becoming doge, 
Dandolo (Ad&véovaAos) served on embassies to Man- 
uel I (1172) and Andronikos I (1184). According 
to later legend, a Byz. emperor had him blinded, 
but the story is unconfirmed; his impaired vision 
did not hinder his vigorous activity. Elected doge 
ca.Apr. 1192, Dandolo found himself drawn into 
protracted negotiations with Alexios III; his shrewd 
foresight is evident in his instructions to envoys 
sent in 1197. Despite Alexios’s renewal of Vene- 
tian privileges (1198), Byz. officials abused Ven- 
ice’s rights. In 1201 Dandolo and his council con- 
tracted with envoys of the Fourth Crusade to 
construct a large fleet in return for payment and 
to send 50 galleys at their own expense. In 1202, 
when an insufficient number of Crusaders ap- 
peared to repay Venice’s expenditures, Dandolo 
offered to postpone the debt, provided that the 
expedition recover ZARA. With Dandolo’s encour- 
agement, the Venetians joined the Crusade. At 
Zara, Dandolo welcomed the suggestion of PHILIP 
oF Swasia and the future Alexios IV that the 
Crusade place Alexios on the throne; he had 
possibly negotiated earlier with Alexios. 

Dandolo played a leading role in the capture of 
Constantinople in 1203, in the ensuing discussions 
with Alexios IV and Alexios V, and in the con- 
quest of 1204. By the Treaty of March 1204 and 
the Partirio Romantag, he secured for Venice 
repayment of its expenses and three-eighths of 
the empire. He was at Adrianople when Emp. 
Baldwin I was captured; Dandolo facilitated the 
Crusaders’ retreat but died shortly after. He was 
buried in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople. VILLE- 
HARDOUIN admired Dandolo’s ability and forceful 
leadership; Niketas CHONIATES stigmatized his 
cunning and vengefulness and imputed to him 
the Crusade’s diversion against Byz. 

uit. H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig (Gotha 1905; 
rp. Aalen 1964) 1:275—-322. R. Cessi, “L’eredita di Enrico 
Dandolo,” Archivio veneto 67 (1960) 1-25. D.E. Queller, 


Medieval Diplomacy and the Fourth Crusade (London 1980) 
pts. XII-XIII. -C.M.B. 


DANELIS, or Danielis (AavinAts), a rich widow 
in Patras; born ca.820, died Naupaktos? ca.8go. 
She sponsored the future emperor Basi I when 
he came to Patras ca.850 in the service of the 
imperial official Theophilos. According to the bi- 
ography of Basil by ConsTANTINE VII (TheophCont 


DANIEL 583 


226-28), a monk in Patras prophesied that Basil 
would obtain imperial power, and Danelis lav- 
ished attention upon him and made him spiritual 
brother of her son John. Later, Basil appointed 
John protospatharios. Danelis left almost all her 
property to Leo VI (p.317—21) instead of to her 
grandson (her son John predeceased her). Her 
wealth struck the imagination of her contempo- 
raries; she reportedly owned “innumerable” slaves, 
3,000 of whom Leo VI freed and settled in south- 
ern Italy; she controlled “not a small part of the 
Peloponnesos as her personal property,” and even 
for her dispossessed heirs she retained 80 proas- 
teia. Given the general paucity of great estates in 
gth-C. Byz., Danelis’s case requires special expla- 
nation. Runciman suggested that her wealth was 
based on a flourishing silk production in the Pe- 
loponnesos, but E. Weigand (in Eis mnemen Spyri- 
donos Lamprou [Athens 1935] 504) pointed out 
that the description of her riches mentioned no 
silk, only sidonia erga. It is worth noting that Con- 
stantine VII states that Basil I was ready to pro- 
claim Danelis mistress (kyria) of “the whole of this 
land” (p.228.14—15) and that she returned from 
her voyage to Constantinople “as the lady (des- 
poina) and queen (basilissa) of the country” (p.3 19.8). 
Possibly Danelis’s estates around Patras, an area 
that in the early gth C. was controlled by Slavic 
tribes, still formed a semi-independent “prince- 
dom” in the middle of the century. Granting the 
title protospatharios to foreign princes was not atyp- 
ical of this period. 


LIT. S. Runciman, “The Widow Danelis,” in Etudes dediées 
à la mémoire d'André Andréadés (Athens 1940) 425-31. 


DANIEL (avà), Old Testament prophet. Dan- 
iel figured in the liturgy and popular piety as a 
PROPHET, a just man, and a providentially rescued 
saint. His vision (ch.2 and esp. ch.7) decisively 
marked Byz. chronology and thus the popular 
view of history (G. Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichs- 
eschatologie [Munich 1972] 57—61; O. Meinardus, 
OrChrP 32 [1966] 394-449). The Septuagint con- 
tains three main passages that are not in the 
original Hebrew and Aramaic of the Book of 
Daniel: the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the 
Three Hebrews (after Dan 3:23); a second trial 
in the Lions’ Den, called Bel and the Dragon (as 
the end of Dan 12); and Susanna and the Elders 
(as Dan 13; in the Greek text of Theodotion it 
precedes ch.1). 


584 DANIEL OF SKETIS 


Exegetical literature on the Book of Daniel is 
surprisingly scant (Podskalsky, ibid. 16—40). Frag- 
ments (on Dan 3:49 [Septuagint numbering], 7:13— 
18, and g:26) of a verse-by-verse commentary by 
Eusebios of Caesarea survive (PG 24:525~—28). 
Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote an extensive verse- 
by-verse commentary on the entire text (PG 
81:1255—1546), with a sharp polemic against the 
Jews. The catena of John Droungarios relied greatly 
on his numerous predecessors (partial edition in 
A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio 1.2 [Rome 
1825] 1-56). Daniel’s name recurs in prophetic 
literature and ONEIROKRITIKA (Krumbacher, GBL 
628, 630). Symeon Metaphrastes discusses the four 
figures together (PG 115:371—404). 

Origen, in his fourth homily on Ezekiel (PG 
13:6g9—704), led the church fathers in distin- 
guishing three types of just man, represented by 
Noah, Daniel, and Job (H. de Lubac, Exégése mé- 
diévale, vol. 1.2 [Paris 1959—61] 571-74). Daniel 
in the Lions’ Den (Dan 6) and the Three Hebrews 
were types of the Resurrection, according to, for 
example, OrIGEN (Contra Celsum 7.57). During 
Daniel’s second sojourn in a lions’ den, Habakkuk 
brought him bread, which Hippolytos and others 
interpreted as a eucharistic prefiguration. The 
COMMENDATIO ANIMAE prayer refers to the rescue 
narratives of the Book of Daniel—Daniel in the 
Lions’ Den, the Three Hebrews, Susanna and the 
Elders. The Life of DANIEL THE STYLITE, who was 
named after Daniel, alludes to him frequently and 
refers to Nebuchadnezzar (ch.68), Susanna (ch.71), 
and the Three Hebrews (ch.g2). 

Daniel’s relics and tomb, preserved at the church 
of St. Romanos in Constantinople, were visited by 
pilgrims. With the THREE HeEBREws, Daniel was 
commemorated on 17 Dec. at Hagia Sophia (G. 
Majeska, DOP 28 [1974] 363). 

Representation in Art. Images of Daniel are 
found, particularly with the soteriological impli- 
cations attached to the story of the Lions’ Den, 
from the 4th C. onward on sarcophagi and ivory 
pyxides (Age of Spirit., nos. 421, 436) as well as on 
objects of daily use (no.377). This scene, with 
Daniel orans between two lions, was repeated 
with few changes in illuminated MSS of Kosmas 
INDIKOPLEUSTES and in the MENOLOGION OF BASIL 
II. In the marginal PsaLters, Daniel’s vision of 
the great mountain (Dan 2:34—5) is added. In 
such miniatures, as in his appearances among the 
PROPHETS in church domes, Daniel is usually clad 
in Persian costume. The eschatological implica- 


tions of the Book of Daniel were virtually ignored 
in art. 

uit, G. Podskalsky, “Marginalien zur byzantinischen 
Reichseschatologie,” BZ 67 (1974) 351~58. H. Leclercq 
DACL 4:221—48. BHG 484v-488n. K. Wessel, RBK 1:11 13~ 
20. H. Schlosser, LCI 1:469—73. Lowden, Prophet Books. 
P.J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley 
1985). —-C.B.T., J.I, J.H.L., A.C. 


DANIEL OF SKETIS, monk and hegoumenos of 
Sketis; saint; born early 6th C., died after 576 in 
Tambok, Lower Egypt, according to Coptic tra- 
dition. His activity is known from a series of short 
stories that in Ethiopic and Coptic versions form 
a unified work. The stories are presented as if 
told by Daniel himself or his associates and con- 
tain precious details not only about monks (e.g., 
the repentant Mark who lived in Alexandria pre- 
tending to be a fool) but also of craftsmen (the 
argyroprates Andronikos in Antioch) and members 
of the upper class (the patrikia Anastasia, who fled 
from Constantinople to Sketis). The stories, sim- 
ple in structure (similar to the APOPHTHEGMATA 
PATRUM), combine adventures with moral indoc- 
trination: Daniel was supposedly captured three 
times by “barbarians” in the desert; the third time 
he killed his captor, which so upset Daniel that 
he visited ecclesiastical and secular authorities in 
Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Ephesus, Je- 
rusalem, and Antioch in search of punishment, 
but he was exonerated everywhere. Another story 
deals with the eternal question of the damaging 
influence of wealth: rewarded through Daniel’s 
prayer, a stonemason named Eulogios found a 
cave full of coins, moved to Constantinople, and 
became “eparch of the holy praetoria.” Wealth 
and glory did not make Eulogios happy; involved 
in the Nrka REVOLT of 532, he was forced to flee 
to his village from Justinian ls revenge. Only 
Coptic and Ethiopian traditions made him a 
staunch anti-Chalcedonian (H. Bacht, LThK 3:155). 
Besides the Greek original, Daniel’s stories are 
known in Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Arabic, the 
last very close to the Greek version. 

Representation in Art. Portraits of Daniel, very 
rare, can be found at Hosios Loukas and in the 
Enkleistra of St. NEopHyTos: the saint is por- 
trayed as a monk with a white beard, which, in 
the Enkleistra, has five strands. 

sources. Vie et récits de l'abbé Daniel le Scétiote, ed. L- 
Clugnet [= BHO 1] (Paris 1901), also in ROC 5 (1900) 497 
73> 254-71, 370-406, 535-64; 6 (1901) 51-87, with rev. 


M. Bonnet, BZ 13 (1904) 166-71. Additional stories—F. 

Nau, ROC (1903) 98f; E. Mioni, OrChrP 17 (1951) gef. 
uit. BHG 20992-2 102d. G. Garitte, DHGE 14 (1960) 70— 

72. —-A.K., N.P.S. 


DANIEL THE STYLITE, saint; born in village 
of Meratha near Samosata 409, died near Con- 
stantinople 11 Dec. 493. At age 12 he entered a 
monastery. After visiting SYMEON THE STYLITE 
THE ELDER, Daniel set off for Constantinople and 
in 460 mounted a pillar in Anaplous on the Bos- 
oros. His anonymous Life is preserved in two 
versions: Delehaye (infra, xxxv) regards it as a 
contemporary work; Beck (Kirche 411) dates it 
ca.600. The hagiographer presents Daniel as a 
legitimate heir of Symeon—he received Symeon’s 
leather tunic after the stylite’s death. The hagiog- 
rapher also stresses Daniel’s political role: for ex- 
ample, he acted as mediator between Emp. Leo I 
and Gubazes, king of Lazika; he descended from 
his pillar to resolve the conflict between Patr. 
AKAKIOS and BasiLiskos. The power of this STYL- 
ITE exceeded that of the emperor: when Leo I 
dared to mount a horse in sight of the saint, the 
horse threw him. Daniel was above the elements, 
too: after the wind tore off Daniel’s tunic one 
winter night, his disciples found him atop the 
pillar, his body seemingly lifeless and covered by 
icicles, but they revived him using sponges with 
warm water. His funeral was regal—tens of thou- 
sands of candles were lit, and a large sarcophagus 
of precious stones was prepared for him. SYMEON 
METAPHRASTES reworked Daniel’s Life. 
Representation in Art. Portraits of Daniel show 
an elderly monk behind a grill atop his column 
(MENOLOGION OF Bası II, p.237) or under a little 
protective shelter letting down a basket (THEO- 
DORE PSALTER, fol.26v); in church decoration he 
is paired with other stylites, esp. St. Symeon the 
Stylite the Elder, who occupy corresponding po- 
sitions in the church. At Nea Mone on Chios, he 
is portrayed as having hair that comes down over 
his shoulders and a very long beard. A mosaic 
portraying Daniel is also preserved in MONREALE. 
SOURCES. Delehaye, Saints stylites 1-147 (also in AB 32 
[1913] 121-229). Eng. tr. Dawes-Baynes, Three Byz. Sts. 7— 
1. 
: Lit. BHG 489-490. N.H. Baynes, “The Vita S. Danielis 
Stylitae,” EHR 40 (1925) 397-402. D. Miller, “The Em- 
peror and the Stylite: A Note on the Imperial Office,” 
GOrTAR 15 (1970) 207-12. J. Myslivec, LCI 6:33. 
=A.K., N.P.Š. 


DANIIL IGUMEN 585 


DANIIL II (Danilo), Serbian churchman and 
writer; born ca.1270, died 19 Dec. 1337. A monk 
and superior (1305—11) in HILANDAR on Athos, 
he defended the monastery against the CATALAN 
GRAND Company (1307—09). In 1911 he returned 
to Serbia, where he served as bishop of Raška 
(1311-15), bishop of Hum (1317—24), and arch- 
bishop of Serbia (1324—37). He was also the con- 
fidant and adviser of several Serbian rulers, for 
whom he undertook diplomatic missions to Tùr- 
novo and Constantinople. Daniil condemned Mi- 
chael VIII’s policy of church union. He wrote a 
series of biographies in Slavonic of Serbian kings 
and archbishops of the second half of the 13th 
and the early 14th C., which were combined by 
his pupils after his death into a kind of chronicle, 
and later extended to 1385. The Lives are a rich 
and reliable source for Serbian and Bulgarian 
history and for Byz. relations with the states of 
the northern Balkans. In spite of his poetic and 
often panegyrical tone, Daniil was a well-informed, 
realistic, and critical observer of political and mil- 
itary affairs. 

ED. Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih, ed. Dj. Daničić 
(Zagreb 1866; rp. London 1972). Germ. tr. S. Hafner, 
Serbisches Mittelalter: Altserbische Herrscher-B tographien, 2 vols. 
(Graz-Vienna-Cologne 1976). 

LIT. M.M. Vasić, “Arhiepiskop Danilo II, monah i umet- 
nik,” PKJIJ 6.2 (1926) 231-64. Kašanin, Srpska književnost 
210~33. S. Cirković, LMA 3:542f. -R.B. 


DANIIL IGUMEN, an early 12th-C. superior (he- 
goumenos), presumed to be from southern Rus’; 
sometimes identified with Daniil, bishop of Jur’ev 
(1114-22). He wrote an account of a journey 
from Constantinople to the Holy Land, normally 
dated 1106—08, though conjectures span 1104— 
og. Daniil traveled by sea, stopping at Ephesus 
and several islands, onward via Cyprus to JERU- 
SALEM. During his 16-month stay in the Holy Land 
he was based at the Lavra of St. Sagas, one of 
whose monks acted as his guide. Daniil’s account 
is exceptionally broad in scope and diverse in 
detail: his terse descriptions are dense with infor- 
mation On measurements and distances; shapes 
and dimensions; and local crops, weather, and 
produce. He also reports stories (often apocryphal 
and perhaps oral) connected with the sites he 
visits. Relations between the Orthodox and the 
Latins are cordial: on a trip to Galilee, Daniil 
travels with King Baldwin I of Jerusalem for safety; 
he accepts the blessing of the Latin monks on Mt. 


586 | DANISMENDIDS 


Tabor; and he describes at length the joint cele- 
bration of the descent of the Holy Light at the 
Holy Sepulchre at Easter (probably 1107), con- 
firming in all essentials the 1101 account by 
FULCHER OF CHARTRES. 

ED. Choienie, Wallfahrisbericht, ed. M.A. Venevitinov (rp. 
Munich 1970), rev. A. Poppe, RM 2 (1975) 166-77. The 
Pilgrimage of the Russtan Abbot Daniel in the Holy Land, 1 106— 
1107 A.D., tr. C. Wilson (London 1895). 

LIT. Ju. Glušakova, “O putešestvii igumena Daniila v 
Palestinu,” in Problemy obščestvenno-političeskoj istorii Rossii i 
slavjanskich stran (Moscow 1963) 79-87. Podskalsky, Rus’ 
196—200. ~S.C.F. 


DANISMENDIDS (Tavicpavu:), a Turkoman 
dynasty that ruled over Cappadocia, the Iris val- 
ley, and the regions of SEBASTEIA and MELITENE. 
Its founder, Emir Danişmend, appeared after 1085 
during a period of anarchy in Muslim Asia Minor. 
Later he fought against the soldiers of the First 
Crusade: in 1100, near Melitene, he captured one 
of its most prestigious leaders, BOHEMUND, whom 
he imprisoned in NeoxalrsarEIA. Emir Danişmend 
is the hero of a Turkish epic poem combining 
history and legend, the DANISMENDNAME. He was 
succeeded by Emir GuAzi, who increased his power 
by intervening in the dynastic strife among mem- 
bers of the SELJUK house; he also fought against 
the Byz. emperor Jonn I] Komnenos in the re- 
gion of Kasramon. Around the mid-12th C. the 
Danismendid territories were divided by dynastic 
struggle from which the Byz. profited. MANUEL I 
KOMNENOS allied with the Danigmendid Yaghi- 
Basan and used him against the Seljuks. The 
Seljuks, however, defeated the Byz. in 1176 at 
MYRIOKEPHALON; after they conquered Melitene 
in 1178 the Danismendid dynasty disappeared. 
Some preserved coins of the Danigmendids bear 
Greek or Greek and Arabic inscriptions. 

LIT. I. Mélikoff, EI? 2:110f. C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Tur- 
key (London 1968) 82-86, 89—106. N. Oikonomides, “Les 
Danishmendides, entre Byzance, Bagdad et le sultanat 
d'Iconium,” RN® 25 (1983) 189—207. Vryonis, Decline 118— 
22, 155-59, 220f. ~E.A.Z. 


DANISMENDNAME, or Book of Melik Danişmend, 
a Turkish epic composed in 1360 by Arif Ali, but 
based on a mid-13th-C. version by Mawlana ibn 
Ala, now lost. A mixture of simple prose and 
poetry, the Danigmendndme recounts the legendary 
deeds of Emir Danişmend (died 1104), known to 
Anna Komnene as Tanismanes, the founder of 


the DANISMENDID beylik in northern Anatolia. As 
a whole, the Dānişmendnāme depicts the emir’s 
confrontation with Christians of Asia Minor as a 
perfect expression of ghaza, or holy warfare, in 
the cause.of Islam. This aside, the work indubit- 
ably reflects the mentality of the Turcomans who 
conquered Anatolia in the 11th—12th C. as well 
as the character of the conquest. 

ED. I. Mélikoff, La Geste de Melik Danismend: Etude critique 
du Danigmendndme, 2 vols. (Paris 1960), with Fr. tr. 


LIT. Bombaci, Lett. turca 309f. Vryonis, Decline 176~79, 
—S.W.R. 


DANUBE (AavovBios), ancient Istros, the most 
important river of central and southeastern Eu- 
rope. The name Danoubios/Danoubis was being used 
already in late antiquity (Julian, pseudo-Kaisarios, 
Stephen of Byzantium), but it did not totally re- 
place the classical Istros. The Danube rises in the 
Black Forest of Germany and empties into the 
Biack Sea, forming a huge delta. Some of its right- 
bank tributaries (Sava, Drina, and Morava) con- 
nected Byz. territories with the Danube. The river 
is divided into three almost equal sections: the 
upper (down to Vienna), middle (to the Iron Gate, 
near Orsova, Rumania), and lower reaches. 

The Romans made the Danube their frontier 
and established the following provinces to its south: 
RAETIA, Noricum, Pannonia, MOESIA I and II; 
Dacia was to the north. They built a fortified 
LIMES, Many ports, and cities (e.g., SIRMIUM, SIN- 
GIDUNUM, DorosTOLon). In the division of the 
empire in 395, Raetia, Noricum, and Pannonia 
were ceded to the Western Empire. Soon after- 
ward, however, the territory south of the Danube 
was occupied by the Germanic peoples, the Huns, 
and finally (568) by the Avars. Anastasios I and 
Justinian I tried to fortify the Danubian frontier 
in its middle and lower reaches, but by 600 the 
Avars and SKLAVENOI destroyed what was left of 
the limes. The SkLavinial began to emerge; the 
“Seven Tribes” settled along both banks of the 
Lower Danube and by 680 the whole of Moesia 
was under BULGAR control. 

Byz. reconquered the south bank of the Danube 
between 971 and 1018 and retained it in the 
11th-12th C., establishing the themes of Sirmium 
and ParIsTRION. Byz. struggled to protect this 
area from raids of the PECHENEGS, Uzes, and 
Cumans and competed with Huncary in the 12th 
C. for the region of ZEMUN and BRANIČEVO. 


The Danube was an important mercantile route 
but, being on the Byz. frontier, did not much 
influence its internal development. Protected by 
a fleet and a system of fortresses, it created a 
serious obstacle for invaders; but the nomads of 
the steppe learned to cross it—on ice in rare 
winters when the Danube froze, or swimming 
behind their horses, or in small boats. 

Lit. F. Heiderich, Die Donau als Verkehrsstrasse (Vienna 
1916). A. Ristic, Dunav (Belgrade 1931). Limes u Jugoslaviji, 
vol. 1 (Belgrade 1961). P. Koledarov, “Otbranitelnata gra- 
nična sistema na Bilgarskata durzava ot 681 do 1018 g.,” 
Voennoistoriceski sbornik 3 (1978) 109-23. A.G. Poulter, “Ro- 
man Towns and the Problem of Late Roman Urbanism: 
The Case of the Lower Danube,” Hephaistos 5/6 (1983/84) 
109-32. E. Chrysos, “Die Nordgrenze des byzantinischen 
Reiches im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert,” in Die Völker Siidosteuropas 
im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1987) 27—40. -O.P. 


DAPHNE. See ANTIOCH. 


DAPHNI (Aacdvetov, Aadviov), located approxi- 
mately 10 km west of Athens, the site of a cele- 
brated monastery dedicated to the Mother of God 
and best known for the mosaics of its katholikon. 
Sculptural remains led Millet (infra) to suggest 
that an earlier church on the site dated from the 
reign of Justinian I. There is no textual support 
for this supposition, however; Daphni is not named 
among the more than 100 monasteries whose 
representatives attended the Second Council of 
NicaEa in 787 (Mansi 13:152—56). The dates of 
construction and decoration of the present church, 
laid out as a Greek cross-octagon (see CHURCH 
PLAN Tyres), are unknown, although the mosaics 
are generally held to be of the late 11th C. The 
monastery was certainly in existence in 1048 when 
Dionysios, “monk and priest of the monastery of 
Daphni,” attached his name to the typikon of a 
CONFRATERNITY serving Hosios Loukas. Several 
seals of the monastery, one of a hegowmenos Paul 
(Laurent, Corpus 5.2, no.1245), have been at- 
tributed to the 10th-12th C. Daphni is briefly 
mentioned in the 12th-C. vita of MELETIOS THE 
YOUNGER (ed. Vasilievskij, 55.31). 

Although it is sometimes assumed to be an 
imperial foundation, the construction of the church 
cannot be connected with two later, much dam- 
aged frescoes of emperors in its narthex. Cister- 
cian monks settled at Daphni between 1207 and 
1211, building an exonarthex and a small cloister 
on the south side. It remained in Latin hands 


DAPHNI | 587 





Darnyi. Mosaics of Christ Pantokrator and prophets in 
the dome of the katholikon, Daphni monastery. 


until the Ottoman occupation of Attica in 1458. 
Apparently abandoned in the 18th C., the mon- 
astery was partially restored after World War II 
(E. Stikas, DChAE* 3 [1962—63] 1—47). 

The mosaics of Daphni, some employing silver 
tesserae and set against expanses of gold, are 
dominated by a Pantokrator in the dome, made 
more fierce in a restoration of 1889—97, and 
prophets in the drum. Below, four Great Feast 
scenes in the squinches and others in panels on 
the walls concentrate on the life of Christ. Despite 
the church’s dedication, the only Mariological pic- 
tures in the nave are the Birth of the Virgin in 
the northern arm of the cross and her Dormition 
over the west door. Other scenes from her life 
are found in the southern portion of the narthex. 
Throughout, portraits of saints are far fewer than 
at Hosros Loukas. The style of the mosaics, often 
described as having a “classical” or “antique” as- 
pect, is unparalleled in works later than the Meno- 
LOGION OF Basix II. Their serene monumentality 
is due in part to balanced composition, in part to 
skillful framing within ornamental arches on the 
walls or, as in the squinches, their setting above a 
finely cut marble cornice. 


Lit. G. Millet, Le monastére de Daphni (Paris 1899). D. 
Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends in Monumental Painting of Greece 


588 | DAPHNOPATES, THEODORE 


during the Eleventh and ‘Twelfth Centuries,” DOP 34-35 
(1980-81) g4—98. Janin, Eglises centres 311~13. TIB 1:141f. 
Panagopoulos, Monasteries 56-62. -A.C. 


DAPHNOPATES, THEODORE, high-ranking 
official and writer; died after g61. Protasekretis, 
patrikios, and magistros (according to the headings 
of his works), Daphnopates (Aagvomrarns) played 
a very important role at the court of Romanos I; 
he probably lost influence under Constantine VII, 
but Romanos II briefly appointed him to the post 
of eparch of Constantinople. The correspondence 
of Daphnopates sometimes has an official char- 
acter and sheds light on Byz. international and 
domestic politics (including the enthronement of 
Patr. THEOPHYLAKTOS and relations with SYMEON 
oF BurcartA). The letters deal also with Arme- 
nian affairs; Daphnopates apparently knew Ar- 
menian, The correspondence treats theological 
questions as well, and two letters are dedicated to 
the interpretation of a dream of Romanos II. 
Daphnopates wrote homilies, one of which de- 
scribes the miracles worked in Antioch by a holy 
relic (the hand of John the Baptist), its theft from 
Antioch and transfer to Constantinople. He also 
composed several hagiographical works (on St. 
George, Theophanes the Confessor, Theodore of 
Stoudios) and a collection of excerpts from John 
Chrysostom arranged systematically, a work typi- 
cal of 1oth-C. ENcYcLOPEDIsM. Skylitzes describes 
Daphnopates as a historian, and some scholars 
have suggested that he wrote the last section of 
the chronicle of THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS. I. 
Dujéev (DOP 32 [1978] 252f) considers Daph- 
nopates as the most probable author of an anon- 
ymous speech on the BULGARIAN TREATY. 

ED. Correspondance, ed. J. Darrouzés and L.G. Westerink 
(Paris 1978). Dve reči, ed. V. Latyšev, PPSb 59 (1910). See 
also list in Beck, Kirche 552f. 


LIT. M. Sjuzjumov, “Ob istoričeskom trude Feodora 
Dafnopata,” VizObozr 2 (1916) 295—302. -A.K. 


DARA (Adpas, also called Anastasiopolis, now 
Oguz in Turkey), city built by Anastasios I in 
505-07 as a military stronghold on the Byz.-Per- 
sian frontier, a rare example in this period of the 
new foundation of an urban center. A long de- 
scription of building operations, including the 
wages paid to workers, is given by ZACHARIAS OF 
MYTILENE (ch.6), details of which conflict in part 
with the account given by Prokopios (Buildings 


2.1.4—2.3.26), where some of the same work (e.g. 
walls, two churches, waterworks) is attributed in- 
stead to Justinian I. Seat of the doux of MEsopo.- 
TAMIA from 527 to 532 and perhaps of the magister 
militum from 540 to 573, Dara was also metropol- 
itan bishopric of the newly formed ecclesiastica} 
province of southern Mesopotamia. The city re. 
mained under Persian control from 573 to 591 
and from 604 to 628, falling to the Arabs in 639. 
Extensive ruins include walls, a bridge, a store- 
house, cisterns, and a church. 

LIT. Bell-Mango, Tur ‘Abdin 102-05. I. Furlan, Accerta- 
menti a Dara, vol. 1 (Padua 1984). M. Whitby, “Procopius’ 
Description of Dara,” in The Defence of the Roman and 
Byzantine East (Oxford 1986) 737-83. J. Crow, “Dara, A 
Late Roman Fortress in Mesopotamia,” Yayla 4 (1981) 12— 
20. B. Croke, J. Crow, “Procopius and Dara,” JRS 73 (1983) 
143—159. M.C. Mundell, “A Sixth Century Funerary Relief 
at Dara in Mesopotamia,” JOB 24 (1975) 209-27. 

—M.M.M. 


DARDANELLES. See HELLESPONT. 


DAVID (Aavid), the greatest king of Israel, ac- 
cording to the Bible. David was venerated in Byz. 
as the author of the Psalms and creator of Chris- 
tian music and poetry. He was also treated as a 
prefiguration of Christ: his fight with Goliath sym- 
bolizes Christ’s victory over Satan, his function as 
shepherd presages Christ’s role as shepherd of 
souls, etc. The ambivalence of the biblical David— 
his vices and humility when set against his heroic 
exploits—attracted Byz. interest, and his peni- 
tence for his sins (infidelity, the murder of Absa- 
lom) was frequently discussed. David became an 
esp. popular figure in political rhetoric of the 12th 
C. when Manuel I and Andronikos | were com- 
pared to him. Michael CHONIATES (1:215.9—24) 
specifically compares Isaac II to icons of David. 
Representation in Art. David normally appears 
in imperial garb; when this regalia changed, that 
of David did not. In monumental painting he is 
found among the PROPHETS or with Solomon in 
the Anastasis. In PsacTer illustration David is 
shown holding the text, inspired by God, or lead- 
ing musicians. Illustrating the events of 1—2 Kings, 
he occurs in many narrative situations, such as 
the anointing by Samuel or slaying Goliath; both 
scenes occur already on the Davip Pvates. In the 
Paris PsaLTER and elsewhere, David the shepherd 
and musician appears as OrPHEUS, inspired by 


the personification of Melodia. This composition 
passed into secular art, serving as the centerpiece 
of a 12th-C. silver bowl with a representation of 
DIGENES AkriTAs and Eudokia (Darkevié, Svetskoe 
iskusstvo 132-39). 

Lit. J. Daniélou, RAC 3:594—603. M. Philonenko, 
“L'histoire du roi David dans l'art byzantin,” in Les pays du 
Nord et Byzance (Uppsala 1981) 353-57. K. Wessel, RBK 
1:1145—61. A. Cutler, “The Psalter of Basil 11,” ArtVen 30 
(1976) 9-14. A. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image 
(Princeton 1986) 186-200. -J-H.L., J.I., A.C. 


DAVID, SYMEON, AND GEORGE OF MYTI- 
LENE, three Iconodule brothers from Lesbos; 
saints; feastday 1 Feb. Born to a family possessing 
a modest amount of property, they lived as her- 
mits and monks on Lesbos; George was elected 
bishop of Mytilene. Only Symeon is said to have 
been exiled to the Aegean island of Lagousas, 
whence he set off for Constantinople, fleeing Arab 
attacks; he stood on a column near Pegai on the 
Black Sea. On the basis of their Life, van den 
Gheyn (¿infra 210) constructs this chronology of 
the brothers: David, 716—83/93; Symeon, 764— 
843; George, 763—844. Halkin (infra 468) ques- 
tioned the authenticity of the Life, which contains 
serious chronological contradictions. On the evi- 
dence of a 10th-C. Life of George, Patm. gr. 254 
(AB 72 [1954] 22f), Halkin calculated that George 
was born ca.776, became bishop in 804, and died 
on 7 Apr. 821. I. Phountoules attempted to dis- 
tinguish three different Georges of Mytilene. The 
Life of the three brothers seems to have been 
written after Petronas’s victory over the Arabs in 
863 and before the assassination of BARDAS (865), 
to whom George prophesied a happy future (ed. 
van den Gheyn, p.252.22—30). Anti-Iconoclastic 
in its tendency, the Life eulogizes the empress 
THEODORA and reveals a good knowledge of her 
circle; it provides a vivid, contemporary account 
of the restoration of images (H. Grégoire, Byzan- 
tion 8 [1933] 517-20). The collective hero of the 
Life is a pious family: the “pure virgin” Hilaria, 
sister of David, Symeon, and George, is also praised, 
as well as their uncle; the brothers were buried in 
a common “family” tomb. 

sources. I. van den Gheyn, “Acta graeca Ss. Davidis, 


Symeonis et Georgii Mitylenae in insula Lesbo,” AB 18 
(1899) 209-59. I. Phountoules, Lesbiakon heortologion (Ath- 
ens 1959) 33—43- 

LIT. BHG 494, 2163. F. Halkin, “Y a-t-il trois saints 
Georges, évêques de Mytiléne et confessuers [sic] sous les 


DAVID KOMNENOS 589 


Iconoclastes?” AB 77 (1959) 464-69. A. Kazhdan, “Hagio- 
graphical Notes,” Byzantion 54 (1984) 185-88. -A.K. 


DAVID I KOMNENOS, last emperor of Trebi- 
zond (1459—Aug./Sept. 1461); born between 
ca.1407 and 1409, died Constantinople ı Nov. 
1463. Third son of ALEx1os IV Komnenos, David 
held the title of despotes during the reign of his 
brother Jonn IV KomNnenos. In 1458 he went to 
Adrianople to pay tribute to the Ottoman sultan 
MEHMED II. Shortly after David ascended the 
throne, he surrendered TREBIZOND to the Otto- 
mans, who had attacked by land and sea. He was 
taken prisoner, together with his family. After a 
brief period of exile in Adrianople and Serres, 
David was accused of a conspiracy and subse- 
quently executed. 

LIT. Miller, Trebizond 96—109. KurSanskis, “Descendance 
d'Alexis IV,” 239-47. PLP, no.12097. K. Barzos, “He moira 


ton teleutaion Megalon Komnenon tes Trapezountos,” By- 
zantina 12 (1983) 273-76, 279-86. -A.M.T. 


DAVID IIAV THE RESTORER, Bacratip king 
of Iberia (1089—1125). Benefiting from the with- 
drawal of Byz. after MANTZIKERT in 1071 and the 
collapse of Seljuk rule 20 years later (1092), David 
restored the power of the Georgian crown over 
the rebellious native dynasts with the help of 
mercenaries recruited from among the northern 
Caucasian Kipchak tribes. He reunited the prin- 
cipalities of ApcuasiA, K‘aheti, and K‘art‘li into a 
single kingdom, with Tblisi, which he had retaken 
from the Muslims in 1122, as its capital. His mil- 
itary victories, together with his foundation of 
cultural and intellectual centers such as the mon- 
astery of GELATI, laid the foundation for Georgian 
power which, in the second half of the 12th C., 
reached into Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

LIT. Allen, Georgian People 95-100. C. Toumanoff, “Ar- 
menia and Georgia,” CMH 4.1:622-24. S.A. Badridze, 
“Istoki i evoljucija gruzino-vizantijskich politiéeskich vzai- 
mootnogenij na grani XI-XII vv.,” 15 CEB (Athens 1976) 
4:46-54. -N.G.G. 


DAVID KOMNENOS (sometimes called David I 
Komnenos), ruler of Paphlagonia (ca.1204-13); 
monastic name, Daniel; died Sinope 13 Dec. 1212. 
Younger brother of ALEx1os I KoMNENos of Tre- 
bizond, David helped conquer Trebizond, then, 
in late 1204, pushed west with Georgian and other 


590 DAVID OF TAYK’‘/TAO 


mercenary troops to occupy Paphlagonia. His lands 
extended from Sinope to Pontic Herakleia. Nom- 
inally, David was subject to his brother. Attacking 
Nikomedeia in 1205, his general Synadenos was 
defeated and captured by Theodore I Laskaris. 
Under pressure from the Nicaeans, David allied 
himself with Henry of Flanders; with aid from 
Constantinople, he survived Theodore’s siege of 
Herakleia (1206). But after his ally Thierry de 
Loos was defeated and captured by Theodore’s 
general Andronikos Gidos (1207), David was forced 
onto the defensive. He lost Herakleia to Theodore 
ca.1207; after his death the rest of Paphlagonia 
passed to the Nicaeans. 

LIT. Savvides, Byz. in the Near East 67—70. S. Karpov, “U 


istokov politi¢eskoj ideologii Trapezundskoj imperii,” VizVrem 
42 (1981) 108f. —-C.M.B. 


DAVID OF TAYK/TAO, dynast of upper Tayx‘/ 
Tao (from 961); junior member of the Iberian 
BaGrRaTID house and ruler of the Armeno-Iberian 
marchlands; died 31 Mar. 1000. David’s support 
of Emp. Basil II against Bardas SKLEROS won him 
the title of kouropalates and extensive territories 
along the Armeno-Byz. border from Tayk‘/Tao 
by way of THEODOSIOUPOLIS to MANTZIKERT, which 
he retook from the Arabs between ca.gg2 and 
994. David’s eminent position allowed him to play 
the role of arbiter in both Armenia and Georgia, 
and his bilingual court was a great intellectual and 
artistic center. In 963 David founded a church at 
OSki (in southern Tao-Klarjet‘'l), where he and 
his brother are represented as donors in stone 
reliefs, once flanking a Deesis and again in the 
south cross arm. Georgian inscriptions identify 
“David Magistros” and “King Bagrat, duke of 
dukes,” as builders of the church, a model of 
which they hold in the first set of images (W. 
Djobadze, BZ 6g [1976] 39—62). 

Childless, David intended to make Bagrat III 
of Ascuasia his heir and worked to unify other 
Georgian lands under him, until quarreling with 
him in 988. After David supported Bardas PHo- 
Kas, Basil II forced him in 8g to will his lands 
to Byz. David’s death, possibly instigated by the 
pro-Byz. party among his nobles, gave Basil a 
pretext to annex Tayk‘/Tao and to transform it 
into the core of the new theme of IBERIA, an event 
that marked the beginning of the Byz. conquest 
of the Armenian plateau. 


uit. Z. Avalichvili, “La succession du curopalate David 
d'Ibérie, dynaste de Tao,” Byzantion 8 (1933) 177-202. 


K.N. Yuzbashian, “L’administration byzantine en Arménie 
aux Xe—Xle siècles,” REArm n.s. 10 (1973-74) 154f. C. 
Toumanoff, “The Bagratids of Iberia from the Eighth to 
the Eleventh Century,” Muséon 74 (1961) 37—40. 
-N.G.G., C.M.B., A.C. 


DAVID OF THESSALONIKE, saint; born Mes- 
opotamia ca.450, died ca.540 on a boat en route 
to Thessalonike; feastday 26 June. He went as a 
boy to Thessalonike from the east, became pious, 
lived (for three years?) in an almond tree near a 
church, and later inhabited a cell. Aristeides, arch- 
bishop of Thessalonike, sent David to Constanti- 
nople to request the transfer of the eparch’s res- 
idence from Sirmium (endangered by Avar 
invasions) to Thessalonike. David, an Abraham- 
like hermit with hair down to his loins, was re- 
spectfully received by Empress THEODORA and 
then by Justinian I, in whose presence David 
worked a miracle—he held hot charcoal embers 
without burning his hands. He died after his 
successful mission. According to John Moscuos, 
a certain Palladios in Alexandria related how David 
dwelt in a cell outside the walls of Thessalonike 
and how soldiers observed a miraculous fire pour- 
ing out of his cell windows. David’s anonymous 
Life, written in Thessalonike ca.720, contains a 
surprising eulogy of Theodora. David’s exploits 
were praised by JOSEPH THE HYMNOGRAPHER, 
Makarios MAKRES, and others. 

Representation in Art. The saint is depicted as 
a hermit with a long beard that sometimes reaches 
his feet, for example, in a relief of ca.goo (A. 
Xyngopoulos, Makedonika 2 [1941-52] 143-66); 
in the parekklesion at Cora, he is depicted seated 
in a nest atop an almond tree whose branches 
substitute for the capital of a sryLITE’s column. 
The church of Hosios Davip in Thessalonike was 
dedicated to him. 

ED. Leben des heiligen David von Thessalonike, ed. V. Rose 
(Berlin 1887). B. Laourdas, “Anekdoton enkomion eis ton 
hosion Dabid,” Makedonika 10 (1970) 244-52. V. LatySev, 
“O žitijach prepodobnogo Davida Solunskogo,” Zapiski 
Odesskogo obscestva istorii i drevnostej 30 (1912) 236-51 (and 
as a separate book). 

uit. BHG 492y-493m. A. Vasiliev, “Life of David of 
Thessalonica,” Traditio 4 (1946) 115-47. R.-J. Loenertz, 


“Saint David de Thessalonique,” REB 11 (1953) 205—-22- 
K. Kunze, J. Myslivec, LCT 6:37f. —A.K., N.P.S. 


DAVID PLATES, a set of nine plates decorated 
with a series of scenes from the life of King Davin, 
now divided between the Nikosia and Metropoli- 





Davip Piates. Plate depicting David and Goliath; sil- 
ver, early 7th C. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York. 


tan Museums. Part of the Second Cyprus Trea- 
SURE, the plates, made of solid silver chased from 
the front, all have SILVER STAMPS dated to the 
period 613—629/30 and bear witness, therefore, 
to high standards of metalworking in the early 
7th C. Of three graduated sizes, these dishes were 
intended as display PLATES; the biblical scenes, 
which include David’s combat with Goliath, have 
been interpreted as commemorating the war 
HERAKLEIOS waged with the Sasanian Persians, 
which ended in 628, thereby narrowing the date 
of the plates to 629/30. A plate from another 
possible David series, found in Russia (Age of 
Spirit., fig.61), suggests that several sets may have 
been made for imperial distribution as LARGITIO 
DISHES. 

LIT. Dodd, Byz. Silver Stamps, nos. 58—66. S. Wander, 
“The Cyprus Plates and the Chronicle of Fredegar,” DOP 
29 (1975) 345f. Age of Spirit., nos. 425-33. E. Foltz, “Zur 
Herstellungstechnik der byzantinischen Silberschalen aus 
dem Schatzfund von Lambousa,” JoRGZM 22 (1975) 221— 
45. J. Trilling, “Myth and Metaphor at the Byzantine Court: 


A Literary Approach to the David Plates,” Byzantion 48 
(1978) 249-63. —M.M.M. 


DAVID THE PHILOSOPHER, a pupil of O_ym- 
PIODOROS in Alexandria in the second half of the 
6th C.; Greek sources attribute to him an Jntro- 


DAY | 591 


duction to Philosophy and a Commentary on Porphyry’s 
Eisagoge. In Armenian tradition, however, David 
the “Invincible” Philosopher was thought to be a 
pupil of Mesrop Masgroc’. Medieval accounts of 
his defense of Armenian orthodoxy against the 
Council of Chalcedon are legendary. Armenian 
translations of the two Greek works noted above 
and of Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s Cate- 
gories and Analytics were attributed to him. Cer- 
tainly, the Armenian renderings of these standard 
philosophical texts were of fundamental impor- 
tance for the development of Armenian philoso- 
phy. Numerous Armenian commentaries on the 
Prolegomena, or “Definitions and Divisions of Phi- 
losophy,” were written in the 13th and 14th C. 

ED. Greek texts in CAG 18.2, ed. A. Busse. Arm. text of 
Prolegomena—B. Kendall, R. Thomson, Definitions and Di- 
visions of Philosophy by David the Invincible Philosopher (Chico, 
Calif., 1983) with Eng. tr. 

LIT. David Anhaght" the ‘Invincible’ Philosopher, ed. A.K. 
Sanjian (Atlanta 1986). K.N. Juzbadjan, “David Nepobedi- 
myj i ego vremja,” Voprosy istorii (1980) no.5, 101-10. 

-R.T. 


DAY (ħñuépa). The Byz. followed Roman usage 
in dividing the full day (nychthemeron) into night 
(nyx) and day (hemera), each being further divided 
into 12 HOURS. Each new full day began at mid- 
night and each day at sunrise. A seven-day week 
prevailed throughout the Byz. world, although 
this was not a natural division of time. The He- 
brew tradition of seven days concluding with the 
Sabbath, adopted by Christianity, gradually pen- 
etrated the Roman world at a time when the 
seven-day week had become normal, with each 
day possessing its own mystical and liturgical sig- 
nificance: Wednesday as the day Christ was be- 
trayed and Friday the day he was crucified became 
special fast days. The first day of the week, the 
day of the Resurrection (Mk 16:2), was known as 
the Lord’s day (Kyriake, Lat. dies dominica) while 
the Sabbath (Sabbaion) was aiways held in respect. 
In place of pagan Roman usage whereby the days 
were named after planets, the Byz. followed the 
strictly Christian tradition in naming the days 
Kyriake (SuNDay), Deutera (lit. “second (day),” 
Monday), Trite (lit. “third (day),” Tuesday), Te- 
tarte (lit. “fourth (day),” Wednesday), Pempte (lit. 
“fifth (day),” Thursday), Paraskeve (lit. “prepa- 
ration,” Friday), and Sabbaton (Saturday). 

In the Cotton Genesis MS (M.Th.d’Alverny, 
CahArch g [1957] 271—300) the days of Creation 
are personified as young women with wreaths on 


592 | DAYR ANBA HADRA 


their heads, on the model of the Hours repre- 
sented in floor mosaics at Antioch and elsewhere. 
Personified days played a part in the iconography 
of the SEASONS. 


LIT. Grumel, Chronologie 165f. ~B.C., A.C. 


DAYR ANBA HADRA. See Symeon, Monas- 
TERY OF SAINT. 


DAZIMON (Aaltiuwv), a site in Pontos, probably 
at the modern village of Dazmana (see P. Wittek, 
Byzantion 10 [1935] 55) above the Iris River, east 
of Amaseia, at the edge of an extensive plain. 
Although first mentioned in 375, Dazimon only 
became important in the wars between Byz. and 
the Arabs. In those years, the neighboring plain, 
an imperial estate in the late 6th C., formed an 
APLEKTON where the troops of the ARMENIAKON 
joined the emperor on eastern campaigns. In 838 
Dazimon was the site of a major battle between 
Emp. Theophilos and the Arabs led by Afshin. 
In spite of initial Byz. success, the Arabs won a 
major victory that enabled them to capture An- 
kyra and eventually AMorion. The Byz. forces 
took refuge in Amaseia; news of the defeat at 
Dazimon provoked a riot in Constantinople. Re- 
mains of the site have not been reported. Dazimon 
has alternatively been identified with Tokat, whose 
jagged peak bears a fortress, some of which is 
Byz. 

Lit. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 1:154-59. F. & E. Cumont, 
Studia Pontica, vol. 2 (Brussels 1906} 299-47. -C.F., A.K. 


DEACON (d:akovos “attendant, servant”), a spe- 
cific office in the Byz. church. A deacon’s duties 
both in the primitive and patristic period were 
distinctly ministerial. He assisted at baptism (see 
also Deaconess), served at the celebration and 
distribution of the Eucharist (which, however, only 
a PRIEST Or BISHOP could perform), supervised the 
charities dispensed by the church, managed the 
diocese’s properties and finances, and acted as the 
bishop’s secretary (cf. Council of Laodikeia, can- 
ons 21, 23, 25). The latter duty normally fell to 
the archdeacon, a title which first emerged in the 
5th C. Despite his wide authority as the bishop’s 
chief assistant, the deacon was subordinate to both 
priest and bishop. He was, as such, the lowest in 


rank among the three major orders of the CLERGY. 
Conciliar legislation emphasized the inferiority of 
the office and even forbade the deacon to sit 
among the priests (Nicaga I, canon 18). This was 
later modified for a deacon representing his bishop 
at a council (Council in TRULLO, canon 7). 

From the 11th C. the deacons of Hacia SOPHIA 
at Constantinople, esp. those who were members 
of the ENDEMOUSA SYNODOS, managed to acquire 
and wield considerable power and influence within 
the patriarchate (V. Tiftixoglu, BZ 62 [1969] 33- 
36). Under Emp. Herakleios the number of dea- 
cons at Hagia Sophia was fixed at 150 (Reg 1, 
no.165), although by the late 12th C. their num- 
ber had probably dwindled to about 60 (P. Wirth, 
ByzF 2 [1967] 380-82). 

Canonically, the deacon was ordained to a spe- 
cific diocese or church at age 25 or above (Trullo, 
canon 14). Marriage was permitted, but only be- 
fore ordination. The deacon’s characteristic vest- 
ments were the ORARION and STICHARION. (See 
also SUBDEACON.) 

LIT. P.A. Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe und Presbyter 
und ihre urchristlichen Vorläufer (Stuttgart 1905; rp. Amster- 
dam 1963). S. Salaville, G. Nowack, Le rôle du diacre dans la 
liturgie orientale: Etude d'histoire et de liturgie (Paris 1962). 
J.G. Plöger, H.J. Weber, Der Diakon (Freiburg im Breisgau- 
Basel- Vienna 1980). S. Zardoni, Z diaconi nella Chiesa (Bo- 
logna 1983). —A.P. 


DEACONESS (dtaxovicaoa). The feminine form 
of the term deacon dates from the 4th C. (NICAEA 
I, canon 19). Her chief liturgical function was to 
assist at the baptism of women, which, for reasons 
of decency, could not be performed exclusively 
by the male clergy. The decline of adult baptism, 
however, hastened the demise of the office. By 
the 12th C. it had indeed lapsed, although the 
title was still being used (“improperly,” according 
to BALSAMoN) for certain women monastics (PG 
137:441D). In the EUCHOLOGIA, their ordination 
(Goar, Euchologion 218-22) paralleled that of the 
DEACON. It was permissible only to widowed or 
unmarried women, however. Still, priesthood was 
never conferred upon a deaconess, although it 
could be conferred upon her male counterpart. 
EPIPHANIOS of Salamis emphasizes that deacon- 
esses were not priests but women-elders (PG 
42:744D—745A). The age for ordination, 60, was 
later reduced to 40 (Council of CHALCEDON, canon 
15; Council in TRULLO, canon 14). 


uit. A.G. Martimort, Les diaconesses: Essai historique (Rome 
1982). C. Vagaggini, “L’ordinazione delle diaconesse nella 
tradizione greca e bizantina,” OrChrP 40 (1974) 145-89. R. 
Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church (College- 
ville, Minn., 1976), tr. J. Laporte, M. Hall. —A.P. 


DE ACTIONIBUS, an anonymous treatise on ac- 
tions in civil lawsuits. The work has the practical 
aim of enabling potential plaintiffs to give the 
correct name to their ACTION. Its original version 
derives probably from the legal literature con- 
nected with the Justinianic ANTECESSORES, since 
its association with the 5th—6th-C. theory of cıvıl 
PROCEDURE (libel suits) is evident. The treatise was 
still copied and supplemented in MSS of the 11th 
and later centuries, although the procedural act 
(editio actionis) appropriate to it cannot be pro- 
vided for that period. 

ED. De actionibus, ed. F. Sitzia (Milan 1973), with rev. by 


D. Simon, IURA 24 (1973) 339-44, ZSavRom 92 (1975) 
417-24. -D.S. 


DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO, conven- 
tional and incorrect title of a book compiled by 
CONSTANTINE VII or under his supervision and 
dedicated to his son Romanos II. The plan, ac- 
cording to the preface, consisted of four points: 
the relationship of the “nations” (ethne) with the 
Rhomaioi and the means of using some ethne to 
defeat and subdue dangerous neighbors; the gifts 
desired by the ethne; the characterization of their 
geographical situation and their customs; the 
changes that took place in the “empire of the 
Romans.” Moravcsik (Byzantinoturcica 1:362f) tried 
to demonstrate that the work conforms to the 
plan despite occasional repetitions, contradictions, 
and errors; on the contrary, Lemerle (Humanism 
320f) emphasized the book’s incoherence and het- 
erogeneity. De administrando imperio has two levels, 
purely informative sections taken from archival 
documents and didactic indoctrinations concern- 
ing methods of diplomacy; accordingly, one must 
distinguish between the date of compilation 
(probably the g50s) and the date of texts included. 
Some materials are of signal importance (e.g., ch.g 
describing the “way from the VARANGIANS to the 
Greeks”), some are based on unreliable legends, 
but as a whole De administrando imperio is a unique 
source for the history of the Caucasus, the north 
shores of the Black Sea (Rus’, Pechenegs, Hun- 
garians, Khazars), and the Serbians and Croa- 


DEATH 593 


tians. The announced fourth section on changes 
within the empire remained unwritten. 

ED. De administrando imperio, vol. 1, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, 
R. Jenkins (Washington, D.C., 1967), with Eng. tr.; vol. 2, 
Commentary by F. Dvornik, R. Jenkins, B. Lewis, et al. 
(London 1962). 

uit. J.B. Bury, “The Treatise De administrando im- 
perio,” BZ 15 (1906) 517~—77. Vizlzvori 2:9-74. P. Yanno- 
poulos, “Histoire et légende chez Constantin VII,” Byzan- 
tion 57 (1987) 158-66. T. Lounges, “To kephalaio 27 tou 
‘De Administrando Imperio, ” Byzantina 13.2 (1985) 1069- 
gi. Lj. Maksimović, “Struktura 32. glave spisa De admin- 
istrando imperio,” ZRVI 21 (1982) 25—32. G. Litavrin, “Iz 
kommentarija k 49—0j glave Konstantina Bagrjanorodnogo 
‘Ob upravlenii imperiej,’” Byzantina 13.2 (1985) 1347-53- 
-A.K. 


DEATH (davaros). There was no fixed Byz. ter- 
minology for death; it is variously designated as 
a separation, passing away, the end of life, return, 
repose, payment of the common debt, and other 
formulations. The Byz. view of death, derived 
from Greco-Roman philosophy, is that it is the 
separation of the soul from the body; this sepa- 
ration was construed as temporary since eventu- 
ally the soul would be reunited with its body. 
Death occurs through the commandment of God 
and is brought about by an angel sent for that 
purpose. There were divergent views, however, 
as to whether the hour of death was predeter- 
mined by God. Only the saints could foretell the 
day of their demise. The soul (naked and without 
gender) is usually envisaged as leaving the human 
body through the mouth in order to begin a 40- 
day journey in the company of the angel. In its 
ascent to heaven it must pass through the teloneia, 
or tollhouses, of the demons (cf. vita of BASIL THE 
YouncGER), which charge it for its sins. Thereafter 
it has the opportunity to see both PARADISE and 
HELL, and is then brought to a place of rest until 
the Day of Last JUDGMENT. Doctrines of the wan- 
dering of the soul and reincarnation were totally 
rejected. Both Neoplatonic philosophy and Chris- 
tianity saw death as a liberation from captivity, 
and yet laid greater stress on the positive aspect 
of birth to a new life. For this reason, such theo- 
logians as Basil the Great (PG 31:484A) and John 
Chrysostom criticized loud and excessive mourn- 
ing over the dead. There was even objection in 
some radical monastic circles to a special BURIAL 
(PG 65:105BC). 

The rites of the FUNERAL liturgy and certain 
representations of the hereafter, which derive from 


594 DEBT 


customs and beliefs antedating Christianity, were 
transformed by Christianity in a specific way. The 
ancient beliefs in a journey taken by the soul after 
death, in the need to provide ephodion (victuals) 
for the journey (G. Grabka, Traditio 9 [1953] 1— 
43), and in a ship and escort of souls, were taken 
over by the church fathers but filled with new 
content. Angels took over the role of the psycho- 
pompoi, the church became the ship of souls, while 
the ephodion was seen above all as the Eucharist 
received before death, though we find it occasion- 
ally given a wider meaning so that it includes 
faith, baptism, or the monastic life. That the Eu- 
charist could sometimes be understood almost 
superstitiously as a kind of dowry for the here- 
after is shown in the recommendation that even- 
tually resulted in the repeated reception of the 
Eucharist on the day of death in the hope that 
one would die with the Host in one’s mouth (PG 
29:CCCXV, BC). According to Chrysostom, the 
reception of communion (as an unrivaled means 
of nourishment) on one’s deathbed ensured the 
escort of angels (rather than demons), while at 
the Second Coming (paRousia) the righteous en- 
tered directly into the dominion of God (PG 61: 
364.30-34). Numerous Byz. adopted the monastic 
habit on their deathbed in greater hopes of sal- 
vation. 

Another custom, that of KOLLYBa, is derived 
from the pagan tradition of a (private) funeral 
meal conducted by relatives at the tomb of the 
deceased. It was unanimously opposed by the 
church in the West as a pagan superstition, but 
the practice survived in the Byz. church. Kollyba 
were distributed and liturgical prayers were said 
for the dead particularly on the grd, 7th (or gth), 
and goth (or goth) day after death (G. Dagron in 
Temps chrétien 419-30); the prayers were seen as 
accompanying the soul of the deceased on its 
journey. These dates were believed to represent 
important stations on the soul’s journey either to 
the final vision of or banishment from God. The 
deceased were also commemorated on the anni- 
versary of their death and on the Saturday before 
Meatfare Sunday (to Sabbaton tes Apokreo). The 
Byz. believed that the fate of the soul could be 
influenced through the prayers and intercessions 
of the living and made generous donations to 
churches and monasteries in order to ensure the 
proper commemoration of deceased relatives. 


The contemplation of death (melete thanatou), 
taken from Stoicism, found a particularly vibrant 
resonance in the monastic milieu. Church fathers 
illustrated the frailty of human life by referring 
to the once-famous Alexander the Great whose 
grave was unmarked and unknown, while the 
innumerable graves of the martyrs were every- 
where held in the highest honor. Monks desired 
to know what their brethren saw and experienced 
in the hour of death; they even contrived to 
consult the bones of the dead over their fate in 
the hereafter in order to learn the effectiveness 
of their intercession; even resurrection of the 
dead by the saintly desert fathers was reported 
(PG 34:244B—246A). The death of a saint is often 
connected with the vision of light, and the effu- 
sion of a clearly perceptible fragrance. Con- 
versely, death itself generally brings one near the 
realm of the “black one” (“Ethiopian” = devil), 
and is connected with the symbol of the sword 
(and on icons with the cup of poison). The pre- 
Constantinian church gave the highest value to 
martyrdom as a baptism of blood, an imitation of 
the Lamb of God, and birth into heaven. The 
martyrs, therefore, as those who had been re- 
deemed, continued to intercede for the living. 

Hagiography uniformly stresses the serenity with 
which the dying saint faced death, because of his 
belief that death meant freedom from the bonds 
of the body and union with the divine. The pre- 
vailing attitude in epitaphs and MONODIES is quite 
different, however. Death is likened to the myth- 
ical CHARON, who cuts man’s tree of life. Untimely 
death is generally seen as unjust and as a blow to 
the family and friends of the departed. 

LIT. H.G. Beck, Die Byzantiner und ihr Jenseits (Munich 
1979). P.J. Fedwick, “Death and Dying in Byzantine Litur- 
gical Tradition,” ECRR 8 (1976) 152-61. D. Abrahamse, 
“Rituals of Death in the Middle Byzantine Period,” GOrThR 
2g (1984) 125-34. C. Walter, “Death in Byzantine Icon- 
ography,” ECAR 8 (1976) 113-27. J. Pelikan, The Shape of 
Death (London 1962). J. Riviére, “Mort et démon chez les 
pères,” RSR 10 (1930) 577—621. Morte e immortalità nella 
catechesi dei padri del II—IV secolo, ed. S. Felici (Rome 1985). 
E. Freistedt, Altchristliche Totengedächtnistage und ihre Bezieh- 


ung zum Jenseitsglauben und Totenkultus der Antike {Münster 
1928). —-G.P., R.S., Ap.K. 


DEBT (xpéos, Lat. debitum) designated in Roman 
law both an obligation that originated from the 
contract of a Loan and the object of this contract, 
that is, a sum of money or a thing owed by one 


person to another. Byz. society reluctantly ac- 
cepted transactions on credit: Kekaumenos, for 
instance, considered a loan to be a risky transac- 
tion for both parties and recommended avoidance 
of borrowing (Kek. 1go0f). Nevertheless, credit 
transactions were common, and complaints about 
the burden of debts and greed of usurers appear 
often in hagiographical and rhetorical texts. Patr. 
Euthymios appealed to Leo VI asking the em- 
peror to free imprisoned debtors; Romanos I 
Lekapenos reportedly paid the debts of all debtors 
in Constantinople—both magnates and the poor; 
their contracts (homologiai) were thrown into the 
fire (TheophCont 429.17—21). Soon thereafter, the 
author of the PHiLopaTRis expressed the hope 
that the emperor would pay creDITORS all the 
debts of the inhabitants of Constantinople. 

The relationship of loan and debt are often 
treated in Byz. legal texts, which prescribe a writ- 
ten contract (engraphon) in the presence of wit- 
nesses (Peira 26.10) and security (enechyron) (Peira 
19.2). Peira 6.2 lists three major reasons for mort- 
gaging a house: to receive a loan (without speci- 
fying the purpose of the loan); to take up a state 
assignment (demosiake douleta); to conclude a mar- 
riage. Peira 26.1 cites a particular case of borrow- 
ing—to buy goods at a panegyris. Borrowing to 
ransom a relative is often mentioned in later texts. 

Cases of debt are common in documents of the 
Palaiologan period. Thus, in 1325 the family of 
the late stratopedarches Petzikopoulos borrowed 50 
hyperpers from the monks of Hilandar, giving 
over to the monks as security (HYPOTHEC) three 
houses on the condition that if the Petzikopouloi 
returned the money within a year, they would get 
back their houses; if they were unable to repay, 
Hilandar would give them an additional go hy- 
perpers and receive full title to the houses and 
the adjacent land (Chil., no.112.30—43). The con- 
tract did not state who was in physical possession 
of the houses during the period in question. Clearer 
is the short charter of 1302 (Vazelon, no.g7) in 
which Theodora Theophilaba acknowledged the 
receipt of 100 asproi from the monastery of Va- 
zelon; she gave the monastery her choraphion, which 
was to be restored to her as soon as she paid her 
debt. On the other hand, in an act of 1285 Theo- 
dore Komnenos Branas related that he received 
olive trees from Angelina, the widow of Chryso- 
berges, only after she proved insolvent (MM 


DE CEREMONIIS 595 


4:114.17—26); she retained, however, her right to 
buy back her trees. 


ut. O. Tafrali, Thessalonique au XIVe siècle (Paris 1913) 
104-17. -A.K. 


DEČANSKI. See STEFAN Uroš II] DEČANSKI. 


DE CEREMONIIS, in full, De ceremoniis aulae 
byzantinae, the modern title for a 10th-C. treatise 
of CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENNETOS that 
treats court CEREMONY in the spirit of ENCy- 
CLOPEDISM for the glorification of the emperor 
and his servants. Major and minor ceremonies are 
described in minute detail from the perspective 
of court officials who staged secular rituals. To 
interpret De ceremonus requires knowledge of each 
section’s origin because it compiles 5th—1oth-C. 
records (see Table) that document Byz. govern- 
ment, diplomacy, prosopography, Constantino- 
politan topography—esp. that of the Great PAL- 
ace—and historical events. The complete MS 
(Leipzig, Univ. Lib. 28) is dated to the 1oth C. (I. 
Rochow, Klio 58 [1976] 193-97). It is less a fn- 
ished work than a dossier that contains instruc- 
tions for ceremonies and descriptions of actual 
performances intended as raw material for the 
former: thus book 2, chapter 38, was stripped of 
specifics to form the prescriptive book 2, chapter 
14 (G. Ostrogrosky, E. Stein, Byzantion 7 [1932] 
185—233 and F. Délger, BZ 36 [1936] 145-57). It 
also includes sundry memoranda on subjects 
ranging from officials’ salaries to military logistics. 
The imperial family implied by book 1, chapters 
1—9, fits a time frame of ca.957—59, while datable 
references reveal revisions no earlier than Con- 
stantine’s last years (bk.1, ch.28—after 27 Feb. 
956; bk.2, ch.15—after autumn 957); the text was 
certainly revised under Nikephoros II Phokas and 
book 1, chapter 97, may suggest a connection 
with BASIL THE NOTHOS. 

Constantine states that book 1 derives from 
records. Chapters 1—83 offer fairly homogeneous 
prescriptive material on holy-day processions to 
Constantinopolitan sanctuaries (1—37) and secular 
ceremonies (38—83), such as CORONATIONS, mar- 
riages, funerals, officials’ promotions, and circus 
celebrations. Chapters 84—95 are unrevised ex- 
tracts from PETER PATRIKIOS, including verbatim 


596 | DE CEREMONIIS 


Chronological Synopsis of the Sources of De ceremoniis 


Book and Chapter Subject Date 
Sa ee ee 


Book 1 


Chs. 1-9 (Vogt 1:3-56.8) 


Chs. g—18 (Vogt 1:56.9— 
105) 


Chs. 19-21 


Chs. 22-23 
Ch. 24 
Chs. 25-35 
Ch. 36 
Ch. 37 


Chs. 38, 40, 42 (Vogt 2: 


3—5, 13.17~-15.15, 24-25) 


Ch. 41 


Chs. 43-44 
Chs. 46-52 (except next 
section) 


Ch. 48 (Vogt 2:57.9—60.11) 


Ch. 53 

Chs. 54-58 
Chs. 62—63 
Ch. 64 

Ch. 65 

Ch. 66 

Ch. 67 

Ch. 68 

Chs. 69, 71-73 


Ch. 69 (Vogt 2:136.13—23) 
Ch. 70 


Chs. 84-95 


Ch. 96 
Ch. 97 


Book 2 


Chs. 1—25 

Ch. 14 

Ch. 15 (Reiske 570.1 1— 
598.12) 

Ch. 17 


Processions and acclamations from Christmas to after 
Pentecost (interrupted by a lacuna) 


Yearly processions from Easter to Ascension 


Feasts of the Prophet Elijah, the Nea Ekklesia, and St. 
Demetrios 


Processions of 14 Sept. and Christmas 

Feast of St. Basil the Great 

Processions from Epiphany to Holy Saturday 
Feast of the Union of the Church 


Imperial costume for processions 
Acclamations 


Empress’s coronation and wedding (Irene) 
Promotions to caesar and nobelissimos 


Various promotions 


Acclamations for promotion to patrician 
Acclamations for promotion to eparch 

Promotions 

Faction audiences 

Faction audience 

Dance 

Winter faction audience 

Arrangement of dignitaries during faction audiences 
Hippodrome 

Hippodrome 


Acclamations on vanquished emir 


Hippodrome 
Extracts from Peter Patrikios 


Acclamations for Nikephoros I] 


Promotion to proedros 


Secular ceremonies 

Enthronement of patriarch 

Receptions of ambassadors from Tarsos and reception 
of Olga 

Coronation of Romanos II (lost) 


ca.957—-59 


Probably Michael III 
(ca.847—-62?); rev. 
Ca.goo-03 and ca.957— 
59 

Probably Basil I; rev. un- 
der Leo VI 


Same as chs. 9—18 

goo 

Same as chs. 9—18 

After 920: 957-59? 

Ca.goo—03; rev. ca.g57— 
59? 

ca.957—-59 


17 Dec. 768 
2 Apr. 769 
Probably Isaurian 


€a.957—59? 
ca.957-59? 
Isaurians? 
Constantine VII 
Michael III 
Constantine VII 
Michael III 
Constantine VII? 
Late 7th, early 8th C. 
Michael III?; rev. Con- 
stantine VII 
863 
Same as ch. 68, but 
heavily revised? 


5th- and 6th-C. material 
compiled ca.548—65 


963 


963-69 


Constantine VII 
After 933 
946 and 957 


945 


DE CEREMONIIS 597 


Sources of De ceremoniis (continued) 


682.17) 

Ch. 48 (Reiske 690.6—16) 
Chs. 49-50 

Ch. 51 


Chs. 52-53 
Ch. 54 
Ch. 56 


Same as above 
Payments to officials 
Inspection of Constantinople’s granaries 


Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS 
Pseudo-Epiphanios of Cyprus 
Factions’ payments 








Book and Chapter Subject Date 
Ch. 19 Triumph in the Forum 956 
Ch. 20 Triumph in the Hippodrome 956 or 958-59 
Ch. 23 (Reiske 622.1—17) Leo VI’s first haircut 866-70? 
Chs. 27—30 Herakleios’s ceremonies; funeral of Patr. Sergios I 638-39 
Chs. 31-37 Promotions and audiences Michael II] 
Ch. 38 Enthronement of Patr. Theophylaktos 933 
Chs. 40-41 Ceremonial costume 945/6—-959 
Ch. 42 Imperial tombs and obits (partially lost: see CHRONI- Constantine VII; rev. 
CON ALTINATE) after 959 
Ch. 44 Expeditions against Crete and Italy 911; 935 
Ch. 45 Expedition against Crete 949 
Ch. 47 (Reiske 681.5- Styles of address for Bulgar ruler ca.922—24 


ca.920—22; rev. 945-59 
Leo VI 

Same as bk. 1, chs. 84- 
95? 

899 

Herakleios 

After 963 


protocols of accession from Leo I to Justinian I 
(chs. 91—95, partly recycled in acclamations for 
Nikephoros II Phokas [bk.1, ch.96)). 
Constantine’s claim that book 2, possibly an 
afterthought, draws only on oral tradition holds 
generally for book 2, chapters 1—25, although 
even they contain historical records (see Table). 
The disparate documents of chapters 25—56 may 
have been physically associated with Constantine’s 
own copy and transcribed as they were found at 
the end of the Leipzig MS; they shed precious 
light on such matters as military mobilization (bk.2, 
chs. 44—45) against Crete and Italy (cf. G. Huxley, 
GRBS 17 [1976] 295-300), while a diplomatic 
style sheet (bk.2, chs. 46—48) illuminates the hi- 
erarchy of sraTes (Dölger, Byzanz 183-96; W. 
Ohnsorge, BZ 45 [1952] 320-39). The remaining 
chapters concern mostly officials’ precedence, fees, 
and payments (bk.2, chs. 49—50, 55; 56 concerns 
BrinGas). The language of De ceremoniis provides 
valuable testimony on vernacular usage (G. Mo- 
ravcsik, 5 CEB, vol. 1 [Rome 1939] 514-20) and 
governmental technical terms, esp. of Latin origin 


(partial list: A. Landi, Koinonia 2 [1978] 301-22). 

A treatise, On Imperial Expeditions, incorrectly 
dubbed Appendix ad librum I (Reiske, infra 444- 
508), precedes De ceremoniis in the Leipzig MS. 
Constantine based it largely on a lost work by Leo 
Katakylas, magistros under Leo VI, and dedicated 
it to his son. It details the logistics of an imperial 
campaign into Anatolia (G. Huxley, GRBS 16 
[1975] 87-93; Hendy, Economy 304-15) and con- 
cludes with records of TRIUMPHS by Justinian I, 
Theophilos, and Basil I. 


ED. J.J. Reiske, Constantin: Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De 
cerimonits aulae byzantinae, 2 vols. (Bonn 1829-30), with 
indispensable comm. A. Vogt, Constantin VII Porphyrogénéte, 
Le livre des cérémonies, 4 vols. (Paris 1935—40) (bk.1, chs. 1— 
83; with Fr. tr.). Corr. by Ph.I. Koukoules, EEBS 19 (1949) 
75-115 and EEPhSPA 5 (1954-55) 48—65; A.J. Festugiére, 
RPhil 45 (1971) 240-57. 

Lit. J.B. Bury, “The Ceremonial Book of Constantine 
Porphyrogennetos,” EHR 22 (1907) 209-27, 417-39. C. 
Mango, I. Sevéenko, “A New Manuscript of the De cerimoni- 
is,” DOP 14 (1960) 247~49. Guilland, Institutions and To- 
pographie. Av. Cameron, “The Construction of Court Rit- 
ual: the Byzantine Book of Ceremonies,” in Cannadine- 
Price, Rituals 106—36. —M.McC. 


598 DECIUS 


DECIUS, a Roman aristocratic family that flour- 
ished under THEODORIC THE GREAT. Its connec- 
tion with the earlier Roman family of the same 
name is unclear. Caecina Decius Albinus (PLRE 
1:35~36), urban prefect of 402, probably a de- 
scendant of the CEIonu, may have been the foun- 
der of the Decius family. Caecina Decius Acinatius 
Albinus, urban prefect of 414, may be his son. 
The family is better known from the end of the 
5th C., when Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius 
was consul (480), as were two of his brothers (484, 
486). All four of Basilius’s sons attained consular 
rank: Albinus in 493 (presumably the first consul 
appointed by Theodoric), Avenius (501), Theo- 
dorus (505), and Importunus (509). They formed, 
however, a house divided into two pairs of broth- 
ers, the first two supporting Pope SYMMACHUS, 
the other two his rival Laurentius. Circa 519 Al- 
binus was involved in religious discussions to end 
the schism between Rome and Constantinople, 
and ca.522 the referendartus Cyprian accused Al- 
binus of having sent treacherous letters to Justin 
I. BoErHIus attempted to defend Albinus, but 
they were both arrested. In 525, however, Theo- 
doric sent Theodorus and Importunus with Pope 
Jonn I as ambassadors to Constantinople. Their 
relatives continued to serve as consuls until 534. 


UT. PLRE 2:1324. J. Moorhead, “The Decii under 
Theodoric,” Historia 33 (1984) 107-15. —A.K. 


DECORATIVE STYLE (olim “Family 2400,” “Ni- 
caea School,” “Karahisar script”) is the provisional 
name for a group of more than 100 illuminated 
Greek MSS of the 12th and 13th C. More than 
half are Gospel books; liturgical books are few 
and most of the group seem to reflect commis- 
sions for private use. The MSS are linked by their 
black ink and distinctive script; by recurrent icon- 
ographic patterns in their author portraits, Psalter 
cycles, and extensive Gospel cycles; by their ex- 
cepuonally lavish ornament using carpet head- 
pieces and extravagantly shaped canon tables; and 
by their decorative style with strongly profiled 
figures, ornate, screenlike architecture, and hot, 
pinkish color schemes. The group’s few dated 
examples—two Gospel books of 1153 and 1156 
(Vat. Barb. gr. 449; Gospel book owned by H.P. 
Kraus, New York), another from around 1208 
(Moscow, Lenin Lib. F181 gr. 11), a Psalter from 
before 1213 (London, B.L. Add. 40753), and the 


noted Gospel book in Berlin (Staatsbibl. gr. Quarto 
66) from shortly before 1219—indicate that jt 
flourished ca.1150—ca.1250. It includes most of 
the illuminated books surviving from the late 12th 
C. and comprises the only known group of luxury 
MSS from the period of the Latin occupation of 
Constantinople (1204-61). Its place of origin is 
unclear. Early examples are provincial (Cypro. 
Palestinian?), but the group’s quality rises over 
time, and the later books may have been commis- 
sioned by members of the NICAEAN court. 

LIT. A.W. Carr, Byzantine Illumination, 1150—1250: The 
Study of a Provincial Tradition (Chicago 1987). P. Canart, 
“Les écritures livresques chypriotes du milieu du XI" siècle 
au milieu du XIII‘ et le style palestino-chypriote ‘epsilon,’ ” 
Scrittura e civiltà 5 (1981) 17—76. H. Buchthal, “Studies in 


Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth Century,” Jahr- 
buch der Berliner Museen 25 (1985) 27—102. —A.W.C. 


DECURIONES. See CuRIALEs. 


DEEDS OF PURCHASE. See SALE. 


DEER (éd\ad¢os, veBpos). Along with the gazelle 
and wild goat the deer was a popular object of 
HUNTING; miniatures depict scenes of dogs or 
domesticated leopards in pursuit of deer. Accord- 
ing to legend, Basil I was pursuing on horseback 
a huge stag that suddenly dragged the emperor 
from his saddle and carried him away on its ant- 
lers. Venison was recommended during cool sea- 
sons, but not in summer when it was considered 
poisonous. The horns of the deer were viewed as 
symbols of marital infidelity. Andronikos I re- 
portedly exhibited antlers of the deer he had 
hunted, ostensibly to show the size of the killed 
beasts but actually to mock the inhabitants of 
Constantinople for the adultery of their wives. 
Christian legend described the hart or male 
deer as fighting and killing snakes, and in this 
capacity the deer becamé a symbol of Christ. The 
4th-C. exegete Philon (of Karpathos or Karpasia?) 
describes Christ as turning toward the Gentiles 
and running like a gazelle or deer to the ends of 
the world (PG 40:76B). Since the nature of the 
deer is destructive, comments Cyril of Alexandria 
(PG 69:825A), and snakes flee from its smell and 
color, the Lord is rightly called nebros since he 
tramples on and destroys the power of adversity. 
Apostles, preachers, saints, and all the righteous 





DEESIS 599 


Degsis. Deesis; mosaic, 13th C. South gallery of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. 


were also compared with harts as crushing the 
power of the serpent. 

Representation in Art. The image of the hart 
or stag entered Christian art partly because of 
Psalm 42:1: “As the hart panteth after the water 
brook, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.” 
The thirsting soul was associated particularly with 
BAPTISM, and the hart was widely used in 4th-C. 
BAPTISTERY decoration, esp. floor mosaics. Con- 
stantine I is supposed to have given the Lateran 
baptistery in Rome seven 80-pound silver harts 
that spouted water, and many other baptisteries 
had hart-shaped fountains or spigots. In Ravenna 
5th-C. mosaics in the “Tomb” of GALLA PLACIDIA 
show harts flanking streams and the Tree of Life. 


Harts appear beside Psalm 42 in the marginal 
PSALTERS and occasionally atop CANON TABLES. 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:416f. H. Leclercq, DACL 2.2:3301- 
o7. -A.K., A.W.C. 


DEESIS (Aénos, lit. “entreaty”), the word used 
since the 19th C. to identify as an image of in- 
tercession the Byz. composition of the Virgin Mary 
and JOHN THE BAPTIST standing on either side of 
Christ with their hands extended toward him. 
Byz. used the word deesis for this composition, 
too, but not for it exclusively: the Virgin Mary 
praying, or the Virgin or a donor presenting a 
petition were also called deesis. Intercession, more- 
over, was neither the exclusive nor the original 


600 DEFENSOR CIVITATIS 


significance of the “deesis” composition. Initially, 
it was intended to express the privileged role of 
the Virgin and John as the first witnesses to Christ's 
divinity, an idea that continued into the 12th C. 
After the gth C., however, the composition ap- 
peared more and more in contexts that suggested 
intercession: it adopted the imagery of the impe- 
rial court with Christ enthroned between Mary 
and John like an emperor enthroned between 
interceding courtiers; it became the core of the 
“Great Deesis” used on TEMPLON beams and de- 
votional ivories, a composition developed from 
the liturgical prayers of intercession, and com- 
prising Christ, the Virgin, and John flanked by 
APOSTLES and saints; and it formed the center of 
the Last JUDGMENT and Prophetic Visions where 
the Virgin and John intercede for mankind. These 
intercessory applications came to dominate the 
composition’s content. 

LIT. A, Cutler, “Under the Sign of the Deesis: On the 
Question of Representativeness in Medieval Art and Lit- 


erature,” DOP 41 (1987) 145-54. C. Walter, “Two Notes 
on the Deesis,” REB 26 (1968) 311-36. -A.W.C. 


DEFENSOR CIVITATIS, an official of the late 
Roman Empire who functioned as a semiprivate 
advocate of provincial citizens in relations with 
the central government. The origin of the office 
remains unclear. It is probable that in the first 
half of the 4th C. in the eastern provinces of the 
empire (Egypt, Arabia) there existed the so-called 
syndikoi or ekdikot, who acted as advisers of the 
urban populace in conflicts with the administra- 
tion; in the West the institution was introduced 
by Valentinian I in a law of 368 (for Illyricum) as 
an element in the emperor’s anti-aristocratic pol- 
icy (A. Hoepffner, RH 182 [1938] 225-37). The 
first defensores were chosen from the upper class 
of former functionaries such as AGENTES IN REBUS 
or governors, and some had senatorial rank. The 
importance of the defensores declined gradually, 
but Justinian I attempted to return the office to 
its former significance. The functions of the de- 
fensor were vaguely defined; primarily he was to 
record all complaints and by so doing check the 
malpractice of local administrators. The defensor 
also had judicial authority in minor cases (Justi- 
nian I, nov.15.3.2, 4). With the decline of the city 
in the 7th C. the office of defensor civitatis fell into 
disuse. 


LIT. O, Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 2365—71. V. Mannino, Ri- 
cerche sul “defensor ciuitatis” (Milan 1984). B.R. Rees, “The 


defensor civitatis in Egypt,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 6 
(1952) 73—102. -A.K. 


DEHES, village in northern Syria, in the moun- 
tains between Antioch and Chalkis ad Belum. The 
history of Dehes, as revealed by archaeological 
excavation, illustrates the region’s economic de- 
velopment. The village prospered in the 4th—6th 
C., when the enlargement of an OLIVE PRESS sug- 
gests flourishing OLIvE cultivation. The buildings 
grew larger; the houses of nuclear families were 
transformed into the habitats of extended fami- 
lies. Construction techniques and planning im- 
proved—from an irregular to an orthogonal sys- 
tem. After the mid-6th C. the growth of Dehes 
stopped, even though coin finds indicate eco- 
nomic activity through the reign of Constans H 
and probably until 674. There are no signs of a 
catastrophic destruction, but slow decline led to 
the abandonment of the site ca.goo. Incidental 
Byz. coins of the 11th C. (down to Alexios I) 
testify to the Byz. penetration of northern Syria 
in that period. 

LIT. J.P. Sodini, G. Tate et al., “Déhès (Syrie du Nord): 


Campagne I-III (1976—1978),” Syria 57 (1980) 1-208. 
~A.K. 


DEIFICATION. See THEOsIs. 


DEIPNON. See ARISTON AND DEIPNON; LoRD’S 
SUPPER. 


DEIR ZA‘FARAN MONASTERY, the “Saffron 
monastery,” also called Mar Hananiya, Mono- 
physite monastic complex built ca.530 northwest 
of Dara in Mesopotamia, 5 km east of Mardin in 
Turkey. Its early history is obscure, but Deir 
Za‘faran should perhaps be identified with the 
monastery of Natapha where Monophysite bish- 
ops sought refuge during the persecution of Jus- 
tin I. The well-preserved triconch main church of 
Deir Za‘faran displays a complete example of the 
early 6th-C. type of ornate architectural sculpture 
found in fragments at, for example, AMIDA, Dara, 
and SERGIopOLIS. Refounded in 793 by Mar 
Hananiya and again ca.1125 after short periods 
of abandonment, from the 12th C. Deir Za‘faran 
was the seat of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch. 
It formerly housed an important Syriac library, 
which contained a 6th-C. illuminated MS. 


tir. M.C. Mundell, “The Sixth Century Sculpture of the 
Monastery of Deir Za‘faran in Mesopotamia,” 15 CEB 2 
(Athens 1981) 511-28. -M.M.M. 


DEKANOS (Sexavos), originally a subaltern offi- 
cer in the Roman army. From the 4th C. onward, 
the term designated palace messengers, esp. those 
of the empress. According to Kallinikos’s vita of 
HypatTios OF ROUPHINIANA! (ed. Bartelink, ch. 
41.13), there were mounted dekanoi. They served 
also as guardians of gates. JOHN Lypos equates 
them with lictors (rabdouchot). In the Kletorologion 
of Philotheos the dekanos is a modest functionary 
under the PROTASEKRETIS. According to the De 
ceremoniis, while accompanying the emperor on 
an expedition dekanoi were in charge of imperial 
papers (chartia). The seals of dekanoi are few; the 
owner of one (Laurent, Corpus 2, no.215, 11th C.) 
was protospatharios, praipositos, and dekanos. The 
term was applied as well to hermits in command 
of ten other monks, to subaltern patriarchal offi- 
cials, and to ecclesiastical fossores whose function 
was to bury the dead. It was also used to render 
the Syriac dihkan, a notable of modest rank (P. 
Devos, AB 64 [1946] 95). The term does not 
appear in pseudo-Kodinos, but patriarchal dekanoi 
are mentioned in later hierarchical lists, at the 
very bottom (Darrouzés, Offikia 557.32). 

In accord with the many functions served by 
dekanoi, figures labeled as such on works of art 
display considerable variety. On an early votive 
icon at Mt. Sinai, the dekanos Leo is shown wearing 
a square nimbus, a blue mantle with pearled bor- 
ders over a yellow chiton, and a red belt and 
shoes. In the Paris Chrysostom (Paris, B.N. Coislin 
79, fol.er) a dignitary standing at the emperor's 
left is inscribed he proedros kai dekanos. He wears 
the red mantle decorated with golden ivy leaves 
of the PROEDROS over a blue chiton and a red hat 
with black tassels. 

LIT. Bury, Adm. System 98. Guilland, Institutions 2:89—92. 


H.U. Instinsky, LAC 3:608-11. Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, 
no.14. Spatharakis, Portrait 110, fig.71. -A.K., A.C. 


DELICT. In Justinianic law a textbook distinction 
was made between private offenses (delicta, ha- 
martemata, plemmelemata) and crimes that were 
prosecuted through public CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 
(crimina, enklemata) (Digest 47—48). THEFT, ROB- 
BERY, damage (see LEx AQUILIA), and HYBRIS were 
considered primary forms of civil wrongs (Jnsti- 
tutes 4.1), while crimes included TREASON, ADUL- 


DELJAN, PETER | 601 


TERY, MURDER, FORGERY, violence, embezzlement 
of public money, and kidnapping (4.18). Through 
the politically motivated expansion of criminal 
jurisdiction, however, this distinction had already 
largely lost its practical meaning. The terminology 
in the legal texts was vague, and post-Justinianic 
legal collections eventually placed even the regu- 
lations on damage in the area of criminal law 
(Ecloga 17.7—q; Basil. 60.2—5). The list of punish- 
able offenses inherited from Roman law changed 
with the christianization of the law: actions that 
violated the church’s sexual and moral standards 
were penalized ever more harshly. ~L.B. 


DELJAN, PETER, Bulgarian leader of a revolt 
in 1040—41; died after 1041. His Slavic name, 
meaning “victor,” normally rendered (’O)de\eavos 
in Greek, was distorted by Psellos (Chron. 1:76, 
ch.40.5—7) into Dolianos, from dolos, “treachery” 
(M. Dinić, PKJIF 30 [1964] 237f). The revolt, 
caused by a grave economic situation in Bulgaria, 
was worsened by the tax reform of JOHN THE 
OrPHANOTROPHOS, who replaced payment in-kind 
by cash. Deljan’s origin is unknown; an 11th-C. 
historian (Skyl. 409.8g—go) states that he was a 
slave who fled from Constantinople. Deljan pro- 
claimed himself a son of SAMUEL OF BULGARIA. 
Marching from Belgrade, Deljan occupied Niš 
(Naissos) and Skopje. The troops of the theme of 
Dyrrachion, who joined the revolt, elected a sol- 
dier, Tichomir, basileus of Bulgaria. At a meeting 
of the two rebel groups (probably at Skopje), after 
an oration by Deljan, Tichomir was stoned to 
death. Deljan seized Dyrrachion, sent troops to 
Thebes, and marched on Thessalonike. Probably 
at this time the theme of Nikopolis joined the 
Bulgarian rebels; to Deljan’s camp also came cour- 
tiers of MicHaEL IV, such as Manuel Ibatzes. 
ALOuSIANOs became Deljan’s co-ruler, but in 1041 
blinded him and betrayed him to Michaei IV. 
The Byz. then subdued Bulgaria; Deljan and 
Ibatzes were brought to Constantinople for Mi- 
chael’s triumph. The entire story, from Deljan’s 
rise to his blinding, is lavishly illustrated in the 
Madrid Skylitzes (Grabar-Manoussacas, Skylitzés, 
nos. 524—290, figs. 255-58). 

uit. Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija 376-96. Ferluga, By- 
zantium 379-93. G. Cankova-Petkova, “Pettr Deljan prez 
pogleda na negovite stivremennici,” [storiceskt pregled 22.4 
(1966) 97-106. A. Miltenova, M. Kajmakanova, “The Up- 
rising of Petar Delyan (1040—1041) ina New Old Bulgarian 
Source,” BBulg 8 (1986) 227-40. ~A.K., C.M.B., A.C. 


602 DELLA PORTA, LEONARDO 


DELLA PORTA, LEONARDO, first Cretan ver- 
nacular poet; born Chandax, Crete, shortly before 
1346?, died Chandax? 1419/20. Born to a noble 
Orthodox family on Venetian-occupied Crete, 
Della Porta (NreAAa7ropras) received a broad ed- 
ucation and was bilingual in Greek and Italian. 
He spent most of his career in the service of 
Venice as soldier and ambassador. He com- 
manded a warship that fought the Genoese near 
Negroponte and campaigned in Italy during the 
Chioggia War (1378-81). In May 1389 he was 
made a lawyer (dikegoros) in Chandax; he served 
as Venetian envoy to the Ottoman sultan MURAD 
I, to THEODORE I PALAIOLOGOS of Morea, and 
ca.Nov. 1389 to the Hafsid sultan of Tunis, Abū- 
al-‘Abbas Ahmad (M.I. Manousakas, EEBS 27 
[1957] 340-68). His final embassy, in 1403, was 
to the emir of MENTESHE at Miletos. Shortly there- 
after he fell into disgrace and was imprisoned on 
charges of fathering an illegitimate child. 

While in prison, Della Porta wrote four poems 
in political verse. The longest and most important 
poem is a dialogue between the poet and Truth, 
in which Della Porta protests his innocence and 
relates many autobiographical details. His other 
three poems are On Retribution, On the Sufferings 
of Christ, and prayers to Christ and the Virgin. 

ED. Poem on retribution—“To ‘Hypomnestikon’ tou 
Leonardou Ntellaporta kai to pezo prototypo tou,” ed. M.I. 
Manousakas, EEBS 39—40 (1972-73) 67-72. 

LIT. M.I. Manusacas, “Un poeta cretese ambasciatore di 
Venezia a Tunisi e presso i Turchi: Leonardo Dellaporta 
e i suoi componimenti poetici,” in Venezia e l'Oriente fra 
tardo medioevo e rinascimenio, ed. A. Pertusi (Florence 1966) 
283-307. Idem, “Nea anekdota benetika engrapha (1386- 
1420) peri tou Kretos poietou Leonardou Ntellaporta,” 


KretChron 12 (1958) 387—434. Beck, Volksliteratur 9, 199- 
201. -A.M.T. 


DELOS (Afàos), small island in the Cyclades in 
the central AEGEAN Sea, formerly a chief place of 
the cult of ApoLLo. In late antiquity there was a 
substantial community on the island, largely de- 
pendent on trade. From the 7th C. the site was 
abandoned. The remains of several churches sur- 
vive, including that of St. Kerykos south of the 
Agora (mid-6th C., with fragments of the ambo) 
and another near the Asklepieion (perhaps late 
7th C.). All of these are simple single-aisled bas- 
ilicas. 

uit. D.I. Pallas, RBK 1::186—go. A.C. Orlandos, “Délos 
chrétienne,” BCH 60 (1936) 68-100. -T.E.G. 


DELPHI (AcA¢oi), city in central Greece on the 
southern slope of Mt. Parnassos, site of the an- 
cient sanctuary and oracle of APOLLO; it attained 
civic status sometime before the 4th C. and en- 
Joyed the attention of several 4th-C. emperors (C, 
Vatin, BCH 86 [1962] 229-41). Constantine I 
removed various monuments from Delphi, in- 
cluding the famous Tripod of Plataia, which was 
set up in the Hippodrome of Constantinople. The 
pagan cult apparently continued throughout the 
4th C., and the Pythian Games were celebrated at 
least until 424 (Cod. Theod. XV 5.4). The city was 
probably abandoned in the 6th—7th C. Delphi was 
apparently a bishopric, although perhaps only 
briefly, since only a single incumbent is attested, 
A notitia of the late 8th or oth C. mentions a 
bishopric of Delphi (Notitiae CP, ch.3.719). 

The late antique city of Delphi was probably 
located in an area west of the sanctuary, where 
the remains of a large three-aisled basilica with 
figural mosaics were found. In the sanctuary itself 
only spolia of the 4th—6th/7th C. have been se- 
curely identified (G. Daux, BCH 86 [1962] gog- 
12). Recent excavation in the gymnasium sug- 
gests, however, that there was a church in that 
area. 


LIT. TIB 1:143f. E. Dyggve, “Les traditions culturelles 
de Delphes et l'église chrétienne,” CahArch 3 (1948) 9~28. 
-E.G. 


DEMARCHOS (ôńuaæpxos), a term designating 
the leader of a circus FACTION. The demarchoi 
played a prominent role in the HippopRoME and 
in imperial CEREMONIAL, at least until the 10th C. 
The term is first attested in 602; the reference in 
the PATRIA OF CONSTANTINOPLE to two demarchot 
under Theodostos II is late and suspect. They are 
sometimes called dioiketai in popular usage (Mir- 
acles of ARTEMIOS, ch.21, p.26.25). Cameron (in- 
fra) considers demarchot to have been the conduc- 
tors of a choir or claque, whereas G. Manojlović 
(Byzantion 11 [1936] 630f) saw them as military 
commanders of the DEMOI. 

By 842 or 843 at the latest (cf. Zacos, Seals 1, 
no.2017, for the seal of a demarchos John assigned 
to the 8th C.), the Taxrika show they had been 
coopted into the imperial hierarchy and held 
dignities such as HYPATOS Or PROTOSPATHARIOS. 
De ceremoniis (bk.1, chs. 63 (55]—65 [56], ed. Vogt 
2:75—80; cf. bk.1, ch.89 [80], Vogt 2:178f) pre- 


serves protocols for promoting demarchoi and their 
assistants: besides chartoularioi and notaries, a dep- 
uty (deutereuon); specialists, a poet and a composer 
(melistes), for acclamations; the CHARIOTEERS; and 
GEITONIARCHAI, whose function (“neighborhood 
supervisors”) remains unclear. 

Demarchot of the 11th C. held posts such as 
SYMPONOS Or LOGARIASTES (Zacos, Seals 2, nos. 
601-02; Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. 819, 1056). Al- 
though demarchot continue to crop up in the 
sources, the nature and extent of the continuity 
of their institutional attributes is uncertain. In the 
early 14th C., “two of the demarchor’ monitored 
the grain trade and bread production of Constan- 
tinople (Patr. ATHANasrios I of Constantinople, 
ep.100, pp. 256f, 429), a ceremonial book men- 
tions their banners or phlamoula (pseudo-Kod. 
196.28—33), and they administered Constantino- 
ple’s Gerronral. During the siege of 1453, they 
played a military role (Matschke, Fortschritt 101). 
When pseudo-Sphrantzes (Sphr. 386.24) relates 
that Constantine XI appointed GIUSTINIANI LONGO 
demarchos and strategos over 400 warriors, the word 
evidently has a military connotation. 

„LIT. Cameron, Circus Factions 258-61. R. Guilland, 
“Etudes sur Hippodrome de Byzance,” BS 30 (1969) 1— 
17. A.P. D'jakonov, “Vizantijskie dimy i fakcii,” VizSé 158- 
60. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires 106f. 

-A.K., M.McC., A.M.T. 


DEMESNE, or domain, a Western medieval term 
designating that portion of the lands of an ESTATE 
not granted to tenants but retained by the land- 
lord for his own use. When applied to Byz. con- 
ditions the term refers to those lands that were 
operated by the owner or his representatives, either 
by exploiting the labor of slaves or the ANGAREIAI 
of dependent peasants or by leasing the lands on 
a short-term basis. Despite the abundance of pa- 
pyri we have only a very vague idea of the struc- 
ture of demesne in Egypt. I. Fikhman (Oksirinch 
gorod papirusov [Moscow 1976] 73) suggests that 
the estates of the APions consisted of AUTOURGIA, 
where the “permanent personnel” and hired la- 
borers worked (i.e., demesne), and the allotments 
of tenants; the autourgia-demesne formed the 
smaller part of the estates. 

There is no data, even approximate, on the size 
of demesne until the end of the 11th C. when it 
appears astonishingly large. According to F. Döl- 
ger (Bulletin of the International Committee of Histor- 


DEMETRIAS 603 


ical Sciences 5 [1933] 9) in 1073 the demesne of 
the estate of Baris composed about 4/5 of the 
entire property. Litavrin (VizObscestvo 51f) calcu- 
lates that in the 12th C. the demesne of the Lavra 
on Athos was 2 to 3 times larger than the tenures 
assigned to the paroikoi. The table composed by 
Ostrogorsky (infra 298) shows that in the 14th C. 
the demesne of Hilandar was five times greater 
than the peasant lands and the demesne of Zo- 
graphou almost 12 times greater. In a praktikon 
of 1318 the Xenophon monastery was granted 
2170 modiot of arable land, only 70 of which were 
possessed by paroikoi (Xénoph., no.12.41—42). Con- 
trasting with this enormous proportion of doman- 
ial land is the insignificant quantity of corvée- 
angareia and the scarcity of domanial implements 
and livestock to till the soil, probably indicating 
that only a portion of the demesne was worked 
by misTuro1 and laborers who used doulika zeu- 
garia, whereas most of the demesne was leased 
for short terms. The term demesne has also been 
used by scholars to designate state lands and the 
private estates of emperors. 

LIT. N. Svoronos, “Remarques sur les structures écono- 
miques de l'Empire byzantin au XIe siècle,” TM 6 (1976) 
51—63. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnošenija 127-34. Ostrogorsky, 
Féodatité 296—302. R. His, Die Domänen der römischen Kai- 
Serzeit (Leipzig 1896). -A.K. 


DEMETRIAS (Anpnrpias), city in east central 
Greece, on the Pagasitic Gulf, just southwest of 
modern Volos; the ancient city was of consider- 
able importance because of its harbor. Prokopios 
(Buildings 4.3.5) names Demetrias among Thes- 
salian poleis allegedly refortified by Justinian I, 
but ancient urban life may have already come to 
an end by the beginning of the 6th C. (P. Marzolff 
in Demetrias 3 [Bonn 1980] 39f). Its territory was 
settled by the Slavic Belegezitai in the 7th—8th C. 
The city was placed either in the province of 
Thessaly (Hierokl. 642.3; De them. 2.41, ed. Per- 
tusi, 88), or Hellas (TheophCont 364.12). It was 
plundered by the Arabs in go1 or go2 and by the 
rebellious Bulgarians in 1040. After 1204 Deme- 
trias was granted to the empress EUPHROSYNE 
DouKAINA KAMATERA and in 1210 to Margaret, 
widow of Boniface of Montferrat. After 1240 De- 
metrias was supposedly a possession of Manuel of 
Thessalonike, but in fact it was controlled by the 
family of the Melissenoi. In the late 13th C. De- 
metrias was contested between Byz. and the Vene- 


604 DEMETRIOS 


tians of EuBora. In 1310 it was plundered by the 
Catalans, who held it until at least 1381. From 
1333 the inhabitants began to migrate to Volos; 
in 1393 Demetrias fell to the Turks. The bishop 
of Demetrias, known from 422, was the first suf- 
fragan of Larissa. 

Byz. Demetrias occupied only a fraction of the 
ancient city. Besides traces of the walls, there 
survive the remains of a 4th-C. basilica and an- 
other (4th/5th C.) near the northern harbor, along 
with an aqueduct restored in Byz. times. 

LIT. TIB 1:144f. S.C. Bakhuizen et al., Die deutschen 


archäologischen Forschungen in Thessalien: Demetrias 5 (Bonn 
1987). -T.E.G. 


DEMETRIOS (Anuhrtpios), personal name. Com- 
mon in antiquity, it became quite rare in the later 
Roman Empire (PLRE 1:247f, 2:352); not a single 
theologian of this name is known from that pe- 
riod, but a priest Demetrios was active in Carthage 
ca.393 (A. Mandouze, Prosopographie chrétienne du 
Bas-Empire, vol. 1 [Paris 1982] 271). St. Demetrios, 
the savior of Thessalonike in the 7th C., is an 
exceptional hero of this name in the hagiograph- 
ical calendar (another Demetrios is said to have 
suffered under the Iconoclasts, the third was an 
obscure saint in Sicily). The name does not appear 
in Theophanes the Confessor. Skylitzes mentions 
St. Demetrios and three other Demetrioi, one of 
whom was Bulgarian and another Georgian 
(“Abasgian”). The name became popular in the 
later period and probably in the countryside; at 
any rate, in the acts of Lavra, vols. 2-3 (13th— 
15th C.), we find 222 Demetrioi, holding third 
place after John and George. ~AK. 


DEMETRIOS, CHURCH OF SAINT. Located in 
Thessalonike, this was a major pilgrimage church 
in the central part of the city, probably built in 
the grd quarter of the 5th C. (W. Kleinbauer, 
Byzantion 40 [1970—71] 40) when the cult of St. 
DEMETRIOS was transferred from Sirmium. Tra- 
dition ascribes its construction to the Roman gov- 
ernor Leontios in 412/13; M. Vickers (BZ 67 [1974] 
348) has identified him with Leontios, praetorian 
prefect in ca.435—-41 (PLRE 2:669). The church 
is a cross-transept basilica, more than 55 m long, 
with five aisles, galleries, and low clerestory win- 
dows. Piers and column groups alternate in the 
nave and, although the columns are spola, they 


are arranged according to their color. The capitals 
of the nave arcade date from the 5th C. According 
to the Sotirious, the church was constructed on 
the site of several Roman buildings, including a 
bath and/or nymphaeum incorporated in the crypt 
under the sanctuary—this may have been the 
source of the sweet-smelling oil believed to flow 
from the saint's relics. Krautheimer (infra 474, 
n.49), however, suggests that the apse excavated 
beneath the present nave may be rather a rem- 
nant of an earlier church built by Leontios. A 
silver ciborium, probably located in the main aisle 
of the church, housed a silver image of the saint 
and became the focus of the cult (D. Pallas, Zograf 
10 [1979] 44-58). The church was damaged by 
fire between 629 and 634, and restored immedi- 
ately thereafter; it was again virtually destroyed 
by fire in 1917, and the present basilica was re- 
built, as far as possible with original materials, 

Much of the interior decoration of the church 
was destroyed in the various fires, but a number 
of mosaic panels have survived; others are known 
through texts or from watercolors made shortly 
before the fire of 1917 (R. Cormack, BSA 64 
[1969] 17—52). The mosaics do not appear to have 
ever constituted a coherent program, but are a 
series of independently commissioned dedicatory 
panels. Some date before the 7th-C. fire, others 
just afterward or as late as the 11th C. While the 
earliest ones show the saint orans approached by 
donors (or worshipers) with their children, some- 
times in landscape settings, the late 7th-C. panels 
celebrate the saint’s actions on behalf of the larger 
community (e.g., his rescue of the city from the 
“barbarous flood of barbarian ships,” probably a 
naval attack of 647). The increased abstraction 
of design and elegance of costume of these later 
7th-C. mosaics, executed after the fire, may indi- 
cate a closer connection with the art of Constan- 
tinople. There were also frescoes of unknown 
date, now lost, depicting the life and miracles of 
the saint. One extant fresco depicts an ADVENTUS, 
probably that of Justinian 11 into Thessalonike in 
688. 

A chapel dedicated to St. EUTHYM10S THE GREAT, 
added to the southeast corner of the church, was 
frescoed in 1303 at the behest of Michael the 
protostrator (Michael Tarchaneiotes Grasas) and 
his wife Maria, the couple that was also responsi- 
ble for the decoration of the parekklesion of the 
Church of the PAMMAKARISTOS in Constantinople. 


The frescoes, which include a cycle of the life of 
the saint (F. Gouma-Peterson, A7tB 58 [1976] 
168—83), were executed by painters working in a 
style closely related to that found in the PROTATON 
on Mt. Athos; the paintings help confirm the 
Thessalonican origins of the artists of the Milutin 
school (see MICHAEL [ASTRAPAS] AND EUTYCHIOS). 
Another Church of St. Demetrios in Thessalonike 
was located on the seashore (S.D. Mantopoulou, 
Makedonika 20 [1980] 175-91). 

uit. G.A. and M.G. Soteriou, He basilike lou Hagiou De- 
metriou Thessalonikes (Athens 1952). A. Xyngopoulos, He 
basilike tou Hagiou Demetriou Thessalonikes (Thessalonike 1946). 
Krautheimer, ECBArch 125-28. Janin, Eglise centres 365— 
72. P. Lemerle, “Saint Démétrius de Thessalonique et les 
problémes du martyrion et du transept,” BCH 77 (1953) 
660-94. Th. Papazotos, in Aphieroma ste mneme St. Pelekani- 
dou (Thessalonike 1983), 365-76. -T.E.G., N.P.S. 


DEMETRIOS ANGELOS DOUKAS (Angelo- 
doukas in a MS of 1244—L.Politis, BZ 51 [1958] 
269f), despotes of Thessalonike from before 25 
Sept. 1244—Dec. 1246; born ca.1220, died Len- 
tiana? in Bithynia. Younger son of THEODORE 
KoMNENOS Doukas, Demetrios succeeded his 
brother John as ruler of Thessalonike; the title of 
despotes was bestowed on him, as on his brother, 
by John III Vatatzes. Some charters of Demetrios, 
including a “chrysobull with a seal of silver,” are 
mentioned in the inventory of Hilandar (A. So- 
lovjev, SemKond 10 [1938] 33—38, nos. 9, 39, 54; 
55), but have since disappeared. Demetrios’s brief 
reign ended in 1246, when some of the leading 
citizens of Thessalonike organized a conspiracy to 
surrender the city to the Nicaean emperor. There 
was little Demetrios could do: he was young and 
dissolute and real power lay in the hands of the 
chief families. Following his deposition, he was 
imprisoned at Lentiana, where he probably died. 


LIT. Nicol, Epiros I 141-47. Polemis, Doukai 93, no.46. 
-MJ.A. 


DEMETRIOS OF LAMPE, diplomat and secular 
theologian; born Lampe (near Atramyttion), f. 
1160s. Kinnamos reports that after missions to 
Italy and Germany, Demetrios rejected the West- 
ern teaching that Christ is at the same time infe- 
rior to God the Father and equal to Him (Kinn. 
251-56). He had a disputation with Manuel I, 
who defended this doctrine and emphasized the 
existence of two natures in Christ. Then Deme- 


DEMETRIOS OF THESSALONIKE 605 


trios submitted a treatise in which he developed 
his concept. Kinnamos, who thought that only 
professors, ecclesiastics, and emperors were enti- 
tled to discuss theological subtleties, avoids pre- 
sentation of the core of the dispute. No richer is 
the information provided by the 12th-C. German 
theologian Gerhoch of Reichersberg, who knew 
that Hugo ETERIANO argued against Demetrios. 
Despite the resistance of the emperor and of Patr. 
Loukas CHRYSOBERGES, Demetrios found many 
partisans among the élite of the capital, and his 
case stirred up heated discussion at the local coun- 
cil of 1166-67 in Constantinople (see under Con- 
STANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF). 


LIT. P. Classen, “Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 
und die Lateiner,” BZ 48 (1955) 339-68. -A.K. 


DEMETRIOS OF THESSALONIKE, saint, often 
called the “Great Martyr” and myroblytos, “giving 
forth myrrh”; feastday 26 Oct. The early lists of 
martyrs (including a Syriac martyrology of 411) 
mention Demetrios (or Demetrios the deacon) in 
Sirmium. By the 6th C., however, Demetrios was 
closely connected with Thessalonike, where he 
reportedly worked many posthumous miracles; 
Emp. Maurice tried to obtain relics of Demetrios 
from Thessalonike, but in response to his request 
Archbp. Eusebios stated that the inhabitants of 
the city did not know the site of his interment 
(Lemerle, Miracles 1:89:20—25). 

Demetrios’s biography, unknown before the gth 
C., is preserved in three versions: that of Photios 
(Bibl., cod.255), paralleled by an anonymous Greek 
account and a Latin translation of ANASTASIUS 
BIBLIOTHECARIUS produced in 876; the anony- 
mous story in Vat. gr. 821 (11th-C. MS); and that 
of SYMEON METAPHRASTES. According to the ver- 
sion known to Photios, Demetrios was a “teacher 
of piety” executed by Emp. Maximian in Thessa- 
lonike when the emperor was returning from the 
stadium where the young Christian Nestor de- 
feated in single combat and killed Maximian’s 
favorite, the gladiator Lyaios. There is no link 
between Demetrios and Nestor in Photios’s ver- 
sion—Demetrios was murdered only because 
Maximian “was intoxicated by wrath and impiety.” 
Nestor appears as the actual hero of the story, 
and Demetrios only as a passive victim; nothing 
is said about his background. 

The link between the two martyrs was created 


606 | DEMETRIOS PALAIOLOGOS 


(or developed?) in the 10th C. In the version of 
Symeon Metaphrastes, Demetrios inspires Nestor, 
and in the Synaxarion of Constantinople Nestor is 
said to have come to the arena with the cry: “God 
of Demetrios, help me!” Metaphrastes stresses 
emphatically (PG 116:1185A) that Demetrios did 
not become famous through the brilliance of his 
ancestors; in contrast, in Vat. gr. 821, Demetrios 
is depicted as a noble senator, military com- 
mander, and anthypatos of Hellas (PG 116:1173B). 
Photios mentions Leontios, the future eparch 
(governor) of Illyricum, who supposedly found in 
Thessalonike the place “in which the body of the 
martyr was laid to rest” and built there “the fa- 
mous shrine.” The parallel anonymous Greek text 
adds that it was near the stadium and public bath. 
The identification of Leontios causes problems 
since Leontios, prefect of Illyricum, was the ad- 
dressee of two laws of Theodosios Il issued in 
412 and 413 (Cod.Theod. VII 4.32, XII 1.177), but 
M. Vickers (BZ 67 [1974] 348) rejects this date 
and places him ca.435—41 (PLRE 2:669). The 
story of Leontios was developed (AASS, Oct. 4:94E- 
95A): he allegedly attempted to remove Deme- 
trios’s relics from Thessalonike but was stopped 
by the saint himself; so he took only Demetrios’s 
garment, and brought it to Sirmium, where he 
built another church. Vickers hypothesizes that 
the cult of Demetrios originated in Sirmium, 
whereas P. Lemerle (Miracles 2:202) argues that 
it was transferred from Thessalonike to Sirmium. 

Miracles performed by Demetrios were de- 
scribed by many authors: the earliest accounts are 
those of Jonn I, archbishop of Thessalonike in 
the first half of the 7th C., and an anonymous 
late 7th-C. writer. The old legends are a very 
important source for the history of the Slav at- 
tacks on Thessalonike. The topic of the sufferings 
and miracles of Demetrios was very popular in 
Byz. literature; there are later versions of his 
miracles—Niketas of Thessalonike, mid-11th C. 
(A. Kazhdan, Byzantion 52 [1982] 420-22); John 
Staurakios, late 13th-C. (1. Dujéev, AB 100 [1982] 
677—81)—and enkomia in his honor by Archbp. 
John (D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, BalkSt 1 [1960] 
49-56), Archbp. Plotinos (V. Tupkova-Zaimova, 
BBulg 3 [1970] 119-23), Leo VI, Eustathios of 
Thessalonike, Constantine Akropolites, Nicholas 
Kabasilas, etc. The cult of Demetrios was widely 
spread among the Slavs. 


Representation in Art. The numerous extant 
7th-C. portraits of the saint in his grave church 
in Thessalonike (see DEMETRIOS, CHURCH OF SAINT) 
celebrate the role of Demetrios as protector both 
of individuals and of the city as a whole. The most 
important image of the saint, which was housed 
in the ciborium, is known, however, only from 
texts (Cormack, infra). There was once a mosaic 
(7th C.?) on the facade of the church depicting 
Demetrios’s cure of the prefect Marianos and 
inside the church were frescoes of the saint’s mar- 
tyrdom. But extensive cycles with relevant epi- 
sodes from the life of St. Nestor as well as De- 
metrios’s rescue of Thessalonike from the Slavs 
exist only elsewhere; on a 12th-C. silver reliquary 
in the Vatopedi monastery on Mt. Athos (A. Xyn- 
gopoulos, ArchEph [1936] 101-36; A. Grabar, DOP 
5 [1950] 3-5) and in wall painting (MISTRA and 
SERBIA). ENKOLPIA containing tiny figures of the 
saint lying in his tomb (A. Grabar, DOP 8 [1954] 
307-13) served as PILGRIM MEDALLIONS and PIL- 
GRIM TOKENS. 

Originally portrayed as a youthful princely mar- 
tyr clad in tunic and chlamys, the image of De- 
metrios as a military saint had emerged by the 
1oth C. Demetrios was thereafter often paired 
with St. GEORGE; the two are shown side by side 
in full armor or both on horseback, and differ 
essentially only in their hairstyle (that of Deme- 
trios being less full and rarely covering the ears). 
His image as a warrior was used by Alexios I 
Komnenos on his coins (Hendy, Coznage 437). 

sources. P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles 
de s. Démétrius, 2 vols. (Paris 1979—81). PG 116:1081~—1426. 

LIT. BHG 496-547g. Delehaye, Saints militaires 103-09. 
F. Barišić, Cuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvori (Bel- 
grade 1953). P. Lemerle, “Note sur les plus anciennes 
représentations de Saint Démétrius,” DChAE* 10 (1981) 1— 
10. A. Xyngopoulos, Ho eikonographikos kyklos tes zoes tou 
Hagiou Demetriou (Thessalonike 1970). C. Walter, Studies in 
Byzantine Iconography (London 1977), pt-V [1973], 157-78. 
J. Myslivec, LCI 6:41-45. R. Cormack, Writing in Gold (New 
York 1985) 50-94. -A.K., N.P.Š. 


DEMETRIOS PALAIOLOGOS, despotes of Mo- 
rea (1449-60); born Constantinople ca.1407/8, 
died Adrianople 1470 as monk David. Fifth son 
of ManueL II, he is described by Zakythinos (infra 
241) as ambitious but of immoral character. A 
mysterious flight to Hungary in 1423 suggests 
difficulties with his family. In 1442 he besieged 


Constantinople in league with the Turks (Lam- 
pros, Pal. kai Pel. 2:52—57 and I. Vogiatzides, NE 
18 [1924] 78—84). Despite his anti-Unionist views, 
he accompanied John VIII to the Council of 
FERRARA-FLORENCE (1437—39). When CONSTAN- 
TINE XI became emperor in 1449, Demetrios left 
his appanage on the Black Sea for Mistra to share 
the despotate of the Morea in its final years with 
his brother THoMas PaLaroLocos. Throughout 
his career Demetrios was willing to seek accom- 
modations with the Turks; he requested assistance 
from the sultan during his conflicts with Thomas. 
After surrendering Mistra to the Ottomans in 
1460, Demetrios married his daughter Helena to 
MEHMED II and was treated honorably by his son- 
in-law. He moved to Adrianople and received 
sizable revenues from Ainos and the islands of 
Lemnos, Imbros, Thasos, and Samothrace. 


LIT. Zakythinos, Despotat 1:119f, 188, 216, 241-87, 356. 
Papadopulos, Genealogie, no.g6. PLP, no.21454. —A.M.T. 


DEMOCRACY (ényoxparia). In a shift that illu- 
minates the social distribution of political power 
in Byz., democracy’s earlier meanings, which had 
relatively positive connotations (“popular govern- 
ment,” “republic,” or even “Roman Empire”), faded 
by the 5th C. and the term assumed the pejorative 
overtones that dominated Byz. usage: “distur- 
bance” or “riot” associated with “the people” or 
lower classes (DEMOI). 

LIT. G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient 
Greek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (Ithaca 
1981) 300-26. S. Vryonis, Jr., “Byzantine Demokratia and 
the Guilds in the Eleventh Century,” DOP 17 (1963) 289- 
314. G.I. Bratianu, “ ‘Démocratie’ dans le lexique byzantin 
a l'époque des Paléologues,” in Mém.L.Petit 32—40. 

—M.McC. 


DEMOGRAPHY. In broad terms, historical de- 
mography addresses two interrelated issues: the 
absolute size of population in a city or region and 
the composition and natural growth (or decline) 
of such populations. The former is influenced by 
incidents of natural catastrophe (esp. famines and 
epidemics), by wars, foreign immigration, and by 
patterns of migration from one district to another 
or between urban areas and their hinterlands. 
The latter is determined by such considerations 
as average duration of women’s childbearing years; 
rates of fertility and infant mortality; the normal 


DEMOGRAPHY 607 


age of MARRIAGE; LIFE EXPECTANCY; quality of DIET 
and medical care; and by the size, wealth, and 
cohesiveness of FamiLy/household units. Where 
the number of households is known, a coefficient 
can be employed to estimate total population; 
where more complete documentation exists, this 
population may be broken down according to age 
and sex and compared to a statistical model (“life 
table”), which in turn permits calculations of birth 
and mortality rates, expectations of life at various 
ages, and rates of population replacement. 

Unfortunately, sources for Byz. demography 
remain fragmentary. Although some judicial 
compilations provide valuable insights regarding 
the size and stability of litigant families, Byz. au- 
thors did not otherwise ordinarily concern them- 
selves with demographic issues, and most infor- 
mation must be derived either from physical 
evidence or from surviving government records. 
Excavations reveal both a qualitative (desertion or 
repopulation) and a quantitative picture: using as 
data the size and number of excavated houses, A. 
Jakobson (VizVrem 19 [1961] 154f) calculated that 
the average 1oth—11th C. city had about 5,000 
inhabitants. Osteological material and remnants 
of grain furnish evidence on medieval diet, while 
funerary inscriptions provide data on births and 
mortality, although in many cases this information 
is insufficient or presented in a manner unsuitable 
for statistical analysis (Patlagean, Structure, pt.IX 
[1978], 169-86). 

The most important sources are PRAKTIKA, pri- 
marily of 14th-C. southern Macedonia. Many of- 
fer detailed listings for members of peasant fam- 
ilies dwelling on the estate; since a number of 
areas underwent recurrent assessments—in 1300— 
01, 1316-18, 1320-21, and 1338—41—their prak- 
ttka give some indications concerning household 
stability. At the same time, praktika should be 
emploved with extreme caution. As fiscal docu- 
ments, they tend to omit information deemed 
inessential for taxation; in particular the ages of 
the population are not recorded—nor is it certain 
at what age a child was first enrolled—and any 
division into age groups can thus form at best 
only a rough approximation (P. Karlin-Hayter, 
Byzantion 48 [1978] 5021—18). It also seems likely 
that women, when not acting as heads of house- 
holds, were persistently undercounted, and the 
registers do not appear always to have taken fully 


608 DEMOI 


into account either newly arrived families or those 
who no longer worked on the estate but might 
remain in the same (or a neighboring) village (D. 
Jacoby, Speculum 61 [1986] 677f). 

Literary texts provide isolated population fig- 
ures for individual cities: 4th-C. Antioch, 150,000— 
200,000 inhabitants; 6th-C. Jerusalem, 53,000; 
1oth-C. Thessalonike, 200,000 (an exaggeration); 
11th-C. Edessa, 35,000; 13th-C. Nicaea, 30,000— 
35,000. The population of Constantinople (Ja- 
coby, Société, pt.1 [1961], 81—109) could not have 
been larger than 400,000 in the 5th—6th C. All 
attempts to provide a reliable estimate for the 
entire population of Byz. have failed, but it is 
possible to chart its broad fluctuations over the 
centuries. The steady growth of the 4th and 5th 
C. seems to have given way during the 6th and 
7th C. to a precipitous decline under the recur- 
ring impact of FAMINES, PLAGUES (esp. that of 542), 
and foreign invasions; this was followed in turn 
by a period of slow recovery. Evidence for the 
11th and 12th C. is ambiguous: economic expan- 
sion and a modest urban revival indicate growth, 
while political decline suggests stagnation. The 
territorial losses of the late 11th C. cost the empire 
a large portion of its population, and from 1200 
onward the areas that remained appear to have 
experienced virtually continuous demographic 
regression, exacerbated during the 14th C. by civil 
wars, the Black Death, and the disruptions caused 
in Macedonia by marauding mercenaries of the 
CATALAN GRAND Company; by 1450 the popula- 
tion of Constantinople itself did not exceed 40,000— 
50,000. 

We also possess information regarding certain 
aspects of fecundity and life expectancy. Al- 
though the legal age for marriage was set at 12 
(women) and 14 (men), the usual age appears to 
have been older (about 15 and 20, respectively); 
women might normally remain fertile until age 
40—45. Infant mortality remained high in all pe- 
riods (perhaps as great as 5o percent), and the 
presence of religiously inspired ceLIBacy and he- 
retical groups that rejected procreation probably 
exercised a significant—if unquantifiable—limit- 
ing influence on birthrates (Patlagean, Structure, 
pt.VIII [1969], 1353—69). In addition, ABOR- 
TIONS, CONTRACEPTION, and abandonment of in- 
fants are all attested, esp. in the early centuries. 
Evidence from 4th—7th-C. Palestine indicates that 


half the adult male population died by age 45, 
three-quarters by 65, and that women suffered 
significantly higher rates of early mortality. 

Our knowledge of life expectancy in succeeding 
centuries must remain inferential: NICHOLAS [| 
MysTIkOs (ep.29, ed. Jenkins-Westerink, 200.47— 
49) states that few of his contemporaries survived 
to 70, while Basil Pepiapites (S. Lampros, Kerky- 
raika anekdota [Athens 1882] 48.21—3) considered 
an individual over 60 to be decrepit; nevertheless 
a comparison reveals the possibility that the Byz, 
in the 11th—12th C. had a longer life expectancy 
than their predecessors in the 4th—6th C. and 
their Western contemporaries (A. Kazhdan, ByzF 
8 [1982] 116f). The subsequent centuries proba- 
bly experienced a demographic crisis: A. Laiou 
(FM 6 [1984] 279-84) suggests that in 13th-C. 
Epiros the number of children per family was 
below the level required for the population to 
replace itself; she also calculates (Peasant Society 
296) that in 14th-C. Macedonia 71 percent of 
females died by age 45 and 74 percent of males 
by age 50. 

LIT. Patlagean, Pauvreté 73—112. J.C. Russell, Ancient and 
Medieval Population (Philadelphia 1958) 92—94, 99-101. A. 
Bryer, H. Lowry, Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine 


and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham—Washington, D.C., 
1986). -A J.C. 


DEMOI (6701), without further qualifiers, usu- 
ally means “the people.” It can refer to members 
of the circus FACTIONS and is sometimes used this 
way alongside meros or demotai, esp. in technical 
texts like De cerEMoNnuS. Th. Uspensky (VizVrem 
1 [1894] 1—16) mistakenly connected the political 
districts of ancient Athens, also called demoi, to 
the very different Byz. meanings. This misiden- 
tification fueled the notion that factions resem- 
bled political parties and preserved some vestige 
of ancient Hellenic Democracy, which in turn led 
to far-reaching interpretations of 5th—7th-C. Byz. 
history based on the interplay of factional riots, 
the presumed or attested factional loyalties of 
various emperors, and the social, economic, and 
religious identities ascribed to each faction. In 
fact, as Sjuzjumov and Cameron (infra) indepen- 
dently demonstrated, the demoi, whether in the 
singular or plural, have little to do with districts 
or political parties in the modern sense. 


LIT. G. Manojlović, “Le peuple de Constantinople,” By- 
zantion 11 (1936) 617—716. M. Ja. Sjuzjumov, “Politi¢eskaja 
bor’ba vokrug zreli8¢ Vostotno-Rimskoj imperii IV veka,” 
Uéenye zapiski Ural’skogo gosudarstevennogo universiteta imeni. 
A.M. Gor’kogo (Sverdlovsk 1952) 88—98. Cameron, Circus 
Factions 25-39. A.A. Cekalova, “K voprosu o dimach v 
rannej Vizantii,” VizO¢ [4] (1982) 37-53. —M.McC, 


DEMONOLOGY. Byz. demonology is substan- 
tially derived from the patristic synthesis laid down 
by John of Damascus. Witch hunts appear not to 
have taken place, as in the West, but there was 
widespread interest in the theme of DEMONS not 
only among the common people but among schol- 
ars as well. The latter is instanced in two system- 
atic tracts falsely attributed to Michael PsELLos. 
In the longer of the two, Timotheos, or On demons, 
the unknown author uses the form of a Platonic 
dialogue to provide an overview of the opinions 
of the pagans and distinguishes six kinds of de- 
mons, which dwell in the vicinity of the moon, in 
the air, on the earth, in the water, under the 
earth, and in the darkness. The author also states 
that the Euchites or MESSALIANS, who are the 
focus of the dialogue, erred when they saw Satan 
as the Son of God, since he is simply the prince 
of lies, cast into the darkness because he thought 
he could be equal to God. Demonology was fre- 
quently connected with idolatry. 

souRcES. P. Gautier, “Le De daemonibus du Ps.-Psellos,” 
REB 38 (1980) 105-94. Idem, “Ps.-Psellos, Graecorum opini- 
ones de daemonibus,” REB 46 (1988) 85—107. 

LIT. P. Ioannou, “Les croyances démonologiques au XIe 
s. a Byzance,” 6 CEB, vol. 1 (Paris 1950) 245—60. J. Gros- 
didier de Matons, “Psellos et le monde de I’Irrationnel,” 


TM 6 (1976) 325-49. R.P.H. Greenfield, Traditions of Belief 
in Late Byzantine Demonology (Amsterdam 1988). -G.P. 


DEMONS (éaiuoves, also allotrioi, lit. “strangers, 
aliens”), evil spirits. In addition to rejecting the 
view that demons were offspring of marriages 
between angels and daughters of Cain (Gen 6:1— 
4), Christianity also repudiated the dualist idea of 
uncreated demons, who were creators of the ma- 
terial world. God created them good and with 
free will, but they chose the path of evil because 
of their envy of man. Sometimes they were iden- 
tified with pagan gods. 

Although these fallen ANGELS were incorporeal 
{contrary to previous views acknowledging a cer- 
tain kind of body in demons), they were not free 
from physical desires. They inhabited the earth 


DEMONS | 609 


(esp. dark places like tombs and caves) and its 
surrounding atmosphere, and appeared to men 
in the disguise of animals (DOGS, SNAKES, etc.), as 
ETHIOPIANS, robbers (G. Bartelink, VigChr 21 [1967] 
12—24), women, and so on. Rarely represented in 
art before the 11th C., demons are shown there- 
after as small, usually black creatures who travel 
in packs. They beset Christ in scenes of his Min- 
istry, pull monks from the ladder of JoHN KLI- 
MAX, and collectively stand in for the Devin (Ga- 
lavaris, Liturgical Homilies, fig.459). In contrast to 
Western medieval versions, they are usually ab- 
sent from scenes of the Last Judgment. They were 
hostile to mankind, producing crop failures, storms, 
famines, droughts, and other disasters, and at- 
tempted to divert men from righteous ways. De- 
mons were esp. active in seducing hermits. Begin- 
ning with the vita of ANTONY THE GREAT by 
Athanasios of Alexandria (W. Schneemelcher in 
Pietas [Miinster/Westf. 1980] 381-92), hagio- 
graphic literature presents manifold scenes of the 
personal struggle of saints against demons. Es- 
pecially dangerous was the so-called demon of 
midday (Ps 90:6), who infused the human heart 
with AKED1A, or torpor and dejection. The demon 
of midday was sometimes identified as ARTEMIS 
(C.D. Miller, JbAChr 17 [1974] 95-98). 

Some men sold their souls to demons for the 
sake of power or glory, while others were pos- 
sessed by demons who caused sickness, esp. men- 
tal derangement. Demons had their place in the 
cosmic development of history: not only were they 
seducers of men (from the days of Adam and 
Eve), they were accusers of sinners: demons 
grabbed their victims’ souls and tortured them in 
HELL. The best protection against demons was 
piety and its material manifestations such as the 
sign of the cross, holy water, incense, amulets, 
holy books (particularly the Psalms), icons, and 
sincere prayers. A sure and effective defense 
against demons was to respond with scriptural 
passages, to ask the demon its name, or to mock 
and ridicule it. There was a special service of 
EXORCISM to rid possessed people of demons. 

LIT. G. Closen, Die Sünde der “Söhne Gottes” (Rome 1937). 
J. Riviére, “Role du démon au jugement particulier chez 
les Peres,” RSR 4 (1924) 43-64. A. Grün, Der Umgang mit 
dem Bösen (Minsterschwarzach 1980). G. Switek, “Wüsten- 
väter und Dämonen,” Geist und Leben 37 (1964) 340-58. J. 


Chrysavgis, “The Monk and the Demon,” Nicolaus 13 (1986) 
265-79. -G.P., A.C. 


610 | DEMOSIARIOS 


DEMOSIARIOS (ônņnuoci&pios, from demosion, 
“state treasury”), a fiscal category of peasants whose 
nature is unclear. Demosiarioi appear in only a 
handful of documents from the mid-1oth through 
the mid-1ith C.; in these documents they are 
sometimes called paRorkor and are often associ- 
ated with exkoussatoi tou dromou (see EXKOUSSATOI) 
and sTRATIOTAI, two fiscal categories of peasants 
with specific obligations toward the state. The 
traditional interpretation has been that demosiarioi 
were peasants settled on imperial domains. Ostro- 
gorsky, however, hypothesized that demosiarioi were 
paroikoi held by the state who owed the state the 
same fiscal and service obligations that private 
parotkoi owed their lords. Basing his reasoning on 
the appearance of the term demosiarios and later 
terms such as demosiakos paroikos (which he con- 
siders to be equivalent), Ostrogorsky concludes 
that demosiariot were in effect state paroikot and 
that an independent free peasantry disappeared 
during the 1oth C. and was replaced by an agrar- 
ian system in which there were only state parotkot 
and private parotkoi. On the other hand, Lemerle, 
along with other scholars who reject Ostrogorsky’s 
hypothesis, maintains the traditional view and 
suggests that demosiarioi (and the dedemosieumenoi 
paroikoi found in a few 11th-C. documents) were 
a special category of peasants who lived on state 
domains and, while these might well be called 
state parotkor in that they held land on condition 
of fiscal and service obligations toward the state, 
they were perhaps not numerous and did not, 
during the 1oth and early 11th C., signal the 
disappearance of a free peasantry. It is plausible 
that the VILLEINS of the Commune, on the Vene- 
tian territory of Romania, distinct from the villani 
or paricht of individuals (Jacoby, Recherches, pt.I 
[1976], 35f, pt.III [1975], 149), originated from 
Byz. demosiariot of the period before 1204. 

LIT. Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 182-87. Ostrogorsky, Paysan- 


nerie 11—24, rev. J. Karayannopulos, BZ 50 (1957) 168—72. 
Litavrin, VizObscestvo 27-39. D. Jacoby, HC 6:208. -M.B. 


DEMOSIOS (dynu0c10s), term designating the state 
treasury, fisc, a meaning also found in antiquity. 
In Byz. the fisc was called demosios primarily as a 
recipient of fines—in these cases the term is used 
side by side with vESTIARION (Dölger, Beiträge 29)— 
or as a recipient of confiscated property or escheat 
{e.g., Ecloga 2.7). The use of the term demosios as 


recipient of fines is testified to by later acts, for 
example, a purchase deed of 1373 (Docheiay. 
no.42.81). Another use of the word is the defini. 
tion of the fisc as owner: thus the Ecloga (13.1) 
mentions the lease of land from the demosios oy 
other institutions. In the same way, a prostagma of 
Manuel II from 1409 contrasts the property of 
the demosios and that of monasteries. Accordingly, 
ta demosia denotes state properties; a chrysobull 
of 1311 speaks of officials administering ta demosig 
(Pantel., no.10.65—66). More rarely the term was 
employed in connection with tax collecting; thus 
in 1344 the protovestiarites John Doukas expressed 
his concern that the demosios should not suffer in 
the case of penury (Docheiar., no.23.6~7), The 
term demosios kanon or to demosion was, however, 
broadly employed for tax. It remains disputable 
whether the distinction between demostos and the 
private imperial (bastlikos) treasury, drawn in cer- 
tain texts (e.g., Ecloga, 16.4) reflects reality. 


LIT. Litavrin, VizObscestvo 24-28. —A.K. 


DEMOSTHENES, Athenian orator; born 382 B.C., 
died 322. He remained “the Orator” for the Byz., 
who referred to him frequently and used quota- 
tions from his speeches through the 15th C. Li- 
banios and Zosimos drafted short biographies of 
Demosthenes based on ancient sources; numerous 
papyri from Byz. Egypt contain texts of Demos- 
thenes. A statue of the orator in the Baths of 
Zeuxippos in Constantinople was described in verse 
by Curistoporos oF Kortos. Demosthenes was 
among those classical authors in whom interest 
was revived in the gth C. Photios (Bibl., cod.265) 
gives a detailed biography of Demosthenes (based 
on pseudo-Plutarch), and the earliest surviving 
MS, Paris, B.N. gr. 2934, is dated by Dilts (infra, 
vol. 1 [1983] 7) to the gth C. Interest in the orator 
continued in the 10th C., to which four more MSS 
are dated. In the Souda a biographical note was 
compiled. The MSS were supplied with scholia in 
which on rare occasions “contemporary” notes 
were inserted, for example, “Byzantion is now 
Constantinople” (in Or. 5.25.40) or “Perinthos, a 
Thracian polis, now named Herakleia” (in Or. 
11.3.10). 

For NicHOLas oF Myra Demosthenes was the 
embodiment of virtue compared to the wretched 
orator Aeschines (RhetGr, ed. Walz, 1:358-8-9) 
and superior even to Pericles (1:381.1—3). TZETZES 


(Historiae 6.67—188), on the contrary, relying upon 
a tradition hostile to Demosthenes (based on Aes- 
chines, among others), presents the orator as a 
Scythian by birth, effeminately dressed, perverse, 
and easily bribed. Metochites developed the same 
approach in his comparison of Demosthenes and 
ARISTEIDES (ed. M. Gigante, ParPass 20 [1965] 
51-92). Even though as a rhetorician Demos- 
thenes was superior to Aristeides, he paid the 
price of living in a democracy, being ensnared by 
his passions, and adapting his views to the political 
situation. Aristeides, on the other hand, who lived 
in the security of the Roman Empire, was con- 
cerned only about the serenity of his style. 

ED. Scholia demosthenica, ed. M. Dilts, 2 vols. (Leipzig 
1983-86). 

uit. E. Drerup, Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums 
(Würzburg 1923) 166-241. Wilson, Scholars 260f. E. de 
Vries-van der Velden, Théodore Métochite (Amsterdam 1987) 
194-97, 205f. M. Dilts, “Palaeologian Scholia on the Ora- 
tions of Demosthenes,” ClMed 36 (1985) 257-59. —A.K. 


DEMOTIC. See Coptic LANGUAGE AND LITERA- 
TURE; EGYPT. 


DE OBSIDIONE TOLERANDA (How to With- 
stand Sieges), conventional title of an anonymous 
treatise on siege warfare. References to the cap- 
ture of Thessalonike (904) and the fall of Kitros 
(924) provide a terminus post quem for the work; 
mention of the “ferocious Bulgars” reflects its 
focus on the empire’s western regions. The author 
reviews the initial steps to be taken once enemy 
intentions were known, including gathering and 
rationing foodstuffs; collecting raw materials (e.g., 
wood, linen, flax, cotton, hemp) for weapons and 
other equipment, while destroying any source of 
enemy provisionment; and evacuating the elderly 
or unfit. He then lists the town’s craftsmen (car- 
penters; tailors; smiths; makers of rope, weapons, 
and saddles) who were to be put to work on 
necessary items and tasks. Further defensive mea- 
Sures included digging a moat around the wall 
and setting traps to impede enemy assault, while 
the walls were heightened, repaired, or doubled 
where necessary. Citizens and soldiers were prop- 
erly mobilized and a system of patrols was orga- 
nized; criminals, a potential source of treachery, 
were to be rounded up. Forays to ambush the 
enemy en route or to ravage their land were 
advised. Though fully attentive to contemporary 


DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS 611 


conditions, the author frequently supports his rec- 
ommendations with examples drawn from the 
past, revealing a wide knowledge of earlier Byz. 
and classical historians and tacticians. 


ED. Anonymus de obsidione toleranda, ed. H. van den Berg 
(Leiden 1947). 

LIT. J. Teall, “Byzantine Urbanism in the Military Hand- 
books,” in The Medieval City, ed. H.A. Miskimin, D. Herlihy, 
A.L. Udovitch (New Haven—London 1977) 201-05. 

-E.M. 


DE PECULIIS, a special tract on family property 
law, esp. on the separate property of children 
(PECULIUM) and their assets that could not be 
acquired (aprosporista) by the person who had au- 
thority over them. Demetrios CHOMATENOS at- 
tributed the work to Eustathios RHomatios. The 
purpose of the study was the instruction of fellow 
judges on this difficult material, after uncertain- 
ties had arisen in judging. 

ED. Zepos, Jus 3:345—57; with corr. by N. Matzes, EEBS 
33 (1964) 160-62. 

LIT. A. Berger, “On the so-called tractatus de peculiis,” 
Scritti in onore di C. Ferrini, vol. 3 (Milan 1948) 174-210. 
W. Wolska-Conus, “L'école de droit et l'enseignement du 
droit à Byzance au XI* siècle: Xiphilin et Psellos,” TM 7 


(1979) 31—36. -D.S. 


DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS (Aroka- 
awos). The removal of Christ’s body from the 
Cross, though not described in the Gospels, had 
been elaborated in hymns and homilies by the 
time the earliest surviving Byz. images appear in 
the Paris GREGORY (fol.gov) and in Tokalı Kilise, 
GÖREME, in the 10th C. (Maguire, infra, pl.76; 
A.W. Epstein, Tokalı Kilise: Tenth-Century Metro- 
politan Art in Cappadocia (Washington, D.C., 1986] 
pls. 38, 85). These images differ markedly. The 
Paris Gregory version is emotionally reserved, with 
Mary standing to one side while Joseph of Ari- 
mathea supports Christ’s hody and Nicodemus 
removes a nail from his hand. The two Göreme 
versions are more emotional, as Mary embraces 
Christ’s body, laying her head against his. The 
reserved variant—with John added and Mary 
holding Christ’s hand—persisted through the 12th 
C. The more expressive variant continued as well, 
with the figures gaining in dynamism and emo- 
tional urgency in accord with the mounting inten- 
sity of the Holy Week liturgies (NEREz1). A fresco 
at MILEŠEVA anticipates the yet more expressive 
Palaiologan versions by adding the lamenting Holy 


612 DERE AGZI 


Women and depicting Mary MAGDALENE holding 
Christ’s hand while Mary embraces his torso, her 
cheek on his. 


LIT. Maguire, “Depiction of Sorrow” 163-64. Millet, 
Recherches 467-88. -A.W.C. 


DERE AGZI, site in the Kasaba Valley of central 
Lycia, noted for its elaborate cross-domed church, 
which has a domed nave, side aisles ending in 
pastophoria, a narthex flanked by towers, an ex- 
onarthex, and two attached octagons; galleries 
rise above the aisles and narthex. The masonry 
consists of rubble faced with cut stones, with bands 
of brick; much of the material was imported from 
the region of Constantinople. Traces of frescoes 
and mosaics suggest a date in the late oth or early 
10th C.; this dating is questioned, however, by U. 
Peschlow (BZ 79 [1986] 84). The architecture 
finds parallels in the monasteries of Lips and the 
MyRELaIon in Constantinople. The Byz. name of 
the church is unknown. Surrounding buildings 
suggest it was a monastery; its size, wealth, and 
style indicate a wealthy patron in the capital. The 
site also housed a small settlement, protected by 
a large fortress with towers of varying shape; it 
contains cisterns and ruined buildings and may 
date from the oth C. 


LIT. J. Morganstern, The Byzantine Church of Dereagzi and 
its Decoration (Tübingen 1983). —C.F. 


DE REBUS BELLICIS (4th C.), a treatise by an 
anonymous Latin writer on economic reform and 
military innovation. On internal evidence he is 
usually confined to the period 337—78, probably 
the reign of Valentinian and Valens (366-75), 
albeit different theories dispute exactly when, and 
whether the author lived in the West or East. His 
short book proposed to the incumbent emperors 
various economic and military reforms guaran- 
teed to improve the efficiency of the Roman army. 
The former strike a modern note (reduction of 
public expenditure) with bizarre touches (confine- 
ment of mint workers to an island to contain their 
corruption); the latter make his work a fascinating 
piece of writing on ancient TECHNOLOGY. His brain 
children include new weapons (paddle-steamers 
and catapults abandoning the classical principle 
of torsion), revived versions of old ones (scythed 
chariots and portable bridges on bladders), and 
more comfortable clothing for soldiers. There is 


no evidence that his ideas were ever adopted, his 
book being perhaps intercepted and “lost” in the 
files by some imperial civil servant. 

His text, written in very difficult Latin, was 
accompanied by miniature illustrations, as were 
many SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS. Like the Notit1a 
DIGNITATUM with which the text was transmitted, 
these pictures are known only through copies of 
a Carolingian intermediary. Nonetheless they rep- 
resent an essential and therefore original part of 
the author’s message. Because they are realistic, 
these illustrations constitute useful data about 
weaponry and other instruments. 


ED. Anonymi auctoris De rebus bellicis, ed. R. Ireland (Leipzig 
1984). A Roman Reformer and Inventor, ed. and tr. E.A, 
Thompson (Oxford 1952). 

LIT. Aspects of the De Rebus Bellicis, ed. M.W.C. Hassall 
(Oxford 1979). B. Baldwin, “The De rebus bellicis,” Eirene 
16 (1978) 23-39. —B.B., A.C. 


DE RE MILITARI (On Warfare), conventional 
title of an anonymous, untitled military treatise 
dealing with campaign tactics mainly but not ex- 
clusively beyond the northwestern frontiers of the 
empire. The author, a plain stylist and an expe- 
rienced soldier, envisions an army of about 25,000 
men under the emperor’s personal command and 
sets forth the proper procedures for preparing 
the expeditionary CAMP (1—6), marching through 
difficult terrain in enemy territory (9—20), and 
attacking or defending camps and fortifications 
(21—27); he concludes with brief notes on assem- 
bling and training the army, transport units, and 
daily assignments (28—32). 

The date of the treatise is uncertain. A refer- 
ence to the tagma of the ATHANATOI (created 970) 
provides a terminus post quem for its composition, 
and the emphasis on Bulgaria links it to Basil II’s 
many wars against SAMUEL OF BULGARIA between 
986 and 1014. The De re militari is appended to 
the TaKTIKa OF Leo VI in the earliest MSS and 
was apparently written to complement the DE 
VELITATIONE (ca.g75); although similar in style 
and reliance on firsthand experience, the two 
texts reveal interesting contrasts in military ter- 
minology and conditions between the empire’s 
eastern and western frontiers. 

ED. Incerti scriptoris byzantini saeculi X. liber de re militan, 
ed. R. Vari (Leipzig 1901). Dennis, Military Treatises 241- 
335, with Eng. tr. 


LIT. Dagron-Mihdescu, Guérilla 155-60, 171-75, 248- 
54, 272-74. —E.M. 


DERMOKAITES (Acppoxairns, fem. Aeppoxat- 
toa; etym. “hide-burner”), a noble family known 
from the mid-1oth C. An early Dermokaites was 
a soldier who became a monk and addressee of 
SYMEON LOGOTHETE; another (or the same) Der- 
mokaites was the monk on Mt. Olympos to whom 
Romanos I Lekapenos sent the written confession 
of his sins in 946. John and Michael Dermokaites 
were troop commanders ca.1036—40. The family 
rose to prominence after 1204, when the sebastos 
Michael Dermokaites held the episkepsis of Samp- 
son (see PRIENE) ca.1216. In 1306/7 the sebastos 
Dermokaites was recommended by Patr. ATHA- 
nasios I to take charge of the grain supply of 
Constantinople. In the 14th-15th C. some mem- 
bers of the Dermokaites family were civil servants 
and courtiers, such as Theophylaktos, judge in 
the 1360s; George Dermokaites Palaiologos, gov- 
ernor of Imbros in the mid-i5th C.; and Der- 
mokaites, chamberlain of John VIII. They were 
apparently related to the RuBenips and later the 
PALAIOLOGOS, Asan, and Chrysoloras families. 
Their role in cultural life was insignificant, even 
though a Dermokaites was an addressee of Mi- 
chael Gasras, and Dermokaitissa Asanina Palaio- 
logina, who was buried in a chapel of the CHora 
MONASTERY (after 1330?), may have been among 
the patrons of the church. 

LIT. D.M. Nicol, “The Byzantine Family of Dermokaites 
circa 940—1453,” BS 35 (1974) 1-11, with add. A.P. Kazh- 


dan, BS 36 (1975) 192. Laurent, Corpus 2, no.874. PLP, 
nos. 197—216. -A.K. 


DESERT. The term first appears in Greek liter- 
ature as an adjectival form (ép7juos, Attic Epnyos) 
meaning “desolate” or “void.” By the early Chris- 
tian period, this merged with a Semitic notion of 
the desert as the dwelling place of demons. Thus 
Jesus’ temptation by Satan takes place in the de- 
sert (eremos as a substantive, Lk 4:1). With the 
rapid development of asceticism in the 3rd—4th 
C., many Christians consciously imitated John the 
Baptist and Jesus by settling in desert regions of 
Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The “desert” came to 
mean any wild, uninhabited region, including for- 
ested mountains, because these offered both with- 
drawal (anachoresis) from civilization and the chal- 
lenge of combat with demons or wild animals. 


DESERT FATHERS 613 


As the numbers of monks increased, some of 
their desert settlements grew to the point where, 
paradoxically, “the desert was made a city” 
(Athanasios, Life of Antony, ch.14, PG 26:865B), 
and the real desert often became an ideological 
phenomenon. Through the Byz. period, the de- 
sert symbolized Christian life in its most challeng- 
ing form (as in PHILOXENOS OF MaBBuG, Letter 6; 
Jonn Kurmax, Ladder of Paradise 15.62). 

In PsaLTER illustration and the later Octa- 
TEUCHS, Eremos is personified as a male figure in 
classical garb sitting in the wilderness that the 
Israelites traversed before the Crossing of the Red 
Sea. Desert also appears as a counterpart to Earth 
in late Byz. representations of the Christmas stiche- 
ron. Here it always appears as a woman, depicted 
as seated, standing, or, as in the frescoes of the 
Hory Aposties at Thessalonike, kneeling and 
offering a manger to the Christ child. 


ut. A. Guillaumont, “La conception du désert chez les 
moines d'Égypte,” RHR 188 (1975) 3-21. ~J.A.T., A.C. 


DESERT FATHERS, usual designation for the 
early ascetics of Egypt to whom are attributed the 
sayings that became, in written form, the 
APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM. Beginning in the grd 
C. they withdrew to the edge of the settled land 
of Egypt (see DEsERT), singly or in groups, as a 
visible alternative to village and family life and 
more directly to confront powerful spiritual forces. 
Individuals among them acquired fame for their 
exploits of sanctity: Sts. ANTONY and Makarios 
THE GREAT; Moses the Black, reformed highway- 
man; Theodore, who sold his books to give the 
money to the poor; Ammonas, who vanquished a 
basilisk; Daniel, who defied a barbarian raid; Be- 
sarion, who never sat down; Poemen, who loved 
the hidden life; Hor the silent; and Pambo the 
humble. There were women too: Saia who ecu- 
braced continence, Synkletike who taught peace. 
Their life and spirituality were the goal of many 
pilgrimages in late antiquity. Individual figures 
such as ARSENIOS THE GREAT, Antony, and MARY 
oF EGYPT appear in church programs of decora- 
tion from the 11th C. onward as paradigms of 
monasticism. 

SOURCE. Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, ed. A.-J. Festu- 
giére (Brussels 1961). 


uit. N. Russell, B. Ward, The Lives of the Desert Fathers 
(London-Kalamazoo 1981). S.N.C. Lieu, “The Holy Men 


614 DESPOTES 


and their Biographers in Early Byzantium and China,” in 
Maistor 113~—48. —-L.S.B.MacC., A.C. 


DESPOTES (eorórns, lit. “lord, master”), off- 
cial epithet applied to God, the patriarch, and 
bishops, but mainly to the emperor. The title of 
despotes, which was created in the 12th C., occu- 
pied the highest rung on the hierarchical ladder, 
second only to the emperor and co-emperor. The 
origins of the title are disputed. According to G. 
Ostrogorsky (Byz. Geschichte 153~65), Manuel I 
created it in 1163, under Hungarian influence, 
for his heir presumptive Alexios (the future BELA 
I) who appeared as despotes in a document of 
1167 (P. Wirth, Byzantina 5 [1973] 424). Already 
before 1163, however, despotes was an epithet for 
the highest nobility, applied on seals to SEBASTO- 
KRATORS and CAESARS (L. Stiernon, REB 21 [1963] 
292; A. Kazhdan, ZRVI 14-15 [1973] 41—44) or 
even used as a separate title (e.g., Stephen Kon- 
tostephanos: Zacos, Seals 1, no.2723). From the 
13th C. emperors bestowed the title on several 
individuals (primarily their sons) simultaneously, 
and it did not signify the right to succession. 
Under the Palaiologoi, despotai were active both 
in Constantinople and at the head of the largest 
appanages—Thessalonike, Epiros, and Morea. 
Only Morea, however—and even it not without 
doubts (P. Wirth, BZ 56 [1963] 353)—can prop- 
erly be called a despotate; for Epiros the term was 
employed only in sources from the late 14th C. 
onward, predominantly of Western origin (L. 
Stiernon, REB 17 [1959] 124-26). The term pen- 
etrated into Bulgaria (13th C.) and Serbia—the 
first known Serbian despotes was Jovan OLIVER in 
the 14th C. The rulers of Kerkyra in the 15th C. 
were also named despotai. 

LIT. B. Ferjančić, Despott u Vizantiji i južnoslovenskim 
zemljama (Belgrade 1960). Idem, “Još jednom o počecima 
titule despota,” ZRVI 14-15 (1973) 45-53. Guilland, Insti- 


tutions 2:1-24. A. Failler, “Les insignes et la signature du 
despote,” REB 40 (1982) 171-86. -A.K. 


DETERMINISM, or a belief in the strict causality 
of events, was a concept developed by Greek phi- 
losophers, esp. Demokritos; the Byz. retained the 
theory that ananke, heimarmene, automaton, or TYCHE 
was an impersonal force determining the behavior 
and fate of humans regardless of their FREE WILL. 
The Eastern church fathers rejected determinism. 
Thus Eusepios oF CAESAREA (Praep.evang. 6.11) 
refuted the idea that the stars determined human 


actions. He argued that God, as creator, stands 
above the stars, while reward or punishment is 
meaningless without the freedom of human will. 
Eusebios’s concept can be found in such church 
fathers as Gregory of Nyssa (PG 45:168B), and 
was reaffirmed later on by ManueL II (PG 
156:419—42). Nikephoros GreGcoras delineated 
two contrasting views: either that divine Prono, 
ruled over mankind or that necessity (ananke) 
governed men’s fate, a view ascribed by him to 
JOHN (VI) KantTakouzenos (A. Kazhdan, Byzan- 
lion 50 [1980] 320-22). Determinism was a pre- 
supposition of ASTROLOGY. 

The treatise entitled On the Predestined Terms of 
Life, which is attributed in the MS tradition either 
to Germanos I or to Photios (as a part of his 
Amphilochia), presents another aspect of antideter- 
minist polemics (ed. C. Garton, L. Westerink [Buf- 
falo 1979]). The problem discussed in the treatise 
is whether God predestines and foresees all the 
events of human life and death (in which case 
murderers only fulfill divine orders) or whether 
our evil actions could persuade God to change his 
previous decision—in other words, whether God 
acts as an impersonal force or is a personal deity 
changing his decisions in accordance with our 
behavior and prayer. This treatise, based upon 
Basil the Great, accepts the second solution. 

The problem was debated anew in the mid-12th 
C., when NicHOLAS oF METHONE launched an 
attack against a treatise that was falsely attributed 
to an unnamed church father and that defended 
the doctrine of aoristia, the lack of any predestined 
terms of life. The discussion was again revived in 
the 14th—15th C., esp. by PLETHON (I. Medvedev, 
Vizantisky gumanizm [Leningrad 1976] 104-23). 

LIT. L.G. Benakis, “Die Stellung des Menschen im Kos- 
mos in der byzantinischen Philosophie,” in L’homme et son 
univers au Moyen Age (Louvain—La Neuve 1986) 64-75. D. 
Amand, Fatalisme et liberté dans l'antiquité grecque (Louvain 
1945; rp- Amsterdam 1973). M. Kertsch, “Zur unterschied- 
lichen ethischen Bewertung von ‘Natur/äusserer Zwang 
und ‘freier Willensentschluss’ bei Heiden und Christen im 
Hintergrund einer Aussage Gregors von Nazianz,” WS 18 
(1984) 187-93. N.G. Politis, Pegai kat periechomenon ton pert 
heimarmenes kephalaion tou Nemesiou Emeses (Athens 1979). 
A. Anwander, “ ‘Schicksal’—Wörter in Antike und Chris- 
tentum,” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 2 (1949-7 
50) 48-54. -G.P. 


DE THEMATIBUS (Ilept rôv Peuarwy), conven- 
tional title of the book written by CONSTANTINE 
VII or under his auspices on the geography of 
the empire. The book consists of two parts dealing 


respectively with the East and the West. Each part 
is divided into sections dedicated to individual 
THEMES (Anatolikon, Armeniakon, etc.), treating 
the origin of the name, boundaries, and history 
of the area. Much of the information, however, 
js taken from STEPHEN OF BYZANTIUM and HIERO- 
KLES and describes the situation of the 6th C.; 
later changes and events are mentioned only in- 
frequently. Thus the work falls within the frame- 
work of encyclopedic endeavors of Constantine 
VII such as the Excerpta. The date of produc- 
tion is hotly debated. The book used to be con- 
sidered a “juvenile work” of Constantine and dated 
to the period 934—44; recently scholars have be- 
gun to attribute it to a later year, after g52 (T. 
Lounghis, REB 31 [1973] 299-305) or at least 
after 944 (H. Ahrweiler, TM 8 [1981] 1—5). 

ED. De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Vatican 1952). 

LIT. Lemerle, Humanism 321-23. N. Oikonomides, 
“Constantin VII Porphyrogénéte et les themes de Cépha- 
lonie et de Longobardie,” REB 23 (1965) 118-29. G. Ostro- 
gorsky, “Sur la date de la composition du Livre des Thémes 


et sur l'époque de la constitution des premiers thèmes 
d'Asie Mineure,” Byzantion 23 (1953) 31—66. —A.K. 


DEUTEROS (Sevrepos, lit. “second”), eunuch in 
charge of imperial insignia: thrones, curtains, ves- 
sels, and apparel. His staff included hoi epi ton 
allaximon (see ALLAXIMOI), VESTITORS, and hoi epi 
ton axiomaton (keepers of insignia and ceremonial 
garments for dignitaries). Diaztarioi with their pri- 
mikerios were subordinates of both the deuteros and 
the parras. According to Beljaev, there were two 
distinct groups of diaitarioi, but Bury (Adm. System 
128) suggests that the same diaitarioi were under 
the command of both eunuchs. The deuteros was 
considered the assistant of the papias; at least he 
substituted for the papias when the latter was ill. 


LIT. D. Beljaev, Byzantina, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg 1891) 
165-81. —-A.K. 


DEVASTATIO CONSTANTINOPOLITANA, a 
brief but detailed account of the Fourth Crusade 
between 1202 and 16 May 1204 inserted into the 
MS of the Annales Herbipolenses. The Latin eye- 
witness’s identity is controversial, but he may have 
belonged to the entourage of BONIFACE OF MONT- 
FERRAT or, less probably, that of BALDWIN OF 
FLanpeRS. M. Kandel’s arguments (Byzantion 4 
[1929] 179-88) for the Devastatio Constantinopoli- 
tana’s dependency on the letters of Baldwin I to 
Pope Innocent III are not conclusive. 


DEVELTOS 615 


ED. C. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes (Berlin 1873) 86— 


92. 
LIT. RepFontHist 4:183. Wattenbach-Schmale, Deutsch. 
Gesch. Heinr. V 1:149. Karayannopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde 
2:469. —M.McC, 


DE VELITATIONE (Ilepi tapaépop7js, Treatise 
on Skirmishing), work attributed in the earliest 
MSS (ca.1020) to the “late” emperor Nikephoros 
II Phokas. In the preface, the anonymous author 
explains that he composed the text from notes 
given him by the emperor. Written ca.g75 when 
the Arab threat had already waned, De velitatione 
recalls (for future generations, should this threat 
reappear) the local, defensive warfare perfected 
by the Poxas family (among others) along the 
eastern frontiers during the first half of the 10th 
C. The treatise encapsulates the essential princi- 
ples of guerrilla tactics—close reconnaissance, sur- 
prise, use of nightfall and terrain, avoidance of 
pitched battles—all in order to give the Byz. the 
advantage of choosing the best time and place for 
their attack. The author analyzes four types of 
Arab expedition, from small, rapid bands of raid- 
ers to large armies of infantry and cavalry, and 
reviews the options available to the Byz. com- 
mander; methods of attacking or defending CAMPS 
and fortifications are also covered. The product 
of an experienced soldier, De velitatione reflects 
his originality and vivid manner of presentation; 
at the same time, the militant religious ideology 
behind the Byz.-Arab wars of the later 10th C. is 
visible. The tract contains an impassioned plea for 
the preservation of the salaries and fiscal and legal 
privileges of soldiers risking their lives for their 
Christian brethren (ch.19). 

ED. and LIT. Dennis, Military Treatises 137—239. G. Da- 
gron, H. Mihăescu, Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de 


l'Empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963—69) (Paris 1986). 
~A.K., E.M. 


DEVELTOS (Asßeàrós, AnBedtos) or Deultum, 
city and fortress in Bulgaria about 20 km south- 
west of Burgas, controlling the north-south coastal 
road. An episcopal see from late antiquity, in the 
8th C. Develtos was a major Byz. defensive posi- 
tion against the Bulgarians. Captured by KRuM in 
812, it became a strong point on the Bulgarian 
defensive earth wall constructed by OMURTAG, 
which ran from the Black Sea to the river Marica. 
With the treaty of 846 Byz. regained Develtos, 
but SyMEoNn oF BuLcaria recaptured it in 896. 


616 DEVGENIEVO DEJANIE 


After 927 it became once again a Byz. possession, 
and at the end of the 12th C. part of the Second 
Bulgarian Empire; it remained in Bulgarian hands 
until falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1396. Due 
to its location, Develtos was a center of trade and 
accordingly a seat of kommerkiarioi from the mid- 


gth C. onward (Zacos, Seals 1, no.285; 2, no.159bis). 


LIT. E. Oberhummer, RE 5 (1905) 260. —R.B. 


DEVGENIEVO DEJANIE (Deeds of Devgenij), 
Slavonic prose version of DiGENES Axkritas. The 
Devgenievo Dejanie survives only in three defective 
MSS of the late 17th and 18th C. and in fragments 
copied from a lost 16th-C. MS. Together they 
comprise five episodes: the adventures and mar- 
riage of the “tsar Amir” and his Greek bride, and 
the birth of Devgenij; Devgenij’s youth; Devgenij’s 
defeat of Filipap and the warrior-girl Maksimiana 
(Philopappos and the Amazon Maximo of the 
Greek original; A. Schmaus, BZ 44 [1951] 495- 
508); Devgenij’s courtship and marriage to Stra- 
tigovna (i.e., the daughter of a strategos); and Dev- 
genij’s victory over the tsar Vasilij. The last epi- 
sode has been interpreted as indicating a pro- 
feudal tendency in the Greek epic; E. Trapp in- 
sists, however, that such names occur only in the 
Slavonic version and not in the Greek original 
(Byzantina 3 [1971] 201-11). It has been claimed 
that the Slavonic translation reflects the “original” 
of the “literary” version of Digenes, in some re- 
spects comparable to the Grottaferrata MS, but 
also that the Slavonic is merely a contaminated 
adaptation of a late offshoot of the Greek tradi- 
tion. The translation is often assigned to pre- 
Mongol Kiev, though many scholars favor a 14th- 
C. southern Slav provenance. 

ED. Deugenievo dejanie, ed. V.D. Kuz’'mina (Moscow 1962). 
Ed. O.V. Tvorogov in Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi. XIII 
vek (Moscow 1981) 28—64. 

tir. H. Grégoire, “Le Digénis russe,” Memoirs of the 
American Folklore Society 42 (1947—49) 131—6g. A. Vaillant, 


“Le Digénis slave,” PKJIF 21 (1955) 197-228. H. Graham, 
“The Tale of Devgenij,” BS 29 (1968) 51—91. -S.C.F. 


DEVIL (&aBodos), Satan, the prince of DEMONS; 
the name was interpreted by the majority of church 
fathers as “calumniator.” He was considered in- 
corporeal by Gregory of Nyssa (PG 46:456A) and 
other church fathers (e.g., Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 
PG 83:473D). By the 11th C. the theory arose 
that the Devil and demons had opaque bodies; 


Niketas SreTHatos refuted this opinion, but Pse}. 
los developed it (A. Ducellier in Le Diable ay Moyen 
age [Paris 1979] 202f). In Manichaean and later 
Bogomil doctrine the Devil appears as an eternal 
principle and the cause of evil; the Christian per. 
ception of the Devil was developed as a refutation 
of this dualist view. The Devil is a creature, one 
of the ANGELS, who, possessing free will, changed 
his nature and out of pride and wickedness re- 
volted against God. As the enemy of God the 
Devil is hostile to mankind, always trying to entrap 
men, esp. those of saintly character; however, he 
involuntarily benefits humanity since man can 
prove his virtue in this contest. 

In everyday practice the Devil’s foreknowledge 
(albeit limited) and power sometimes leads to con- 
fusion of good and evil forces, but a man possesses 
the means (esp. the cross) to dispel him. The 
Devil was defeated by Christ but allowed to con- 
tinue his activity against mankind; ignorant of his 
destiny the Devil blasphemes against God but at 
Christ’s Second Coming (Parousia), he will be 
thrown into fire with his host. Magicians were said: 
to use the Devil’s help in achieving their goals, 
The Byz. presented the Devil as a snake or dog, 
as Ethiopian or black, and as baskanos (calumnia- 
tor), having the evil eye (G. Bartelink, OrChrP 49 
[1983] 390-406). His epithet was kosmokrator, 
“world-ruler.” ANTICHRIST was his “general” in- 
the war against the Good. pe 

In art, in such scenes as the temptation of Christ, 
the Devil is represented in a manner indistin- 
guishable from that of a regular demon. 

LIT. J.B. Russell, Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages 
(Ithaca 1984) 28—51. F.J. Dölger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit 
und der Schwarze (Münster 1918). A. Theodorou, “He peri 
ton dikaiomaton tou Satana: Theoria en te soteriologia tes 
archaias Anatolikes Ekklesias,” Theologia 28 (1957) 103-14, 
225-37, 412—19. G. Lafontaine, “Une homélie copte sur 
le diable et sur Michel, attribuée à Grégoire le Théologien,” 
Muséon 92 (1979) 37—60. -G.P. 


DEVOL (Aeáßoħıs [Deabolis], Aráßons [Dia- 
bolis]), a fortress and bishopric on the Via EG- 
Natta south of Ohrid (precise location unknown), 
first mentioned in connection with Basil II’s con- 
quest of Bulgaria: in 1018 he subdued a revolt in 
“so-called Diabolis” (Skyl. 360.43, 60). As a kastron 
under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Kastora, 
Diabolis appears in Basil’s grant of a privilege to 
the Bulgarian church in 1019; only in a later list 


(Notitiae CP 13:835) is Diabolis named as the sec- 
ond bishopric of Justiniana Prima, or Bulgaria. 
Theophylaktos of Ohrid (died early 12th C.), 
however, speaks of the city as the see of KLIMENT 
or OHRID (ca.goo) and the center of his school, 
put no independent sources confirm this late evi- 
dence. In 1072 the rebellious Bulgarians captured 
Diabolis before attacking Kastoria. 

Devol played an important role during the Nor- 
man war against Alexios I, and in 1108 the em- 

ror forced BOHEMUND to sign there a treaty 
with the empire, in which Bohemond conceded 
vassal dependence on Byz. Devol remained an 
important stronghold in the 13th and 14th C. 

ur. P. Koledarov, “O mestonachozdenti sredneveko- 
vogo goroda Devol i predelach odnoimennoj oblasti,” Pa- 
lacobulgarica 6.1 (1982) 87—101; 6.2 (1982) 75-90. T. To- 
movski, “Po tragata na srednevekovniot grad Devol,” Godisen 
zbornik: Filozofski fakultet na Univerzitet, Skopje 27 (1975) 
187-200. N. Ljubarsky, M. Freidenberg, “Devol’skij do- 
govor 1108 g. mezdu Alekseem Komninom i Boemun- 
dom,” VizVrem 21 (1962) 260-74- —A.K. 


DEVSIRME. See JANISSARIES. 


DEXTRARUM JUNCTIO. See MARRIAGE RITE. 


DHU-NUWAS (Aiuvos), ruler of HIMYAR (517— 
25). A native of South Arabia, he seized power 
by overthrowing his predecessor (probably Ma‘adi- 
karib); he converted to Judaism, took the name 
of Joseph (Ydsuf), and, seeking alliance with Iran, 
turned against Greek and Ethiopian Christian 
merchants active in Himyar. Malalas (Malal. 
433-13—17) relates that Dimnos, the king of the 
Himyarites, murdered Roman merchants and 
stopped their trade with Ethiopia and India. The 
Axumite expedition (probably led by ELEsBoam 
or his father) to Himyar was an immediate re- 
sponse to the policy of Dhti-Nuwas. At first com- 
pelled to flee, Dhi-Nuwas gathered forces and in 
518 reconquered the cities of Zafar, Muhwan, and 
NajRAN; many Christians were killed. According 
to an inscription, Dhi-Nuwas’s general slaugh- 
tered all of the inhabitants of Muhwan and burned 
its church. Dha-Nuwas tried to gain the support 
of Iran and the Lakhmids but failed, whereas the 
Roman-Ethiopian alliance was strengthened; in 
525, with the help of the fleet sent by Justin I, 
Elesboam again invaded Himyar. In a battle on a 
seashore Dha-Nuwas was killed by an Ethiopian 


DIAKONIKA | 617 


soldier whom Yu. Kobiščanov (VizVrem 25 [1964] 
234f) identifies as ABRAHA. Al-Tabari, however, 
knew a legend that Dhi-Nuwas preferred suicide 
to disgrace and threw himself, with his horse, into 
the sea. After his death South Arabia reverted to 
Axumite rule. 

uit. A. Lundin, Juznaja Aravija v VI veku (Moscow- 
Leningrad 1961) 31-52. Yu. Kobiscanov, Axum (University 
Park, Pa.—London 1979) 90-103. I. Shahid, The Martyrs of 
Najrén (Brussels 1971) 260-68. M. Rodinson, “Sur une 
nouvelle inscription du règne de Dhoû Nowas,” Bibliotheca 
orientalis 26 (1969). -A.K. 


DIABATENOS. See DABATENOS. 
DIADEM. See Crown. 


DIADOCHOS (A:adoxos), bishop of Photike in 
Epiros, prominent opponent of MONOPHYSITISM 
in the 450s; born ca.400, died before 486. Little 
else is known, though a possible connection with 
Victor VITENsIS has been suggested (H.-I. Mar- 
rou, REA 45 [1943] 225-32). Diadochos’s major 
work, One Hundred Chapters on Spiritual Perfection, 
was widely admired by many Byz. Its three major 
concerns are to advocate the virtues of asceticism; 
to stress the three virtues of faith, hope, and esp. 
love as the basis for spiritual contemplation; and 
to combat the MESSALIAN notion (condemned at 
the Council of EpHEsus in 431) of demons in the 
soul by arguing that evil exists only as a conse- 
quence of sin. A homily on the Ascension, a Ca- 
techesis, and the Vision (in which the author con- 
ducts a dialogue with John the Baptist in a dream) 
also survive. 

ED. Oeuvres spirituelles?, ed. E. des Places (Paris 1966), 
with Fr. tr. 

LIT. V. Messana, “Diadoco di Fotica e la cultura cristiana 


in Epiro nel V secolo,” Augustinianum 19 (1979) 151-66. F. 
Dérr, Diadochus von Photike und die Messalianer (Freiburg 


1937). Th. Polyzogopouios, “Life and Writings of Diado- 
chus of Photice” and “The Anthropology of Diadochus of 
Photice,” Theologia 55 (1984) 772—800, 1072-1101, 

-B.B. 


DIAKONIA. See CONFRATERNITY. 


DIAKONIKA (Staxovexa, from ĝtákwv, “dea- 
con”), liturgical exclamations, LITANIES, DIPTYCHS, 
etc., of the pEAcon. The book in which diakonika 


618 DIAKONIKON 


were collected was called a diakonikon or hierodi- 
akonikon, though these texts were ultimately in- 
corporated into the EUCHOLOGION. There are a 
few extant diakonika rolls (e.g., Sinai gr. 1040 of 
the 12th C. [Dmitrievskij, Opisanie 2:127—35)]). 


LIT. Taft, Great Entrance xxxii-xxxili. ~R.F.T. 


DIAKONIKON. See PASTOPHORIA. 


DIALECTS. Ancient Greek was divided into a 
number of dialects, all of which were mutually 
intelligible. As cities lost their autonomy to Hel- 
lenistic monarchies and later to Rome, local dia- 
lects were replaced by Koine for public commu- 
nication, gradually degenerated into peasant patois, 
and ultimately ceased to be spoken. Only the 
language of the Tsakones in the southeastern 
Peloponnesos and the Greek of southern Italy 
show traces of the ancient Greek dialects. These, 
as they appeared in literature, were known to the 
Byz. mainly from the compilatory On Dialects of 
Gregory Parpos. In the Middle Ages a new dif- 
ferentiation of Koine into regional dialects began. 
These developing dialects were used in literature 
only occasionally and in regions outside Byz. con- 
trol and influence, such as 14th-C. Cyprus. Eu- 
STATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE sometimes quotes 
contemporary dialect words or forms in his Ho- 
meric commentaries, and there are other indica- 
tions of interest in dialects, as part of spoken 
Greek, in the 12th C. After the fall of Constanti- 
nople, poets and dramatists in Venetian-ruled Crete 
began to write in the local dialect and to elaborate 
it for literary use. This literature in Cretan dialect 
continued to be written until the mid-17th C. 

Lurr. A. Meillet, O. Masson, Aperçu d'une histoire de la 
langue grecque? (Paris 1975) 77—115. L.R. Palmer, The Greek 
Language (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1980) 57—82. A. Mir- 
ambel, “Les tendances actuelles de la dialectologie néohellé- 
nique,” Orbis 2 (1953) 448-72. B. Newton, The Generative 
Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology 
(Cambridge 1972). Browning, Greek 119-37. N.G. Konto- 
sopoulos, Dialektoi kai idiomata tes Neas Hellenikes (Athens 
1981). -R.B. 


DIALOGUE (étddoyos), a literary form of con- 
versation or dispute. Throughout their history the 
Byz. imitated two main types of antique dialogue: 
the Platonizing/philosophical and the Lucianic/ 
satirical. The philosophical kind was much used 


by Christian writers of the znd—7th C. The finest 
examples of the Christian dialogue were written 
by AUGUSTINE in the West and GREGORY OF Nyssa 
in the East, who retained the scenic background 
of the conversation. The Christian dialogue, how. 
ever, changed the social milieu (in the Banquet of 
MeTHODIOS of Olympos ten virgins are debating 
the virtues of celibacy) and replaced Plato's dia. 
lectical mode of inquiry with overtly didactic and 
militant polemic: dialogue ceased to be a method 
of arriving at the truth and became a vehicle for 
polemics (e.g., Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Try- 
phon) communicating the message of salvation 
(Hoffman, infra 162). Voss (infra 348) asserts that 
another formative influence on the Christian dia- 
logue was that of Jewish disputations over the 
Torah. In the 6th to 8th C. dialogue was used for 
ascetic indoctrination (Pope GREGORY I THE Great, 
who was nicknamed Dialogus; MAX1MOS THE Coy- 
FESSOR) or solving theological problems (Patr. 
GERMANOS I [?], On Predestined Terms of Life). The 
philosophical dialogue is found later in the Pa- 
laiologan period; thus GREGORAS wrote a number 
of Platonizing dialogues, esp. Florentios, or On Wis- 
dom, devoted to polemic against Barlaam. John 
Katrares defended astrology and used Arabic 
sources in his classicizing dialogue Hermppos, or 
On Astrology. 

From the 1oth C. onward, Lucianic satirical 
dialogue became popular. Whether pseudo- 
Lucianic (CHARIDEMOS, PHILOPATRIS, TIMARION), 
anonymous (ANACHARSIS), or pseudonymous 
(Timotheos, or On Demons, ascribed to Psellos), they 
are set in the world of the past or even in Hades 
(again, in the wake of Lucian), and in their au- 
dacity strain the limits of Orthodoxy. Dialogical 
elements also appear as part of independent 
genres; in the sermon, whether prose or poetical; 
in acts of martyrs (in imitation of judicial inter- 
rogation); and hagiography, but rarely in histo- 
riography (the introduction to the History of 
Theophylaktos SimoxaTTEs is couched as a dia- 
logue between History and Philosophy, and Theo- 
phanes the Confessor reproduces a dialogue with 
KaLopopios). Alexios MAKREMBOLITES employed 
the genre for political and moral propaganda. 
The scholarly ERoTAPOKRISIS took the structural 
form of a dialogue. Vernacular poets used the 
dialogue form in THRENO!. 


uit. B.R. Voss, Der Dialog in der frithchristlichen Literatur 
(Munich 1970), rev. W. Speyer, JbAChr 15 (1972) 201-06. 


M. Hoffmann, Der Dialog bei den christlichen Schriftstellern 
der ersten vier Jahrhunderte (Berlin 1966). —-A.K., 1.8. 


DIALYSIS (6caAvors), a legal transaction by which 
parties settled a quarrel existing between them or 
an uncertainty about a legal situation through 
compromise. Consequently, a second settlement 
on the same matter was inadmissible after the 
conclusion of a dialysis, and any matter that had 
been decided conclusively in court could not be- 
come the object of a dialysis (cf. Petra 7.1,3,6,17). 
Moreover, a compromise agreement was inadmis- 
sible if it led to a result that was not recognized 
by the legal system (e.g., a DIvoRCE by mutual 
consent: cf. Peira 7.7,8). Apart from this, however, 
every conceivable matter in dispute (even criminal 
acts) could be the object of an (oral or written) 
settlement. The legal situation achieved by the 
settlement could be changed later only by a chal- 
lenge to the legitimacy of the dialysis (e.g., in cases 
of deception or threat). 

In the documents, along with this rigorous and 
readily used form of settlement (cf., e.g., the for- 
mulas for division of immovable things and ter- 
mination of a suit through dialysis—Sathas, MB 
6:631—34), various mixed forms were developed. 
As early as the 6th C. a connection arose between 
dialysis and the Aquilian STIPULATION, on account 
of their common character of “general settle- 
ment.” This finally led to the designation of every 
“conclusive settlement” through, for example, re- 
ceipts, declarations of guarantee, etc. as a dialysis, 
even in circumstances where there were no legal 
uncertainties (cf., e.g., Xerop. no.4.3, a.1032; Pan- 
tel. no.4.36, a.1048; Lavra 1, no.42.4, a.1081). 

LIT. Kaser, Privatrecht 2:440-48 (8274). A. Steinwenter, 
"Das byzantinische Dialysis-Formular,” in Studi in memoria 
A. Albertoni, vol. 1 (Padua 1935) 71-94. G. Weiss, “Kitanza: 


Zwei spatbyzantinische Dialysisformulare,” FM 1 (1976) 
175-86. -DS. 


DIATAXIS (S:araévs, Lat. ordo), a book of rubrics 
for the bishop or priest presiding at the EucHa- 
RIST, or, less frequently, at VESPERS, ORTHROS, and 
ordinations. Diataxeis developed because early Eu- 
CHOLOGION MSS contained few rubrics to regulate 
the proper celebration of the services. The diataxis 
can be traced back as far as the 10th C. (A. Jacob, 
OrChrP 35 [1969] 249-56), though no MSS earlier 
than the 12th C. have survived. The most impor- 
tant diataxis is that of PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS, whose 


DIDASKALOS 619 


codification of Byz. rubrics acquired general au- 
thority during the time he was patriarch. His 
diataxis rubrics for the PROTHESIS were applied 
ca.1380 to the pontifical Eucharist in the archier- 
atikon (see LITURGICAL Books) of Demetrios Gem- 
istos, notary of Hagia Sophia under Philotheos. 
The PRESANCTIFIED diataxis attributed to Theo- 
dore of Stoudios is not authentic in its present 
redaction. (For diataxis as a form of monastic rule, 
see Typikon; for diataxis as a will, see INVENTORY.) 


LIT. Taft, Great Entrance xxxv—xxxviii. Taft, “Pontifical 
Liturgy.” -R.F.T. 


DIDASKALOS (8:5acxKados), a general term for 
laymen or clerics who were TEACHERS of sacred 
or profane subjects; also, a technical term for 
those attached to the PATRIARCHAL SCHOOL at 
Hacia Sopuia and engaged either in instruction 
in the faith or exegesis of Holy Scripture. Among 
those attached to Hagia Sophia two groups may 
be distinguished: an unspecified number of dida- 
skaloi attested from the 11th C. whose status and 
duties were defined by Alexios I Komnenos in an 
edict of 1107 (ed. P. Gautier, REB 31 [1973] 165— 
201), and the trio of didaskalos tou evangeliou (also 
otkoumenikos didaskalos), didaskalos tou apostolou, and 
didaskalos tou psaltertou known from the 11th and 
12th C. The didaskaloi of Alexios’s edict were 
usually clerics of Hagia Sophia but could be re- 
cruited from laymen and monks who were distin- 
guished by their virtuous character and ability to 
teach. Their function was pastoral, instructing 
people in the faith and policing their behavior in 
the capital. The three didaskaloi of Holy Scripture 
were always peacons and held a rank in the 
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Their duties consisted of 
exegesis and preaching, as their dzdaskaliai indi- 
cate. There is no consensus of opinion as to their 
function. The idea that they were teachers of 
theology has recently been restated (B. Katsaros, 
Ioannes Kastamonites: Symbole ste melete tou biou, tou 
ergou kai tes epoches tou [Thessalonike 1988] 163- 
209). Didaskaloi in both groups usually advanced 
to a higher position in the church, often becoming 
bishops or metropolitans. (See also MAISTOR TON 
RHETORON.) 

LIT. Darrouzés, Offikia 66—86. Browning, Studies, pt.X 
(1962), 167-201; (1963), 11-40. Lemerle, Humanism 84- 
107, 300—05,. Podskalsky, Theologie 54-56. E. Papagiannes, 


Ta oikonomika tou engamou klerou sto Byzantio (Athens 1986) 
78—99, 160-64. —-R.J.M. 


620 DIDYMA 


DIDYMA. See HIERON. 


DIDYMOS THE BLIND, last head of the cate- 
chetical school at Alexandria; born ca.313, died 
ca.398. Didymos (Atévyos) had a reputation for 
erudition, although he was blind by four and 
never attended school. He numbered among his 
pupils JEROME and Rurinus, who attest to his 
scholarship and influence. His condemnation for 
Origenism at the Council of Constantinople in 
553 may account for the loss of much of his vast 
corpus. Excerpts from his commentaries on Gen- 
esis, Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, and Job survive (with 
some of Origen) in a 6th- through 7th-C. group 
of papyri found at Tura near Cairo; their exegetic 
method is allegorical. Fully or partly extant are 
On the Trinity, Athanasian in its defense of con- 
substantiality; On the Holy Spirit (in Jerome’s Latin 
translation), also urging consubstantiality; and 
Against the Manichaeans. Didymos may have writ- 
ten the Against Arius and Sabelites ascribed to GRE- 
cory oF Nyssa (K. Holl, ZKirch 25 [1904] 380- 
98). Other dogmatic and polemical works are lost. 
Overall, Didymos defends and develops a diver- 
sity of theological issues, being orthodox on the 
Trinity, Christology, and the Holy Spirit, but fol- 
lowing OrIGEN in anthropology and eschatology 
(primarily in the doctrine of the so-called apoka- 
tastasis, i.e., the ultimate salvation of all rational 
creatures—men, angels, and demons). 

ED. PG 39:131-1818. De Trinitate, ed. J. Hénscheid, I. 
Seiler, 2 vols., with Germ tr. (Meisenheim an Glan 1975). 
Tura papyri—ed. in Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 
vols. 1-4, 6—9, 12f, 16, 22, 24—26, 33:1 (Bonn 1968-85), 
with Germ. tr. To complete list, see CPG 2:2544—72. 

uit. B.D. Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the 
Gospels (Atlanta, Ga., 1987). J. Tigcheler, Didyme l’Aveugle 
et l'exégèse allégorique (Nijmegen 1977). —B.B. 


DIDYMOTEICHON (Acduporecxov, “twin-wall”), 
city of Thrace, located on a hill above the river 
Erythros, a tributary of the Hesros. Giannopou- 
los (infra 2—7) assumes that Justinian I built the 
fortress to replace Plotinopolis, situated in a valley 
somewhere nearby but difficult to defend. By the 
gth C. Plotinopolis was completely replaced by 
Didymoteichon; in fact it had probably already 
disappeared in the 7th C., and the mention of 
Ploutinoupolis by Constantine VII Porphyrogen- 
netos (De them. 1.55, ed. Pertusi 86) is anachronis- 
tic. The kastron of Didymoteichon (BeSevliev, In- 


schriften 180f, no.21) was taken by Krum in 813; 
its first known bishop, Nikephoros, participated 
in the council of 879. The fortress is mentioned 
as the place of exile for Bardas Skleros. 

From the end of the 12th C. Didymoteichon 
appears as one of the most important strongholds 
in the area, and a sought-after prize for Latins, 
Bulgarians, rulers of Epiros, and John III Va- 
tatzes, who occupied it ca.1243. During the Civi. 
War OF 1341—47 Didymoteichon was the head- 
quarters of John VI Kantakouzenos who was 
crowned there in 1341. Matthew I Kantakouzenos 
held Didymoteichon as his appanage. In the 14th 
C. Didymoteichon consisted of the citadel (polich- 
nion in Gregoras) and a lower city that was de- 
stroyed during the civil war and rebuilt in 1342. 
The city was temporarily taken by the Turks in 
1359 and permanently conquered in Nov. 1361. 

The bishop of Didymoteichon became arch- 
bishop in the 12th C. and metropolitan in the 
13th C. From 1204 to 1206 Didymoteichon was 
the residence of the patriarch John X Kamateros 
and a center of resistance to the Latin patriarchate 
of Constantinople. 

Some remains of the medieval city survive, in- 
cluding traces of the double city wall with towers 
and gates, a water reservoir of stone and brick, 
and the Church of St. Catherine of ca.1300. 

LIT. Ph.A. Giannopoulos, Didymoteichon: Geschichte einer 
byzantinischen Festung (Cologne 1975). G.P. Euthymiou, “To 
Didymoteichon kata tous Byzantinous chronous,” Archeion 
tou Thrakikou Laographikou kai Glosstkou Thesaurou 22 (1957) 


349-78. Asdracha, Rhodopes 103-07. R. Janin, DHGE 14 
(1960) 427-29. ~T.E.G. 


DIE, an instrument for striking coins. It normally 
consisted of a lower die of bronze or iron that 
could be fixed in a block of wood and had its 
upper face engraved in intaglio with the design 
of one side of the coin, and an upper die consist- 
ing of a cylinder of metal that could be held in 
the hand and had on its lower face the design for 
the other side. Coins were made by placing blank 
pieces of metal of the correct weight and fineness 
between the two dies and striking the upper one 
with a heavy hammer. No Byz. coin dies have 
been preserved: the pincerlike object in the Fogg 
Art Museum (published as a die by Vermeule) is 
in reality a boulloterton (see SEALING IMPLEMENTS) 
for striking lead seals (V. Grumel, REB 15 [1957] 
211-14). Their form is not in general likely to 


have been different from 7th-C. Sasanian dies, of 
which three are known, or those of contemporary 
western Europe. They were evidently produced 
in limited numbers only, as obverse dies prepared 
for gold coins were sometimes also used for silver 
ones, and reverse dies without the names of spe- 
cific emperors might be carried over from one 
reign to a later one. The concave coins of the 
later Byz. period apparently required the use of 
more elaborate double dies. 

LIT. P. Grierson, “Coins monétaires et officines a 
l'époque du Bas-Empire,” Schweizer Miinzblatter 11 (1961) 
1—8. W. Hahn, “Coin Mules and Die Economy in the 
Byzantine Coinage of the Sixth Century,” NC 81 (1973) 
422. C.C. Vermeule, Some Notes on Ancient Dies and Coining 
Methods (London 1954). S. Bendall, D. Sellwood, “The 


Method of Striking Scyphate Coins Using Two Obverse 
Dies,” NChron’ 18 (1978) 93-104. —Ph.G. 


DIEGESIS TON TETRAPODON ZOON 
(Aunynots Tay tetpaTrodav Cwwv), or Tale of the 
Four-Footed Beasts; an anonymous satirical poem 
in just over 1,000 POLITICAL VERSES, dating from 
the late 14th C. At the instigation of Emp. Lion, 
the four-footed beasts establish a truce between 
the carnivorous and herbivorous animals to meet 
and debate their respective qualities, but the lively 
discussion degenerates into savage fighting, from 
which the herbivorous animals emerge victorious. 
Written at a VERNACULAR level of the language, 
which includes some of the repeated phrases found 
also in the late Byz. verse ROMANCES, the poem 
survives in five MSS, of which at least two were 
intended to be illustrated. It falls within the tra- 
ditions of Greek FABLES and ANIMAL EPICS and the 
western European Roman de Renart and “Debate” 
poems among animals, such as Chaucer’s Parle- 
ment of Fowles. The elements of SATIRE, which 
incidentally give insights into contemporary culi- 
nary practice, arise generally out of the implied 
contrast between animal and human behavior. 
The conflict between the carnivores (the aristoc- 
racy?) and the herbivores (the people?) must re- 
flect the civic turmoil of the late 14th C. Despite 
the date (15 Sept. 1365) embedded in the text, 
the Diegesis cannot now be linked to any particular 
event. Similar Byz. works include the OpsaROLo- 
GOS, POULOLOGOS, and SYNAXARION OF THE HON- 
ORABLE DONKEY. 


ED. Paidiophrastos Diegesis ton zoon ton tetrapodon, ed. V. 
Tsiouni (Munich 1972). 


DIET 621 


LIT. Beck, Volksliteratur 174f. V.S. Sandrovskaja, “Vizan- 
tijskaja basnja ‘Rasskaz o cetveronogich,’ ” VizVrem g (1956) 
211-49; 10 (1956) 181-94. H. Eideneier, “Zum Stil der 
byzantinischen Tierdichtung,” JOB 32.3 (1982) 301-06. 

-E.M.J. 


DIET. The Byz. ate one to three times a day (see 
ARISTON AND DEIPNON). Attitudes toward food 
varied: the ascetic ideal praised temperance in 
diet, and saints are described as surviving on 
water and beans or wild plants and berries. 

There is little information about the food of 
ordinary people. It consisted primarily of BREAD, 
legumes, and vegetables, supplemented by OLIVES, 
FRUIT, fish, and wine. Dairy products, except for 
CHEESE, played a lesser role. The poor subsisted 
mostly on vegetables and vinegar, legumes pre- 
pared with olive oIL, a gruel made of flour or 
barley, or perhaps an onion omelet (sphoungaton). 
The fruit and vegetables were varied: apples, pears, 
grapes, figs, melons, cabbage, leeks, cucumbers, 
carrots, garlic, onions, zucchini, etc. (Laiou, Peas- 
ant Society 28—32). Fish from the sea were pre- 
ferred to those from lakes or rivers. Sugar was 
provided primarily by honey. The traditional view 
is that ordinary people rarely ate MEAT, but there 
is evidence suggesting that from the 7th C. on- 
ward the consumption of meat increased. The 
food of monks is better known, thanks to regu- 
lations in the TyPIKA; meat was excluded from the 
monastic diet. 

The food of the noble and wealthy classes was 
plenteous and even exotic; some products, like 
caviar and sturgeon, were imported from afar. 
Wild game adorned the table. Food was often 
cooked with olive oil; for seasoning, various sauces 
were used as well as vinegar, pickled cabbage, and 
SPICES such as pepper and cinnamon. Desserts 
and honey cakes made of flour mixed with boiled 
must (otnoutta) or made of the finest wheat flour 
in circular shapes (krikelos) completed a rich meal. 

Recipes for dishes survive mainly in treatises 
dealing with the nutritious properties of food and 
the monthly regimen that should be observed for 
good health (e.g., by Symeon SETH), but 12th-C. 
writers such as EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE and 
PTOCHOPRODROMOS take pleasure in describing 
luxurious dishes. A common dish for rich and 
poor alike was monokythron, a mixture of fish, 
cheese, and vegetables cooked in a casserole and 
served as a one-course meal. The author of the 


622 | DIGENES AKRITAS 


third Ptochoprodromic poem (ed. D.-H. Hessel- 
ing, H. Pernot, 55.175~—56.186) mentions this dish, 
including as its ingredients sturgeon, Vlach cheese, 
cabbage, olive oil, pepper, garlic, and sweet wine. 
Another rich meal was prepared with salt pork 
and cabbage, all drenched with fat. Poultry might 
be stuffed with almonds or dough balls and mar- 
inated in red wine. Fish was either fried in olive 
oil, grilled, or made into soup with vegetables 
such as dill, leeks, etc. Drying, salting, smoking, 
and pickling were the main methods for the pres- 
ervation of food. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:9—121. A. Karpozelos, “Realia in 
Byzantine Epistolography, X-XII c.,” BZ 77 (1984) 20-37. 
Koder-Weber, Liutprand 85~99. E. Ashtor, “Essai sur lali- 
mentation des diverses classes sociales dans |’Orient médi- 
éval,” Annales ESC 23 (1968) 1017-53. E. Jeanselme, L. 
Oeconomos, “Aliments et recettes culinaires des Byzan- 
tins,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the History 
of Medicine, London 1922 (Antwerp 1923) 155-68. M. Dem- 
binska, “Diet: A Comparison of Food Consumption be- 
tween some Eastern and Western Monasteries in the 4th— 
rath C.,” Byzantion 55 (1985—86) 431-62. E. Kislinger, 
“How Reliable is Early Byzantine Hagiography as an In- 
dicator of Diet?,” Diptycha 4 (1986-87) 5-11. M. Poljakov- 


skaja, A. Cekalova, Vizantija: byt i nravy (Sverdlovsk 1989) 
76-79. —-Ap.K., A.K. 


DIGENES AKRITAS (Acyevns “Axpitas), epic- 
romance in POLITICAL VERSE compiled, perhaps in 
the 12th C., from earlier material, much of which 
may originally derive from oral sources (see Po- 
ETRY, ORAL). The text falls into two halves. The 
first, epic in tone, concerns Digenes’ father, an 
Arab emir, and his marriage to Digenes’ mother, 
daughter of a Byz. general. The second, which 
has an atmosphere of romance, deals with Di- 
genes (“born of two races”) and describes his 
precocious childhood, his exploits in hunting and 
against brigands on the borders (the akrai, which 
he guards as “Akritas” or “Akrites”), and his 
peaceful life with his bride in their palace on the 
Euphrates till death comes to them. The first part 
reflects personalities and events from the gth- and 
1oth-C. Arab-Byz. wars, as analyzed by H. Gré- 
goire. The second is virtually timeless, whether a 
survival from the distant past or a later attempt 
to recommend harmony between Byz. and the 
Arabs. The general worldview presented by the 
whole text predates the 11th-C. Turkish invasions 
of Asia Minor; many details of geography and 
titulature confirm that dating. The most likely 
date for the composition of the surviving version, 


however, is the 12th C., during the revival of 
interest in the ROMANCE (cf. the extensive quota- 
tions from ACHILLES TaTius in MS G [Grotta- 
ferrata]). The existence of the poem is first attested 
at this time by a reference in a Ptochoprodromic 
poem to Manuel I Komnenos as a “new Akrites,” 

The poem survives in six Greek MSS and a 
Slavic version (DEVGENIEVO DEJANIE). The latter 
is less complex than the Greek, and it is unclear 
whether it derives from an early stage of the 
Greek text or represents a simplification of the 
Greek story. Recent research suggests that four 
of the Greek MSS (Trebizond and others) derive 
from a 16th-C. compilation and so are of no value 
as witnesses to earlier stages. The two older ver- 
sions survive in the Grottaferrata and Escorial (E) 
texts, which plainly derive from one original text. 
They differ greatly, however; the Grottaferrata 
version is well-organized and at the middle level 
of Byz. linguistic purism, while the Escorial text 
is closer to the language of everyday speech but 
full of gaps and metrical irregularities. Although 
critics are evenly divided on their support of the 
Grottaferrata or Escorial text as the more accurate 
reflection of their common archetype, recent dis- 
cussions have stressed the early elements in both. 

Each gives an interesting insight into the life of 
the wealthy magnates of the eastern frontier of 
Byz. in the gth to 11th C. Digenes’ palace on the 
Euphrates consisted of a stone house at least three 
stories high, an elaborate GARDEN, and a courtyard 
containing his private church. The ceilings of the 
palace were decorated in mosaic with Old Testa- 
ment scenes (exploits of Moses, David, Joshua, 
and Samson) and a vast repertory of mythological 
and HISTORY PAINTING including scenes from the 
Iliad, the Odyssey, and the life of ALEXANDER THE 
GREAT. 

Digenes Akritas has left scattered signs of influ- 
ence outside Byz. in Arabic literature and in the 
Slavic version, but its greatest impact has been in 
modern Greek culture. Digenes and Akritas (rarely 
both together) are frequently found in traditional 
folksongs (see AKRITIC Songs), while the hero of 
the epic is often used as a symbol of medieval 
Hellenism in modern Greek literature and also 
represented in objects of art (see AKRITIC IM- 
AGERY). 

ED. Digenes Akrites, ed. E. Trapp (Vienna 1971). Digenes 


Akrites [MS G], ed. J. Mavrogordato (Oxford 1956), with 
Eng. tr. Basileios Digenes Akrites [MS E], ed. S. Alexiou 


(Athens 1985). Slavic—M. Speranskij, “Devgenievo deja- 
nie,” Sbornik Otdelenija Russkogo Jazyka i Slovesnosti 99, 7 
(1922) 132-65. Tr. H.F. Graham, “The Tale of Devgenij,” 
BS 29 (1968) 51-91. 

LIT. Beck, Volksliteratur 63-97. H. Grégoire, Autour de 
l'épopée byzantine (London 1975). N. Oikonomides, “L*épopée’ 
de Digénis et la frontiére orientale de Byzance aux Xe et 
XIe siècles,” TM 7 (1979) 375-97- —-E.M.J., M.J.J- 


DIGEST (from Lat. Digesta, lit. “that which has 
been classified,” Gk. Havééxrat, “all-encompass- 
ing”), a legal compilation promulgated by Justi- 
nian I on 16 Dec. 533 through the bilingual in- 
troductory constitution “Tanta/Dedoken.” This 
constitution gives information about the origin, 
content, and arrangement of the work: excerpts 
were made from the writings of Roman lawyers 
of the Republic and the Principate—esp. from the 
legal literature of Ulpian and Paul (both first half 
of the grd C.), and these were arranged according 
to subject matter into 50 books subdivided into a 
varying number of titles. The method used by the 
16-member commission under the direction of 
TRIBONIAN to classify material of “more than 3 
million lines” (Cod. Just. 17.2.1) is still disputed. 
Equally unresolved to this day is the extent of the 
INTERPOLATIONES, that is, corrections made to the 
original text by the compilers of the Digest with 
the express permission of Justinian. The most 
important MS of the Digest is the so-called Floren- 
tina, which dates from the 6th C. The Digest was 
used esp. by the “Anonymous” jurist (see ANON- 
YMOUS, “ENANTIOPHANES”) and by the jurists STE- 
PHEN and DoroTHeos for the teaching of law in 
Constantinople and Berytus. The Greek version 
of the entire Digest was received into the BASILIKA, 
though the sequence of the laws was changed. 

ED. CIC, vol. 1, pt.2, with Eng. tr. by A. Watson (Phila- 
delphia 1985). 

LIT. Wenger, Quellen 576-600, 685-88. D. Osler, “The 
Compilation of Justinian’s Digest,” ZSavRom 102 (1985) 
129-84. M. Kaser, “Zum heutigen Stand der Interpolati- 
onenforschung,” ZSavRom 69 (1952) 60—101. Vocabularium 
turisprudentiae romanae, 5 vols. (Berlin 1903—87). Concor- 


dance to the Digest Jurists, ed. T. Honoré, J. Menner (Oxford 
1980). —M.Th.F. 


DIGNITIES AND TITLES (dtia 61a Bpaßeiwv), 
ranks in the official hierarchy. Unlike Western 
feudal titles, Byz. dignities were nonhereditary 
and bestowed by a BRABEION. Four consistent sys- 
tems of dignities are known: (1) the late Roman 
system in which membership in the SENATE served 


DIGNITIES AND TITLES | 623 


as the major denominator—the CLaRIssIM1, later 
ILLUSTRES, were SENATORS par excellence; (2) the 
system of the TAKTIKA in which dignities were 
concurrent with office, and all officials holding 
the dignity of PROTOSPATHARIOS and higher were 
considered members of the senate; (3) the Kom- 
nenian system in which the dignity depended on 
relationship with the emperor (son, brother, son- 
in-law, etc.); and (4) the late Byz. system reflected 
in pseudo-Kopinos in which the difference be- 
tween dignity and OFFICE disappeared. The de- 
velopment of each system involved an inflation of 
old titles and their replacement by new ones; thus, 
the dignities of MAGISTROS, PATRIKIOS, and so on 
declined in importance by the mid-11th C., inter- 
mediary titles (PROEDROS, etc.) were introduced, 
and at the end of the century a new system based 
on the dignity of seBastos elaborated. Sebastos 
was inflated by the end of the 12th C., giving way 
to pompous denominations such as panhypersebas- 
tos, sebastohypertatos, and protosebastohypertatos, some 
of which were known earlier. The Kletorologion of 
PHILOTHEOS lists 18 dignities of “bearded men” 
and eight of EuNucHs. The following list, based 
on the Kletorologion of Philotheos, gives 18 digni- 
ties in descending order of importance. 

Caesar 

Nobelissimos 

Kouropalates 

Zoste patrikia 

Magistros 

Anthypatos 

Patrikios 

Protospatharios 

Dishy patos 

Spatharokandidatos 

Spatharios 

Hypatos 

Strator 

Kandidatos 

Mandator 

Vestitor 

Silentiarios 

Stratelates and Apo eparchon 

LIT. Bury, Adm. System 20-23. Oikonomides, Listes 281— 
88. P. Koch, Die byzantinischen Beamtentitel von 400 bis 700 
(Jena 1903). F. Winkelmann, Byzantinische Rang- und Am- 
terstruktur im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1985) 29—68. J.C. 
Cheynet, “Dévaluation des dignités et dévaluation moné- 
taire dans la seconde moitié du Xle siècle,” Byzantion 53 


(1983) 453-77. Hohlweg, Beiträge 34-40. J. Verpeaux, 
“Hiérarchie et préséances sous les Paléologues,” TM 1 


(1965) 421-37. -A.K. 


624 DIKAIODOTES 


DIKAIODOTES (é:xatoddrns), a high-ranking 
JUDGE. In a nontechnical sense of “dispenser of 
the laws” the term was known in antiquity and 
used in Byz. texts (e.g., NE 19 [1925] 181.6). As 
the head of a SEKRETON, the dtkatodotes is men- 
tioned for the first time in an edict of Alexios I 
of 1094 (J. Nicole, BZ 3 [1894] 20.6). The dtkaio- 
dotes presided over one of the tribunals in Con- 
stantinople. The post was very important in a civil 
career; its holders could obtain simultaneously the 
office of kanikleios (Laurent, Corpus 2, no.226). 
Theodore Pantechnes, during his career of 1148- 
82, exercised the functions of quaestor, dtkaiodotes, 
and eparch of the city (Darrouzés, Tornzkés 50f). 
The precise character of the duties of the dikato- 
dotes is not yet known. The last mention is that of 
1197 (Patmou Engrapha 1, no.11 B.34—35, p.108}— 
the sebastos and dikaiodotes Michael Belissariotes. 


LIT. Oikonomides, “Evolution” 135. Laurent, Corpus 
2:478—80. -A.K. 


DIKAIOPHYLAX (étxarodvaAaé), a title desig- 
nating a subaltern judge, first attested in Constan- 
tinople and the provinces in the mid-11th C., 
conferred by the emperor on both laymen and 
churchmen (Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. go2—04; N. 
Oikonomides, TM 6 [1976] 135). From the reign 
of Michael VIII the title was conferred exclusively 
on churchmen by imperial appointment. The dt- 
kaiophylax’s duties involved cases of an ecclesias- 
tical nature and required knowledge of civil and 
canon law. The first dikatophylax in Constantinople 
after its reconquest in 1261, the deacon and epi 
ton deeseon of Hagia Sophia, Theodore SKOUTARI- 
OTES, was empowered to exercise all the judicial 
functions and rights formerly attached to the of- 
fice (MM 5:246f). Skoutariotes and all subsequent 
dikaiophylakes were included among the EXOKATA- 
KOILOI, combining one of the titles assigned to the 
latter with that of dikazophylax. 


LIT. Darrouzés, Offikia 109-11. -RJ.M. 


DIKAIOS, used only in dative case, dtxai@, “by 
commission,” was a term formed similarly to EK 
PROSOPOU; it designated a deputy (of a patriarch), 
an administrator acting on behalf of (lit. “in the 
right of”) the patriarch. The CHARTOPHYLAX is 
described as acting dtkaio tes archierosynes in a novel 
of Alexios I of 1094 (Zepos, Jus 1:649) and as 
dikaio tou patriarchou by Balsamon (Rhalles-Potles, 
Syntagma 2:587.11—12); John Cheilas, metropoli- 


tan of Ephesus in the second half of the 13th C., 
wrote about the professors of the Great Church 
who taught on behalf of the patriarch (dikato tou 
patriarchou) as his representatives, ekprosopountes 
(Darrouzés, Ecclés. 388.3—4). In 1350, the synod 
of Constantinople announced that the hzeromona- 
chos Niphon was not the patriarch’s representative 
(eis dikaio autou—-MM 1:297.25). An act of 1316 
(Esphig., no.12.66) mentions also the agent (dikaio) 
of the protos of Mt. Athos. More than ten other 
“agents” of the protos are mentioned in the doc- 
uments of 1322—94, and others are known after 
1462 (D. Papachryssanthou in Prot. 161—64). An 
exceptional case is Theodosios, who signed an act 
of 1375 as “monk and dtkaios (in nominative case) 
of the Holy Mountain,” not of the protos (Pantel. 
no.15.21). 


LIT. Darrouzés, Offikia 131, 348-40. Meester, De mona- 
chico statu 294, 305. —A.K., A.M.T. 


DIKTYS OF CRETE, author of what purports to 
be an eyewitness account of the Trojan War 
(Ephemeris belli Troiani) but was actually written in 
the 2nd or grd C., as two papyrus fragments of 
the lost Greek original (P.Tebt. II 268, P.Oxy. 
XXXI 2539) testify. These fragments also support 
the claims of the Latin translation by “Septimius” 
(4th C.?) to be a faithful version of the first five 
books; the remaining books have been condensed 
into one. Extracts from the original text of Diktys 
are embedded in the Byz. chronicle tradition, esp. 
in John Matatas. They have, however, been re- 
cast and confused with the work of the otherwise 
unknown Sisyphos of Kos. Diktys’s account, de- 
terminedly rationalistic and eschewing the super- 
natural, was a major source on the Trojan War 
for the Byz., for some of whom—e.g., John 
Tzerzes—Diktys provided a counterbalance to the 
“falsehoods” of Homer. Diktys’s material is also 
reflected in the vernacular WAR oF Troy, a close 
translation of Benoit de Ste. Maure’s French ad- 
aptation of the Latin version. 

ED. Dictys Cretensis Ephemeridos belli Troiani libri sex?, ed. 
W. Eisenhut (Leipzig 1973). The Trojan War: The Chronicles 
of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian, tr. R.M. Frazer 
(Bloomington, Ind., 1966). 


LIT. A. Peristerakis, Diktys ho Kres (Athens 1984). 
-E.M.J., M.J.J- 


DIMODAION (é:p08aior, lit. “of two modiov’?), a 
SECONDARY TAX. In the list of taxes collected in 
Lampsakos in 1218 it is reckoned as an insignifi- 


cant sum (0.6 percent of the whole amount), 
whereas in a praktikon of Lavra of 1321 it amounts 
to about 14 percent of the OIKOUMENON (Lavra 2, 
no.109.941). The nature of the dimodaion is un- 
clear: Solovjev-MoSin (Grčke povelje 423f) associate 
it with trade duties, G. Litavrin (VizVrem 37 [1976] 
23) with taxes on fruit trees. In many documents 
it appears together with CHARAGMA (e.g., Xénoph., 
no.2g.19; Lavra 3, no.118.196—97); both were said 
to be collected annually (Esphig. 7, no.14); it can 
also be mentioned in a different context, e.g., 
listed between ZEUGARATIKION and MITATON 
(Dochevar., no.25.15). -A.K. 


DINOGETIA (Awoyértsia, mod. Garvăn in Ru- 
mania), city and stronghold that formed a part of 
the limes in ScyrH1a Minor. It was located on a 
small island in the Danube. Excavations have re- 
vealed two layers of settlement. The late Roman 
(4th—6th C.) rectangular fortress was built on a 
rock dominating the island; it had a cobblestone 
and brick-paved main street 4-5 m broad and 
official buildings, such as the praetorium, baths, 
basilica, etc. Dinogetia was damaged by fire, prob- 
ably during the CoTRIGUR attack in 559, and was 
deserted ca.600. The fortress was restored by 
John I Tzimiskes and was inhabited, according to 
coin finds, through the reign of John II Komne- 
nos. Excavations revealed habitations (mostly 
semisubterranean) and a small church; the pop- 
ulation engaged in fishing, agriculture, and carv- 
ing bone and wood. Connections with Byz. are 
attested to by coins (some hoards of gold were 
found), jewelry, and seals, including that of Sy- 
meon, katepano of “Paradounabon” (PARISTRION). 
A seal of Michael, “poimenarches of Rhosia,” indi- 
cates ecclesiastical connections with Kiev during 
the first half of the 12th C. Identification of the 
castle (phrourion) of Demnitzikos mentioned in 
Kinnamos (Kinn. 93.19) as Dinogetia (A. Bolsacov- 
Ghimpu, RESEE 5 [1967] 543-49) remains hy- 
pothetical. 

LIT. I. Barnea, “Dinogetia—ville byzantine du bas- 
Danube,” Byzantina 10 (1980) 237-87. G. Stefan et al., 
Dinogetia, vol. 1 (Bucharest 1967). A. Barnea, “Dinogetia 


II. Precizări cronologice,” Peuce 9 (1984) 339-46. 
~A.K. 


DIOCESE (écoixyocs), territorial unit of both sec- 
ular and ecclesiastical administration. 


DIOCESE 625 


Secular Diocese. In the early Roman Empire 
the diocese was a part of a province. In the late 
grd C. the term was applied by Diocletian to a 
greater area, larger than the province but smaller 
than the PREFECTURE Of the PRAETORIAN PREFECT. 
According to the so-called Verona LIST, ca.297 
the empire consisted of 12 dioceses: Oriens (later 
divided into Egypt and Oriens), Pontus, Asia, 
Thrace, Moesia (divided later into Dacia and Mac- 
edonia), Pannonia, Britain, Gaul, the Seven Prov- 
inces (Vienne), Italy (later divided into two parts, 
with centers at Milan and Rome), Spain, and Af- 
rica. At the head of the diocese stood the VICAR, 
but some seem to have been administered directly 
by the praetorian prefect. The system of dioceses, 
planned as a vehicle of centralization, created a 
cumbersome bureaucracy. In the 5th C. it ceased 
to operate effectively. Anastasios I and Justinian 
I tried to abolish it (Jones, LRE 1:374) and to 
transfer some functions from the vicar to the 
provincial governor. The diocese system disap- 
peared in the 7th C. 

tir. E. Kornemann, RE 5 (1907) 727-34. A. Chastagnol, 
“L'administration du diocèse italien au Bas-Empire,” His- 
toria 12 (1963) 348-79. K.L. Noethlichs, “Zur Entstehung 
der Diözasen als Mittelinstanz des spätrömischen Verwal- 
tungssystems,” Historia 31 (1982) 70—81. -A.K. 

Ecclesiastical Diocese. The ecclesiastical dio- 
cese was an administrative unit modeled on the 
secular diocese (to be distinguished from its mod- 
ern usage as an episcopal province). The First 
Council of Constantinople of 381 (canon 2) men- 
tions dioceses of Alexandria, Oriens, and Asia; so 
also pseudo-Palladios, in his Dialogue on John 
Chrysostom, speaks of the Egyptian and Asian 
dioceses; in the 5th C. Sokrates referred to the 
Pontic diocese. Following the example of secular 
provincial administration, dioceses were subdi- 
vided into episcopal provinces, EPARCHIAI and 
PAROIKIAI. The Council of Antioch of 341 distin- 
guished between the bishop of a metropolis (i.e., 
eparchia) and one of a paroikia. The bishops of 
dioceses acquired the titles of exarchs and/or pa- 
triarchs, with the exception of the bishop of Con- 
stantinople, who was titled patriarch without being 
the head of a diocese. 

The system of patriarchate-metropolis-bishop- 
ric became entrenched in the Byz. church; the 
diocesan units, on the other hand, disappeared, 
although territories controlled by the EXARCH re- 
sembled, to a certain extent, the late antique 
dioceses. Nevertheless, canonists of the 12th C. 


626 | DIOCLETIAN 


discuss the term: according to Zonaras (PG 
137:420C), patriarchs were the exarchs of dioceses. 
Balsamon (PG 137:420AB) is even more explicit; 
he says, with some hesitation, “The exarch of a 
diotkesis, I believe, is not the metropolitan of each 
eparchia, but the metropolitan of the entire dio- 
cese; as for the diocese, it comprises many epar- 
chiai. . . . Now some of the metropolitans are 
called exarchs, but in their dioceses they have no 
metropolitans subordinated to them; it is plausible 
that [our] exarchs are different from the exarchs 
of that time [of the time of the council of Chal- 
cedon] or that they are the same but have lost the 
privileges given to them by the canons [of Chal- 
cedon].” The term is not employed after the 12th 
C. The word diozkesis was also used in a general 
sense for government or ordering—by Christ, the 
angels, the Devil, the church, etc. 

LIT. A. Scheuermann, RAC 3:1056-59. A Fliche, V. 


Martin, Histoire de l’Église, 3 (Paris 1936; rp. 1947) 437-87. 
—A.P., A.K. 


DIOCLETIAN (AtoxAnriavos), emperor (284- 
305); born Dalmatia 22 Dec. 243 or 245?, died 
Split, 3 Dec. 313 or 316. Diocles, as he was origi- 
nally known, rose from an obscure origin through 
the army to become comes domesticorum and then 
emperor. He ended the anarchy of the grd C., in 
part by appointing MAXIMIAN as augustus in 283 
and GALERIUS and CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS as cae- 
sars in 293, thus forming the TETRARCHY. As 
senior emperor Diocletian devoted his attention 
primarily to the East, from his residence at Ni- 
komedeia. During his reign Diocletian reformed 
the administrative structure of the state by ap- 
proximately doubling the number of provinces 
and grouping then into DIOCESES, each under the 
jurisdiction of a vicar. Diocletian seems generally 
to have made a principle of separating military 
and civil authority, and most of the governors 
had no troops. Late in his reign he apparently 
began to appoint duces as military commanders, 
usually with jurisdiction that crossed provincial 
boundaries. In military policy Diocletian is com- 
monly contrasted with CONSTANTINE I since he 
generally relied on stationary frontier troops, al- 
though each member of the imperial college ap- 
parently had a mobile field army. Diocletian at- 
tempted to restore the finances of the empire with 
reformed coinage and the Price Epicr. He re- 
gularized requisitions in kind with the ANNONA 
based on a system of CAPITATIO-JUGATIO. 


Like many of his predecessors, Diocletian iden- 
tied himself with one of the gods, in his case 
Jupiter. He did not, however, take action against 
the Christians until 303, with the beginning of 
the Great Persecution, in which scriptures were 
to be surrendered and churches demolished. Sub- 
sequent edicts dismissed all Christians in state 
service, subjected them to legal disabilities, and 
finally ordered the arrest of clergy. The perse- 
cutions were unevenly enforced, but there were 
evidently many apostasies. Byz. tradition remem- 
bers Diocletian primarily as a persecutor. On 1 
May 305 Diocletian abdicated and went into re- 
tirement at SPLIT, where he had built a palace. 
He emerged from there only briefly to attend the 
Conference of Carnuntum in 308, after which his 
life is obscure. 

Diocletian’s physiognomy, esp. his downturned 
mouth and short-cropped beard, is familiar from 
a number of busts and medallions (Age of Spirit., 
no.3). 

LIT. Jones, LRE 37-76. S. Williams, Diocletian and the 
Roman Recovery (London 1985). P. Brennan, “Diocletian 
and the Goths,” Phoenix 38 (1984) 142-46. G. Thomas, 


“L’abdication de Dioclétien,” Byzantion 43 (1973) 229-47. 
-T.E.G., A.C. 


DIOCLETIANIC ERA, an era used in Egypt, 
computed from the starting point of 1 Thoth (29 
Aug.) A.D. 284. Originating in pagan computa- 
tions of the genealogy of the Apis bull and used 
in 4th-C. horoscopes, it came to be employed by 
Egyptian Christians in the 6th and 7th C. in epi- 
taphs, colophons, and eventually in documents. 
In the late 8th C. in Nubia it also came to be 
called the “Era of the Martyrs,” and this name 
gradually superseded the earlier designation by 
the 13th C. 

LIT. L. MacCoull, K. Worp, “The Era of the Martyrs,” 


in Miscellanea Papyrologica, ed. R. Pintaudi (Florence 1989). 
—L.S.B.MacC. 


DIODOROS (Aiwdwpos), bishop of Tarsos (from 
378) and theologian; born Antioch, died before 
394. Educated at Athens, Diodoros became a monk 
and then hegoumenos of a monastery outside of 
Antioch. He was an ardent opponent of Arianism 
and of the pagan revival of Emp. Julian. In 372 
Valens banished him to Armenia; he was then 
recalled and made bishop of Tarsos. 

Diodoros played an important role in the mid- 


4th-C. ecclesiastical struggle in Antioch, and JOHN 
CHRYSOSTOM, his pupil, praised him as the new 
John the Baptist; for JULIAN (ep.55, ed. Wright), 
on the other hand, Diodoros was a fallacious 
propagator of “a boorish religion.” Diodoros was 
an ally of Basi, THE GREAT and one of the most 
influential participants in the Council of Constan- 
tinople in 381. His doctrine was developed in 
polemics against Arrus, in which he stressed the 
perfect divinity of Christ, and against APOLLI- 
NARIS, in which he emphasized the perfect hu- 
manity of Christ; to avoid contradiction, Diodoros 
developed the concept of the coexistence of the 
Logos and man in Christ, the Logos dwelling in 
man as in a shrine. Accordingly, Diodoros de- 
scribed the Virgin as anthropotokos, “giving birth 
to a man.” 

After the death of Diodoros his teaching was 
censured by Cyrix of Alexandria, who quite log- 
ically saw in Diodoros a forerunner of NESTORIOS. 
It is generally assumed that Diodoros was con- 
demned in 499, but this hypothesis is refuted by 
L. Abramowski (RHE 60 [1965] 64f). At any rate, 
his works were lost, although in the Souda and 
the Syriac Ebedjesu (died 1318) indications of his 
enormous productivity are found. Some frag- 
ments of his many theological commentaries and 
polemics are extant in Armenian, Syriac, Latin, 
and Greek. His treatise entitled Against Astrono- 
mers, Astrologers and Fate, known only from Pho- 
tios’s lengthy notice (Bzbl., cod.223), argues for 
faith in God and divine providence, rejecting the 
concept of fate and the influence of the stars, 
thereby contesting the views of the grd-C. astrol- 
oger Bardesanes of Edessa (C. Schaublin, RhM 
n.s. 123 [1980] 51—67). 


ED. PG 33:1545-1628. Commentarii in Psalmos, ed. J.M. 
Olivier (Turnhout 1980). M. Briére, “Quelques fragments 
syriaques de Diodore évêque de Tarse (378-394?),” ROC? 
10 (1946) 231-83, with Fr. tr. 

LIT. C. Schaublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Her- 
kunft der antiochenischen Exegese (Cologne-Bonn 1974) 43- 
83. R.A. Greer, “The Antiochene Christology of Diodore 
of Tarsus,” JThSt 17 (1966) 327-41. J.-R. Pouchet, “Les 
rapports de Basile de Césarée avec Diodore de Tarse,” 
Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 87 (1986) 243-72. 

—B.B., A.K. 


DIOGENES (Avoyévns), a noble lineage, probably 
of Cappadocian origin (Attal. 99.21—22, 170.16— 
17). In the 11th C. Psellos regarded the family as 
“ancient and flourishing” (Psellos, Chron. 2:157, 
par.1o.2); the first attested Diogenes, however, is 


DIOIKETES 627 


Constantine, commander of the tagma of Western 
scholae under Basil LI. His career was concentrated 
in the Balkans: he commanded the troops in 
Thessalonike and was archon of Sirmium; a seal 
of a strategos of “Serbia” is usually ascribed to him 
(V. Laurent, REB 15 [1957] 190f), but the mean- 
ing of “Serbia” remains questionable. It is also 
unclear whether Constantine was governor of 
Bulgaria. Married to a niece of Romanos III Ar- 
gyros, Constantine was accused of conspiring 
against him, transferred to Asia Minor as strategos 
of the Thrakesian theme, and eventually arrested; 
he died during an inquest. His son became Emp. 
Romanos IV DioGENEs, whose sons were allies of 
the Komnenos family: Constantine, married to 
Alexios I’s sister Theodora, was killed at the walls 
of Antioch in 1073; Alexios appointed Nikepho- 
ros Diogenes governor of Crete. 

Nonetheless the family remained inclined to 
revolt: involved in a plot in 1094, Nikephoros was 
blinded and exiled to his estates. Several members 
of the Diogenes family (or imposters who took 
their name) acted against Constantinople in alli- 
ance with foreign princes: Ordericus Vitalis men- 
tions “the son of august Diogenes,” instigated by 
Bohemund to claim the imperial throne; the Rus- 
sian Primary Chronicle tells about a Cuman expe- 
dition against Byz. in 1095 commanded by a certain 
Diogenes; in 1116 Leo Diogenes, the son-in-law 
of VLADIMIR MONOMACH, participated in an ex- 
pedition of the Rus’ against Byz. The family’s role 
declined by the 12th C., and John Diogenes is 
known only in the modest position of Manuel I’s 
court orator. In 1254 Constantine Diogenes, doux 
of Leros and Kalymnos, was ordered to conduct 
a census of these islands; his praktikon is still un- 
published (Angold, Byz. Government 139, n.110). 
No data about later members of the family sur- 
vive. 


LIT. M. Mathieu, “Les faux Diogenes,” Byzantion 22 (1952) 
133-48. —A.K. 


DIOIKETES (dvocxn77s), a term designating sev- 
eral fiscal officials. The origin of the term is ob- 
scure. Bury’s suggestion (Adm. System 89) that it 
was connected with the late Roman DIOCESE was 
rejected by Délger; Egyptian divzketat were fiscal 
and judicial functionaries on the local level des- 
pite their high-sounding epithets (A. Steinwenter, 
Studien zu den koptischen Rechitsurkunden [Leipzig 
1920; rp. Amsterdam 1967] 19—25); Theophanes 


628 | DIOKLEIA 


(Theoph. 367.27) uses the word in a vague sense 
of “administrator.” A clear indication that the 
dioiketes was a tax collector is given only in Leo 
VIs novel 61 and the Treatise on Taxation in the 
Marcian MS (Venice Marc. gr. 173, fols. 276v— 
281). The first mention of diozketes is that of Paul, 
“dioiketes of the eastern eparchiar” in 680 (probably 
the same as Paul, “diotketes of the Anatolikon,” 
whose seal is in Zacos, Seals 1, no.22g0), although 
the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople 
(680-81) do not clarify Paul’s functions. Diotketat 
of the eparchiai are known from seals of the 7th 
and 8th C. (Laurent, Corpus 2:654—-58). Diotketat 
belonged to the sekreton of the GENIKON but carried 
out their duties in the provinces. Zacos and Ve- 
glery (Zacos, Seals 1, p.1880) published 37 seals 
of various dioiketai linked either to traditional 
provinces (Bithynia, Galatia, Lydia, Thrace) or 
new territorial units (Anatolikon), but mostly is- 
lands (Samos and Chios, Euboea, Andros, Cyprus, 
Sicily) and cities, predominantly coastal (Ephesus, 
Kyzikos, Myra, Rhaidestos, Miletos, Thessaloni- 
ke). The latest seal (no.3161) is of the early 10th 
C. Later dioiketai belonged to themes, such as a 
dioiketes of Boleron, Strymon, and Thessalonike 
in 1074 (Lavra 1, no.36.5). It is plausible that 
dioiketai were rewarded by the so-called SYNETHEIA 
(Ivir. 1, n0.29.96, a. 1047). The term remained in 
use in the 14th C. and the office is mentioned in 
pseudo-Koprnos, but after 1109 the diozketes was 
replaced by the PRAKTOR. Another diozketes—“of 
the metata” (see MiTraATON)—belonged to the de- 
partment of the LOGOTHETES TON AGELON (Lau- 
rent, Corpus 2:297f). 


ut. Délger, Beiträge 7of. -A.K. 


DIOKLEIA (AcoxAeca), a stronghold (kastron) in 
Illyricum, at the confluence of the Zeta and Mo- 
rava rivers. Excavations have located it north of 
modern Titograd and have revealed remains of 
walls, an aqueduct, and a basilica (C. Patsch, RE 
5 [1905] 1251). 

In 297 Diokleia became the capital of the Ro- 
man province of Praevalitana. The kastron was 
allegedly built by Diocletian—the legend is pre- 
served by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (De 
adm. imp. 29.11—14), Kinnamos, and some Latin 
texts (A. Meyer in Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju 
dalmatinsku 54—59 [1954-57] 35-102). Another 
tradition asserts that Diocletian was a native of 


Diokleia (P. Skok in Starohrvatska prosveta, vol. ı 
[1927] 62f). It is unclear when Diokleia became a 
bishopric (G. Mikulin, DHGE 14 [1960] 541) but, 
at the beginning of the 7th C., Pope Gregory I 
addressed letters to its bishop. Soon thereafter 
the city was destroyed by the Avars; in the 1oth 
C. Constantine VII (De adm. imp. 35.g—11) noted 
that the kastron of Diokleia was deserted. Legend 
has it that the last bishop of Diokleia fled either 
to Dubrovnik or Antivari. 

The name Diokleia was also extended over the 
entire region along the Adriatic littoral between 
the theme of DyRRACHION in the south and the 
town of Kotor in the north. The population was 
Slav (predominantly Serbian) with strong Roman 
elements. Constantine VII locates the region of 
Diokleia near “the kastellia of Dyrrachion” and 
states that in his time the area was populated by 
the Diokletianoi, a tribe considered by the Byz. as 
“Scythian” along with the Croats, “Serbloi,” Zach- 
loumoi, Terbouniotai, and Kanalitai. A seal of 
Peter, archon of Diokleia, has been dated (Schlum- 
berger, Sig. 433) in the gth C., but it is not known 
whether Peter was the commander of a Byz. gar- 
rison or an independent ruler. The name Diokleia 
reappears in Kekaumenos (Kek. 168.12) as a site 
where “Tribounios the Serbos” routed the army 
of Michael, katepano of Dyrrachion. In 1179 Con- 
stantine Doukas was Byz. governor (doux) of Dio- 
kleia, Dalmatia, Split, and Dyrrachion (Ahrweiler, 
Mer 260f). It is an established scholarly view that 
the region of Diokleia or Duklja was also called 
Zeta from the 11th C. onward. 

LIT. Istorija Crne Gore, vol. 1 (Titograd 1967) 316-403. 
G. Litavrin in Kek. 406—08. Ferluga, Byzantium 205-13. A. 
Cermanović-Kuzmanović et al., Antička Duklja (Cetinje 1975). 
V. Korać, “L'architecture du Haut Moyen Age en Dioclée 
et Zeta,” Balcanoslavica 5 (1976) 155-72. J. Kovačević, “Et- 
nička i društvena pripadnost ktitora u Duklji i Pomorju od 


kraja VIII do kraja XIII vek,” IstGl, no.2 (1955) 118-20. 
ŽI.Dj., A.K. 


DIOKLETIANOUPOLIS. See KASTORIA. 


DIONYSIOS OF TELL MAHRE, Jacobite patri- 
arch of Antioch (from 818); died 845. In addition 
to his successful administration of the Monophys- 
ite church in Syria and Mesopotamia under the 
disabilities imposed by the Islamic government, 
the fame of Dionysios rests on his reputation as 
an ecclesiastical chronicler, whose now lost work 


DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE, PSEUDO- 629 


was quoted by later writers such as MICHAEL I 
THE SYRIAN (died 1199) and GREGORY ABU’L-FARAJ. 
As a result Dionysios was mistakenly believed to 
be the author of a universal chronicle in Syriac, 
written in the late 8th C. by an anonymous monk 
in the monastery of Zuqnin, in northern Meso- 
potamia near Amida. The Chronicle of pseudo- 
Dionysios of Tell Mahré, as the work is now called, 
is preserved in a unique gth-C. MS. Its contents 
record the succession of events from biblical times 
to the year 775 (it mentions Emp. Leo IV), with 
the fullest narratives covering the final 47 years 
(728/g—75), presumably the years of the writer’s 
maturity. The Chronicle is important as a record 
of the relationships between Byz. and the Arabs 
in the 8th C. It incorporates the so-called Chronicle 
of JOSHUA THE STYLITE. The author drew material 
from a number of earlier sources (such as the 
Ecclesiastical History of JOHN OF EpHesus) for which 
the Chronicle is itself now an important source. 
ED. J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Denys de Tell-Mahré, qua- 
triéme partie (Paris 1895). Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo- 
Dionysianum vulgo dictum, ed. idem, 2 vols. (Paris 1927-33, 
Louvain 1949, 1952), with Lat. tr. [CSCO g1, 104, 121). 
tir. R. Abramowski, Dionysius von Tellmahre (Leipzig 
1940). W. Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of pseudo-Dionysius 
of Tel-Mahré (Uppsala 1987). -S.H.G. 


DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE (Acovictos 6 
 Apeonayirns), 1st-C. saint; feastday 3 Oct. Dio- 
nysios was a noble Athenian, a member of the 
supreme tribunal of the city, who was converted 
by St. Paul and selected by him as first bishop of 
Athens. MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR Cites allusions 
to Dionysios in early sources (Dionysios, bishop of 
Corinth; Polycarp’s letter to the Athenians; Eu- 
sebios of Caesarea) but knows little about the 
saint’s biography. The Latin legend confused him 
with Dionysios, a missionary in Gaul, and devel- 
oped the theme of his martyrdom. The Latin 
legend was translated into Greek by an anony- 
mous hagiographer (PG 4:669—84); his text later 
served as the source for the vita produced prob- 
ably ca.833 or 834 by MICHAEL SYNKELLOS, who 
transferred the date of Dionysios’s execution from 
the reign of Domitian to that of Trajan. Symeon 
Metaphrastes included Dionysios in his menologion 
(PG 115:1032~49), and his life is briefly described 
in the Synaxarton of Constantinople, where the saint 
is portrayed as follows: “He was of moderate 
height, emaciated, with white and sallow skin, flat- 


nosed, with puckered eyebrows, sunken eyes, al- 
ways deep in thought, with large ears, abundant 
gray hair, a moderately cleft upper lip, a straggly 
beard, a slight pot-belly and long slender fingers” 
(SynaxCP 102.8-14). 

Representation in Art. Byz. artists imagined 
Dionysios as an elderly bishop of Athens, who, 
after his execution, was able to carry his own head 
around and entrust it to a Christian woman. He 
is thought to have witnessed the eclipse at the 
time of the CruciFIx1on (Khludov Psalter, Mos- 
cow, Hist. Mus. gr. 129, fol.45v) and to have been 
present at the DormiTIoNn of the Virgin. 

LIT. BHG 554-58. R. Loenertz, “Le panégyrique de s. 
Denys l’Aréopagite par s. Michel le Syncelle,” AB 68 (1950) 


94—107. A.M. Ritter, LCI 6:60f. A. Louth, Denys, the Areo- 
pagite (London 1989). —A.K., N.P.Š. 


DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE, PSEUDO.-, 
pseudonym of the author of a corpus of theo- 
logical writings that includes Celestial Hierarchy, 
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Mystical Theology, Divine 
Names, and letters; fl. ca.500?. The author rep- 
resents himself as St. Paul’s disciple, but his true 
identity is unknown: various candidates have been 
proposed, including SEvERos of Antioch, PETER 
THE FULLER, PETER THE IBERIAN, Or someone in 
the circle of JOHN SCHOLASTIKOs. His theology 
was irrelevant to the major problem of his era— 
the relationship between the natures in the incar- 
nate Christ; Dionysios dealt with the same philo- 
sophical problem of unity and plurality on a com- 
pletely different level—even his vocabulary differs 
from that of his contemporary theologians. Dio- 
nysios drew extensively upon the Neoplatonists, 
esp. PROKLOos, but he introduced essential revi- 
sions in the system of Proklos: Dionysios elimi- 
nated the concept of the psyche, moved the world 
of ideas from the nous to the “One,” and empha- 
sized the chorismos (separation) between God and 
created beings. 

While dealing with the problem of the TRINITY, 
Dionysios avoided the Neoplatonic construction 
of the triad that might have been helpful for his 
purpose (B. Brons, Gott und die Serenden [Göttin- 
gen 1976] 325f). He stressed God’s ineffability 
and unity and dwelt more on God’s attitude toward 
the created world than on his internal develop- 
ment in the categories of natures and hypostases. 
The world, created not by God’s free will but by 
innermost necessity, was a static, not a historical 


630 | DIONYSIOS THRAX 


(i.e., developing) system and consisted of certain 
hierarchies—angels, institutions, and men; salva- 
tion was a result of God’s incarnation and philan- 
thropy rather than an active volition of the soul 
to ascend to God. Dionysios’s hierarchical vision 
of the cosmos was profoundly social—even though 
H. Goltz (Hiera mesiteia [Erlangen 1974] 200) over- 
states it as a “legal and rational type of power 
organization.” 

Dionysios’s emphasis on the divine unity ac- 
counts for his acceptance by the MONOPHYSITES: 
Severos was the first to refer to Dionysios, and 
the Monophysites employed Dionysios in the dis- 
cussions in Constantinople in 532/3; their Ortho- 
dox opponent Hypatios of Ephesus rejected 
Dionysios’s evidence as a forgery. Later, however, 
Dionysios was recognized by the Orthodox, esp. 
MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR, and PACHYMERES wrote 
a paraphrase of Dionysios. He was less popular 
in Byz., however, than among the Syrians and 
esp. in the West where his hierarchical worldview 
gave a convenient ideological sanction to the feu- 
dal organization. 

In 827 a MS of Dionysios was presented to 
Louis the Pious by a Byz. embassy; soon thereafter 
the corpus was translated into Latin (M. Mc- 
Cormick, JCS 12 [1987] 218f). The pseudo- 


Dionysian corpus also attracted the attention of 


such scholars as John Scotus Eriugena and Robert 
GROSSETESTE. As a writer Dionysios made abun- 
dant use of composite words, tautologies, and 
antitheses; such an “obscure” style was meant to 
reflect the complexity and contradictions of the 
enigmatic world (Averincev, Poetika 130). 

ED. PG 3—4. La hiérarchie céleste?, ed. R. Roques et al. 
(Paris 1970), with Fr. tr. Tutte le opere, eds. E. Bellini, P. 
Scazzoso (Milan 1981), with Ital. tr. The Complete Works, tr. 
C. Luibheid (New York 1987). 

Lit. Armstrong, Philosophy 457-72. R. Roques, L’Univers 
dionysten (Paris 1983). S. Lilla, “Introduzione allo studio 
dello Ps. Dionigi Areopagita,” Augustinianum 22 (1982) 
533-77. P. Rorem, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the 
Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis (Toronto 1984). A. van den Daele, 
Indices Pseudo-Dionysiant (Louvain 1941). —A.K., B.B. 


DIONYSIOS THRAX, Greek grammarian and 
pupil of Aristarchos, whose work on Homeric 
philology he continued; born Alexandria ca.170, 
died ca.go B.c. His Grammar (Techne grammatike) is 
the earliest surviving systematic treatment of the 
subject and the only book of a Hellenistic scholar 


to survive in nearly original form. It sums up a 
long tradition of linguistic study by Hellenistic 
scholars. Essentially a series of definitions, some- 
times illustrated by examples, the work is based 
on the usage of poets and prose writers, not on 
the spoken language. It deals with prosody, pho- 
nology (see PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY), the parts 
of speech, and MORPHOLOGY, but not syntax. The 
brevity and clarity of Dionysios’s work guaranteed 
it success as a schoolbook for more than 1,000 
years. A mass of commentaries grew up around 
it, some the work of a single author, such as 
George CHOIROBOSKOS or HELIODOROS, others 
catenalike compilations. Dionysios’s Grammar served 
as a model for the Latin grammatical studies of 
Varro, Remmius Palaemon, and later scholars. It 
was translated into Syriac—to the structure of 
which it was ill adapted—and Armenian. The 
Armenian version in its turn was the object of 
several commentaries (N. Adontz, Denys le Thrace 
et les commentaires arméniens [Louvain 1970]). 
Though largely replaced in the Greek world as a 
schoolbook in the 13th C. by the Erotemata of 
Manuel MoscuHopou_os and similar pedagogical 
grammars, Dionysios’s work greatly influenced the 
Renaissance study of language. Modern Euro- 
pean grammatical terminology is largely based on 
the work of Dionysios. 

ED. Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica, ed. G. Uhlig (Leipzig 
1883; rp. Hildesheim 1965). A. Hilgard, Scholia in Dionysii 
Thracis Artem grammaticam (Leipzig 1901; rp. Hildesheim 
1965). 

ae R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship: From the 
Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968) 
266-72. M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch: Ein Bei- 
trag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Göttingen 
1960) 29-34. W. Hoerschelmann, De Dionysii Thracts inter- 
pretibus veteribus (Leipzig 1874). -R.B. 


DIONYSIOU MONASTERY, located on a rock 
80 m above the southwest coast of the peninsula 
of Mt. Arnos between the monasteries of Gre- 
goriou and St. Paul. Dedicated to St. John the 
Baptist, Dionysiou (Acovvaiov) is sometimes called 
Nea Petra because of its setting. It was founded 
between 1356 and 1366 by the monk Dionysios 
(born 1316), a native of Koresos in Macedonia 
and former monk at Philotheou. As a result of 
the mediation of his brother Theodosios, who 
became metropolitan of Trebizond in 1368/9, 
Dionysios was able to secure the patronage of the 


Trapezuntine emperor ALexios lII KOMNENOS. 
The latter became the ktetor of Dionysiou, financ- 
ing the construction of its principal buildings. In 
1374 the emperor issued a confirmatory chryso- 
bull (Dionys., no.4); at its head are depicted Al- 
exios and his wife Theodora (Spatharakis, Portrait, 
fig.136). The monastery also received property 
and fiscal exemptions from the emperors in Con- 
stantinople (Dionys., nos. 3, 5, 10, 13). Dionysiou 
was declared a patriarchal monastery in 1389. 

The archives contain 28 Byz. documents dating 
between 1056 and 1464. In the library are ap- 
proximately 237 Greek MSS of the 15th C. or 
earlier (Lampros, Athos 1:319—436; Euthymios 
Dionysiates, EEBS 27 [1957] 233-71). Its most 
precious possessions are a richly illustrated lec- 
tionary, cod. 587 (C. Walter, DChAE?* 13 [1985- 
86] 181-89) and cod. 61, an 11th—12th-C. copy 
of the homilies of GREGoRY oF Nazianzos. An 
ivory plaque depicting the Crucifixion above a 
scene of the soldiers casting lots (BCH 81 [1957] 
604) may be of doubtful authenticity. 

SOURCES. Actes de Dionysiou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris 
1968). B. Laourdas, “Metrophanes, Bios tou hosiou Dio- 
nysiou tou Athonitou,” ArchPont 21 (1956) 43-79- 

Lit. O. Lampsides, “Biographika ton adelphon Diony- 
siou, hidrytos tes en Hagio Orei mones, kai Theodosiou, 


metropolitou Trapezountos,” Archeion ekklesiastikou kai ka- 


nonthou dikaiou 18 (1963) 101-24. Treasures 1:36—-223, 393- 
449. -A.M.T., A.C. 


DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS, Christian scholar; 
fl.ca.500—ca.550. Dionysius was a monk (abbot in 
some sources) from Scythia who spent most of his 
life in Rome. Cassioporus reports that Dionysius 
assumed the Latin epithet Exiguus (“the Little”) 
out of humility. His obsessive interest in the CHRO- 
NOLOGY of EASTER produced his most famous 
achievement, the first reckoning of historical events 
from the birth of Christ rather than from Diocle- 
tian (284), using 753/4 A.U.C. (ab urbe condita, “from 
the foundation of Rome”) as the year of the In- 
carnation. He also assembled the first proper col- 
lection of CANON LAW, including translations of 
Greek laws. His laudable desire to reconcile the 
churches of East and West prompted him to 
translate important texts into Latin, for example, 
the Life of PacHomios; On the Making of Man by 
Grecory oF Nyssa; and the Tome to the Armenians 
of PROKLOS, patriarch of Constantinople. 


DIONYSOS 631 


ED. PL 67:g~520. Die Canonessammlung des Dionysius Exi- 
guus, ed. A. Strewe (Berlin-Leipzig 1931). La vie latine de 
Saint Pachéme, ed. H. van Cranenburgh (Brussels 1969). 

LIT. Grumel, Chronologie 224f, 227. W.M. Peitz, Dionysius 
Exiguus-Studien (Berlin 1960); rev. K. Schaferdiek, ZKirch 
74 (1963) 353-68, C. Munier, Sacris erudiri 14 (1963) 236- 
50. H. Wurm, Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des 
Dionysius Exiguus (Bonn 1939; rp. Amsterdam 1964). 

-B.B. 


DIONYSOS, Greek god of fertility and wildlife, 
both animal and vegetable, primarily of wine; in 
a later myth the son of PERSEPHONE. His cult grew 
in importance during the Roman period when 
the idea of a happier life in the netherworld was 
connected with the image of Dionysos, and scenes 
of Dionysiac myths began to appear on sarco- 
phagi. PRokLos refers to an Orphic tradition that 
proclaimed Dionysos the king of all the gods for 
six generations, and MACROBIUS perceives him as 
the god who combines in himself other deities, 
such as Helios and Apollo, as the soul of the world 
(Daszewski, infra 41f). NONNos OF PANOPOLIS de- 
voted to Dionysos a voluminous epic, the Diony- 
staka, in which the god is primarily a world- 
conqueror, subduing nation after nation in bloody 
battles and showing his courage. Finally, MaLa- 
Las—following, probably, Eusepios oF CAESA- 
REA—Yrationalized the ancient myth, humanizing 
and historicizing the god; he created for Dionysos 
a human genealogy and made him a mortal dei- 
fied on account of his miracles and benefactions. 
O. Nicholson (Byzantion 54 [1984] 253-75) sug- 
gests that Galerius viewed Dionysos as his divine 
protector and interprets Lacranrius’s criticism of 
Liber (Latin form of Dionysos) as polemics against 
Galerius. 

A widespread motif in art—sometimes with 
connotations of resurrection—until the 6th C., the 
image of Dionysos disappears thereafter only to 
return in the 11th C. in the much narrower com- 
pass of illustrations tu the homilies of GREGORY 
OF NAZIANZOS. Based on the commentaries of the 
pseudo-Nonnos, these most commonly pictured 
scenes from his birth and childhood (Weitzmann, 
infra, figs. 52-58, 164-65) and his military and 
maenadic companions (see MAENADS). In the 
pseudo-Oppian MS in Venice (Marc. gr. 479), 
Dionysos is depicted as a handsome youth wearing 
a short tunic and carrying ivy branches (Weitz- 
mann, infra, fig.119). 


632 DIOSKORIDES 


Lit. W.A. Daszewski, Dionysos der Erlöser (Mainz 1985). 
S.W. Reinert, “The Image of Dionysus in Malalas’ Chron- 
icle,” in Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, ed. 
S. Vryonis [ByzMetabyz 4] (Malibu 1985) 1~41. Weitzmann, 
Gr. Myth. 46-49, 54f, 111f, 129f, 138-40, 179-83. 

— A.K., A.C., A.M.T. 


DIOSKORIDES, Greek physician and pharma- 
cologist, author of works on PHARMACOLOGY and 
herbal lore; fl. ca.65. His De materia medica was a 
fundamental medical and pharmacological tract 
in Byz.; numerous physicians attached their com- 
ments to Dioskorides’ original text, and occasion- 
ally challenged his opinions (J.M. Riddle, DOP 38 
[1984] 95-102). 

The De materia medica survives in at least ten 
illustrated MSS. The earliest (Vienna, ONB med. 
gr. 1) is the most luxurious of Byz. SCIENTIFIC 
MANUSCRIPTS, with 498 miniatures, mostly full- 
page paintings of plants in alphabetical order (as 
against Dioskorides’ original sequence). It also 
includes depictions of snakes, insects, spiders, 
scorpions, various animals, and birds to illustrate 
paraphrases by Euteknios of the Theriaka and 
Alexipharmaka of Nicander, the Ornithiaka of Dio- 
nysios of Philadelphia, and similar tracts. Among 
five frontispieces, one shows seven famous phy- 
sicians of antiquity, and one depicts ANIcIA Ju- 
LIANA, daughter of the empress Galla Placidia, 
surrounded by PERSONIFICATIONS and dropping 
gold on a copy of the book. A much-abraded 
acrostic within the octagonal ornament of this 
page was read by A. von Premerstein (JbKSWien 
24 [1903] 105-24) as an expression of gratitude 
to Juliana from Honoratai (sometimes called 
Onoratoi), a town near Constantinople, for a 
church she had built there; in the spandrels of 
the octagon, putti are depicted building this church, 
which was completed, according to Theophanes 
the Confessor, by 512. Added marginalia indicate 
that the Vienna Dioskorides was in Latin hands 
for a time after the Fourth Crusade. In the 14th 
and 15th C. Greek monks in the monastery of St. 
John Prodromos in PETRA made numerous nota- 
tions in the book. Among the monks was Nathan- 
ael, who was also a doctor at the nearby hospital 
founded by STEFAN Uroš II MILUTIN. In 1406 
Nathanael asked John CHORTASMENOS to have the 
MS restored and rebound; Chortasmenos par- 
tially transcribed the uncial text and added, in 
minuscule, names of persons and plants. In 1422/ 
3 the MS was still in the Prodromos library; some- 


time after 1520 it passed into the hands of the 
Jewish physician of Süleyman the Magnificent and 
was eventually purchased by Charles V. 

A lavish copy of the Vienna Dioskorides was 
produced in the 1oth C. (New York, Morgan Lib, 
652). Romanos II sent an illustrated version to 
the caliph of Cordoba about the same time. 

ED. Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei De materia medica, ed. M. 
Wellmann, 3 vols. (Berlin 1g06—14; rp. 1958). Facsimile 
and commentary—H.Gerstinger, Dioscurides: Codex Vindo- 
bonensis Med. Gr. 1 der Osterreichischen Nationallnbliothek, 2 
vols. (Graz 1965—70). O. Mazal, Pflanzen, Wurzeln, Säfte, 
Samen. Antike Heilkunst in Miniaturen des Wiener Dioskurides 
(Graz 1981). 

ur. A. van Buren in Illuminated Greek MSS, no.6. J.M. 
Riddle, Dioscorides on Pharmacy and Medicine (Austin, Texas, 
1985). Idem, “Dioscorides,” in Catalogus Translationum et 
Commentariorum, eds. F.E. Cranz, P.O. Kristeller, vol. 4 
(Washington, D.C., 1980) 1-143. J. Scarborough, V. Nut- 
ton, “The Preface of Dioscorides’ Materia Medica,” Transac- 
tions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia® 4 
(1982) 187-227. -AC.,, J.S. 


DIOSKOROS (A:coxopos), patriarch of Alexan- 
dria (444-51); died Gangra 4 Sept. 454. Diosko- 
ros succeeded CYRIL as bishop of Alexandria, 
determined to defend the position of his see and 
destroy all vestiges of dyophysite Christology, esp. 
as it was taught by THEODORET oF CYRRHUS and 
Isas of Edessa. Haughty and impetuous in tem- 
perament, he antagonized even some of his nat- 
ural allies in Alexandria. Dioskoros supported the 
Monophysite monk Eutycues in his conflict with 
Patr. FLavian of Constantinople; in 449 he pre- 
sided over the “Robber” Council of EPHESUS, us- 
ing coercion to secure the victory of Alexandrian 
theology and the condemnation of Flavian. Two 
years later at the Council of CHALCEDON Diosko- 
ros was in turn deposed and exiled to Gangra, 
where he soon died; he was not, however, con- 
demned for heresy but only for his strong-arm 
tactics at the “Robber” Council. Much of the 
Egyptian church remained loyal to Dioskoros un- 
til his death and refused to accept Proterios, who 
had been named as his successor in Alexandria 
by the council. Later Monophysite opinion, how- 
ever, did not always regard Dioskoros with favor, 
but in some Monophysite circles he was viewed as 
a saint. A Syriac vita of Dioskoros by his disciple 
Theopistos is preserved (ed. F. Nau, Journal 
Asiatique!’ 1 [1903] 5-108, 241—310). 

ut. N. Charlier, DHGE 14 (1960) 508-14. F. Haase, 
“Patriarch Dioskur I. von Alexandria nach monophysi- 


tischen Quellen,” in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen 6 

(Breslau 1908) 141-233. J. Lebon, “Autour du cas de 

Dioscore d'Alexandrie,” Muséon 59 (1946) 515-28. 
-T.E.G. 


DIOSKOROS OF APHRODITO in Egypt, poet 
and lawyer who represented the people’s interests 
in letters and petitions to the local grandees; died 
after 585. Dioskoros (Ardo Kopos) visited Constan- 
tinople in the 550s on family business (V. Martin, 
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 15 [1929] 96—102). 
A cache of papyri containing his papers was found 
in the early goth C. Apart from classical frag- 
ments, they contain his own writings. His prose 
includes an important Greek-Coptic glossary, pe- 
titions and business contracts, and a treatise on 
metrology. His verses, in assorted meters, range 
from classicizing exercises to panegyrics and epi- 
thalamia addressed to local magnates. Dioskoros’s 
enkomion of JusTIN II provides early testimony on 
the veneration of the imperial image (L.S.B. 
MacCoull, Byzantion 54 [1984] 575-85). The verses 
show his fondness for decorative epithets, for self- 
quotation, and for combining pagan with Chris- 
tian imagery. What once were thought to be in- 
accuracies in his versification can now be under- 
stood as reflections of Coptic phonology and syntax. 
Since much of his verse and prose output is pre- 
served in draft stage, it affords an opportunity to 
see a late antique writer at work. 

ED. E. Heitsch, Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der rém- 
ischen Kaiserzeit, vol. 1 (Göttingen 1961) 127-52. Greek- 
Coptic glossary—H.1. Bell, W.E. Crum, Aegyptus 6 (1925) 
177-226. 

tir. L.S.B. MacCoull, Dioscorus of Aphrodite: His Work 
and His World (Berkeley 1988). Eadem, “The Coptic Ar- 
chive of Dioscorus of Aphrodito,” Chronique d'Egypte 56.3 
(1981) 185-93. Eadem, “Dioscorus and the Dukes: An 


Aspect of Coptic Hellenism in the Sixth Century,” BS/EB 
13 (1986) 30—40. —B.B., L.S.B.MacC. 


DIOSKOUROI, Castor and Polydeuces (Lat. Pol- 
lux), Greek mythological figures; twin brothers of 
Helen, they share immortality between them, liv- 
ing half their time in the netherworld and half 
on Mt. Olympos. Represented as riders on white 
steeds, the Dioskouroi were connected with the 
astral cult; they were also perceived as helpers of 
mankind, esp. at sea (e.g., HIMERIOS, ed. A. Co- 
lonna, or.g.112—13) and in illness. The veneration 
of the Dioskouroi continued after the triumph of 
Christianity: on North African pottery of the 4th 


DIOSPOLIS 633 


C. representations of the Dioskouroi are accom- 
panied by the 12 apostles or the Raising of Laza- 
rus, and on sarcophagi with the scene of St. Peter’s 
arrest (F. Bejaoui, AntAfr 21 [1985] 173-77). Pope 
Gelasius I attests to the existence of a cult of 
“Castores” that the people did not want to aban- 
don. The attitude of the church to the Dioskouroi 
was ambivalent: the church fathers rejected the 
myth of their immortality; on the other hand, 
they tried to replace the Dioskouroi by Christian 


` pairs—thus, the apostles Peter and Paul assumed 


their function as helpers at sea, and KOSMAS AND 
Damıanos their function as healers. More ques- 
tionable is the Dioskourian origin of the Cappa- 
docian triplet saints Speusippos, Elasippos, and 
Melesippos, who are said to have been skilled 
riders. Niketas Choniates compares the imperial 
brothers Isaac II and Alexios III Angelos to the 
Dioskouroi (Nik.Chon. 452.14). 

In the MS of pseudo-Oppian in Venice (Marc. 
gr. 479), Polydeuces is shown in a boxing match 
with Amykos, king of the Bebrykes, while Castor 
is depicted as a soldier. In other miniatures of the 
same MS the brothers are shown hunting, both 
on horseback and on foot (Weitzmann, infra, figs. 
118, 128—29). 

LIT. J.R. Harris, The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends (Lon- 
don 1903). H. Grégoire, Saints jumeaux et dieux cavaliers 


(Paris 1905). W. Kraus, RAC 3:1133—38. Weitzmann, Gr. 
Myth. 109-11. —A.K., A.M.T. 


DIOSPOLIS (Aióormoàs, also called Lydda, Ar. 
Ludd; George of Cyprus calls it Georgioupolis), a 
city in Palestine southeast of Jaffa, which became 
an early center of Christianity. Its bishop was 
synkellos of the patriarch of Jerusalem, and the see 
an autocephalous archbishopric. The Council of 
415 in Diospolis supported Pelagius (see PELAGI- 
ANISM). According to the PIACENZA PILGRIM, a 
miraculous column stood near Diospolis; as the 
Lord was being ied toward this pillar to be 
scourged, it was lifted up in a cloud and set down 
in the middle of the road. The cult of St. GEORGE 
was early attached to Diospolis. Legend has it that 
George was born in Diospolis and his remains 
brought there after his death in Nikomedeia; pil- 
grims speak of his miracle-working tomb in Dios- 
polis. Even after ‘Amr conquered Diospolis, the 
city remained a place where George was vener- 
ated: in the 10th C. there was a splendid church 
dedicated to him; a Muslim legend, probably based 


634 DIPLOMACY 


on the image of George killing the dragon, pre- 
dicted that at the door of this shrine Christ would 
slay the Antichrist. The remains of a monastery 
of St. George, built by the Crusaders over a church 
of Justinian I, are still evident in and around the 
Greek Orthodox church of Lydda. 

(For Diospolis in Bulgaria, see IAMBOL.) 

LIT. G. Hélscher, RE 13 (1927) 2120—22. M. Sharon, 
El? 5:798—803. G. Beyer, “Die Stadtgebiete von Diospolis 
und Nikopolis im 4. Jahrh. n. Chr. und ihre Grenznach- 
barn,” ZDPV 56 (1933) 218-53. M. Benvenisti, The Crusad- 


ers in the Holy Land (Jerusalem 1970) 167-70. HC 4:100. 
-G.V., A.K., Z.U.M. 


DIPLOMACY, conducted for such purposes as 
negotiating TREATIES and arranging imperial mar- 
riages or exchanges of PRISONERS, was one of the 
main activities of the Byz. government and largely 
contributed to its successes. A solid ideology un- 
derlay this diplomacy, which an educated and 
versatile BUREAUCRACY conducted with subtle 
pragmatism. 

The uniqueness and supremacy of the empire 
on earth was a concept inherited from Rome and 
enhanced by the theory that imperial power was 
obtained by God’s will according to God’s choice. 
Following these principles, the ideal would have 
been to unite all the world under one Christian 
Roman emperor, always perceived as a peace- 
maker (ezrenopotos). This was one long-term objec- 
tive for Byz. diplomacy, but in the meantime the 
defense of the empire had to be guaranteed. This 
basic theory remained practically unchanged 
throughout the history of Byz., even in its most 
somber moments. 

The existence of other rulers, with varying de- 
grees of sovereignty, was officially recognized. 
Each had a specific place in the theoretical frame- 
work of a big family, the center of which was the 
Byz. emperor: the designations “son” (often vas- 
sal), “brother,” “cousin,” “nephew,” etc., indicated 
the closeness and the rank that the emperor as- 
signed to each ruler. Following the imaginary 
example of heaven and the concrete one of the 
imperial court, a real (and changeable) hierarchy 
of states was construed on the basis of power, 
religion, and recognized level of civilization. At 
the top of this hierarchy, after Byz., came the 
SASANIAN Persians, then the ARABS, with whom 
the emperor negotiated on terms of quasi-equality. 


99 66 


The western European states—previously part of 
the empire, but separate from the 5th C. on- 
ward—were given mediocre positions, even though 
they were Christian and had an admitted affinity 
with the Byz. This hierarchy was manifested in 
official correspondence in the form of address 
assigned to each foreign ruler or in the weight of 
the gold seal (bulla) used to seal the letter sent to 
him (e.g., in the 1oth C. doullae of four solidi were 
used for letters to the Arab caliph, three solidi 
for the khan of the KHazars, two solidi for the 
archon of Rus’, one or two solidi for the pope and 
for the king of the Franks, etc.). These differ- 
entiations were even clearer in the way that some 
treaties were concluded and put in writing. 
Whenever possible, the appearances dictated by 
the above ideology had to be respected. Instead 
of “paying tribute” the Byz. said they “gave gifts” 
or, better, granted titles and the accompanying 
salaries to foreign rulers and their entourages, 
thus reaffirming implicitly the emperor’s suprem- 
acy. Only when compelled did the emperors ac- 
cept humiliation (e.g., Nikephoros I agreed in 806 
to pay HARUN AL-RasHip not only a hefty tribute, 
but also three nomismata for his personal capita- 
tion and three more for his son’s). They also 
agreed to accommodations (OIKONOMIA). Al- 
though the Byz. forcefully refused to recognize 
other Christian emperors, they accepted unwill- 
ingly the use of the imperial title by other rulers 
(Charlemagne, the German emperors, the Bul- 
garians, and the Serbs); the title “emperor of the 
Romans” they retained for their sovereign alone. 
This general ideology, recognized and accepted 
by most other states, helped the Byz. considerably 
in conducting their foreign policy, enhanced as it 
was by the long tradition of the empire. 
Diplomacy used various means. Pressure on the 
other party could be exerted directly by the armed 
forces, indirectly by allies that Byz. could turn 
against its enemies, by civil strife that it would 
provoke, or just by supporting the pro-Byz. polit- 
ical party. On the other hand, to make individual 
friends, Byzantium used its prestige and wealth 
as well as its capital, Constantinople, which of- 
fered a high quality of life. Close relatives, esp. 
sons, of foreign rulers, were invited for prolonged 
stays in Constantinople, where they were exposed 
to Byz. culture and religious practices (and served 
as hostages). Foreign rulers were invited to visit 


Constantinople, where imperial wealth and power 
could be displayed while negotiations were con- 
ducted. 

Marriages of Byz. princes to foreign princesses 
were accepted from the 8th C. onward; Byz. prin- 
cesses of blood, close relatives of the emperor, 
married abroad from the 10th C. onward. Mar- 
riages to foreigners were, however, usually ar- 
ranged with illegitimate children of the emperor 
or with children of the aristocracy. Royal insignia 
could be attributed and a sovereign title assigned 
to a foreign ruler who would agree to become the 
(adopted) “son” of the emperor, thus recognizing 
his superiority. 

Attribution of Byz. titles in order to create bonds 
of dependency was practiced throughout Byz. his- 
tory; in some cases these titles became hereditary 
to the foreign princes. Gifts or periodic payments 
were intended to secure the conclusion of a treaty, 
an alliance, or the prince’s neutrality. Similarly, 
commercial privileges were granted to foreign 
colonies (attested from the 10th C. onward). Mi1s- 
sions, when successful, attracted the foreign 
country into the orbit of the Byz. church, which 
in turn provided the converts (partly or totally) 
with ecclesiastical personnel. By accepting Byz. 
Christianity, the foreign ruler became subject to 
spiritual pressures by the patriarch of Constanti- 
nople. 

Byz. had no diplomatic service as such but made 
use of a large, competent, and well-organized 
bureaucracy, various branches of which would, 
when necessary, deal with foreign states. Rarely, 
diplomatic negotiations were conducted by pro- 
vincial governors (e.g., the katepano of Italy or the 
strategot of Cherson). Foreign policy was decided 
by the emperor or the MAGISTER OFFICIORUM, later 
by the PARADYNASTEUON, and eventually by the 
MESAZON. Foreign correspondence was prepared 
in the imperial CHANCERY (under the Palaiologoi, 
supervised by the megas LOGOTHETES). AMBASSA- 
DORS, who also collected INTELLIGENCE, were as- 
sisted by a corps of INTERPRETERS, even though 
Greek, esp. demotic Greek, was a major language 
of diplomacy in the eastern Mediterranean, also 
used in negotiations between non-Greek-speaking 
peoples. Foreign ambassadors were received by 
the LOGOTHETES TOU DROMOU. Very seldom did 
sovereigns themselves conduct negotiations; usu- 
ally they were the work of EmBassIEs, sent ad hoc, 


DIPLOMATICS 635 


that held discussions mostly with high officials. 
The permanent foreign representatives in Con- 
stantinople (BAILO, podestà) had their place in the 
imperial ceremonies and consequently were in 
close contact with the authorities. 

_ LIT. Bréhier, Institutions 281—323. F. Ganshof, Le Moyen 
Age [= P. Renouvin, Histoire des relations internationales, vol. 
1] (Paris 1953). D. Obolensky, “The Principles and Methods 
of Byzantine Diplomacy,” 12 CEB Rapports 2 (Belgrade- 


Ohrid 1961) 45—61 (cf. also the complementary reports by 
G. Moravesik and D. Zakythinos). I. Medvedev, “K voprosu 


.o principach vizantijskoj diplomatii nakanune padenija im- 


perii,” VizVrem 33 (1972) 129-39. T.C. Lounghis, Les am- 
bassades byzantines en Occident (Athens 1980). J. Shepard, 
“Information, Disinformation and Delay in Byzantine Di- 
plomacy,” ByzF 10 (1985) 233-93- -N.O. 


DIPLOMATICS, the AUXILIARY DISCIPLINE deal- 
ing with the critical study of archival documents 
(see AcTS, DOCUMENTARY), has a short history as 
far as Byz. is concerned. B. de Montfaucon first 
treated the subject in chapter 6 of his Palaeogra- 
phia graeca (Paris 1708). Byz. acts were also ex- 
amined critically by some Athonite monks, such 
as Cyril of Lavra and Nikodemos Hagioreites, 
both in the 18th C. Setting aside the PaPyRI, one 
is left with few surviving diplomatic materials, 
because all Byz. state archives and most monastic 
ones have perished. 

Archives known to preserve Byz. documents are 
relatively few: the monasteries of Mount Athos 
(see ATHOS, ACTS OF), Patmos, and Meteora are 
the main depositories of monastic archives, to- 
gether with the numerous documents of churches 
and monasteries preserved in southern Italy and 
Sicily. Original documents of foreign relations can 
be found in western European state archives (esp. 
Genoa, Venice). Many more acts are scattered in 
various collections, originals or copies in MS cod- 
ices, including collective copies and medieval 
chancery RECORDS. 

The main goal of diplomatics is to study Byz. 
documents in order to reconstitute the lost ar- 
chives and Byz. CHANCERY techniques; to classify 
the preserved documents according to the au- 
thorities that issued them; to examine them, be 
they original or copies (official or unofficial, cer- 
tified or not, preserved in other documents or in 
narrative sources), and to establish whether they 
are authentic or forgeries. The limited probatory 
value of the written act may explain why the 


636 DIPLOVATATZES 


relatively few Byz. fakes come from periods of 
political upheaval (such as the 14th and early 15th 
C. in Macedonia). Moreover, the documents have 
to be published properly (if possible, with facsim- 
iles) and commented upon adequately in regard 
to the wealth of information that they contain 
concerning the administration and the finances, 
the economy and society, the prosopography and 
the geography, the historical events that they 
mention, their language and their calligraphy, 
even the literary trends and ideology that are 
reflected in them, esp. in their rhetorical prooimia. 

LIT. 1.P. Medvedev, Oderki vizantijskoj diplomatiki (Lenin- 
grad 1988). Délger, Diplomatik. Délger-Karayannopulos, 
Urkundenlehre. -N.O. 


DIPLOVATATZES. See VaTatzEs. 


DIPTYCH (8tz7vxos), any laterally connected pair 
of panels in wood, ivory, or precious metal; the 
term is customarily applied to leaves more cere- 
monial in purpose and more elaborate than WRIT- 
ING TABLETS. Ivory diptychs are the best studied. 
According to the Historia Augusta, ivory diptychs 
were used to record proceedings of the senate. In 
5th-C. Carthage calculi eburnet served to preserve 
the names and deeds of proconsuls (CChr Ser. lat. 
60:220). It is possible that John Chrysostom’s al- 
lusion to “golden” deltot (PG 56:110.46) refers to 
diptychs issued as documents of appointment to 
high officials. No such literary evidence is avail- 
able for two other subsets: the classes known as 
imperial and five-part diptychs (see below). Fre- 
quently depicted in the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM, of- 
ficial diptychs seem to have been framed in gold, 
an element lacking in presumably privately issued 
specimens carved with mythological scenes, games, 
or literary figures (Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, nos. 
54-61, 66, 68—69). Even though related in size 
and technique to the consular diptychs (see be- 
low), such private diptychs were probably distrib- 
uted in much smaller quantities. 

Pagan ivory diptychs disappeared in the 6th C., 
although a parallel Christian series, the so-called 
five-part diptychs, continued to be issued after 
that date. Sacred diptychs (Goldschmidt-Weitz- 
mann, Elfenbeinskulpt. II, nos. 40-42, 52—53, 60, 
122, 222-23), functioning as folding Icons, were 
less prevalent than TRIPTYCHS in the 1oth—11th 
C., but hinged panels continued to be used as 





Dirtycu. Diptych of the consul Anastasios (516); ivory. 
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. 


insignia of office: the Kletorologion of Philotheos 
(Oikonomides, Listes 93.22-Q5.1, 127.25-27, 
129.4—-5) specifies that the emperor should pre- 
sent decorated ivory plaques to candidates for the 
patriciate, a distribution confirmed in De cer. 
(248.11). Like the codicil diptychs of late antiq- 
uity, these may have contained parchment docu- 
ments of appointment. 

Consular Diptychs. These were panels issued 
by ordinary CoNnsuLs upon their accession to of- 
fice. The earliest surviving specimen is that of 
Felix, consul in 428; the series closes with the end 
of the civil consulate in 541 because emperors 
who thereafter assumed the consulate did not 
issue diptychs. Normally, consular diptychs bear 
the name, cursus honorum, and a likeness of the 
honoree. Rome and Constantinople were the most 
likely centers of distribution. Diptychs of the 5th 
C. are generally simple portraits; most 6th-C. ex- 
amples show the consul presiding over the games 
that marked his accession. More than go identify 


a specific consul; a handful of others, although 
anonymous, probably also belong to the consular 
series. It is not certain that all such appointees 
issued diptychs, and the number and nature of 
recipients must have varied. Gaius Apollinaris S1- 
DONIUS (ep.3.6.5—6) indicates that consuls distrib- 
uted panels to their friends and relatives; the 
diptychs of Justinian I (521) and Philoxenos (525) 
bear dedications to the senate or its members. 
Inscriptions are usually in Latin, occasionally in 
Greek, though language alone cannot reveal their 
place of manufacture. Slight variations in icon- 
ography, combined with the evidence of tech- 
nique, point to ivory workshops that produced 
other sorts of panels (A. Cutler, Byzantion 54 [1984] 
75-115); Surviving in greater numbers, consular 
diptychs were serially produced. Their inner sur- 
faces have recesses like those of normal writing 
tablets, but the notion that these huge slabs of 
ivory—those of Apion, consul in 539, measure 
nearly 41 X 16 cm each—were filled with wax 
and inscribed cannot be verified. Many consular 
panels were reused for Christian purposes in the 
Middle Ages. Preserved in this way, they consti- 
tute an invaluable tool for modern scholarship 
since they are precisely datable by the name of 
the official they bear. 

Five-part Diptychs. Known only in ivory, they 
are paired and sometimes hinged assemblages of 
five panels attached to one another by tongue- 
and-groove joints. Each group of five panels forms 
a leaf measuring approximately 35 X 30 cm over- 
all. If the so-called imperial diptychs are included, 
panels survive from 13 such objects. Neither the 
function nor the dates of five-part diptychs are 
known with any precision. Office-holders appear 
on some fragments and a consul is depicted on 
one (Delbriick, infra, no.47), but this is an insuf- 
ficient basis on which to suppose, with Delbriick, 
that five-part diptychs showed the consul’s recep- 
tion of codicilli. On the majority of examples, 
usually dated between the 6th and 8th C., Christ, 
the Virgin, the Lamb of God, or a cross occupies 
the central panel, surrounded by Gospel scenes. 
Some of these may have been designed from the 
Start as BOOK COVERS (F. Steenbock, Der kirchliche 
Prachteinband im frühen Mittelalter [Berlin 1965] 
11—21). 

“Imperial” Diptychs. A subset of five-part dip- 
tychs, they contain the depiction of an emperor 
or empress in their central panels. Though no 


DIPTYCHS, LITURGICAL | 637 


example survives in its original state, there are 12 
fragments belonging to eight different specimens; 
these are customarily assigned to the 5th or 6th 
C. Images of various dignitaries appear on the 
flanking plaques, a bust of Christ or a PERSONIFI- 
CATION of Constantinople in the upper register, 
and BARBARIANS bringing offerings in the lower. 
“Imperial” diptychs have therefore been thought 
to celebrate perpetual victory, a theme repeated 
on some of their inscriptions. On the basis of one 
example inscribed with a consul’s cursus honorum 
but lacking his name (Delbrück, infra, no.4g), it 
is assumed that they were presented to the ruler 
by consuls at their inauguration. H. Thiimmel 
(BS 39 [1978] 196—206) conversely suggests that 
“imperial” diptychs were presented by emperors 
to state officials and that examples with Christian 
iconography functioned as insignia bestowed on 
high clergy when they took office. (See also Bar- 
BERINI Ivory.) 

LIT. H. Leclercq, DACL 4.1:1094—1170. K. Wessel, RBK 
1:1196—1203. Al. Cameron, “Pagan Ivories and Consular 
Diptychs,” 7th BSC Abstracts (1981) 54. Delbriick, Consular- 


diptychen. A. Goldschmidt, “Mittelstiicke fiinfteiliger Elfen- 
beintafeln des VI.-VII. Jahrhunderts,” JbKw 1 (1923) 30— 
c 


33- -A.C. 


DIPTYCHS, LITURGICAL, lists of names of 
the living and of the dead proclaimed aloud 
by the Deacon during the Eucuarist. The prac- 
tice is attested from as early as the 5th C. The 
church of Constantinople had two separate lists, 
that of the dead being further subdivided into a 
list of laymen and a list of clergy, with the bishops 
of Constantinople listed according to the order of 
their succession. The diptych soon became a ve- 
hicle of political struggle. Already in 451 it was 
prohibited to “read from the altar” the names of 
the leaders of the “Robber” Council of EPHESUS. 
Names of emperors, popes, and bishops were 
often erased from diptychs and restored only 
after some form of reconciliation had taken place. 

Sometimes inscribed on double tablets of ivory, 
liturgical diptychs could be local, as in the Syrian 
traditions, commemorating representatives of the 
loca] church, or ecclesial, commemorating hier- 
archs of other churches with which the local church 
was in communion, or the two combined. Byz. 
diptychs were the combined type and were chanted 
by the deacon during the ANAPHORA, not before 
it, as in the Syrian rites. 


638 DISEASE 


LIT. O. Stegmulller, RAC 3:1145-48. G. Winkler, “Die 
Interzessionen der Chrysostomusanaphora in ihrer ge- 
schichtlichen Entwicklung,” OrChrP 37 (1971) 363-77. 

F.T. A. 


DISEASE. The Byz. cherished an interest in dis- 
eases and knew how to describe them. Although 
images created by PsELLOs are usually static, he 
was able to show the changes in human appear- 
ance caused by disease (Ljubarskij, Psell 241f). 
Byz. authors produced detailed descriptions of 
disease—both the pandemic PLAGUE and individ- 
ual illness (H. Hunger in Polychronion 244-52). 
Scientific MEDICINE clearly classified ailments—from 
plague to rabies, ophthalmic afflictions, LEPROSY, 
various skin rashes, cholera, pneumonia, and tu- 
berculosis. Human diseases were understood 
through the ancient notions of imbalances among 
the four humors, best known to Byz. medical 
writers from the works of GaLENn, although phy- 
sicians were well aware of the Hippocratic origins 
of humoral pathology. 

Side-by-side with scientific diagnosis was a “de- 
moniac” explanation of disease; not only was mi- 
raculous HEALING conceived as a struggle against 
DEMONS, but even a well-read man such as PHo- 
Tios, who knew Hippocrates, Galen, and OriBa- 
sios, explained gastric illness as the action of a 
fecal demon (PG 101:553A~—B). He also assumed 
that the moon could cause disease (117B—D). 

LIT. A. Festugiére, “Epidémies ‘hippocratiques’ et épi- 
démies démoniaques,” WS 79 (1966) 157-64. —J.S., A-K. 


DISHYPATOS (Stav7ratos, i.e., twice HYPATOS), 
title mentioned the first time at the beginning of 
the oth C.: the dishypatos Thomas was an addressee 
of Theodore of Stoudios (PG 99:949C). The Kle- 
torologion of Philotheos places the title after that 
of the protospatharios. In the 11th C. the title dishy- 
patos was often conferred on judges, anagrapheis, 
and chartoularioi. The title seems to have disap- 
peared in Byz. by the end of the 11th C., but was 
known in southern Italy in the beginning of the 
12th C. John, son of the imperial disstpatus Ursus, 
was mentioned as late as 1178. Dishypatos as a 
family name appears in the 12th C. and becomes 
relatively common in the Palaiologan period (PLP, 


nos. 5522—45). 


LIT. Guilland, Institutions 2:79—81. Oikonomides, Listes 
295. Seibt, Blesstegel 237-40. —A.K. 


DISHYPATOS, DAVID, Palamite monk and 
apologist; died by 1354, perhaps by 1347. Dishy- 
patos (Atovzraros) was a member of an aristocratic 
family that was related by marriage to the Palaio- 
logan dynasty. He first appears ca.1337 as a cor- 
respondent of BARLAAM OF CALABRIA. Despite this 
connection, he favored the views of Gregory Pa- 
LAMAS. In 1341 he was at the monastery of Ka- 
takekryomene in PARORIA, a stronghold of hesy- 
chasm, when he was summoned to Constantinople 
to support Palamas in his struggle with Barlaam, 

After the local council of Constantinople of 
1341 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF) 
Dishypatos began to compose polemical tracts 
against Barlaam and AkINDyNos, notably a Logos 
addressed to Nicholas KaBAsILas (ca.1342) and a 
lengthy iambic poem of 610 verses in response to 
Akindynos’s poetical attack on Palamas (ca.1342— 
44). In 1346, at the request of Anna oF Savoy, 
he wrote a Short History of the Heresy of Barlaam 
and Akindynos. Some works of Dishypatos were 
translated into Slavic languages probably in the 
second half of the 14th C. and are known in MSS 
from the 15th C. onward (G.M. Prochorov, TODRL 


33 [1979] 32-54). 


ED. Dabid Disypatou Logos kata Barlaam kai Akindynou pros 
Nikolaon Kabasilan, ed. D.G. Tsames (Thessalonike 1979). 
R. Browning, “David Dishypatos’s Poem on Akindynos,” 
Byzantion 25—27 (1955-57) 713—45- Short History—M. Can- 
dal, “Origen ideológico del palamismo en un documento, 
de David Disipato,” OrChrP 15 (1949) 85-125. 

LIT. H.-V. Beyer, “David Disypatos als Theologe und 
Vorkampfer fiir die Sache des Hesychasmus (ca.1337- 


ca.1350),” JOB 24 (1975) 107-28. PLP, no.5532. 
—-A.M.T. 


DISHYPATOS, MANUEL, 13th-C. patron of an 
icon of the VirGIN HAGIOSORITISSA now in Freis- 
ing Cathedral. He is sometimes identified with 
Manuel Opsaras Dishypatos, metropolitan of 
Thessalonike, 1258—60/1 (PLP, no.5544). Dishy- 
patos’s offering retains its original silver-gilt re- 
vetment, on which the image is described as the 
“Hope of Those Who Have Lost Hope” (He Elpis 
ton Apelpismenon). Dishypatos is identified as a 
kanstresios (see Kasrtresios); the dodecasyllabic 
verses are said to have been written by Dishypatos 
himself (M. Kalligas, ArchEph [1937] pt-2, 505). 
Plaques of the HeTormasia, archangels, and saints 
attached to the frame led Wessel (infra) to pos- 
tulate an enamel workshop in mid-13th-C. Thes- 
salonike. The icon, which reached Freising 10 


1440, is described in a Latin inscription on the 
altar on which it rests as a gift to Gian Galeazzo 
Visconti “from the emperor of the East.” 


ut. PLP, no.5543. Grabar, Revêtements, no.16. Athens 
Cal., no.214. Wessel, Byz. Enamels, no.65. -A.C. 


DISKOPOTERION. See CHALICE; PATEN AND 
ASTERISKOS. 


DISMISSAL (d7r6Avons, lit. “release”), a formula 
pronounced at the end of a liturgical service or 
sometimes of one of its parts, as in the apolysis of 
the catechumens after the reading of the Evan- 
gelion (e.g., Maximos the Confessor, PG g1:6g2D— 
693A). The formula of the apolysis varied, the 
major types having been the so-called small and 
great dismissal; the latter was used after vespers, 
orthros, and the divine liturgy (Eucharist). 

LIT. S. Pétridés, DACL 1:2601f. M.M. Solovey, The Byz- 


antine Divine Liturgy (Washington, D.C., 1970) 332f. 
-A.K. 


DISTORTION, the alteration in shape or pro- 
portion in an image, frequently employed to con- 
vey values on a hierarchical scaLe, the expression 
of EMOTION—less often used than in the medieval 
West—or for purposes of CARICATURE. Despite 
antique theoretical systems designed to avoid dis- 
tortion, which were transmitted by PRoKLos, the 
absence of coherent PERSPECTIVE often resulted 
in what, to the modern eye, appear to be defor- 
mations of sPACE and proportion. Some distor- 
tions, however, are evidently attempts by the artist 
to compensate for the spectator’s point of view; 
monumental figures, intended to be seen from 
below, often appear with disproportionate heads 
or legs when viewed from appropriate positions. 
Spiritual values such as ASCETICISM have been held 
to explain distortion of the human form; some 
such instances must be attributed rather to artistic 


incompetence or lack of concern for PLASTICITY. 
-AC. 


DIVETESION (8:8yr}o10?, also Brico), a long 
ceremonial silk TUNIC resembling the Latin dal- 
matic, for use on only the highest state occasions. 
It was worn, belted, instead of the sKARAMANGION 
(perhaps over another simpler tunic), under the 
LOROS, CHLAMYS, Or SAGION, esp. by the emperor, 


DIVINATION 639 


but also by certain court officials. Red, green, and 
white divetesia are mentioned in texts, but the 
color PURPLE was restricted to the emperor. Ac- 
cording to a 1oth-C. ceremonial book (De cer. 
423.2), Anastasios I wore a sticharion divetesion; the 
term is encountered frequently in the gth—11th 
C. but is not used by pseudo-Kodinos in the 14th 
C., by which time the garment had apparently 
been replaced by the sakkos. 

In imperial portraits it is not always easy to 
distinguish between the skaramangion and the dive- 
teston; both seem to have been woven with gold 
designs and ornamented with panels of gold em- 
broidery on the shoulders and hem. The diveteston 
(if indeed this is the garment depicted in the 
portraits) changed somewhat over the course of 
the 11th and 12th C.: the sleeves grew tighter, 
and the lower embroidered hem was no longer a 
strictly horizontal band but extended up the outer 
edge of each leg into a point or roundel. The 
comparable tunic that the empress wore under 
the loros had immensely wide sleeves. 

LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 3:422, 478-80. DOC 2.1277; 3.1:119. 


Hendy, Coinage 67. D. Beljaev, Byzantina, vol. 2 (St. Peters- 
burg 1893) 50-59. -N.P.S. 


DIVINATION, foreseeing or prediction of fu- 
ture events or disclosure of hidden knowledge. 
Various mantic arts were inherited by the Byz. 
from ancient practice but were transformed and 
christianized. They can be divided into two major 
forms: “natural” divination based on the sponta- 
neous observation of the world and inductive (“ar- 
tificial”) divination originating from the use of 
special means. To the first group belong the ob- 
servation of celestial bodies (ASTROLOGY), of me- 
teorological events and NATURAL PHENOMENA (€.g., 
thunder [see BRONTOLOGION] and EARTHQUAKES), 
of dreams (see ONEIROKRITIKON). of birds (the 
EAGLE and others) and animals. The behavior of 
horses was sometimes alleged to predict the des- 
tiny of a new ruler or of a military campaign. 
According to HARUN IBN YAHYA, if imperial horses, 
when led into Hagia Sophia, took the bridle in 
their mouths, it meant that the Byz. had defeated 
the Muslims (A. Vasiliev, SemKond 5 [1932] 150f). 
In the 6th C. a dog allegedly was able to divine 
which women in a crowd were pregnant and which 
men were adulterers (Theoph. 224.15-27). It is 
unclear if any special means were used by the 


640 DIVORCE 


gth-C. Peloponnesian shepherds who announced 
the fall of Syracuse to the Arabs two weeks before 
the news was confirmed (Genes. 83.64—75). The 
natural divination of ORACLES, the ecstatic and 
unintelligible utterances of prophets, so fashion- 
able in antiquity, lost significance, yet Niketas 
Choniates describes a seer, Basilakes by name, 
active in Rhaidestos, whose nonsensical words and 
enigmatic gestures were interpreted by his follow- 
ers as predicting the future. 

Inductive divination encompasses the use of 
various objects, such as books, icons, flour, mir- 
rors, fire, dice, dishes, etc. Herakleios reportedly 
resorted to bibliomanteia (picking a passage of the 
Bible at random) to determine where his army 
should spend the winter (Theoph. 308.15~16). 
Particular importance was attached to names and 
letters. The emperor Maurice, for example, pre- 
dicted that his successor’s name would begin with 
the letter phi (it happened to be Phokas). 

The church condemned, in principle, all types 
of divination but had to comply with its christian- 
ized forms. Thus divination by icons is still at- 
tested by Blastares, and Anastasios of Sinai rec- 
ommended the random opening of the Bible to 
predict the future. 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 1.2:155—-226. Trombley, “Pagan- 
ism” 338f, 343, 348. —F.R.T., A.K. 


DIVORCE (étagvycov) or dissolution of marriage 
([dza]lysts tou gamou) was a concept alien to classical 
Roman law, which acknowledged the right to end 
a Marriage at any time by mutual agreement or 
by repudiation of the spouse. This principle was 
preserved in the law of papyri of the 4th to 7th 
C. (A. Merklein, Das Ehescheidungsrecht nach den 
Papyri der byzantinischen Zeit [Erlangen-Nuremberg 
1967]). Roman divorce, though easy, might in- 
volve (if it was considered without grounds) moral 
condemnation, legal penalties, and material com- 
pensation. The Christian church rejected the con- 
cept of unrestricted divorce. Constantine I in 331 
forbade spouses to send a notice of divorce (re- 
pudium) on arbitrary grounds; only if the husband 
was guilty of murder, sorcery, or grave-robbery 
was the wife permitted to repudiate him and 
recover her entire powry; if she separated on 
other grounds, she lost everything “to her last 
hairpin” and was to be deported to an island 
(Cod.Theod. III 16.1). 

Justinian I prohibited divorce by mutual con- 


sent, except in cases in which the couple took 
monastic vows, and established a restricted list of 
legal causes for separation: conspiracy against the 
emperor or the spouse; ADULTERY or misbehavior 
on the part of the wife (dining and bathing with 
other men, living outside her house, attending 
circus games and theaters, and the hunting of 
wild animals); the husband’s inducing his wife to 
fornicate with other men or a false accusation of 
adultery against the wife (nov.117.8—g). Justin II, 
in 566, reinstated the Roman tradition (C. Castello 
in Mneme G.A. Petropoulou, vol. 1 [Athens 1984] 
295-315), his rationale being that divorce was a 
lesser sin than irrational hatred that might lead 
to attempted murder or suicide. 

The indissolubility of marriage was formulated 
and firmly established in the Ecloga 2:9.1—3, which 
listed very few legal grounds for the dissolution 
of marriage: the wife’s prostitution, impotence of 
the husband for a period of three years, and one 
spouse plotting against the other. Some supple- 
mentary reasons for divorce were introduced by 
later legislators, but the principle of the indisso- 
lubility of marriage (except for entrance into a 
monastery) dominated Byz. civil and canon law. 
One should probably distinguish between divorce 
proper and the annulment of marriage caused by 
its illegality (e.g., marriages prohibited by imped- 
iments, such as consanguinity) or by the social 
inequality of partners. 

Cases of divorce were brought before law courts, 
civil and ecclesiastical alike, and their decisions 
show that in practice the principle of dispensation 
(OIKONOMIA) was applied more frequently than 
civil and canon law suggest. Eustathios Rhomaios 
mentioned cases of divorce by consent (ek synai- 
neseos—Peira 25.37, 25.62), although penalties were 
exacted; he also included contracts of divorce 
(Peira 7.8, 25.30) and devoted serious attention to 
the regulation of the property rights of the di- 
vorced couple. In the 13th C. Chomatenos and 
Apokaukos judged cases of divorce involving peo- 
ple from various walks of life; besides the tradi- 
tional legal grounds (the husband’s impotence, 
the wife’s adultery) other reasons were taken into 
account: incompatibility of the couple, implacable 
hatred, sodomy, consanguinity; when a husband 
abandoned his wife and refused to return to her, 
she might be permitted to remarry. 

tir. Zhishman, Eherecht 578—600, 729-806. S. Troianos, 


“To synainetiko diazygio sto Byzantion,” Byzantiaka 3 (1983) 
9-21. L. Burgmann, “Eine Novelle zum Scheidungsrecht,” 


FM 4 (1981) 107-18. A. Laiou, “Contribution a l'étude de 
linstitution familiale en Epire au XIIIe siècle,” FM 6 (1984) 
300-317, app. 2. F. Delpini, /ndissolubilita matrimoniale e 
divorzio dal I al XII secolo (Milan 1979) 112—22. F. Goria, 
Studi sul matrimonio dell’adultera nel diritto Giustinianeo e bi- 
zantino (Frankfurt am Main 1975). —J.H., A.K. 


DIYARBEKIR. See Amipa. 


DJEMILA (anc. Cuicul), site of a Roman colony 
in Numidia Cirtensis (mod. Algeria). The city was 
considerably transformed in the second half of 
the 4th C., when several basilicas, known from 
both texts and archaeology, were built. Construc- 
tion dates for the so-called Christian quarter are 
less certain, although Djemila, like THEVESTE to 
the southeast, seems to have enjoyed a huge build- 
ing campaign in the first quarter of the 5th C. At 
the heart of this campaign was the construction 
of two basilicas, each with extensive FLOOR MO- 
sarcs and large crypts under their apses; the rel- 
ative chronology of these churches is disputed (N. 
Duval, P.-A. Février, 8 IntCongChrArch [1969] 24f): 
the larger has a mosaic inscription naming as its 
founder a bishop Cresconius, whose identification 
is uncertain. To the west of these churches was 
built an exceptionally large baptistery in the form 
of a rotunda. Other buildings were given over to 
the administration and accommodation of an ev- 
idently large clergy. Numerous private residences, 
such as the “House of the Ass” and the “House 
of Europa,” had elaborate floor mosaics installed, 
which Dunbabin (Mosaics 256) dates to the end of 
the 4th C. or the beginning of the 5th; in other 
houses there was extensive restoration of older 
pavements. The date at which Djemila was aban- 
doned is unknown. 

LIT. P.-A. Février, “Notes sur le développement urbain 
en Afrique du Nord: Les exemples comparés de Djemila 
et de Sétif,” CahArch 14 (1964) 1-26. M. Blanchard-Lemée, 


Maisons à mosaïques du quartier central de Djemila, Cuicul (Paris 
1975). Y. Allais, Djemila (Paris 1938). -A.C. 


DNIEPER (Advarpis, also Bopvoðévns), river 
flowing south from the Valdai hills to the BLACK 
Sea west of the Crimea. Tributaries and portages 
link the upper Dnieper to the Volga for eastern 
traffic and to the Dvina and Lovat’ for access to 
and from Novcorop and the Baltic. Byz. refer- 
ences to the Dnieper usually imply its lower sec- 
tion, which curves in an eastward loop through 
the steppes: Theophanes (Theoph. 357.28) de- 
scribes the crossing of the Dnieper by the Bulgar- 


DOBROMIR CHRYSOS | 641 


ians of AsparucH; Skylitzes (Skyl. 455.38) states 
that the PECHENEGs are found from the Dnieper 
to the DanuBeE. From the mid-11th C. the lower 
Dnieper was controlled by the Cumans, from the 
mid-13th C. by the MonGoLs, and in the late 14th 
and early 15th C. by Lirduanra under Vitovt. 
The Dnieper was used by the Rus’ as a route 
between the Black Sea and northern Europe from 
the late gth C., and it became the main commer- 
cial artery connecting KIEV, SMOLENSK, and other 
towns. The lower part of this route “from the 
VARANGIANS to the Greeks” (POVEST’ VREMENNYCH 
LET 1:11—12) is described in detail by Constantine 
VII (De adm. imp. 9), who pays special attention 
to its twin hazards: a series of rapids and attacks 
by the Pechenegs. The Russo-Byz. treaty of 944 
guaranteed to CHERSON the right to fish unmo- 
lested at the mouth of the Dnieper (Povest vre- 
mennych let 1:37). 

LIT. Obolensky, Byz. and the Slavs, pt.V (1962), 16-61. 


V. Bulkin, 1. Dubov, G. Lebedev, Archeologiceskie pamjatniki 
Drevnej Rusi IX—XI vekov (Leningrad 1978) 6—60. -S.C.F. 


DOBROMIR CHRYSOS (Aoßpounpòs Xpvoós), 
founder of an ephemeral Bulgarian principality; 
died after 1201. The name Dobromir is applied 
to him only in a speech by Niketas CHONIATES 
(Orationes 106.14). He probably joined Asen in his 
revolt against Isaac II, then changed sides and 
was sent to defend Strumitza where he pro- 
claimed himself independent. V. Zlatarski (Godiš- 
nik na Sofijskija Universitet, Ist.-fil. Fak. 29 [1933] 
1—20) hypothesized that he was identical with the 
“jupanus vel satrapa Bulgariae” mentioned by 
Ansbert, but P. Mutafčiev rejected the identifica- 
tion (BZ 34 [1934] 205). According to Zlatarski, 
Dobromir, who, like IvANKo, was hostile to Ka- 
LOJAN, tried in 1197 to make an alliance with 
Alexios III. Again Dobromir changed sides and 
established his “principality” in PROSEK. in a treaty 
Alexios III acknowledged Dobromir’s power over 
Prosek and Strumitza and gave him as wife the 
daughter of the protostrator Manuel KĶKAMYTZES. 
Dobromir ransomed Kamytzes from Bulgarian 
captivity and in 1201 started a war against Byz. 
The alliance with Kamytzes did not last long. 
Dobromir accepted Byz. sovereignty and married 
the emperor’s granddaughter Theodora. There- 
after, he disappears from the sources. 

LIT. Zlatarski, Ist. 3:120-45. P. Mutaftiev, Izbrani pro- 


izvedenija (Sofia 1973) 1:172—243. Brand, Byzantium 127- 
34- —A.K., C.M.B. 


642 | DOBROTICA 


DOBROTICA (Topzporizlas, also called Dob- 
rotić, mostly by Rumanian scholars), a local ruler 
in Dobrudja; died before 1387. He was the brother 
of prince Balik (Balica), whose capital was in Kar- 
vuna. In 1346 Balik sent Dobrotica and another 
brother Theodore to Constantinople to support 
ANNA OF Savoy. Defeated by John VI Kanta- 
kouzenos in 1347, Dobrotica acknowledged Byz. 
suzerainty. By 1357 or 1366 Dobrotica received 
the title of DEspores. He was Balik’s successor, 
moved the capital to Kaliakra and then to Varna, 
and acted, in alliance with Byz., against Bulgaria. 
He expanded his territory from the Byz. frontier 
to the Lower Danube. Dobrotica gave his daugh- 
ter in marriage to Michael Palaiologos, the third 
son of John V, and in 1373 probably supported 
Michael’s unsuccessful expedition against Trebi- 
zond (Kleinchroniken 2:310f). He severed depen- 
dency from the patriarchate of Turnovo and ac- 
knowledged the jurisdiction of Constantinople. 
LIT. P. Mutaftiev, Izbrani protzvedenya, vol. 2 (Sofia 1973) 


104-29. P. Schreiner, Studien zu den Brachea Chronika (Mu- 
nich 1967) 148-51. Ferjančić, Despoti 150-53. —A.K. 


DOBRUDJA, a region between the Lower Dan- 
ube and the Black Sea. In the 4th—6th C. the 
province of ScyrHia MINOR approximately en- 
compassed this territory. In the 7th C. the Avars 
and Slavs penetrated into Dobrudja; ca.680 As- 
PARUCH passed through the region and estab- 
lished his capital in Purska. The political alle- 
giance of Dobrudja in the 8th—1oth C. is under 
dispute: Bulgarian historians consider it a part of 
Bulgaria; Rumanian scholars assert that the Byz. 
retained control over the Lower Danube. In the 
g6os SvjarosLav of Kiev claimed the estuary of 
the Danube, but John I Tzimiskes defeated him 
and reconquered Dobrudja. The Byz. constructed 
fortresses on the Danube and encouraged devel- 
opment of coastal centers (e.g., CHILIA), but Dob- 
rudja was subject to raids by the PECHENEGS and 
other nomads. Under Byz. control the “Roman” 
ethnic element (VLACHS and future RUMANIANS) 
recovered and actively participated in the Bulgar- 
ian revolt that led to the organization of the 
Second Bulgarian Empire. Byz. tried to retain 
the ports of Dobrudja, but was slowly driven out 
by the Venetians and Genoese. In the 14th C. 
semi-independent archontes of Slavic and proto- 
Rumanian origin were active in Dobrudja—Balik, 


Dosrorica, and others—and MIRCEA THE ELDER 
temporarily annexed Dobrudja to Wallachia. After 
their defeat of the Crusaders at VARNA in 1444 
the Ottomans completely occupied the region. ” 
region. 

Lrr. R. Vulpe in La Dobroudja (Bucharest 1938) 280— 
403. Istorija na Dobrudža, vol. ı (Sofia 1984) 156-76. § 
Ştefănescu, “Byzanz und die Dobrudscha in der zweiten 
Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts,” in Byzantinistische Beiträge 
ed. J. Irmscher (Berlin 1964) 239-52. Din istoria Dobrogei, 
vol. 3 (Bucharest 1971). -AK 


DOCHEIARIOU MONASTERY, located on the 
southwest coast of the peninsula of Mt. Arnos, 
northwest of the Xenophontos monastery. The 
origins of Docheiariou (Aoxetapiov) are obscure: 
it was apparently first established before 1013 by 
John Docheiarios (probably the former cellarer 
of Xeropotamou) at the Athonite port of Daphne, 
with a church dedicated to St. Nicholas. Oikono- 
mides hypothesizes that the monastery was trans- 
ferred to a new location in the mountains between 
1051 and 1056 and, finally, between 1083 and 
1108 was moved to its present site near the sea. 
By the early 12th C. its dedication had changed 
to St. Michael. At this time the hegoumenes Neo- 
phytos, considered the second kéetor of the mon- 
astery, built a larger church and a fortification 
wall with a tower. He also acquired important 
properties in Chalkidike and composed a testa- 
ment (sometime after 1118). From the 14th C. 
Docheiariou was an imperial monastery. It played 
no role in the hesychastic controversy; its monks 
were more involved with temporal concerns and 
engaged in mercantile shipping. Docheiariou was 
always a cenobitic monastery inhabited by Greeks. 
In the early 15th C. the Russian deacon ZosIMA 
recounted that Docheiariou was ninth in the 
Athonite hierarchy. 

The archives contain 6o acts of the Byz. period 
(1037-1424). The will of hegoumenos Neophytos 
(Docheiar., no.6.29—31, 58—60) boasts of the pre- 
cious textiles (pepla) he had added to the monas- 
tery’s treasury and of the ecclesiastical silver, books, 
and icons he had amassed. At present the library 
contains approximately 100 MSS of Byz. date 
(Lampros, Athos 1:233~69), of which cod. 5, 4 
12th-C. menologion (Treasures 3, figs. 258-68), and 
four Gospel books are notable for their illustra- 
tion. The monastery also possesses a relief of the 
Ascension of Alexander, who is raised to heaven 


by griffins. Docheiariou’s present buildings are 
almost all post-Byz. 

souRcES. Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris 
1984). 
p Treasures 3:160—75, 289-95. N. Oikonomides, “Hiera 
mone Docheiariou. Katalogos tou Archeiou,” Symmeikta 3 
(1979) 197-263. ~A.M.T., A.C. 


DOCTRINA JACOBI NUPER BAPTIZATI (the 
Indoctrination [66acKadta] of Jacob Recently 


Converted), a treatise dated in 634 (Bonwetsch,, 


infra, p-xvi) or 640 (Nau, infra, p.715). It takes 
the form of a pseudo-dialogue (one party only 
asks questions without entering the discussion) 
between a certain Jacob and a group of Jews. In 
its prologue a man called Joseph claims to have 
been present during the conversation of Jacob 
with the Jews and to have written it down. In 
addition to Emp. Herakleios, the title names 
George, the eparch of Carthage, and it is plausible 
to suppose that the treatise was produced in Af- 
rica. 

The main theme of the treatise is the limited 
character of the message of the Old Testament; 
only the “new law” brought forth by Christ assures 
the salvation of mankind. An important theme of 
the Doctrina is the moral perversion of Jews, which 
Jacob illustrates by his own activities before con- 
version. This topic allows the author to describe 
(in a very vague way) some contemporary events, 
such as the conflict between the Blue and the 
Green factions, the “tyranny” of Emp. Phokas, 
and the Arab expansion under Muhammad. The 
treatise has survived both in the original Greek 
(without the prologue) and in Ethiopic and Slavic 
translations (W. Liidtke, Archiv fiir slavische Phi- 
lologie 33 [1912] 317). 

ED. and LIT. Doctrina lacobi nuper baptizati, ed. N. Bon- 


wetsch (Berlin 1910). “La didascalie de Jacob,” ed. F. Nau 
in PO 8.5 (1912) 711-80. -A.K. 


DOCTRINE OF ADDAI, 5th- or 6th-C. Syriac 
account of the origins of Christianity in EDESSA 
and environs, which relies on earlier materials. 
The anonymous work is basically a collection of 
documents preserved in the archives of Edessa 
under the names of Hanan, the archivist of Abgar 
V (4 B.c.—a.D. 50), and Lababna bar Sanagq, the 
king’s scribe. The documents consist of a letter of 
King Abgar to Jesus inviting him to Edessa, which 
Hanan reportedly delivered personally, bringing 


DODECASYLLABLE 643 


back an oral reply, and accounts of the sermons 
and miracles worked in Edessa by Addai, an apos- 
tle sent to the city by Judas Thomas after the 
ascension of Jesus. The same story appears in 
digest form, but including a letter from Jesus to 
Abgar, in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebios of 
Caesarea (Eusebios HE 1.13). In the Doctrine of 
Addai the author reports that Hanan painted a 
portrait of Jesus, which Abgar installed in one of 
his palaces. Important themes in the Doctrine are 
apostolic succession in Edessa, the imperium Ro- 
manum as the appropriate civil milieu for Chris- 
tianity, antipagan and anti-Jewish polemics, the 
canon of the scriptures, and divine protection 
guaranteed for Edessa, “the Blessed City.” 

ep. G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle (London 
1876). G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai (Chico, Calif., 
1981). 

p W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity 
(Philadelphia 1971) 1—43. H.J.W. Drijvers, “Facts and 
Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity,” The Second 
Century 2 (1982) 157—75. Idem, “Jews and Christians at 
Edessa,” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985) 88-102. 

—S.H.G. 


DODECASYLLABLE, a Byz. development of the 
ancient iambic trimeter, the meter of most dia- 
logue in classical tragedy. Early in the Byz. period, 
accurate trimeters were written by the long and 
short syllable patterns of ancient prosody. How- 
ever, by the oth C., since Greek had lost the 
distinction between long and short syllables, a new 
METER developed around two aspects of the iam- 
bic trimeter that could still be appreciated: a basic 
line length of 12 syllables; and a division after 
either five or seven syllables by the two caesura 
patterns of the ancient meter. To this outline was 
added a set of stress accent preferences that var- 
ied according to fashion and personal taste, but 
observed as an absolute rule a stress accent on the 
eleventh syllable. A learned writer like John 
TZETZES, while conforming to the stress patterns, 
also judged dodecasyllables for their accuracy as 
quantitative trimeters, condemning false quan- 
tities in his own early work. Most Byz. dodeca- 
syllables, however, at least from the 12th C. on- 
ward, pay little regard to quantity, esp. the vowels 
a, t, and v (the dichronous vowels), whose length 
is not immediately apparent. 

Dodecasyllables were used for works of epic 
tone after the decline of the HEXAMETER (e.g., by 
GEORGE OF PISIDIA) and were very frequent in 


644 | DODEKAORTON 


epigrams and ceremonial poetry. A small propor- 
tion of popular poetry also appears in dodeca- 
syllable form, leaving open the suspicion that the 
verse may have developed at an oral level before 
being adopted by the written word. 


Lit. P. Maas, “Der byzantinische Zwolfsilber,” BZ 12 
(1903) 278-323. Hunger, Lif. 2:91—93. -M.J.J. 


DODEKAORTON. See GREAT FEASTS. 


DOGMA (ŝóyua), a term encountered in the New 
Testament in connection with the edict of the so- 
called Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts 16:4) 
where it signifies “what seems right, or good, or 
reasonable.” In Byz. theology, it generally retains 
an ambiguity, referring variously to the opinions 
or teachings of the church, of pagans, of philos- 
ophers, or of heretics. Thus, for example, in the 
so-called Definitiones Patmenses (OrChrP 46 [1980] 
335-37), the word dogma is understood more 
broadly than in modern usage that has established 
it as a theological term since the 17th C. In effect, 
what we now call dogmas, Byz. theology finds in 
the CrEED of Nicaea and Constantinople as well 
as in the definitions or ANATHEMAS of the subse- 
quent ecumenical councils, and concretely in the 
SYNODIKON OF OrTHODOXY. Thus, dogma means 
orthodox teaching as “true concept concerning all 
matters” (Anastasios of Sinai, ed. Uthemann, Viae 
Dux, 2.6, pp. 10-12). 

LIT. E. Amand de Mendieta, “The Pair kerygma and 


dogma in the Theological Thought of St. Basil of Caesarea,” 
JThSt n.s. 16 (1.965) 129-142. -K.-H.U. 


DOGS (sing. kiwv). Used for guarding and 
rounding up flocks of sheep, but also for HUNTING 
or simply as a companion or pet, the dog was 
particularly indispensable in agricultural com- 
munities. It is the inveterate companion of Davip 
in Psalter illustration and other works depicting 
the young shepherd. The Farmer’s Law (pars. 25 
and 75—77) heavily penalized anyone who killed, 
poisoned, or injured a sheep dog. The guilty 
faced corporal punishment and had to pay double 
for the animal’s price. The training of hunting 
dogs was entrusted to skylagogor, who took charge 
of the hounds during the hunting expeditions of 
the nobility. Hunting dogs were highly prized and 
might be sent as gifts. The dog’s usefulness is 
reflected in the Kynosophion of Demetrios PEPA- 


GOMENOS, which describes the breeding and train- 
ing of dogs and the treatment of their diseases; 
rabies is mentioned along with observations on its 
symptoms (R. Hercher, Claudii Aeliani Varia His- 
toria, Epistolae, Fragmenta [Leipzig 1866] 587—g9). 

The Byz. praised the dog for being man’s most 
faithful companion. A common and familiar theme 
is the dog’s revelation of the murderer of its slain 
master (TzErzes, Hist. 4:131, 152). We also hear 
of trained dogs entertaining the public by per- 
forming various acts (Malal. 453.15—454.4). Fol- 
lowing classical models, Nikephoros BASILAKES 
composed an enkomion for dogs that mentions the 
use of guide dogs by blind beggars (Progimnasmi 
e monodie, ed. A. Pignani [Naples 1983] 136.95- 
g7). Three centuries later Theodore Gazes com- 
posed a similar enkomion dedicated to Mehmed II 
(PG 161:985—-97). In hagiography, however, the 
dog is often depicted as a symbol of evil or even 
as the embodiment of the Devil (e.g., AASS Nov. 
3:517f). Similarly, superstitious beliefs held that 
a dog seen early in the morning brings bad luck. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 6:3 16f. M. Lurker, “Der Hund als 
Symboltier fiir den Ubergang Dieseseits in das Jenseits,” 


Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte 35 (1983) 132- 
44- —Ap.K., A.C. 


DOKEIANOS (Aoxeaves, fem. Aoxetavy), a fam- 
ily name probably derived from the toponym of 
Dok(e)ia, said to be in the Armeniakon theme or 
in Paphlagonia. The Dokeianoi were known in 
the 11th C. predominantly as military com- 
manders; the first, Nikephoros, was katepano of 
Italy before 1040; in 1040/1 the post was occupied 
by Michael Dokeianos, who was killed during an 
unsuccessful expedition against the Pechenegs in 
1050; Theodore, magistros and megas doux, was 
one of the closest supporters of Isaac I, his uncle. 
Another Dokeianos married Alexios I’s niece So- 
phia (L. Stiernon, REB 23 [1965] 228) and was 
granted the high title of sebastos. Anonymous epi- 
grams (Lampros, “Mark. kod.” 147f, 161f) men- 
tion their son, who died prematurely, and their 
daughter Irene Komnene, wife of Isaac Vatatzes. 
The Dokeianoi were rich: Michael possessed a 
mansion in Paphlagonia (Bryen. 194f), and a 
charter of 1110 (Lavra 1, no.59.34) mentions “a 
moat of the Dokeianoi” near Thessalonike; Irene 
Komnene, according to the epigrams, was raised 
in luxury, with servants and golden vessels. De- 
spite their relationship with the Komnenoi, the 
Dokeianoi lost their prominence after Alexios I’s 


reign; we know only that a certain Dokeianos was 
appointed bishop of Dyrrachion in 1212. The 
name appears in later sources, but the late Do- 
keianoi are mostly peasants, clerics, or scribes 
(PLP, nos. 5560-78). John Dokeianos was a writer 
in the mid-15th C. (see DOKEIANOS, JOHN). 


Lit. Falkenhausen, Dominazione 93. -A.K. 


DOKEIANOS, JOHN, rhetorician, copyist, and 
bibliophile; fl. mid-i5th C. Our knowledge of 
Dokeianos (Aoxetavés) is based almost exclusively 
on the evidence of his own writings. His earliest 
work that can be dated with any certainty, an 
address to the despotes THEODORE II PALAIOLOGOS, 
was apparently composed ca.1436 (Topping, infra 
6); he evidently lived into the 1470s, when he 
wrote an epigram on the deceased patriarch GEN- 
NADIOS II ScHoarros. Dokeianos is perhaps to 
be identified with the John Dokeianos who was 
teaching at the patriarchal school in Constanti- 
nople in 1474. Dokeianos was closely associated 
with the Palaiologan family, both in Mistra and in 
Constantinople, and served as tutor to the prin- 
cess Helena Palaiologina, daughter of the despotes 
DEMETRIOS PALAIOLOGOS. 

Dokeianos’s preserved works are primarily rhe- 
torical, such as enkomia and addresses to Constan- 


DOME 645 


tine XI. A monody on Catherine, Constantine’s 
second wife, has been attributed to Dokeianos by 
P. Sotiroudis (JOB 35 [1985] 223-29). His love 
of classical literature is revealed by his frequent 
citations of ancient authors and allusions to antiq- 
uity, and by the catalogue of his personal library, 
which included volumes of Homer, Hesiod, Aes- 
chines, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Hermogenes. 
He was also a copyist of MSS, notably Venice, 
Marc. gr. 520, which includes works of Theognis 
and Plutarch. 

ED. Lampros, Pal. kai Pel. 1:n '-vB', 221-55. 

LIT. P. Topping, “Greek MS 1 (the works of Ioannes 
Dokeianos) of the University of Pennsylvania Library,” The 
Library Chronicle 29 (1963) 1-15. S. Lampros, “Hai biblio- 
thekai Joannou Marmara kai Joannou Dokeianou,” NE 1 
(1904) 295-312. PLP, no.5577- -A.M.T. 


DOLICHE. See TELOUCH. 


DOME (ñmogpaipiorv), a hemispherical vault, dis- 
tinguished by its pure geometry and by its cen- 
tralizing role in the planning of buildings. The 
dome is perhaps the most characteristic feature 
of Byz. church architecture, lending both internal 
and external coherence. Domes could be built of 
stone (e.g., audience hall of al-Mundhir at Sergio- 
polis, 6th C.), tubular ceramic elements (e.g., San 


Dome. Dome of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. View from the southwest. 





646 | DOMENTIJAN 


Vitale, Ravenna), or of brick (e.g., Hagia Sophia, 
Constantinople). The interior of the dome could 
be either a smooth hemisphere (e.g., St. Irene, 
Constantinople), scalloped (also known as a 
“pumpkin dome,” e.g., Myrelaion Church, Con- 
stantinople), or ribbed (e.g., Hagia Sophia). All 
these methods of construction and interior artic- 
ulation appear as early as the 5th—6th C. and 
persist to the very end of Byz. architecture. Struc- 
turally and iconographically, the Byz. dome de- 
scended from Roman antecedents. Yet, unlike 
Roman examples, Byz. domes were related to 
basically longitudinal rather than fully centralized 
buildings. An ingenious system of structural sup- 
ports, involving either PENDENTIVES Or SQUINCHES, 
was developed to permit the setting of the dome 
over the rectilinear space of the naos. In addition 
to being the crowning architectural element, the 
dome was also the focus of CHURCH PROGRAMS OF 
DECORATION. 

LIT. E.B. Smith, The Dome: A Study in the History of Ideas 
(Princeton 1950; rp. 1971). J.J. Rasch, “Die Kuppet in der 
rémischen Architektur,” Architectura 15.2 (1985) 117-39. 
S. Storz, “Zur Funktion von keramischen Wölbröhren in 
römischen und frihchristlichen Gewélbbau,” Architectura 


14.2 (1984) 89—105. O. Demus, Byz. Mosaic. K. Lehmann, 
“The Dome of Heaven,” ArtB 27 (1945) 1-27. -S.Ć. 


DOMENTIJAN, Serbian scholar and writer; born 
ca.1210, died after 1264. For most of his life 
Domentijan was a monk in HILANDAR on Athos, 
where he wrote a (very long) Life of St. Sava 
ca.1250 at the request of King Stefan Uroš I and 
in 1263/4 a Life of St. Simeon (the former king 
STEFAN Nemanja). Both texts make an impressive 
display of scriptural and theological learning. They 
are valuable sources for the historian, but must 
be used with caution because they are partially 
derivative. Both draw on the Life of Nemanja by 
his son Stefan the First-Crowned; in the Life of 
Simeon, Domentijan copies long passages verba- 
tim. Another unacknowledged source of motifs is 
the panegyric on Vladimir I by Metr. ILARION of 
Kiev. The Life of St. Sava was revised by the 
monk TEODOSIJE in 1290—92. 

ED. Dj. Daničić, Domentiyan. Zivot sv. Simeuna i sv. Save 
(Belgrade 1865). Légendes slaves du moyen âge, 1169—1237. 
Les Némania: vies de St. Syméon et de St. Sabba, ed. A. Chodzko 
(Paris 1858), with Fr. tr. j 

LIT. V. Nikolić, Domentijan (Zemun 1897). V. Corović, 
preface to L. Mirković, Domentijan, Zivoti svetoga Save i 
svetoga Simeona (Belgrade 1938) 5—23. A. Schmaus, “Die 
literarische Problematik von Domentijans Sava-Vita,” Opera 
Slavica 4 (1963) 121-42. -R.B. 


DOMESTIKOS (õouéoriKos), a term designating 
a broad range of officials, ecclesiastical, civil, and 
military. Prokopios (Wars 3.4.7) explains the term 
as the Latin form of the Greek koinonos, “compan- 
ion.” In the church hierarchy they were the heads 
of specific groups connected with order and ritual 
(ANAGNOSTAI, SUBDEACONS, etc.), esp. as conduc- 
tors of the choirs of sincers (Darrouzés, Offikia 
596). In the civil service the term is known from 
355 for the chief of a bureau, identical to PRIMI- 
KERIOS; domestikoi of the SEKRETON or of the EPHO- 
ROS are mentioned on later seals. Domestikoi were 
influential, some of them close to the emperor, 
some confidants of important functionaries (O. 
Seeck, RE 5 [1905] 1296f). By the late gth C. 
when PHILOTHEOS compiled the Kletorologion, there 
were two kinds of military domestikot: the com- 
manders of TAGMATA, esp. the DOMESTIKOS TON 
SCHOLON, and their subaltern officers who, ac- 
cording to the anonymous book on tactics (ed. 
Dennis, Military Treatises 252.139—-46), stood un- 
der the command of the comes. From the end of 
the 11th C., domestikot of the themes are also 
known (Guilland, Institutions 1:588—93), relatively 
low officials who dealt primarily with theme fi- 
nances. (See also MEGAS DOMESTIKOS.) 


Lit. Bury, Adm. System 47—68. Oikonomides, Listes 329— 
33- —A.K. 


DOMESTIKOS TON EXKOUBITON (d0pé07- 
kos TOV "E€xovBitwy), commander of the TAGMA 
of the Exkoubitoi. The small corps of excubitores 
was created by Leo I as a select imperial guard 
and put under the command of a comes excubitorum 
(Jones, LRE 1:658), a post that had considerable 
importance in the 6th and 7th C. The first known 
domestikos ton Exkoubiton was Strategios, who held 
the title of spatharios, in 765 (Theoph. 438.10— 
11). Bury (Adm. System 57) suggests that this change 
in title from comes to domestikos meant degradation 
of the rank, but the real significance of the shift 
escapes us because of the paucity of sources. In 
the mid-gth-C. TAKTIKON of Uspenskij the domes- 
tikos ton Exkoubiton occupies a place inferior to all 
strategoi; in later taktika he was ranked ahead of 
Western strategoi. In the 10th-C. taktikon of Escu- 
rial we find two domestikoi—one for the East and 
another for the West; Oikonomides (Listes 330) 
hypothesizes that besides these two there was a 
special domestikos for Constantinople. In the 11th 
C. the title of the commander of Exkoubitoi be- 
came archon (Skyl. 380.92—93), and a 12th-C. his- 


torian (An.Komn. 1:151.1g) uses the verb exarcho 
to describe the function of the domestikos. It is not 
known, however, whether this change was official 
or only due to literary taste, and whether this 
tagma was a united body of Exkoubito: or one of 
the two (or three) divisions (East, West, and Con- 
stantinople). 

Some seals of the 7th C. bear the name exkou- 
bitor, while domestikos of the Exkoubiton or the 
Exkoubitoi appears in those of the 8th—gth C.; 
their titles are spatharioi (in the 8th C.), protospa- 
tharioi, and even patrikios (Zacos, Seals 1, n0.2403) 
in the gth C. Their staff included a TOPOTERETES; 
a protomandator, with his MANDATORES; the bearers 
of ensigns; and skribones. This last term, which in 
the 7th C. probably was a dignity (see Zacos, Seals 
1.9:1649) and was combined sometimes with the 
civil functions of DIOIKETES, ZYGOSTATES, etc., des- 
ignates in the TakTIKA OF Leo VI (4.6) officers 
assigned for occasional services. 

Lit. Haldon, Praetorians 355-57. M. Whitby, “On the 


Omission of a Ceremony in Mid-Sixth Century Constanti- 
nople,” Historia 36 (1987) 483-88. -A.K. 


DOMESTIKOS TON HIKANATON (é0péo7tK0s 
tev ‘Ikavatwv), commander of the TacMa of Hi- 
kanatot. The origin of the Hikanatoi is obscure; 
Bury rejects the possibility of their identification 
with FOEDERATI, stressing that there is no evidence 
whatever that Hikanatoi were foreigners. Haldon 
suggests that the regiment of Hikanatoi was mod- 
eled on the victa. According to the vita of Patr. 
IcnaTios, the office was created in 80g, and Ni- 
ketas (the future Ignatios) was the first appointee. 
Without rejecting this testimony, Bury expresses 
doubts, but G. Ostrogorsky and E. Stein (Byzantion 
7 [1932] 193f, n.2) accept the evidence as valid. 
The domestikos ton Hikanaton is mentioned in all 
the TAKTIKA of the oth—1oth C., but the evidence 
from the 11th C. is already questionable since the 
sources may use Hikanatoi as a family name. 
Among his subordinates were the TOPOTERETES, 
CHARTOULARIOS, komites (see Comes), and so on. 
The seals of several domestikot ton Hikanaton of the 
gth C. are preserved. 


uit. Bury, Adm. System 63f. Oikonomides, Listes 332. 
Haldon, Praetorians 295f, 357. —-A.K. 


DOMESTIKOS TON NOUMERON (Sopéa7tKos 
rv Novuépwv), commander of the TAGMA of the 
Noumera. This domestikos is listed in all the TAK- 


DOMESTIKOS TON SCHOLON | 647 


TIKA. The first known domestikos ton Noumeron is 
Leo Lalakon who was active during the reign of 
Michael III (PG 105:513B); one of his contem- 
poraries, Theophilitzes, is said to have held the 
office of the KOMES TON TEICHON and that of the 
Noumera (TheophCont 655.10-11), which may 
mean that the two offices were not yet separate. 
Bury assumes that the droungarios of the Nou[mera] 
mentioned on a 7th- or 8th-C. seal was a prede- 
cessor of the domestikos. J. Haldon (Praetorians 256— 
75) hypothesizes that the regiment of the Nou- 
mera was established in the late 7th C. and had 
close contacts with the factions. On seals of the 
gth C., domestikoi ton Noumeron have titles of spa- 
thariot and protospatharioi (Zacos, Seals 1:1881). The 
functions of this domestekos included protection of 
the palace and supervision of the city PRISON of 
the Noumera. On his staff were the TOPOTERETES 
and CHARTOULARIOS, as well as tribuni, vicarii, and 
others. The office does not seem to have survived 
the 11th C. 


LIT. Bury, Adm. System 65f. Oikonomides, Listes 337. 
Guilland, Topographie 1:48—51. -A.K. 


DOMESTIKOS TON OPTIMATON, governor 
of the theme of OPTIMATOI or commander of the 
TAGMA deployed there. The TAKTIKA do not men- 
tion a STRATEGOS of the Optimatoi. This domestikos 
occupies in the hierarchical lists a position much 
lower than all the Eastern strategoi. Oikonomides 
(Listes 339) emphasizes his function as provider of 
mules for the army. Nothing is known about his 
role on the battlefield. The staff of the domestikos 
ton Optimaton was structured like that of other 
tagmata, including a TOPOTERETES, CHARTOULARI- 
OS, komites (see COMES), and so on. 


LIT. Bury, Adm. System 66f. Pertusi, De them. 133. 
—A.K. 


DOMESTIKOS TON SCHOLON (dopéotiKos THY 
oxXoA@v), commander of the TAGMa of the scholae. 
It is plausible that this office originated from that 
of the domestikos on the staff of the MAGISTER 
OFFICIORUM, who became independent as the ma- 
gister was assigned other duties. The first known 
domestikos ton scholon is the patrikios Antony in 767 
(Theoph. 442.25—26). In the TAKTIKA the domes- 
tikos ton scholon occupies the place below the stra- 
tegos of Anatolikon but before the other strategoi. 
The term is rarely used in military books of the 
1oth C. (e.g., Dennis, Miltary Treatises 292.25). 


648 DOMINICANS 


During the reign of Romanos II the office was 
divided in two, domestikoi of the East and of the 
West; they are listed in the taktikon of Escurial 
(Oikonomides, Listes 263.23-24) but even at that 
time below the strategos of Anatolikon. In reality 
the domestikos ton scholon was commander in chief 
of the army (or one of its two sections); from the 
end of the gth C. the PHoxas family attempted to 
monopolize the office. Constantine VIII and some 
of his successors, desiring to restrict the indepen- 
dence of noble families, often granted the office 
to eunuchs, but from the mid-11th C. the post 
was returned to the military aristocracy. The ME- 
GAS DOMESTIKOS as commander in chief func- 
tioned until the fall of the empire, whereas the 
simple domestikos (known at least through 1320) 
became an honorary title conferred on governors 
and the like. The staff of the domestikos ton scholon 
included TOPOTERETAI, komites (see COMES), CHAR- 
TOULARIOI, subaltern domestikoi, and others. 


LIT. Guilland, Institutions 1:405—68. Raybaud, Gouverne- 
ment 237~39. -A.K. 


DOMINICANS. The religious order founded by 
St. Dominic in 1215 soon became active in mis- 
sionary work in the East. By 1228 it was firmly 
installed in the Latin Empire of Constantinople 
and in the Holy Land. A regional grouping within 
the order, the Societas Fratrum Peregrinantium, 
began ca.1300, was suppressed from 1363 to 1375, 
then revived. It operated in the Genoese colonies 
in the Crimea, then in Armenia, Persia, and 
Georgia. 

Members of the order residing in the East, esp. 
in the Dominican convent in PERA, were active as 
papal legates, imperial ambassadors to the papacy, 
proselytizers, and polemicists. Many became fluent 
in Greek and wrote theological treatises in that 
language addressed to prominent Byz., including 
Andronikos II, hoping to persuade them to ac- 
cept the Latin teachings on the procession of the 
Holy Spirit and on papal PRIMACY. 

In 1309 the Dominican order chose Albertus 
Magnus and Thomas Aquinas as official teachers 
of theology. The writings and translations of De- 
metrios Kypones enhanced the influence of 
Thomism in Constantinople. In the late 14th and 
early 15th C. a number of Byz. in Kydones’ circle 
converted to Roman Catholicism and joined the 
order, including the brothers Andrew, Theodore, 


and Maximos CHRYSOBERGES and Manuel KALE- 
KAS. 
LIT. Loenertz, ByzFrGr I, 20g-26. B. Altaner, “Die 


Kenntnis des Griechischen in den Missionsorden wahrend 


des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts,” ZKirch 53 (1934) 436-93. 
—F.K. 


DOMITIANOS (AopttLav6s), diplomat, bishop of 
Melitene from 580, and saint; born ca.550, died 
Constantinople 10 or 12 Jan. 602; feastday 10 
Jan. Domitianos was a cousin of Maurice—Paret 
rejects Honigmann’s assumption that Domitianos 
was the son of Peter, Maurice’s maternal uncle. 
Domitianos spent 582-85 and 591-98 primarily 
in Constantinople as Maurice’s adviser; Pope 
Gregory I addressed several epistles to him. He 
played the key role in the empire’s Persian policy: 
after CHosroes II fled to Byz. territory in 591, 
Domitianos became his confidant, accompanied 
the king on his expedition to Iran, and negotiated 
the treaty with him. Domitianos directed Maur- 
ice’s religious policy in the eastern regions; this 
policy was—contra H. Grégoire (Byzantion 13 [1938] 
395f)—intolerant toward the Monophysites. The 
later Monophysite tradition (e.g., GREGORY ABO’L- 
Faraj) is hostile to Domitianos, accusing him of 
seizing all Monophysite churches in Mesopotamia 
and northern Syria and of persecuting the “faith- 
ful.” He was guardian of Maurice’s children. 

LIT. R. Paret, “Dometianus de Méliténe et la politique 
religieuse de l'empereur Maurice,” REB 15 (1957) 42—72. 


E. Honigmann, Patristic Studies (Vatican 1953) 217-23. 
Whitby, Maurice & His Historian 14f. —W.E.K., A.K. 


DOMITIUS ALEXANDER, usurper (308-09). He 
was vicarius Africae and briefly controlled Tripoli- 
tania, Numidia, and Sardinia, as well as Africa 
proper. He was condemned at the Conference of 
Carnuntum in 308 and defeated by MAXENTIUS, 
whose rule over Italy was threatened by Domi- 
tius’s control of African grain and recognition of 
CONSTANTINE I. There is disagreement about the 
date when the revolt was suppressed (Barnes gives 
309, Stein 311). 


LIT. Barnes, New Empire 14f. Stein, Histoire 1:85. 
—T.E.G. 


DONATION (Swpedc). Byz. law Auctuated be- 
tween accepting an oral agreement as a sufficient 
form of the donation contract and requiring a 


written contract or a certain number of witnesses 
(3-7). Leo VI in novel 5o established the rule that 
a donation whose value surpassed 500 nomismata 
was void without a written contract, whereas a 
lesser donation was valid if confirmed by three 
witnesses. Byz. law categorized a donation as a 
specific form of alienation that was usually con- 
trasted with sale (e.g., Docheiar., no.15.4). More 
explicit is a SIGILLION of Michael VIII of 1267 or 
1282 (Docheiar., no.8.14—16) that cites alternative 
methods of acquisition: through a ktetor’s charter, 
through an imperial prostagma or other imperial 
dorea, through purchase, exchange, donation (pros- 
enexis), or improvement of the property. 

Even though the mixed form negotium cum do- 
natione was known to Roman law, in Byz. the 
distinction between sale and donation became ob- 
scured, partially due to the concept of the spiritual 
(psychike) donation, that is, made for the salvation 
of the soul. Thus, in some charters (e.g., MM 
4:408.33) there are clauses stating that the seller 
of property to a monastery did not accept the full 
price but granted part of the payment to the 
monastery as a donation. On the other hand, a 
transaction could be called dorea even when it was 
actually a sale (e.g., Kastam., no.1 [a.1047]). The 
term “donation” could also cover the medieval 
precartum remuneratorium: thus, in 1232 Alexios 
Tesaites donated his possessions to the monastery 
of LemBIoTIssA, but the family remained on their 
holding, probably as monastic proskathemenot 
(Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnosenija 160f). 


ur. Zacharia, Geschichte 302-05. —A.K. 


DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (Constitutum 
Constantini), an 8th-C. Latin document, purport- 
ing to be an act of Constantine I. Perhaps origi- 
nating in the chancery of Pope Stephen II (752— 
57) or Paul I (757-67), it is based heavily on the 
5th-C. Legenda S. Silvestri. In the document Con- 
stantine I professes his faith (confessio) and grants 
to Pope Silvester I several imperial insignia and 
privileges (donatio), the Lateran Palace, as well as 
Rome, Italy, and the western regions. Some schol- 
ars speculate that the Donation was fashioned to 
bolster Pope Stephen’s negotiating position with 
the Frankish ruler Pepin (741-68) against the 
LOMBARDS in 754. More regard it as a papal at- 
tempt to diminish Constantinople’s authority by 
demonstrating that, since Constantine had of- 


DONATIO PROPTER NUPTIAS 649 


fered imperial rank to Pope Silvester and since 
the pope had acquiesced in Constantine’s move 
from Rome to Constantinople (the new urbs regia), 
the papacy took precedence over the patriarchate 
of Constantinople and the pope could transfer 
the empire’s center from Constantinople back to 
Rome. Now, however, specialists minimize the 
document’s political aspect and assert that it was 
not an official, anti-Byzantine act, but rather part 
of the rivalry between the Lateran Palace and the 
increasingly prestigious Vatican Church of St. Pe- 
ter (R.-J. Loenertz, Aevum 48 [1974] 245, and de 
Leo, infra 118f, suggest that a Greek monk wrote 
it in Rome’s Monastery of St. Silvester). 

Nevertheless, since the Donation of Constantine 
contradicted the Byz. claim that Constantine’s 
translatio imperu had made Constantinople the New 
Rome, it figured prominently in numerous Latin- 
Greek polemical exchanges over political and ec- 
clesiastical primacy. The chancery of Orro III 
declared the document fraudulent, but Pope Leo 
IX sent a copy to Patr. MICHAEL I KEROULARIOS 
in 1054, and Cardinal HUMBERT later issued a 
revised version to support the pope’s dispute with 
the Byz. emperor and the Eastern patriarchs. Yet 
in the 12th C. Byz. writers likewise began to ap- 
peal to the Donation. Under Manuel I Komnenos, 
John Kinnamos effectively used it to attack West- 
ern rulers who usurped the imperial title and to 
deny that popes had the right to confer it, while 
Theodore BaLsaMON used the document to justify 
Keroularios’s reaction in 1054 against the papal 
legates (G. Ostrogorsky, SemKond 7 [1935] 187- 
204). A Greek translation of the Donation, extant 
in MSS of the 14th C. (ed. W. Ohnsorge, Konstan- 
tinopel und der Okzident [Darmstadt 1966] 108—23), 
was likely done as early as the 12th C. 

ED. P. de Leo, Il Constitutum Constantini: Compilazione 
agiografica del sec. VIII, vol. 1 (Reggio Calabria 1974). H. 
Fuhrman, Das Constitutum Constantini [= MGH Fontes luris 
germanici antiqui 10] (Hanover 196) 

LIT. J. van Engen, DMA 4:257-59. H.-G. Krause, “Das 
Constitutum Constantini im Schisma von 1054,” in Aus 
Kirche und Reich: Festschrift fiir Friedrich Kempf (Sigmaringen 
1983) 131-58. N. Huyghebaert, “Une légende de fonda- 
tion: Le Constitutum Constantini,” Le moyen âge 85 (1979) 
177—209. P. Alexander, “The Donation of Constantine at 


Byzantium and its Earliest Use against the Western Em- 
pire,” ZRVI 8 (1963) 11—26. ~P.A.H. 


DONATIO PROPTER NUPTIAS (zpoyaptaia, 
mpò yápov Swpec). From the 4th C. onward, the 


650 DONATISM 


wedding gift of a man to his wife—as opposed to 
the “engagement gift” (ARRHA SPONSALICIA) com- 
mon in earlier times—became an institution sub- 
ject to special rules. According to the laws of 
Justinian I, the husband was obliged to provide a 
donatio for the benefit of his wife that was equal 
to her promised powry (Nov.Just. 97 pr., 1—2). 
These two assets constituted the marriage prop- 
erty, administered by the husband with limited 
power of disposal. The question as to who re- 
ceived the donatio after the death of the husband 
depended on the marriage contract, which, in 
addition to the legal reversion of the property 
brought into the marriage, should provide for an 
equally large profit (kerdos) for either marriage 
partner from the fortune of the one who died 
first. If there were children, the widow was due 
the USUFRUCT from the donatio and a portion of 
the property equal in size to the inheritance of a 
child (ibid. 127.3). If the woman married a second 
time, she lost her portion from the donatio (ibid. 
2.1, 22.23). The Ecloga (2.3) explicitly denied the 
husband’s obligation to provide a donatio of equal 
value to the dowry and considered it sufficient 
that the man, “as is common,” increase the worth 
of the dowry through a gift. Both the Prechetron 
(tit.6; 9.12,13), and the Basilika (29.1,2) reproduce 
Justinianic law but without the prologue and the 
first chapter of novel g7 concerning the equiva- 
lence of the donatio and the dowry. In the Epa- 
nagoge (tit.19), the donatio appears in a form that 
has not yet been studied in detail but appears to 
partly recast that in the Ecloga; it occastoned a 
detailed contemporary commentary. From the time 
of the novels of Leo VI, the term dorea is often 
replaced by HYPOBOLON. 

LIT. F. Brandileone, Scritti di storia del diritto privato ita- 
liano, vol. 1 (Bologna 1931) 117—214. Simon, “Ehegüter- 
recht” 225-35. A.M. Guljaev, Predbracnyj dar v rimskom 


prave i v pamjatnikach vizantiyskago zakonodatel’stva (Dorpat 
[Estonia] 1891). —M.Th.F. 


DONATISM, named after its primary teacher 
Donatus, a rigorist sect that developed within the 
African church in the early 4th C. in the after- 
math of the Great Persecution. The Donatists 
refused to accept Caecilian as bishop of Carthage 
because he had been consecrated by Felix of Ab- 
thungi, who was accused of betraying the faith 
under the threat of persecution. A synod of 70 
rigorist bishops declared Caecilian’s elevation in- 


valid and consecrated Majorianus in his stead. 
Majorianus died soon afterward and Donatus be- 
came bishop. 

Shortly after the battle of the MiLVIAN BRIDGE 
in 312 Constantine I offered financial support to 
the African church in the person of Caecilian. 
The Donatists appealed to Constantine and a 
commission was established in 313 under the pres- 
idency of Pope Miltiades (311—314) to hear the 
conflicting claims. This body condemned the Do- 
natists, who appealed to the Council of Arles 
(314), with the same result. Constantine hesitated 
to persecute the Donatists openly, but by 316 he 
had personally condemned them and there was 
some persecution; in 321, however, Constantine 
ordered effective toleration. Constans I resumed 
persecution in 347, but the Donatists resisted, 
celebrated their rites in secret, and began to turn 
to violent reaction against government officials 
and the Catholic party. In 362 Julian ordered an 
end to persecution, but after his death Donatism 
was again outlawed. Attacked by Optatus, bishop 
of Milevis, and esp. by AUGUSTINE, Donatism 
nevertheless remained a vital force until the end 
of Christianity in North Africa. 

The Donatists, who claimed that they were fol- 
lowing the teachings of St. Cyprian, appealed to 
local African and rigorist sentiment. Donatism 
resembled NovaTIANISM in its rigorism and eccle- 
siology, but its adherents went beyond most sim- 
ilar groups in their view of the sacramental sys- 
tem: they held that the validity of the sacrament 
depended upon the rectitude of the celebrant. By 
the mid-4th C. some Donatists were associated 
with the circumcelliones, banditlike gangs who ter- 
rorized the cities and villas of Africa. The sect was 
centered in the villages and countryside of Nu- 
midia; some scholars have seen the movement as 
a reflection of “nationalist” or social sentiment. 

uit. W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford 1952). 
T.D. Barnes, “The Beginnings of Donatism,” JThSt 26 
(1975) 13-22. R.A. Marcus, “Christianity and Dissent in 


Roman North Africa,” SChH g (1972) 21-36. P.G. Schul- 
ten, De Circumcellionen (Leiden 1984). ~T.E.G. 


DONKEYS. See Beasts oF BURDEN. 


DOORS were made of a variety of materials, 
usually wood but also bronze; occasionally they 
might be inlaid with ivory (bone?) or silver. 


Wooden Doors. Wood was the material most 
commonly used for doors. Some 20 examples 
survive, generally dated 12th—15th C., normally 
the main door of a church or of its TEMPLON. An 
unusual concentration is found in Cyprus (Soteri- 
ou, Mnemeia tes Kyprou, pls. 142-44). There and 
elsewhere, Byz. specimens are less elaborate than 
the 5th-C. doors of Rome and Milan. Structurally, 
wooden doors consist of either stiles and rails 
enclosing panels or vertical planks nailed to hor- 
izontals. Some small sEMA doors are made of a 
single piece of lumber; most are decorated with 
the ANNUNCIATION. A door at the monastery of 
St. CATHERINE on Sinai has reliefs of animals, 
birds, and plants. Openwork leaves survive at 
loannina (A. Zachos, EpChron 3 [1928] 220-22) 
and doors decorated with a geometric framework 
at Boulgareli (A. Orlandos, DChAE? 1, fasc. 3—4 
[1924] 69-73). 

Bronze Doors. Byz. manufacture of bronze doors 
occurred in two periods—a 4th- to 7th-C. contin- 
uation of Roman traditions and a medieval re- 
vival. Although Constantine 1 removed from the 
Artemision at Ephesus the pair of doors deco- 
rated with a gigantomachy and erected them at 
the Senate House in Constantinople (CONSTAN- 
TINE OF RHODES, vv. 125—52), he apparently also 
made new bronze doors for his Forum (Preger, 
Scriptores 2:279f), and Constantius I did likewise 
(360?) for Hacia Sopuia. Doors of the cathedrals 
of Tyre (314-17, with relief plaques—Eusebios, 
HE 10.4.42), and Edessa (504/5—JoshStyl, ch.89) 
were covered in metal REVETMENT. Surviving from 
the 4th to 7th C. are both cast bronze doors— 
(with silver inlay) in the Lateran Baptistery, Rome 
(461-68)—and revetted doors—at Hagia Sophia, 
Constantinople (with copper and silver inlay and 
appliqué decoration), and at the monastery of St. 
Catherine on Mt. Sinai (550-65). By the gth C. 
techniques of manufacture of bronze doors may 
have been forgotten, judging by the patchwork 
example in the southwest vestibule of Hagia So- 
phia (838-40) and by cases of reuse in Constan- 
tinople in the Nea EKKLEs1a (880), on the acro- 
polis, and at the GoLDEN GaTE (963). The craft 
was revived, however, by the 11th C. when bronze 
doors, often decorated with figures and inlaid 
with silver, were made in Constantinople for ex- 
port to a series of churches in Italy: at Amalfi 
(ca.1060), MONTECASSINO (1066), S. Paolo, Rome 
(1070), Monte Sant’ Angelo (1076), Atrani (1087), 


DORMITION | 651 


S. Marco, Venice (1080, 1112), and Salerno (1100), 
the first ive having been ordered by members of 
an Amalfitan family that had commercial interests 
in Constantinople as well as Syria/Palestine. The 
origin of the so-called “Korsun doors” in Novgo- 
rod (Byz. or Russian?) is under discussion. 

Ivory and Silver Doors, criticized by St. Jer- 
ome, are mentioned more rarely in Byz. than in 
Latin literature and occurred only in lavish con- 
texts. Six (?) of the nine doors leading from the 
narthex to the nave of Hagia Sophia, Constanti- 
nople, were reputed to be of ivory (Preger, Scrip- 
tores 1:96.11—12, note). The elephantine pyle of the 
Daphne in the GreaT PaLace, first mentioned in 
802, was used by the emperor on his way to the 
Covered Hippodrome (De cer. 518.8). Most doors 
described as ivory were probably wood inlaid with 
bone, like the examples preserved at the PRoTA- 
Ton on Mt. Athos and at Elasson, restored in 
1296 (G. Soteriou, EEBS 4 [1927] 327-31). Al- 
exios I Komnenos ordered the removal and re- 
casting of the silver decorations on the doors of 
the Chalkoprateia Church in Constantinople, which 
depicted 12 dominical feasts (E. Miller, RN 11 
[1866] 36.20-23; I. Sakkelion, BCH 2 [1878] 
118.10—14). 

LIT. C. Mango, “Storia dell’arte,” Civiltà bizantina dal IX 
alľXI secolo (Bari 1978) 241-51. G.H. Forsyth, K. Weitz- 
mann, The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai (Ann Arbor, 
Mich., n.d.) 10, pls. XCIV—XCVI. M.E. Frazer, “Church 
Doors and Gates of Paradise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in 
Italy,” DOP 27 (1973) 147-62. C. Bertelli, “Notizia preli- 
minare sul restauro di alcune porte di S. Sofia à Istanbul,” 
BICR 34-35 (1958) 58-115. A. Bank, Prekladnoe iskusstvo 


Vizanta IX-XII vv. (Moscow 1978) 71-81. 
~Ch.Th.B., M.M.M,, A.C. 


DORMITION (koinos), feast of the “falling 
asleep,” that is, death, of the Virgin Mary, cele- 
brated 15 Aug. One of the 12 Byz. GREAT FEASTS, 
the Dormition is preceded hy a two-week LENT 
and has an afterfeast of nine days. It has been 
celebrated on 15 Aug. since the 6th C., replacing 
an earlier feast of the maternity of Mary found 
on that date in the earliest Jerusalem sources (A. 
Renoux, PO 36.2:189—91, 354-57; M. Aubineau, 
Les Homélies festales d’Hesychius de Jérusalem, vol. 1 
[Brussels 1978] 145-69). 

Originally a mobile celebration in Constanti- 
nople (M. van Esbroeck, Maxime le Confesseur, Vie 
de la Vierge [Louvain 1986] xxx), the Dormition 
had become a fixed feast by the time of Emp. 


652 | DORMITION 





Dormition. Dormition of the Virgin; fresco. West wall of the Church of the Virgin 
Phorbiotissa, Asinou. Below are visible the heads of monastic saints. 


Maurice; it was celebrated at BLACHERNAI (Theoph. 
265f; Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, PG 
147:292AB). In the Typikon of the Great Church 
(Mateos, Typicon 1:368—73), the festivities began 
at dawn with a procession (LITE) from St. Eu- 
phemia to Blachernai for the synaxis. After the 
liturgy, the emperor offered a banquet for the 
patriarch and other dignitaries (Philotheos, Kletor. 
219.24-221.4). But in the 14th C., the emperor 
attended both vespers and the subsequent Eucha- 
rist at Hagia Sophia instead, resting in the patriar- 
chal chambers in between the services without 
returning to the palace (pseudo-Kod. 245.11~—15). 

The variety of Byz. names for the feast, signi- 
fying either Dormition or Assumption (analepsis) 
(M. Jugie, La mort et l'assomption de la Sainte Vierge 
(Vatican 1944) 185-95; Wenger, infra 422f), re- 
flects differing theological opinion as to whether 
Mary really died, as was generally believed in Byz., 


or had been simply assumed into heaven. Both 
Theodore of Stoudios (PG gg:1696C) and the 
Typikon of the Great Church call the feast the metas- 
tasis. 

Representation in Art. The most important 
texts for the iconography are the second homily 
of John of Damascus on the Koimesis (ed. Kotter, 
Schriften 5:516—40) and the “Pastoral Letter” of 
Joun I of Thessalonike, read during orthros of 15 
Aug. (M. Jugie in PO 19:344—438). Both draw on 
the legend, Transitus Mariae, associated with JAMES 
(the Lord’s brother), which includes the Dormi- 
tion in a narrative running from the Annuncia- 
tion of the Virgin’s imminent death (see GABRIEL) 
through the disappearance of her body (M. van 
Esbroeck in F. Bovon et al., Les Actes apocryphes des 
apôtres [Geneva 1981] 265-85). The earliest pre- 
served representations of the Virgin’s death are 
1oth-C. Constantinopolitan ivories, isolated litur- 


gical icons that show the iconography already fully 
developed. The Virgin lies on a bier, Apostles 
grouped symmetrically to either side; Christ stands 
behind her, raising her small, swaddled eidolon or 
soul to an angel who will carry it up to Heaven. 
This image becomes widespread: in devotional 
panels and steatites, in MSS accompanying the 
reading for 15 Aug. (Lk 11:38—42), and as the 
final Great Feast on templon beams and in mon- 
umental cycles, where it usually occupies the west 
wall of the naos. The composition was elaborated 
in the 11th-12th C. to include buildings housing 
mourning women, bishops (James, Dionysios the 
Areopagite, Hierotheos, and Timotheos of Ephe- 
sus, all of them authors whom legend supposed 
to have been present), the cloud-borne Apostles 
arriving, and the figure of Jephonias the Jew, 
whose hands—cut off by an angel when he tried 
to upset the bier—were restored when he ac- 
knowledged Christianity. Many Palaiologan ver- 
sions add episodes from the longer narrative, and 
some show the Virgin’s bodily assumption into 
Heaven, whose gates open on high. 

LIT. I. Zervou Tognazzi, “L’iconografia della Koimisis 
della Santa Vergine, specchio del pensiero teologico dei 
Padri bizantini,” Studi e ricerche sull’Oriente cristiano 8 (1985) 
21—46, 69—90. A. Wenger, L’Assomption de la t. s. Vierge dans 
la tradition byzantine du VI’ au X‘ siècle (Paris 1955). A. Raes, 


“Aux origines de la fête de l'Assomption en Orient,” 
OrChrP 12 (1946) 262-74. — R.F.T., A.W.C. 


DOROSTOLON (^opóoroàov; also Lat. Duro- 
storum; Slavic Dristra, Drtisttir), also Silistra, city 
and fortress in Bulgaria on the right bank of the 
lower Danube. The Roman walls were destroyed 
in the 4th C., probably by the Visigoths, and more 
massive walls built in the 5th or 6th C. These in 
turn were destroyed, and later rebuilt by the Bul- 
garians in the gth C. In 971 John I Tzimiskes 
captured the city, in which SvjaTosLav had taken 
refuge. After the First Bulgarian Empire fell, 
Dorostolon became the capital of the Byz. prov- 
ince of ParisTRION. Occupied for a time in the 
late 11th C. by the Pechenegs, Dorostolon was 
recaptured by Alexios I Komnenos in 1088. In 
1186/7 it became part of the Second Bulgarian 
Empire. In the 14th C. it was ruled by semi- 
independent Bulgarian or Rumanian despots and 
finally surrendered to the Ottomans in 1388. In 
a period of Ottoman weakness after the battle of 
ANKARA in 1402, the city was seized by the Ru- 


DOROTHEOS, VISION OF 653 


manian prince MIRCEA THE ELDER and not re- 
covered by the Turks until 1419/20. Dorostolon 
was an important ecclesiastical center: the seat of 
a bishop since the conversion of Bulgaria and in 
the ioth C. the residence of the patriarch. 

uit. A. Kuzev, V. Gjuzelev, Bilgarski srednovekouni gra- 
dove i kreposti, vol. 1 (Sofia 1981) 177—200. D.P. Dimitrov, 


“Le système décoratif et Ja date des peintures murales du 
tombeau antique de Silistra,” CahArch 12 (1962) 35-52. 
-R 


DOROTHEOS (Awpoéeos), jurist, ANTECESSOR, 
professor at the law school of Berytus. He was 
appointed by Justinian I to the commissions for 
the compilation of the DıGEsT and the second 
edition of the CopEx JusTINIANUS and was or- 
dered, together with THEOPHILOS, to compile the 
INsTITUTES. In the scholia to the BASILIKA several 
fragments of a Greek index to the Digest (esp. to 
its 24th book) have been preserved. The para- 
phrases of the Digest passages 2.8.12—2.11.4, pre- 
served on papyrus (ed. V. Bartoletti, Papiri greci 
e latini 13.2 [Florence 1953] no.1350), were at- 
tributed to Dorotheos by their first editor G. La 
Pira (Bullettino dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano 38 [1930] 
151—74) but on insufficient grounds (F. Pring- 
sheim, ZSavRom 53 [1933] 488-91). 
ED. Heimbach, Basil. 6:36—47. 


Lit. K.E. Zacharia von Lingenthal, Kritische Jahrbücher 
für Deutsche Rechtswissenschaft 8 (1844) 808-10. -AS. 


DOROTHEOS, VISION OF, Greek hexameter 
poem preserved in a unique papyrus codex of the 
5th C. (P. Bodmer 29). The poem, in 343 lines, 
describes the narrator’s journey to the court of 
heaven where he saw God, Christ, and the “swift 
angel” Gabriel. Christ was enthroned like a Ro- 
man emperor and surrounded by angels uni- 
formed like Roman soldiers and court officials, 
and bearing such titles as domestikos, praipositos, 
primikerios, ostiarios, etc. The man was severely 
punished for disobedience and vanity, baptized, 
and indoctrinated by Christ who admonished him 
to be modest. Probably written by an Egyptian 
poet, the work marks an important stage in the 
development of Christian epic. 

ED. Papyrus Bodmer XXIX: Vision de Dorothéos, ed. A. 
Hurst, O. Reverdin, J. Rudhardt (Geneva 1984), rev. E. 


Livrea in Gnomon 58 (1986) 687-711. Eng. tr. A.H.M. 
Kessels, P.W. van der Horst, VigChr 41 (1987) 313-59. 


654 | DOROTHEOS OF GAZA 


LIT. J. Bremmer, “An Imperial Palace Guard in Heaven: 
The Date of the Vision of Dorotheus,” ZPapE pig 75 (1988) 
82-88. —L.S.B.MacC. 


DOROTHEOS OF GAZA, monk and ascetic 
writer; born Antioch ca.500, died between 560 
and 580. Born to a wealthy family, Dorotheos 
received a classical education and became an ar- 
dent book collector. He then entered a monastery 
near Gaza where he came under the influence of 
the recluse BARSANOUPHIOS, author of a polemic 
against ORIGEN, and his friend John the Prophet. 
P. Canivet has suggested that Dorotheos was forced 
to leave this monastery because of his sympathy 
with the Origenist doctrines of Evacrios PONTI- 
Kos (REGr 78 [1965] 336—46). Dorotheos subse- 
quently (ca.540) founded and headed his own 
cenobitic monastery, also near Gaza. He compiled 
for the monks’ use a set of spiritual instructions 
(Didaskaliat) inculcating the ascetic life. His work 
was frequently cited by THEODORE OF STOUDIOS. 
The Didaskaliai survive in a gth-C. abridged revi- 
sion probably made by one of Theodore’s follow- 
ers; some of its 24 sections may not be authentic. 
The Didaskaliai were translated into Syriac, Ara- 
bic, Georgian, and Church Slavonic. Eight of his 
letters and a small collection of maxims also sur- 
vive. 

ED. PG 88:1611~1844. Oeuvres spirituelles, ed. L. Reg- 
nault, J. de Préville (Paris 1963), with Fr. tr. Eng. tr. E.P. 
Wheeler, Discourses and Sayings (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1977). 


LIT. J-M. Szymusiak, J. Leroy, DictSpir 3 (1957) a 
64. D. Stiernon, DHGE 14 (1960) 686f. 


DOROTHEOS OF MONEMVASIA, a name 
(perhaps fictitious) under which was printed a 
world chronicle that has survived in many MSS 
whose interconnections are not yet fully worked 
out. The first redaction ended at 1570. The 
chronicle consisted of several disconnected sec- 
tions: biblical and ancient history; lists of Roman 
and Christian emperors, of Turkish sultans, and 
of patriarchs of Constantinople; the history of 
Rome from Aeneas to Emp. John VIII Palaiolo- 
gos; the history of sultans to Selim II; and the 
history of the Greek church. The last section 
contains a prose version of the CHRONICLE OF 
Morea, the story of the Council of Ferrara- 
Florence, a chapter on Venice, etc. The original 
compilation seems to have been based on a “pop- 
ular” paraphrase of Theophanes the Confessor, 


Theophanes Continuatus, and the Ekthesis Chro- 
nike (which covers the period from 1391 to 1515), 
as well as several now unidentifiable sources (e.g., 
for the Komnenian period). 

The identity of the author of the original is 
under discussion: Moravcsik (infra) was inclined 
to accept the authorship of Manuel Malaxos from 
Nauplion, K. Sathas (Sathas, MB 3, p.m’) sug- 
gested Hierotheos of Monemvasia, T. Preger (BZ 
11 [1902] 4—15) hypothesized that the author was 
an unknown Venetian. Russo and Lebedeva (in- 
fra), on the other hand, assume that Dorotheos 
could be a real person, a bishop of Monemvasia 
in the 16th C. 

ED. Biblion historikon pertechen en synopsei diaphorous kai 
exochous historias (Venice 1631; rp. 17 times up to 1848). 

LIT. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 1:412-14. I.N. Lebe- 
deva, Pozdnie grečeskie chronikt (Leningrad 1968). D. Russo, 
Studii istorice greco-romdan, vol. 1 (Bucharest 1939) 51—100. 
E. Zachariadou, “Mia Italike pege tou pseudo-Dorotheou 


gia ten historia ton Othomanon,” Peloponnesiaka 5 (1962) 
46-59. -—E.M.J., A.K. 


DORY (åópv), also called Doros, a region in the 
mountainous southwestern part of Crimea where, 
according to Prokopios (Buildings 3.7.13), those 
Gotus settled who did not follow Theodoric to 
Italy. The kastron or phrourion of Doros was situ- 
ated in Crimean Gothia; Justinian II sought ref- 
uge there in 695. A bishopric was founded in 
Dory either by the end of the 7th or in the 8th 
C. Excavation has revealed the ruins of some 
“cave towns” (Eski-Kermen, Mangup, etc.) in the 
land of Dory as well as basilicas of approximately 
6th-C. date and fortifications. 

The name Dory disappears after the gth C., 
probably surviving in the form Theodoro (N. Ba- 
nescu, BZ 35 [1935] 35f); the name Mangup for 
this region is first attested in a letter of the Khazar 
king Joseph (ca.g60): the Goths of Dory were at 
this time vassals of the Khazars. There is vague 
evidence that ca.1223 the towns of Gothia paid 
tribute to the emperor of Trebizond (M. Ticha- 
nova, MatlssArch 34 [1953] 328f)}. Vasiliev’s hy- 
pothesis (infra 157f) that Constantine Gabras was 
sent to the Crimea after his independent rule in 
Trebizond had been terminated in 1140 proves 
invalid (Kazhdan, Arm. g1). 

By the 13th or 14th C. a princedom of Theodoro- 
Mangup appeared on the site of Dory. Eski-Ker- 
men suffered from the raid of Nocay in 1299, 
and probably between 1395 and 1404 Mangup 


was under the rule of Timur; after Timur’s death, 
the prince of Theodoro-Mangup, Alexios, re- 
gained independence, and the principality re- 
tained it, even after the Ottoman conquest of the 
Crimea in 1475. Around 1425 a fortress and 
palace were built in Mangup and the Church of 
Constantine and Helena restored. Greek tradi- 
tions survived in Mangup, and Greek inscriptions, 
both funerary and dedicatory, have been found 
there. In the late 14th C. the hieromonk Mart- 
THEW OF KHAZARIA wrote in Greek a poetic ac- 
count of his visit to Theodoro, describing the 
devastation caused by the raids of Timur. 

uit. A.A. Vasiliev, The Goths in the Crimea (Cambridge, 
Mass., 1936). E.I. Solomonik, O.I. Dombrovskij, “O loka- 
lizacii strany Dori,” in Archeologičeskie issledovanija sredneve- 
kovogo Kryma (Kiev 1968) 11-44. E.V. Vejmarn, LI. Lo- 


boda, I.S. Pioro, M. Ja. Čoref, “Archeologičeskie issledovanija 
stolicy knjažestva Feodoro,” in Feodaľnaja Tavrika (Kiev 


1974) 123-39. —O.P. 


DORYLAION (Aopúňaiov, mod. Eskişehir), city 
of northwestern PHRYGIA, on a strategic road 
junction controlling passage from Constantinople 
to the interior of Asia Minor. A major military 
post, Dorylaion was frequently mentioned after 
741, when it was base of the revolt of ARTABAS- 
DOS. It was a bastion of the Opsixion theme and 
an APLEKTON; Arab raids often reached it in the 
8th-1oth C. According to IBN KHURDĀDHBEH, 
Dorylaion was noted for its plains, where imperial 
pack animals were raised, and for its hot springs. 
After the Turks captured it ca.1080, Dorylaion 
lay in ruins in a no-man’s land frequently occu- 
pied by nomadic Turkish tribes until Manuel I 
took the region in 1175, drove out the nomads, 
and built a new fortress for defense of the frontier 
(P. Wirth, BZ 55 [1962] 21-29). Soon after the 
battle of MYRIOKEPHALON, however, the city fell 
to the Seljuks. Dorylaion was a bishopric of Phry- 
gia Salutaris, under Synada. Remains of the for- 
tifications, which surrounded the medieval hilltop 
town, have entirely disappeared; they indicated 
two periods of construction, perhaps of the 7th— 
8th and 12th C. 


uit. MAMA 5:xii—xvil. -C.F. 


DOUKAS (Aovxas, fem. Aovcawa, from DOUX, 
“leader, general”), a noble Byz. lineage. The hy- 
pothesis of their Armenian origin (doux being a 
translation of Arm. sparapat, “general”) cannot be 


DOUKAS 655 


proved. The first known Doukas was sent in the 
gth C. by Empress Theodora to convert the Pau- 
LICIANS forcibly. The family was very prominent 
in the early 10th C. when Andronikos Doukas 
and Constantine Doukas served as military com- 
manders; they became prototypes of two person- 
ages in the epic poem DiGENES AKRITAS (see Dovu- 
KAS, ANDRONIKOS and Doukas, CONSTANTINE). It 
is not clear whether Andronikos Doukas, who 
sided with Bardas SkKLEROs in 976, was related to 
the elder Doukai. One of his sons, Bardas Mon- 
gos, commanded the fleet sent in 1016 to KHA- 
ZARIA (the Crimea). Again it is unknown whether 
CONSTANTINE X Doukas, who ascended the im- 
perial throne in 1059, and his son MicHaeEL VII 
Doukas were related to the elder Doukai as af- 
firmed by PsELLos and Nicholas KALLIKLES; Ni- 
kephoros BRYENNIOS even went so far as to assert 
that their ancestors served Constantine I the Great. 
A 12th-C. historian (Zon. 3:675f) wrote, on the 
other hand, that the old lineage died out after 
the unsuccessful revolt of Constantine Doukas in 
913, and Constantine X was a descendant only 
through the female line. The 11th-C. Doukai, who 
originated from Paphlagonia, were generals and 
governors: John Doukas was katepano of Edessa 
in 1059 (see Doukas, JOHN); his sons were re- 
spectively domestikos ton scholon and protostrator; 
Konstantios Porphyrogennetos, Michael VII’s 
brother, was a famous soldier, even though he 
died at age 20 (at Dyrrachion in 1081). 

The Doukai intermarried with many aristo- 
cratic families, including KomMNeENo! (the family 
name Komnenodoukas was used): IRENE Dovu- 
KAINA, Andronikos’s daughter, became Alexios I’s 
wife; at the beginning of his reign Alexios con- 
sidered her cousin Constantine Doukas as his heir 
apparent (see Doukas, CONSTANTINE); Irene’s 
brother, the protostrator Michael, was one of the 
most important generals at the end of the 11th 
C.; another brother, John, was megas doux. In the 
12th C. the name of Doukas was fashionable and 
applied to some members of other families (AN- 
GELOS, KAMATEROS, VATATZES, etc.); it is difficult 
to identify some of the Doukai (the numerous 
Johns present a particular problem) and impos- 
sible to establish their connection with the impe- 
rial Doukai. Some were generals, but others served 
in the civil administration as logothetes, hetat- 
retarches, or vestiariies. 

The Doukai were great landowners. Their role 


656 DOUKAS 


SELECTED GENEALOGY OF THE DOUKAS FAMILY 
IN THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES 


Andronikos Doukas 


CONSTANTINE X DOUKAS m. EUDOKIA MAKREMBOLITISSA 


MICHAEL VII son Konstantios Anna 
DOUKAS 
m. MARIA OF 


“ALANIA’”’ 


Andronikos, 
despotes 


Michael, 
protostrator 


Jobn, 
megas doux 


Constantine 
DOUKAS, 
fiancé of 

Anna 


KOMNENE 


Irene (?) Constantine, ? 


daughter 
governor of | 


Vardaros 


Euphrosyne 
m. Nicholas Maurokatakalon 


Based on Polemis, Doukai. 


in cultural life was insignificant, although the des- 
potes Andronikos is represented both in the mon- 
ograms and portraits of a MS of Jonn KLIMaAx in 
Milan (Ambros. B 80 Sup.), produced between 
1068 and 1078. After the 12th C. only those 
Doukai are known who were interrelated with 
other lineages and formed “hyphenated” families. 
Descent from the Doukai was claimed, for ex- 
ample, by George PALAIOLOGOS, sebastos and megas 
hetaireiarches, who included Constantine X Doukas 
and Michael VII Doukas among his “ancestors” 
in the painted pronaos of his monastery church 
in Constantinople. (See genealogical table.) 

LIT. Polemis, Doukai. J.C. Anderson, “A Manuscript of 
the Despote [sic] Andronicus Ducas,’ REB 37 (1979) 
229-38. A. Kazhdan, “John Doukas: An Attempt of De- 
Identification,” Le parole e le idee 11 (1969) 242-47. P. 
Karlin-Hayter, “gg. Jean Doukas,” Byzantion 42 (1972—73) 
259-65. PLP, nos. 5676—99. M. Marcovich, “Three Notes 
on Byzantine Epigraphy,” ZPapEpig 54 (1984) 207-15. 

-A.K., A.C. 


DOUKAS, historian; born ca.1400, died 1462 or 
later. Neither his baptismal name nor the date 
and place of his birth are recorded. His grand- 
father Michael Doukas, who was a supporter of 
Joun VI Kantakouzenos, fled from Constanti- 
nople in 1345 and took refuge at Ephesus with 
the Turkish emir of Aypin. Doukas is first men- 


m. Domenico 


m. John, nephew 
of Alexios I 


John DouKas, m. 
caesar 


Irene Pegonitissa 


Constantine 
Doukas, 
protostrator 


Zoe 
m. Adrianos 
Komnenos 


Andronikos, 
domestikos ton schoton 
m. Maria, daughter 

of Traian 


Theodora 


Silvio 


Theodora 


m. daughter of 
Isaac KOMNENOS, 
sebastokrator 


Zoe 
m. George 
Botaneiates 


Anna son 
m. George 


Palaiologos 


IRENE DOUKAINA 
m. ALEXIOS I 
KOMNENOS 





tioned in 1421, living in Nea Phokaia and serving 
the Genoese podesta, Giovanni Adorno, as sec- 
retary. Subsequently he entered the service of the 
GATTILUSIO family, which controlled Lesbos. He 
went on several missions as envoy to the Ottoman 
sultan, visiting Adrianople, Didymoteichon, Phi- 
lippopolis, and Istanbul. 

The History of Doukas begins in 1341 and breaks 
off suddenly in 1462, in the middle of an account 
of the Ottoman siege of Mytilene. Doukas was an 
eyewitness to several of the events he describes, 
and his narrative is generally considered biased 
but reliable. He spoke Italian and Turkish, and 
thus had access to Genoese and Ottoman sources 
of information. He is the only Byz. historian to 
describe the peasants’ revolt on the western coast 
of Asia Minor in 1416-18, led by Bürklüdje Mus- 
tafa, who advocated a “communistic” way of life 
and proclaimed the equality of Islam and Chris- 
tianity (H.I. Cotsonis, BZ 50 [1957] 397—404). In 
contrast to Kritoboulos’s praise of Mehmed II, 
Doukas emphasized the dissolute immorality and 
cruelty of the Ottoman sultan. He viewed the 
Turkish conquests as God’s punishment for the 
sins of the Byz., but for him Fortune (TYCHE) was 
also an important element of historical causation. 
As a man in Frankish service, Doukas supported 
a policy of Union with Rome and felt that some 


accommodation with the West was necessary to 
preserve the empire. An old Italian translation of 
Doukas includes an interpolated section on the 
battle of Kosovo Polje (M. Dinić, ZRVI 8.2 [1964] 
53-67). 

ED. [storia Turco-Bizantind, ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest 1958), 
with Rumanian tr. Eng. tr. H. Magoulias, Decline and Fall 
of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks (Detroit, Mich., 1975). 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:4g0-94. PLP, no.5685. S.K. Krasa- 
vina, ““Mirovozzrenie i social’no-politi¢eskie vzgljady vizan- 
ujskogo istorika Duki,” VizVrem 34 (1973) 97-111. 

-A.M.T. 


DOUKAS, ANDRONIKOS, general under Leo 
V1; died ca.g10 in Arab captivity. A patrikios, An- 
dronikos won an important victory over the Arabs 
at Maraş (Nov./Dec. 904, according to Arab 
sources). Byz. chronicles relate that Andronikos, 
who was then ordered to join HIMERIOS in his 
expedition against the Arabs, suddenly revolted 
and “with his relatives and slaves” seized the town 
of Kabala near Ikonion. After Gregoras Iberitzes 
besieged him there for six months, he defected 
to the Arabs; Leo tried to persuade him to return, 
but through the intrigues of SaMonas the Arabs 
learned of this scheme and put Andronikos in 
prison, where he probably died. His son Constan- 
tine Doukas managed to flee. 

The story of Andronikos’s plot raises several 
questions. C. de Boor, relying on the vita of Patr. 
Eutuymios, dated the beginning of the revolt to 
summer of go4, whereas A. Vasiliev (Byz.Arabes 
2.1:181—go), trusting Arab sources, preferred the 
date of go6/7. R. Jenkins (Speculum 23 [1948] 
222-25) treated the revolt as part of an aristo- 
cratic scheme by Andronikos, NicHoLas | Mys- 
TIKOS, and the admiral Eustathios Argyros, who 
allegedly yielded Taormina to the Arabs in go2. 
Eustathios’s treason at Taormina was questioned 
by R.H. Dolley (SBN 7 [1953] 340-53), but 
Andronikos’s links with the patriarch seem sub- 
stantiated by the story of Nicholas’s resistance to 
the TerraGamy oF Leo VI, Epic elements color 
the chroniclers’ narration of Andronikos’s history, 
and eventually both Andronikos and his son Con- 
stantine were praised in the epic of DIGENES 
AKRITAS. 

LIT. V. Grumel, “Notes chronologiques,” EO 36 (1937) 
202-07. P. Karlin-Hayter, “The Revolt of Andronicus Du- 
cas,” BS 27 (1966) 23-25. A. Kazhdan, “K istorii politiées- 
koj bor’by v Vizantii v naéale X veka,” Učenye zapiski Tul’- 


skogo pedinstituta 3 (1952) 191—206. Polemis, Doukaz 16—21, 
no.2. —A.K. 


DOUKAS, CONSTANTINE | 657 


DOUKAS, CONSTANTINE, general, son of An- 
dronikos Douxas; died Constantinople July 913. 
Constantine arrested Samonas during his flight 
to the Arabs and testified in the senate that Sa- 
monas was absconding to Syria. Constantine prob- 
ably joined his father’s rebellion against Leo VI 
and followed him to Arab territory. Eventually, 
however, he escaped to Byz., was promoted to the 
post of strategos of Charsianon and then domestekos 
ton scholon, and fought victoriously against the 
Arabs. After the emperor ALEXANDER died (June 
913), Constantine entered Constantinople with an 
army and was proclaimed emperor at the Hip- 
podrome; he may have been summoned by Nı- 
CHOLAS I Mystikos, who was frightened by the 
difficult political situation and esp. the Bulgarian 
threat. Unexpectedly, Nicholas changed his mind 
and prepared resistance to Constantine, who was 
killed at the gates of the Great Palace. Begun by 
aristocrats (including Leo CHOIROSPHAKTES, an 
Armenian named Kourtikios, and many relatives 
of Constantine), the rebellion was supported by 
the common people, and accordingly Constan- 
tine’s defeat led to mass executions; scores were 
affixed to stakes on the eastern shore of the Bos- 
poros. Popular legend preserved Constantine’s 
memory: in the 930s the rebel BASIL THE COPPER 
Hann assumed Constantine’s name. At the same 
time the aristocracy praised him and his father as 
heroes; traces of this glorification are found in 
the epic of Dicenes Axriras and in the vita of 
BASIL THE YOUNGER. Six miniatures in the Madrid 
Skylitzes MS depict Constantine’s revolt (Grabar- 
Manoussacas, Skylitzés, nos.277—82). 

LIT. A. Kazhdan in Dve vizantijshie chrontki X veka (Mos- 


cow 1959) 135f. Angelide, Bios tou Basileiou 122-46. Po- 
lemis, Doukai 21—25, no.3. — A.K., A.C. 


DOUKAS, CONSTANTINE, son of MICHAEL VII 
Doukas; born Constantinople ca.1074, died 
ca.1095. Doukas was PORPHYROGENNETOS and heir; 
his enamel portrait accompanies Michael’s on the 
Holy Crown of Hungary (Wessel, Byz. Enamels, 
no.37). He was betrothed to the daughter of Ros- 
ERT GUISCARD. During the reign of NIKEPHOROS 
III, Doukas’s mother Marta OF “ALANIA” pro- 
tected him. After the accession of ALEx1os I KOM- 
NENOS, Doukas was again recognized as heir and 
affianced to Anna Komnent; they shared imperial 
acclamations. THEOPHYLAKTOS of Ohrid com- 


658 DOUKAS, JOHN 


posed a BASILIKOS LOGOS or Paideia basilike for 
him. After the birth of Jonn II, however, Con- 
stantine lost his title. In 1094 Doukas entertained 
Alexios at his estate near Serres. His end is un- 
known. 


LIT. Polemis, Doukai 60-63. —C.M.B. 


DOUKAS, JOHN, caesar; died ca.1088. Brother 
of CONSTANTINE X, Doukas was one of the eastern 
generals who petitioned MıcHaEL VI in 1057. 
During his brother’s reign, Doukas became CAE- 
SAR and helped suppress a conspiracy (1061). While 
Eupokia MAKREMBOLITISSA and Romanos IV 
ruled, Doukas upheld the rights of his nephew, 
MicuaeEL VII. The Doukas family’s enmity to Ro- 
manos appeared when Doukas’s son Andronikos 
caused the retreat at MANTZIKERT, which left Ro- 
manos in the Turks’ hands. When Romanos was 
released, Doukas led a coup that excluded Ro- 
manos and Eudokia from the throne in favor of 
Michael VII. Doukas’s sons Andronikos and Con- 
stantine led Byz. forces against Romanos, and 
Doukas ordered Romanos’s blinding. He intro- 
duced NIKEPHORITZES to Michael. In 1074 Nike- 
phoritzes sent him as commander against RoussEL 
DE BAILLEUL; defeated and captured, Doukas be- 
came (half-willingly) Roussel’s puppet-usurper. 
Captured by the Turks and then ransomed, he 
became a monk to evade punishment. In 1078 he 
encouraged Michael to abdicate. He sponsored 
the marriage of his granddaughter IRENE Dovu- 
KAINA to ALExIOS I Komnenos, enthusiastically 
joined the Komnenoi when they revolted, and 
helped select Alexios for the throne. He corre- 
sponded with Psellos, and the earliest known MS 
of Constantine VII’s DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO 
comes from his library. 


uit. Polemis, Doukai 34—41. Skoulatos, Personnages 138— 
45. Ljubarskij, Psell 69-74. ~C.M.B. 


DOUKATON (dovxarov), rare term designating 
a territorial unit. Hagiographical texts of the 6th— 
7th C. understand douwkaton as a district under the 
command of a poux: doukata of Palestine (CYRIL 
OF SCYTHOPOLIS, ed. Schwartz, p.150.1) or of Al- 
exandria (in PHILOSTORGIOS, HE 167.26-—27). This 
meaning reappeared in the 10th C. Constantine 
VII used the term in an antiquarian context when 
describing the division of the Roman Empire into 


EPARCHIAI, hegemoniai, doukata, and the so-called 
consular provinces (De them., ch.1.59—61, ed. Per- 
tusi, p.62). For him, doukaton was both the land 
of the Venetian doge (De adm. imp., 28.47—50) 
and a part of a STRATEGIS (50.88—89). The term 
was also used in the treaty with BOHEMUND of 
1108 to designate the princedom of Antioch 
(An.Komn. 3:135.28—29). 

LIT. Ahrweiler, “Administration” 53. Ferluga, Byzantium 
57-62. ~A.K. 


DOUKATOPOULON (õovkaróroviov, pl. dou- 
katopouloi), a coin referred to in some fragmen- 
tary accounts from Thessalonike of the early 15th 
C. (S. Kugéas, BZ 23 [1914-19] 149). BADOER 
called it a ducatello or duchatello and valued it 
normally as 1.5 keratia, thus identifying it with the 
smallest silver coin (approximately 1 g) then being 
struck at Constantinople, the 1/16th of a HYPER- 
PYRON and 1/8th of a STAURATON. Its name, a 
diminutive of “ducat,” resulted from its being a 
continuation of the depreciated BASILIKON ducat 
of the 1340s. 


LIT. Hendy, Economy 540f. —Ph.G. 


DOULOPAROIKOS (éo0vAo7rapoixos, from dou- 
los [“slave”] and PAROIKOS), a category of peasants 
whose nature is unclear. The term appears in 
four chrysobulls dating between 945/6 and 1079 
that grant or confirm tax-exempt status to the 
douloparoikoi held by certain monasteries in the 
vicinity of Thessalonike. In addition, a passage 
from John Tarchaneiotes’ Diegesis (probably from 
the early 12th C.), describing the arrival of the 
pastoral Vlachs on Mt. Athos, states that these 
Vlachs served the monks of Athos “like doulopa- 
roikoi.” In these sources douloparoikoi seem to bear 
no fiscal or service obligations towara the state 
and their status seems to be hereditary. Oiko- 
nomides suggests that douloparoikoi were agricul- 
tural slaves and freedmen who held land from 
their masters in return for corvées and a part of 
their harvest. On the contrary, Litavrin (V2z- 
Obséestvo 86) considers douloparoiko: as peasants 
working on demesne lands and possibly identical 
with aktemones and aporot. 

It remains unclear whether douloparoikot can be 
equated with the douleutai and douleutoparotkoi (MM 
5:11.19) of documents of the 13th C. A charter 


of 1263 identifies douleutai as paroikot (Patmou En- 
grapha 2, no.68.6—7). 

LIT. N. Oikonomides, “Hoi byzantinoi douloparoikoi,” 
Symmeikta 5 (1983) 295-302. J. Karayannopulos, “Ein Prob- 
lem der spatbyzantinischen Agrargeschichte,” JOB 30 (1981) 
231f. H. Képstein, Zur Sklaverei im ausgehenden Byzanz (Ber- 
lin 1966) gof. —M.B. 


DOULOS (odos, lit. “slave”). The term retained 
its ancient, literal meaning as long as SLAVERY 
remained a social institution in Byz. At the same 
time the word doulos was used to indicate other 
forms of dependence, or at least served in the 
formation of terms for new types of dependence, 
such as douleutes and DOULOPAROIKOS. The term 
was often used in a metaphorical sense to define 
moral dependence of both evil (dowlos of gluttony) 
and good character (doules of God, often found 
in inscriptions and graffiti). All the emperor’s 
subjects were considered as his douloi, but at the 
same time the expression “the doulos of the maj- 
esty” (the parallel forms ozketes or sklabopoulos were 
infrequently used) became a characterization of 
close links with the sovereign and a kind of title. 

LIT. H. Képstein, Zur Sklaverei im ausgehenden Byzanz 
(Berlin 1966) 31—42. A. Kazhdan, “The Concept of Free- 


dom (eleutheria) and Slavery (douleia) in Byzantium,” La 
notion de liberté au Moyen âge (Paris 1985) 218-23. —A.K. 


DOUX (éové, Lat. dux), general. The term dux 
acquired a technical sense at the time of Diocletian 
(first mentioned in 289) when it designated the 
military commander of LiMITANEI stationed within 
the borders of a PROVINCE, with the official title 
dux limitis provinciae illius. The mobile troops of 
COMITATENSES were put under the command of 
the doux by Anastasios I in 492. The doux normally 
functioned separately from the civil administra- 
tion; only in a few provinces (Isauria, Mauretania, 
the Thebaid) did the governor combine both mil- 
itary and civil functions. Also exceptional were 
cases when the doux administered troops stationed 
in several provinces. With the decline of the Ro- 
man administrative system, the term doux came to 
be employed to indicate a subaltern officer, mer- 
arches or commander of a moira (STRATEGIKON OF 
MAURICE 1.3.12—193), while the governors of 
THEMES were eventually called srRATEGOI. 

From the 2nd half of the 10th C. the term was 
revived to indicate the military commander of a 


DOWRY 659 


larger district, sometimes called DouKATON: An- 
tioch (after 96g), Chaldia (969), Thessalonike, Ad- 
rianople (after 971), Mesopotamia (g76), and It- 
aly. The doux of Koloneia is mentioned in the 
story of the Forry-rwo MARTYRS OF AMORION 
(ed. Vasil’evskij, Nikitin, 29.36), but this may not 
reflect official terminology. H. Ahrweiler (BCH 
84 [1960] 65f) identified doux with KATEPANO. The 
term was also applied to the DOMESTIKOS TON 
SCHOLON (N. Oikonomides, TM 6 [1976] 142) and, 
along with MEGAS poux, designated commanders 
of the fleet. After the 12th C. the term lost its 
prestige and the governors of small themes were 
called doukes (D. Angelov, BS 12 [1951] 60). 

LIT. O. Seeck, RE 5 (1905) 1869—75. Oikonomides, Listes 
344, 354- T. Wasilewski, “Les titres de duc, de catépan et 
de pronoétés dans l'Empire byzantin du IXe jusqu’au XIIe 
siècle,” 12 CEB (Belgrade 1964) 2:233—36. J-C. Cheynet, 
“Du stratège de thème au duc: Chronologie de l’évolution 
au cours du XIe siècle,” TM g (1985) 181-94. -A.K. 


DOWRY (zpoté), the property brought to a mar- 
riage by the wife. It could be provided by the 
father, or the parents, of the bride, but also by 
herself or an outsider. The amount of the dowry 
could be calculated on the basis of the amount of 
the DONATIO PROPTER NUPTIAS OF HYPOBOLON; 100 
pounds of gold was considered a large dowry 
(Nov.Just. 22.18; Peira 17.14). The dowry could 
have a determined (diatetimemene) or undeter- 
mined (adiatimetos) value. In the first case the 
husband was obliged, upon the termination of the 
marriage, to return the determined value; in the 
second case to return the objects provided, insofar 
as they were still available. During the marriage 
the husband was personally responsible for the 
administration of the dowry; the wife had right 
of seizure only in exceptional cases (i.e., the bank- 
ruptcy of her husband). Dowry lands could be 
alienated only under strict conditions. If the wife 
died, the dowry fell to her family or her children; 
the husband retained only its administration, un- 
less the marriage contract assured him of a por- 
tion of the inheritance. If the husband prede- 
ceased his wife, the dowry reverted to the wife. 
As security for her claim for its return, she had a 
general pledge (pIGNUS) on her husband’s prop- 
erty. Her claim had priority over those of simple 
creditors. 

These main features of dowry law were pre- 
served during the entire Byz. period, as the Peira 


660 DOXOLOGY 


and dowry deeds show. However, deviations from 
these norms did exist; many are documented in 
the Ecloga, the Epanagoge, and certain treatises 
and scholia. 

uit. Zacharia, Geschichte 83-105. Simon, “Ehegtter- 


recht.” D. White, “Property Rights of Women,” JOB 32.2 
(1982) 539-48. -M.Th.F. 


DOXOLOGY (do€oAoyta, lit. “glorification”), a li- 
turgical formula of praise, esp. the concluding 
exclamation (ekphonesis) of a prayer. Simple dox- 
ologies, used with great frequency in liturgical 
services and by church fathers to conclude ser- 
mons, are found already in the New Testament. 
As a response to the Arian crisis (see ARIANISM), 
Trinitarian doxologies (“Glory to the Father 
through the Son in the Holy Spirit”) were leveled 
(“Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the 
Holy Spirit”). The “Great Doxology,” or Gloria 
(“Glory to God in the Highest”), an elaboration 
of Luke 2:14 sung only at orthros and apodeipnon, 
is to be distinguished from the widely used “Lesser 
Doxology” (“Glory to the Father”). 

LIT. C. Blume, “Der Engelhymnus Gloria in excelsis Deo: 
sein Ursprung und seine Entwicklung,” Stimmen aus Maria 
Laach 73 (1907) 43—62. J. Magne, “ “Carmina Christo’: Le 
‘Gloria in excelsis,’ ” EphLit 100 (1986) 368-90. J. Mateos, 


“Quelques problèmes de l'orthros byzantin,” PrOC 11 (1961) 
32-34- -R.F.T. 


DOXOPATRES, JOHN, 11th-C. rhetorician, 
commentator on APHTHONIOS and HERMOGENES. 
It is unclear whether Doxopatres (Aofo7rarpjs or 
Aogéararpyjs) used their works in the original or 
via Byz. commentators, such as JOHN GEOMETRES, 
whom he cites in his writings. The life of Doxo- 
patres is obscure. He quoted an inscription from 
the apse of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople prais- 
ing Romanos III for his generous donation of 50 
“talents” of gold (Mercati, CollByz 2:291f). He also 
wrote an ETHOPOEIA on the words that Michael V 
would have pronounced after his dethronement. 
Tzetzes referred to Doxopatres’ works. 

ED. Rabe, Prolegomenon 80—155, 304-18, 360—74, 423- 
26. 

LIT. H. Rabe, “Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften,” RhM 62 
(1907) 559-86. S. Glöckner, Uber den Kommentar des Johan- 


nes Doxopatres zu den Staseis des Hermogenes (Kirchhain N.L. 
[Nieder Lausitz] 1908—09). -A.K, 


DOXOPATRES, NEILOS, theologian and can- 
onist of first half of rath C.; baptismal name 


Nicholas. Doxopatres (Aofo7ratpjs) held a com- 
bination of ecclesiastical and secular offices in 
Constantinople: deacon of Hagia Sophia, patri- 
archal notary, and imperial nomophylax; his title 
was protoproedros of the protosynkelloi. Before 1142/ 
3 he took the monastic habit and left for Sicily, 
where he worked at the court of Rocer II. He 
was commissioned by Roger to write a treatise on 
the five patriarchates (first in the form of an 
epitome), in which he not only attacked the con- 
cept of Roman primacy, but also developed the 
idea of Constantinople’s superiority in the PEN- 
TaRCHY. In so doing Doxopatres differed radically 
from those southern Italian Greeks like PHILA- 
GATHOS who defended papal primacy (J. Siciliano, 
BS/EB 6 [1979] 176). This book on the patriar- 
chates exists also in an Armenian translation. G. 
Mercati (ST 68 [1935] 64—79) attributed to Dox- 
opatres an anti-Latin polemical treatise titled On 
Oikonomia, of which only two books are preserved. 
Doxopatres produced marginal notes to ATHAN- 
asios of Alexandria. 

ED. F.N. Finck, Des Nilos Doxopatres “Taxis ton patriarchi- 
kon thronon” (Marburg 1902). 

LIT. Beck, Kirche 619-21. V. Laurent, “L'oeuvre géo- 
graphique du moine sicilien Nil Doxapatris,” EO 36 (1937) 
5-30. S. Caruso, “Echi della polemica bizantina antiatina 
dell’XIJ—XII sec. nel De oeconomia De: di Nilo Doxapatres,” 
Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi sulla Sicilia Normanna 
(Palermo 1973) 416-32. -—A.K. 


DRAGAŠ. See CONSTANTINE DRAGAŠ. 


DRAGONS. See SNAKES. 


DRAMA (ôpâua), ancient term designating ac- 
tion on a stage. With the disappearance of the 
THEATER, the term lost its literal meaning and was 
used either metaphorically (e.g., drama of life, of 
the world), or came to signify “story.” Sometimes 
the term drama or its derivatives were applied to 
works in DIALOGUE form produced not for the 
stage but reading: thus CHRISTOS PASCHON is var- 
iously titled in the MSS as hypothesis dramatike, 
tragedy, or just stichoi (verses). The term could be 
used to characterize a romance; for example, Pho- 
tios describes the romance of HELIopoRos and 
some other ancient romances as dramatikon. A 
later romance, that of Eustathios MAKREMBOLITES, 
was also called a drama. The term was used fig- 


uratively for tragic events: thus Patr. Germanos 
II speaks of the drama of Solomon (PG 140:713A). 


LIT. H. Kuch, “Gattungstheoretische Uberlegungen zum 
antiken Roman,” Philologus 129 (1985) 11-14. -A.K. 


DREAMS AND DREAM VISIONS. In the me- 
dieval world dreams and dream visions were con- 
sidered significant sensory phenomena that could 
predict the future or grant understanding. This 
belief derived partly from classical traditions. At 
the same time, church fathers accepted the dream 
as a regular means of divine revelation (M. Du- 
laey, Le réve dans la vie et la pensée de saint Augustin 
[Paris 1973] 35-127). Dreams were considered to 
have played a critical role in the conversion of 
non-Christians, in the lives of saints, and in im- 
parting divine knowledge. Problems resulted, 
however, from the acceptance of dreams: (1) dream 
interpretation had been connected intimately with 
pagan DIVINATION and augury; (2) if God could 
speak in one’s dreams, then so could the devil 
and demons; (3) some heresies like GNOSTICISM 
and MONTANISM manipulated dreams to assail Or- 
thodoxy and to sanction their own doctrines; and 
(4) a dream could have earthly causes (physiolog- 
ical, psychological, or intellectual factors). There- 
fore, Byz. writers concentrated on the classifica- 
tion of dreams by type and provenance in order 
to determine what sorts of dreams had a divine 
origin and therefore were authoritative. 

Many conflicting systems of dream classification 
existed (A. Kessels, Mnemosyne 22 [1969] 389- 
424); the most common was the fivefold system, 
based on the dream’s prophetic ability. The en- 
hypnien and phantasma were nonpredictive dreams: 
the former is caused by mental or physical distress 
or a preoccupation with daily concerns, while the 
latter is the distorted image that a dreamer per- 
ceives between the sleeping and waking state. Three 
types of dreams were significant: the oneiros, a 
symbolic dream that usually required interpreta- 
tion; the korama, or prophetic vision; and the 
chrematismos, a dream wherein God or some divine 
emissary proffers information or advice. At first, 
the horama was emphasized because of its greater 
religious authority and the nonsymbolic clarity of 
its contents; moreover, because of Iconoclasm, 
dream images were viewed as suspect and thus 
the dream came to be considered an inferior 
activity of the human soul. 


DRIMYS 661 


Despite an influx of Arabic texts on dreams and 
a growing interest in pagan dream interpretations 
(Artemidoros of Ephesos, a dream interpreter of 
the 2nd C., was known to the Soupa and the 
PHILOPATRIS), Oneirocriticism became thoroughly 
christianized, with dream books (ONEIROKRITIKA) 
passing under the names of biblical or historical 
personalities. The Onetrokritikon of ACHMET BEN 
S1rRIN is the best known example of Christian 
dreamlore. The cult of saints was closely inter- 
woven with dreams used for predicting the future 
and for HEALING the sick, whereas demonic vi- 
sions, esp. of sexual character, were condemned. 
Imperial propaganda also employed the dream 
topic in order to demonstrate the divine origin of 
the emperor’s power. 

LIT. G. Dagron, “Rêver de Dieu et parler de soi: le rêve 
et son interprétation d’après les sources byzantines,” in I 
sogni nel medtoevo, ed. T. Gregory (Rome 1985) 37-55. J. 
Le Goff, “Le christianisme et les rêves (1I‘—VII* siécles),” 
ibid. 171-218. P. Cox Miller, “‘A Dubious Twilight’: Re- 
flections on Dreams in Patristic Literature,” ChHist 55 (1986) 
153-64. S.M. Oberhelman, “The Interpretation of Dream- 
Symbols in Byzantine Oneirocritic Literature,” BS 47 (1986) 
8—24. J.S. Russell, The English Dream Vision (Columbus, 
Ohio, 1988) 1-81. —S.M.O. 


DRIMYS (Apis), a family name meaning “sharp” 
or “angry” (Koukoules, Bios 6:484). In the mid- 
11th C. PsELLOs (Scripta min. 2:69.17) referred to 
a “very noble” Drimys involved in litigation over 
a property. Leo Drimys, spatharokandidatos and 
strategos, known only from his seal, may have lived 
even earlier. A different Leo, vestes, is known from 
another, late 12th-C. seal: he was a governor 
(judge or katepano?) of Bulgaria. Zlatarski (Ist. 
3:17f) identified him with the “župan or satrap of 
Bulgaria” mentioned in Ansbert’s chronicle. De- 
metrios Drimys was governor (praztor) of Hellas 
and Peloponnesos in Andronikos I’s reign and 


judge of the velum and protoasekretis under Isaac 


lI. Members of the Drimys family did not occupy 
high posts thereafter, except for Dionysios Dri- 
mys, parakoimomenos ca.1300. John Drimys, a 
“Westerner” and priest in Constantinople, pre- 
tended to be a relative of the Laskaris family; in 
1305, backed by the ARSENITES and probably by 
the lower classes, he organized a conspiracy against 
Andronikos II (I. Ševčenko, Soc. & Intell., pt. IX 
[1952], 149f). The synod of 1305 condemned 
Drimys and he was banished. V. Laurent’s attempt 
to identify him with another pro-Laskaris con- 


662 DROMON 


spirator, Glykys, does not seem valid (A. Kazhdan 
in Charanis Studies 79-81). According to Sev- 
cenko, it is tempting to associate the arrest of 
Manuel MoscHopou_os with Drimys’s plot. 


Lit. PLP, nos. 5827-32. -A.K. 


DROMON (ôpóuwv, “runner’”), a term first used 
in the 5th C., generally referring to several similar 
types of decked warships emphasizing speed over 
weight, which became the mainstay of the Byz. 
NAVY. Prokopios (Wars 3.11.15—16) describes swift 
dromones powered by one bank of rowers, but later 
sources indicate two banks, one above the other 
(TAKTIKA oF LEO VI, 19.7). The dromon also had 
two masts, sometimes three, supporting triangular 
lateen sails. Its standard length is calculated at 
approximately 40 m, the breadth at 5.5 m. Smaller 
dromones carried a complement of 100 men, but 
larger types could carry as many as 230 or more 
(De cer. 670.3—6). Offensive weapons included a 
ram fixed to the prow and a launcher shooting 
GREEK FIRE mounted on the forecastle. An im- 
portant advantage over Arab vessels was the 
wooden tower (xylokastron) amidships from which 
catapults and archers could fire down on the 
enemy, while hides soaked with water were hung 
along the sides to protect the ship against enemy 
incendiaries. In combat their sails were furled and 
the masts lowered; a sea battle in the 11th-C. 
Kynegetika MS (Furlan, Marciana 5, fig.36a) shows 
mastless vessels, their sides protected by shields 
between which project eight or ten oars. Their 
shallow draught also made them useful for am- 
phibious operations, as evident from Nikephoros 
II Phokas’s efficient disembarkation of his army 
on Crete in g60 (Leo Diac. 7.15-8.12). 

LIT. R.H. Dolley, “The Warships of the Later Roman 
Empire,” JRS 38 (1948) 47-53- Ahrweiler, Mer 409-18. E. 
Eickhoff, Seekrieg und Seepolitik zwischen Islam und Abendland 
(Berlin 1966) 135-48. -E.M., A.C. 


DROMOS (ŝpóuos, lit. “course”), also the “impe- 
rial (demosios) dromos” (JOHN Lypos, On Magistra- 
cies 2.10.24, 29), Latin cursus publicus, the system 
of imperial post and transportation. The state 
post that existed during the early Roman Empire 
was reorganized by Constantine I or by Diocletian. 
It consisted of two sections: the regular (platys) 
dromos for goods and the accelerated (oxys) dromos 
for imperial officials and their baggage. The for- 


mer was served by oxen pulling carts (ANGAREIA), 
the latter by horses and mules. It was forbidden 
to harness horses to carriages. On the ROADS, 
stations (mansiones, Gr. stathmoi) were established 
to change animals and to rest; they served also to 
collect goods for state transportation. Prokopios 
(SH 30.3) says that a rider without baggage could 
cover a distance of 5—8 stathmoi a day. Control 
over the dromos belonged to the department of 
the PRAETORIAN PREFECT who was the only official 
to grant evictiones, the documents entitling a per- 
son to use the dromos. Eventually, the surveillance 
of the dromos was taken over by the MAGISTER 
OFFICIORUM and in the 7th or 8th C. by the Lo- 
GOTHETES TOU DROMOU. According to seals, there 
was a distinction between Western and Eastern 
dromot. The provision of animals, carriages, and 
hay was a burden imposed primarily on the 
EXKOUSSATOI Of the dromos. A chrysobull of 110g 
speaks of the “burden of dromos and shipping” 
(Lavra 1, no.58.8—9), and charters of tax exemp- 
tion include a clause concerning angareiai and 
additional angareiai (parangareiat) just after “the 
supply of grain” (Patmou Engrapha 1, no.5.74—- 
75). The term demosios dromos was employed also 
for the roads themselves (/vir. 1, no.22.19). 

LIT. E.J. Holmberg, Zur Geschichte des cursus publicus 
(Uppsala 1933). Laurent, Corpus 2:196-244. H. Bender, 
Rémascher Reiseverkehr: cursus publicus und Privatreisen (Stutt- 
gart 1978). -A.K. 


DROUGOUBITAI (ApovyovBirar), the name of 
two settled groups of SKLAVENOI, one in southern 
Macedonia (between Thessalonike and Berroia) 
and another in Thrace around Philippopolis. The 
first vowel appears variously in the sources as “a,” 
“o,” and “ou.” The name is suspiciously close to 
the “Dregovici” of the Kievan chronicle. Vasmer 
(Slaven 177) suggests a Slavic etymology, but O. 
Pritsak (SetéStu 30 [1983] 404) proposes a Turkic 
derivation. They appear in the Miracles of St. 
DEMETRIOS together with four other Sklavene 
groups, among them the Sagoudatai, who lived 
along the left bank of the Bistrica River, southeast 
of Thessalonike. The Drougoubitai of the Miracles 
had their own “kings.” They paid tribute to Byz. 
and were required to go to war as allies of Byz. 
The name survives in later documents. A char- 
ter of 897 mentions the village of Dragobountoi 
(Lavra 1, no.1.15~—18); a certain Dragoboundos 
was a neighbor of the Iveron monastery in 1047 


(Ivir., no.29.47). A territorial unit called “Drou- 
goubiteia” formed a part of the theme of Thes- 
salonike and Strymon, and in g96 a certain Ni- 
cholas was called “protospatharios and judge of 
Strymon, Thessalonike, and Drougoubiteia” (Ivir., 
no.10.2); seals of the judges of Drougoubiteia are 
also known. A bishop of Drougoubiteia (Drag- 
biste) participated in the council of 879. The name 
occurs (in the form Drugunthia) as the designation 
for one of the five Balkan autonomous dualist 
communities, of which “papa” Niquintas (ca.1174— 
77) was the spiritual leader (D. Obolensky in Oke- 
anos 489—500). 

LIT. G. Cankova-Petkova, “Njakoi momenti ot razselva- 
neto na slavjanskite plemena ot iztotnija djal na juZnite 
slavjane,” Slaujanska filologia 14 (1973) 33—42. E. Lipšic, “Iz 
istorii slavjanskich obščin v Makedonii v VI-IX vv. n.e.,” 
Akademiku Borisu Dmitrieviču Grekovu: Ko dnju semidesjatile- 


tija. Sbornik state; (Moscow 1952) 49-54- Oikonomides, Listes 
357. -O.P. 


DROUNGARIOS (Spovyyadptos), a military rank 
first mentioned in the early 7th C. During the 7th 
and 8th C., a droungarios in the provincial armies 
(themata) represented a high rank, immediately 
below TOURMARCHES and above KOMES, and in 
command of a DROUNGOS of as many as 1,000 
men, later a BANDON of between 200 and 400. 
However, gth- and 1oth-C. sources indicate a 
gradual decrease in the authority of the drounga- 
rios. In the g11 expedition to Crete, the droungarioz 
commanded no more than 100 men each (De cer. 
656.14-15), and in 949 the droungarioi figure only 
slightly higher than the common soldiers in rank 
and pay (De cer. 666.19—20, 667.10, 669.9). By 
the 11th C., droungarios and komes were equivalent 
ranks (Kek. 294.21—22), eventually merging into 
the combined office of droungarokomes. 

LIT. Ju.A. Kulakovskij, “Drung i drungarii,” VizVrem 9 
(1902) 1-30. Oikonomides, Listes 341. I. Sevéenko, “On 


the Social Background of Cyril and Methodius,” Studia 
Palaeoslovenica (Prague 1971) 341-51. —-E.M. 


DROUNGARIOS TES VIGLAS (Spovyyapuos Tis 
Biydas), or of the arithmos, commander of the 
tagma of the vica. The first mention of this 
droungarios is in the work of a gth-C. chronicler 
(Theoph. 466.3—5) who relates that in 791 Em- 
press Irene sent the spatharios and droungarios tes 
viglas Alexios MOSELE against rebellious soldiers 
in ARMENIAKON. The major function of this droun- 


DROUNGARIOS TOU PLOIMOU 663 


garios was guarding the emperor on expeditions 
and in the palace. The droungarios was the em- 
peror’s confidant and an active military com- 
mander. In the 1oth C. represented among the 
droungarioi tes viglas are generals and members of 
aristocratic families such as Eustathios ARGYROS, 
John Kourxkouas, and Manuel Kourtikios. Un- 
der the command of the droungarios were officials 
such as the TOPOTERETES, CHARTOULARIOS, and 
komites (see COMES); one of these, the AKOLOU- 
THOS, is known only for this tagma. 

About 1030 the function of the droungarios tes 
viglas changed radically (N. Oikonomides, TM 6 
[1976] 133f), and he became a member of the 
judiciary. Eustathios RHomaios, author of the Petra, 
occupied this post. From the second half of the 
11th C. the epithet megas was added to this title 
(Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. 891-97). The droungarioz 
as judges were primarily members of the civil 
nobility—from families such as the KEROULARIOI, 
KAMATERO!, and MAKREMBOLITAI; among them 
are several writers such as John SKYLITZES, John 
Zonaras, and Gregory ANTIOCHOS. On the other 
hand, Constantine KOMNENOS and a certain Kon- 
TOSTEPHANOS were probably not droungarioz tes 
viglas, but DROUNGARIOI TOU PLOIMOU (A. Kazh- 
dan, BZ 76 [1983] 384). Droungartot tes viglas ex- 
isted until the end of Byz.; pseudo-Sphrantzes 
(Sphr. 340.31—32) equates them with the chief of 
the JANISSARIES. 

LIT. Bury, Adm. System 60-62. Oikonomides, Listes 331 f. 


Guilland, Institutions 1:563-87. Haldon, Praetorians 236f. 
—A.K. 


DROUNGARIOS TOU PLOIMOU (Spovyydpuos 
Tov mAoipov or THY mTAotpwv), Commander of the 
fleet stationed in Constantinople. This droungarios 
is first mentioned in the TAKTIKON of Uspenskij 
(842/3). Bury (Adm. System 109) considered his 
existence in the 7th C. “not improbable”; on the 
contrary, Ahrweiler (infra 74) proposed a creation 
at the beginning of the gth C. The droungarios tou 
ploimou occupied a modest position according to 
the taktikon of Uspenskij but gained in importance 
by the time of the late gth-C. Kletorologion of 
Philotheos. Niketas Oryphas evidently held this 
post under Basil J; pseudo-SyMEON MaGISTROS 
(687.78) called him strategos tou plormou. In the 
1oth C. many important personages, including 
the future emperor Romanos I, were droungarioz 


664 | DROUNGOS 


tou ploimou. The role of the navy having dimin- 
ished in the 11th C., the droungarios of the fleet, 
now called droungarios tou stolou, commanded pri- 
marily the battleships of Constantinople (Oiko- 
nomides, TM 6 [1976] 146). Even though under 
the Komnenoi the post was given the epithet 
megas, the droungarios lost his preeminence in the 
navy and was replaced by the MEGAS Doux; none- 
theless, the post of the megas droungarios remained 
highly ranked, and in the 13th and 14th C. it was 
held by members of the families of GaBALas and 
Mouza.on. The staff of the droungarios included 
the topoteretes, chartoularios, komites, and others. C. 
Mango (RSBS 2 [1982] 299f) hypothesized that a 
chartoularios of the navy existed in the 7th C., but 
there is no direct evidence to support this hypoth- 
esis. The function of the komes of the hetaireia, 
who was under the droungarios, is disputed; Bury 
(Adm. System 111) considered him a commander 
of foreign marines, while Oikonomides (Listes 340) 
argued he was commander of a special detach- 
ment of guards. 


LIT. Ahrweiler, Mer 73—76. Guilland, Institutions 1:535— 
42. Hohlweg, Beiträge 144-48. —A.K. 


DROUNGOS (Spotyyoes, Sp6yyes, from the Ger- 
manic thrunga), a word with three meanings. (1) 
Prior to the 12th C., a droungos was a subdivision 
of the army of a THEME, commanded by a DROUN- 
GARIOS; it was larger than a bandon but smaller 
than a tourma. (2) From the end of the 12th C., 
the term designated certain mountainous areas of 
Attica, Lakonia, and Epiros, and was synonymous 
with zygos (“mountain range” or “pass”). (3) Dur- 
ing the 13th and 14th C., the term was applied to 
the military or paramilitary corps assigned to such 
mountainous areas. 

LIT. Ju. Kulakovskij, “Drung i drungarij,” VizVrem 9 
(1902) 1-30. A. Kazhdan, “Novoe svidetel’stvo ob atti¢es- 


kich drungach,” in Studia tn honorem V. BeSevliev (Sofia BE 
512-16. Ahrweiler, Mer 278f. -M.B 


DRUM, a cylindrical, polygonal, or, less fre- 
quently, square element providing visual and 
structural support for a pome. The drum served 
to elevate the cupola and accommodate windows 
illuminating a building’s interior. It developed 
from an essentially buttressing function in Roman 
domes. In 6th-C. architecture, the drum became 
a more open system of independent wall but- 


tresses separated by windows, directly related to 
the internal, structural ribs (e.g., at Hagia Sophia, 
Constantinople); yet a drum does not actually 
elevate the dome above its base (hence the term 
“false drum”). From the gth C. onward, drums 
were used almost exclusively to elevate and visu- 
ally accentuate domes externally. Through the 
13th C. drums tended to be relatively squat, but 
in the 14th C., their proportions became consid- 
erably attenuated (e.g., Holy Apostles, Thessalo- 
nike). Drums also underwent a process of increas- 
ingly more elaborate external articulation. From 
simple geometric forms (cylinder, octagonal, or 
polygonal prism), they evolved into highly elabo- 
rate structures through the use of engaged colon- 
nettes, recessed arches, surface textures, and other 
treatments. -S.C. 


DRUNKENNESS (é67) was condemned as a 
grave sin and social evil by the church fathers, 
such as Basil the Great in his homily Against 
Drunkards (PG 31:444—64). In actual practice, 
however, wine drinking was a popular pastime, 
in private, at BANQUETS and public Feasts, and in 
TAVERNS. The Book OF THE EPARCH (19:3) pro- 
hibited the operation of taverns on Great Feasts 
and Sundays before the second hour of day, and 
ordered them closed at the second hour of night. 
Patr. ATHANASIOS I (ep.44.22-26) urged Andro- 
nikos II to fine anyone entering a tavern for the 
purpose of drinking, from Saturday evening to 
Sunday. Byz. moralists condemned drunkenness; 
one historian (Nik.Chon. 541.54—56) saw in al- 
coholism a principal reason for the decline of the 
empire. Some emperors were presented by his- 
torians as drunkards, for example, the Greens are 
reported (Theoph. 296.25-27) to have mocked 
Puokas, exclaiming, “You have drunk again of 
the cup; you have lost again your senses”; it is 
unclear whether it was a genuine insult or an 
apotropaic incantation. MICHAEL III was pre- 
sented by hostile historiography as a drunken sot, 
a characterization that may be fabricated. Literati 
used the theme of drunkenness for parodies— 
Manuel II’s diatribe Against Drunkenness or gro- 
tesque vernacular verses like the Physiological 
Tale of Peter Zyphomoustos, the Father of Wine (G. 
Protopapa-Bouboulidou, EEBS 39—40 [1972—73] 
594-611)—or for mild ridicule, as in Psellos’s 


enkomion of wine (A. Garzya, Byzantion 35 [1965] 
418-28). 
LIT. E. Jeanselme, “L’alcoolisme a Byzance,” Bulletin de 


la Société française d'histoire de la médicine 18 (1924) 289-95. 
—Ap.K., A.K. 


DUALISM is a modern notion, probably first 
used by Thomas Hyde (1700) in his Historia reli- 
gionis veterum Persarum. Technically, it denotes 
religious understandings, worldviews, or philo- 
sophical theories in which there appear two orig- 
inal principles fundamentally irreconcilable and 
opposed to one another. It may also include those 
religions typified by an eschatological dualism, for 
example, MANICHAEANISM and most systems of 
Gnosticism, which see an eschatological superi- 
ority of good over evil. Byz. also encountered 
dualism among the adherents of MESSALIANISM 
(Euchitai), PAULICIANS, and BOGOMILS or PHOUN- 
DAGIAGITES, 

In a broader sense one can speak of an anthro- 
pological dualism. The Platonic doctrine of the 
SOUL and INTELLECT predominant in Byz. empha- 
sized their distinction and thus implied a dualistic 
conception of the Bopy, of MATTER, and of the 
imagination. Byz. adopted an ethical dualism in- 
herited from the New Testament. This appears 
esp. in the Gospel of John in the contrast between 
the world of darkness and the Kingdom of Light; 
but while this referred to the fundamental con- 
trast stemming from belief and nonbelief, it could 
be converted into an ontological statement. 

LIT. S. Pétrement, Le dualisme chez Platon, les gnostiques, 
et les manichéens (Paris 1947). E. Rochedieu, Le dualisme chez 
Platon, les gnostiques, les manichéens (Basel 1954). J. Ménard, 
De la gnose au manichéisme (Paris 1986). H. Beck, Vorsehung 


und Vorherbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzan- 
tiner (Rome 1937). —K.-H.U. 


DUBROVNIK (Lat. Ragusium; Gr. ‘Paovotor, 
‘Payovovor; Ital. Ragusa; Slavic Dubrovnik), port 
city and fortress in DALMATIA. It was founded 
probably in the 7th C., according to Constantine 
VII Porphyrogennetos, by refugees from ancient 
Epidauros, which was destroyed by the Slavs and 
Avars ca.615. It was under Byz. authority; an 
Arab siege in 866—67 strengthened the Byz. pres- 
ence. The city remained under Byz. domination 
until 1205, with intermittent Venetian (1000—1030) 
and Norman rule (1081-85, 1172, 1189—90); it 


DUIN 665 


became an archbishopric in 1022. For a while in 
the 11th C. it was the seat of a Byz. theme. It was 
under Venetian control from 1205 to 1358, and 
then became a self-governing patrician city-state 
under Hungarian protection until 1526. 

An important center for maritime commerce, 
Dubrovnik played a prominent role as interme- 
diary in the metal trade between the Balkan hin- 
terland and the West in the 13th—15th C. In the 
13th C. representatives from Dubrovnik signed 
three treaties with the despotate of Epiros that 
granted their merchants free trade in Epiros on 
the condition of paying 3 percent kommerhion: only 
the purchase of grain was restricted and special 
customs duties had to be paid for weaponry and 
horses. If there was a treaty with Andronikos II 
of ca.1320 (Reg 4, no.2433), it was of short dura- 
tion, since Dubrovnik sided with Venice against 
Byz. In 1451 the city received new trade privileges 
from Constantinople, through a chrysobull of 
Constantine XI, and from the despotate of Morea, 
through argyrobulls of Thomas and Demetrios 
Palaiologos (M. Andreeva, BS 6 [1935-36] 110— 
65). 

Dubrovnik became a very prosperous, strongly 
fortified city, with remarkable urban development 
(well-planned and paved streets, stone houses, 
churches and palaces, a sewage system, an aque- 
duct, medical services, pharmacies, a hospital, an 
orphanage, etc.). Byz. interest in Dubrovnik is 
reflected in a description of the city by CHALKo- 
KONDYLES (2:285.15—23), who emphasized that 
Dubrovnik, founded by the “Illyrians” (evidently 
Slavs), was governed by good laws in an aristo- 
cratic manner. 

tit. B. Kreki¢, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au moyen 
âge (Paris-The Hague 1961). Idem, Dubrovnik in the 14th 
and 15th Centuries: A City between East and West (Norman, 


Okla., 1972). V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808, 2 vols. 
(Zagreb 1980). —B.K., A.K. 


DUIN (Aovftos or TiBtov), early medieval capital 
of ARMENIA on the east bank of the Azat River 
some 20 km south-southeast of modern Erevan. 
Duin may have been founded in the 4th C. (MosEs 
XORENAC'I, 3:8 vs. pseudo-P'awsTos BUZAND, 3:8), 
but it probably did not replace ArraSarT as capita! 
until a century later. After the ARsacip dynasty 
fell in 428, Duin became the seat of the Persian 
and then the Arab governors of Armenia as well 


666 DUIN, LOCAL COUNCILS OF 


as of the Armenian datholikos until the gth C. The 
city was captured by both Herakleios (623) and 
Constantine IV (652/3), but it did not remain in 
Byz. hands. In the BAGRaTID period Duin did not 
regain its status as capital; Muslim emirs con- 
trolled it more often than Armenian kings. The 
last Byz. attempt to reconquer Duin in 1045 failed. 

Despite the great earthquake of 893 which nearly 
destroyed the city, recent excavations attest its 
importance, and both Prokopios (Wars 2.25.1—3) 
and 1oth-C. Arab geographers praise Duin as an 
international trade center famous for its textiles. 
The city continued to flourish under the Zak‘ARIDS 
when the Georgian queen T‘amara used it as her 
winter residence after 1203; only in the 14th C. 
did Duin gradually decline as a result of the 
Mongol conquest of Armenia. 

LIT. N.G. Garsoian, DMA 4:323—25. Manandyan, Trade 
and Cities 81f, 133f, 143f, 152, 154f, 169f. A. Ter-Ghewon- 
dyan, “Chronologie de la ville de Dvin (Duin) aux gf et 11° 
siécles,” REArm n.s. 2 (1965) 303~18. K. Kafadarian, “Les 
fouilles de la ville de Dvin (Duin),” REArm n.s. 2 (1965) 
283-301, cf. 459f. —N.G.G. 


DUIN, LOCAL COUNCILS OF. The first church 
council at Duin, convoked in 505/6, was directed 
against Nestorianism; the Armenian church ac- 
cepted the HENOTIKON, underscoring its anti- 
Chalcedonian tendency, and thus took the first 
step toward Monophysitism. These anti-Nestorian 
ideas were further developed in the “Letter of 
the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia.” 

The second synod, of 554, formally rejected the 
council of Chalcedon. Hr. Bartikjan (Istoénikt dlja 
izučenija pavlikianskogo duizenya [Erevan 1961] 26— 
31) questions the traditional view that the synod 
dealt not only with Nestorianism but also Pauli- 
cianism and that its decisions are the first evidence 
concerning the PAULICIANS in Armenia. 


LIT. E. Ter-Minassiantz, Die armentsche Kirche (Berlin 
1904) 32f, 47-49. R. Aubert, DHGE 14 (1960) 1243. 


DUKLJA. See DIOKLEIA; ZETA. 


DURA EUROPOS (now Salihiyah in Syria), Se- 
leucid/Roman settlement on the Euphrates River 
near the Persian frontier, destroyed after it fell 
to the Sasanians in 256. For Byz. studies Dura 
Europos is notable, among other things, for the 


wall paintings in its synagogue (now removed to 
Damascus) and other cult buildings and for its 
Christian “house church.” Of a type that preceded 
the congregational church built on the plan of a 
public building (e.g., the basilica), this house church 
was an ordinary house, built ca.240, whose rooms 
surrounding a courtyard were designated for con- 
gregational activities (instruction, celebration of 
the Eucharist, baptism). One room was decorated 
in fresco with individual narrative scenes from 
the Old and New Testaments. By contrast, the 
walls of the synagogue were painted with contin- 
uous bands of interrelated scenes from the Old 
Testament, and the Mithraeum and Temple of 
the Palmyrene gods displayed carved and painted 
sacrificial scenes. The figures in all types of com- 
positions are distinguished by frontality and an 
intense gaze directed outwards. Most of these 
iconographic, compositional, and stylistic features 
occur later in Byz. art. 

LIT. A. Perkins, The Art of Dura Europos (Oxford 1973). 
K. Weitzmann, H.L. Kessler, The Frescoes of the Dura Syn- 


agogue and Christian Art (Washington, D.C., 1990). 
—M.M.M. 


DURRËS. See DyrRACHION. 
DUŠAN. See STEFAN Uroš IV DUŠAN. 


DUX. See Doux. 


DYER (Badevs). The profession was common in 
the late Roman Empire, and the term bapheus 
often appears in papyri (Preisigke, Wörterbuch 
1:261) and inscriptions (J.P. Waltzing, Études his- 
toriques sur les corporations professionelles, vol. 3 
[Louvain 1899] nos. 121—28). Basil the Great (PG 
31:568A) uses another term, deusopoios; this dyer 
prepared a vat for tincture (baphe) and then dyed 
fabric in PURPLE or some other color. “I imitate 
deusopoioi,” says Theodoret of Cyrrhus (PG 
81:232A), “by imbuing the water of the holy bap- 
tism in the color of blood.” A deusopoios worked 
in the Stoudios monastery in the early gth C. 
(Dobroklonskij, Feodor 413). An epitaph of a young 
Jewish dyer was discovered in medieval Corinth 
(J. Starr, BNJbb 12 [1936] 42—49). The Book of the 
Eparch, however, does not mention a guild of 
dyers, even though Peira 51.7 cites baptike, the 
dyeing profession, as an example of a SOMATEION. 


The Book of the Eparch itself twice mentions ba- 
phika, dyes that were imported from Syria and 
sold by perfumers (myrepsoi), and, in the chapter 
on SERIKARIOI, the legislator prohibited dyeing silk 
with blood. It is difficult to explain this silence on 
the dyers’ guild; sertkariot could have dyed silk 
themselves, but it is also possible that they dealt 
with a somateion of dyers omitted from the Book 
of the Eparch. NicHoLtas I Mystikos (Letters, 
no.13g.11-13) emphasized the durability of Byz. 
dye, which could not be washed out. 


LIT. Stéckle, Ziinfte 28f. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 227. 
-A.K. 


DYING. Byz. writers often described the process 
of dying, both in cases of massive numbers of 
deaths (during a PLAGUE, hostile invasion, etc.) 
and in individual instances. Some descriptions of 
this kind are conventional and standardized. Thus, 
the death of pagans and heretics was presented 
contemptuously—a legend depicted Arius as dying 
in a public lavatory—and their physical sufferings 
were enormously exaggerated (e.g., Theoph. 
427.25—28, 448.12—21). MARTYRS and saints, on 
the other hand, were typically represented as dying 
peacefully, without pain; they had a positive atti- 
tude toward DEATH, rejoicing at their approaching 
union with God. Other descriptions contain valu- 
able observations (e.g., Anna Komnene’s detailed 
depiction of her father’s death), are sincere in 
their sympathy (Prodromos’s image of his dying 
friend, Stephen Skylitzes), and, in contrast to the 
usual static portrayals, acquire dynamism in dis- 
playing the decay of the human body (Ljubarskij, 
Psell 241f). 

Confession and the eucharist were administered 
to the dying by a priest; unlike the Latin church, 
Byz. priests also performed the UNCTION of re- 
cently deceased people as well as the sick and 
moribund. Many Byz. tried to assume the monas- 
tic habit before they died: a 12th-C. historian 
(Nik.Chon. 221.52—222.64) describes the last hours 
of Manuel I, for whom the courtiers were unable 
to find a monk’s cloak of proper size. Pious people 
on their deathbed expressed concern about their 
relatives or brethren; thus, LAzaros oF MT. GALE- 
sios allegedly had died and was being lamented 
by his monks, when he unexpectedly opened his 


eyes and signed the typikon of his monastery. 
—Ap.K., A.K. 


DYNATOI | 667 


DYNAMIC STYLE, a term introduced by Demus 
(infra) to identify and characterize a highly man- 
nered stylistic trend datable toward the end of 
the 12th C. Distinguished by elegant, often elon- 
gated figures, contorted poses, and esp. by an 
unnatural reduplication of thick, undulating 
drapery folds (e.g., at the overfall of the hemation 
and the hem of the chiton), the dynamic style was 
first recognized in a series of geographically sep- 
arated, dated mural cycles (KURBINOVO, LaGou- 
DERA, MONREALE). Undated icons and MSS have 
more recently been linked to (and dated accord- 
ing to) this stylistic trend. 

LIT. O. Demus, “Die Entstehung des Paldologenstils in 
der Malerei,” 11 CEB (Munich 1958) 24-26. K. Weitz- 
mann, “Eine spatkomnenische Verkiindigungsikone des 
Sinai und die zweite byzantinische Welle des 12. Jahrhun- 
derts,” in Festschrift fiir Herbert von Einem (Berlin 1965) 
299-312. -G.V. 


DYNAMIS (Avvapis), the embodiment of Power, 
or Strength, personified as an armed, winged 
female. Ultimately derived from the goddesses 
who protected warriors in Classical art, Dynamis 
attends Davin in his fight with Goliath in the 
Paris PSALTER (Cutler, Aristocratic Psalters, fig.248) 
and in the illustration of marginal PsaLTers; she 
is opposed to Alazoneia (Boastfulness), who aban- 
dons the giant. A similar but unidentified figure 
protects David on sarcophagi of the 4th and 
5th C. -A.C. 


DYNATOI (6vvaroi, lit. “powerful”), legal term 
designating prominent office- or titleholders po- 
tentially capable of using their positions to ag- 
grandize themselves at the expense of weaker 
neighbors. According to the normative formula- 
tion of Romanos I Lekapenos (Zepos, Jus 1:209.1— 
9), the dynatoi were comprised of the following 
categories: high officials of the army, central bu- 
reaucracy, and provincial administration; MAGIS- 
TROI, PATRIKIOI, and holders of senatorial digni- 
ties; metropolitans, bishops, and hegoumenot; and 
administrators of imperial and ecclesiastical foun- 
dations. As this definition was predicated upon 
social rather than economic status, the dynatoi 
probably included some possessors of modest for- 
tunes, but substantial wealth was considered a 
normal attribute (Zepos, Jus 1:210.5-11). The 
highest posts and dignities were frequently, al- 
though never hereditarily, transmitted among a 


668 DYRRACHION 


limited number of families, some of which by the 
11th C. had begun to form an inchoate ARISTOC- 
RACY. 

The ioth and 11th C. witnessed increasing, at 
times forcible, encroachment by the dynatoi on 
peasant landownership, threatening the empire’s 
social equilibrium and jeopardizing its chief source 
of taxes and soldiers. Emperors from Romanos I 
to Basil II enacted legislation to arrest this phe- 
nomenon as well as to curb the particularistic 
influence exercised by the dynatot over provincial 
society at the expense of centralized imperial au- 
thority. The earliest novel directed against the 
dynatoi, that of Romanos I, used to be dated g22 
(Reg 1, no.595), but this date is questionable; the 
first dated edict (Reg 1, no.628) is that of Sept. 
934, which bars dynato: from obtaining peasant 
lands. Basil II subsequently voided all such ac- 
quisitions made after this date and abolished the 
40-year statute of limitations that had hitherto 
protected these transactions (Reg 1, no.783). Spe- 
cial restrictions were placed upon landholdings of 
powerful monasteries and upon the alienation of 
STRATIOTIKA KTEMATA to dynator, and dynatoi were 
forbidden to retain thematic soldiers in their per- 
sonal service or to interfere with local commercial 
fairs; they became liable—through the ALLELEN- 
cyon—for the tax arrears of poorer neighbors. 

The term dynatoz was used in charters as well as 
in law codes: a judge’s decision of 952 deals with 
an allotment encircled by the lands of dynatoz, so 
that no weak neighbor could exercise the right of 
PROTIMESIS over it (Lavra 1, nO.4.22—23); an act 
of 1037 excludes any dynaton prosopon from in- 
heriting certain land (Esphig., no.2.24). There- 
after the term fell into disuse. 

ur. R. Morris, “The Powerful and the Poor in Tenth- 
Century Byzantium,” Past and Present 73 (1976) 3—27. Le- 


merle, Agr.Hist, 85—131. Litavrin, VizObscestvo 7—28. 
-A.J.C. 


DYRRACHION (^vppáyxıov, Slav. Drač, Alba- 
nian Durrës, Ital. Durazzo, anc. Epidamnos), city 
on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea, the 
western terminus of the Via EGNATIA, capital of 
the province of Nova Epirus. Despite earthquakes 
in 341 and 522 and an Ostrogothic sack in the 
480s, Dyrrachion remained a major port and for- 


tress in the area; Anastasios I, a native of Dyrra- 
chion, provided the city with a triple wall and 
citadel, rebuilt by Justinian I. The question of 
Slavic settlement in the region is disputed. In the 
first half of the gth C. the fortress was in Byz, 
hands, and a theme of Dyrrachion was estab- 
lished: the strategos of Dyrrachion is mentioned in 
both the gth-C. Taktikon of Uspenskij (Oikonomi- 
des, Listes 49.17) and seals of the first half of the 
gth C. (Zacos, Seals 1, nos. 2521, 2655); Ja. Fer- 
luga, on the basis of a letter of Theodore of 
Stoudios, hypothesized that the theme was founded 
under Nikephoros I (12 CEB, vol. 2 [Ohrid 1961] 
83-92). 

The city, although a metropolitan see (Notitiae 
CP 3.20), was a stronghold rather than an eco- 
nomic center as it had been in late antiquity; 
according to Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 1:142.3~ 
13), Dyrrachion occupied only a part of ancient 
Epidamnos whose ramparts were ruined. The old 
city played an important role during Basil II’s war 
against Bulgaria and during the revolt of DELJAN. 
Nikephoros Bryennios and Nikephoros Bası- 
LAKES, successively dowkes of Dyrrachion, revolted 
in the 1070s. The Normans attacked it several 
times: ROBERT GUISCARD took the city in 1081, 
Bohemund besieged it in 1107—08; in 1185 WIL- 
LIAM II of Sicily pillaged it. From the 12th C. 
onward, Venetians (and later merchants from 
Dubrovnik) used Dyrrachion as a port for the 
export of local products (salt, wood, hides) and 
tried to establish their political power over the 
city, but were opposed by MicHaEL I KOMNENOS 
Douxas of Epiros, MANFRED of Sicily, Serbs, and 
Byz. In 1392 Venice occupied Dyrrachion and 
held it until 1501 when it fell to the Ottomans. 

The role of Dyrrachion in the Byz. ecclesiastical 
hierarchy gradually diminished: the metropolitan 
had eight suffragans in the gth C. but none by 
the end of the 12th C.—its territory was taken 
over first by Ohrid and then by the Latin arch- 
bishopric of Bar (Antivari). By the 14th C. Alba- 
nians became the dominant inhabitants. 

LIT. A. Ducellier, LMA 3:1497-1500. Idem, La façade 


maritime de l’Albanie au moyen âge (Thessalonike 1981). Fer- 
luga, Byzantium 225-44. -T.E.G. 


DŽVARI. See Mc‘xET‘A. 


E 





EAGLES (sing. &et6s). The most majestic of BIRDS 
was employed as both a sacred and a secular 
emblem. In myth the eagle appears as an instru- 
ment of God’s will, announcing the selection of 
the capital or promotion to the imperial throne: 
Skylitzes relates the prophecy regarding the fu- 
ture Basil I, overshadowed in his cradle by an 
eagle’s wing, as depicted in the illustrated Madrid 
MS (Grabar-Manoussacas, Skylitzés, no.202). The 
motif of an eagle battling a SNAKE occurs in floor 
mosaics, as a sculptural group in the Hippodrome 
of Constantinople, and probably as a military em- 
blem (L. Maculevi¢, VizVrem 16 [1959] 185—202), 
symbolizing the victory of Good over Evil. As an 
aspect of imperial symbolism, the consuls carried 
an eagle-topped scepter, which is depicted on 
their diptychs. This form of scepter disappeared 
from coins in the reign of Emp. Philippikos. The 
eagle may have symbolized the emperor in the 
early 6th C.: J. Engemann (in Festschrift Wessel 
103-15) has interpreted the Anastasios Plate in 
the Surron Hoo Treasure in this light. Eagles 
with rings in their mouths and jeweled collars are 
found on imperial silks of the late 10th or early 
1ith C. 

The date of the introduction of the double- 
headed eagle in Byz. has been much discussed. It 
was certainly employed by members of the Palaio- 
logan dynasty (Belting, Ilium. Buch 64, figs. 35— 
36), perhaps to suggest that the empire looked 
both to the East and West. It was appropriated 
by John VI Kantakouzenos for his footstool (Spa- 
tharakis, Corpus, vol. 2, fig.477) and by the Vene- 
tians for the state barge that welcomed John VIII. 
Perhaps the latest occurrence is on the pavement 
in the Metropolis at Mistra, where Constantine 
XI was crowned. The single-headed eagle contin- 
ued in imperial portraits, such as that of Alexios 
V in the Choniates MS in Vienna (Belting, ibid., 
fig.15). 

In patristic exegesis the image of the eagle rep- 
resented a supernatural envoy, an angel, or Christ 
himself. As an EVANGELIST SYMBOL it normally 
indicated John, although on occasion it was used 


for Mark. In the PHysioLocos the eagle is a sym- 
bol of regeneration. (See also COATS OF ARMS.) 
LIT. G. Gerola, “L’aquila bizantina e l'aquila imperiale a 
due teste,” FelRav 43 (1934) 7—36. A. Fourlas, “Adler und 
Doppeladler,” in Phzloxenia (Münster 1980) 97-120, and in 
Thiasos ton Mouson: Festschrift für J. Fink (Cologne 1984) 
179-90. ~AC. 


EARRINGS (éve@7ia) have been found, often sin- 
gly, throughout the Byz. world, mostly in funer- 
ary contexts but also in TREASURES. They may be 
made of gold, silver, bronze, gilded bronze, 
and/or enamel, with or without added precious 
and semiprecious stones or glass paste. Most are 
designed to pierce the earlobe as a simple hoop 
that fastens into a knob or ball. In the late antique 
period the fashion was hoops of wire, with or 
without additional decorations of granulation, 
braid, or beads. By the 6th—7th C. the popular 
style was a hoop or a flat lunette shape, with 
pendant chains ending in one or more GEMS, 
pearls, or beads. Examples of this type are worn 
by Empress Theodora and her ladies in the mo- 
saic in S. Vitale, Ravenna. Gradually the lunette 
shape changed from a solid form to filigree; by 
the 10th C. it was three-dimensional and basket- 
shaped, with extensive granulation. This type is 
often hard to distinguish from Islamic jewelry. 
Simple bronze earrings with traces of gilding have 
been found in many excavations and demonstrate 
a popular market for “costume” jewelry, imitating 
pieces produced in more costly materials. 

LIT. H. Schlunk, “Eine Gruppe datierbarer byzantin- 
ischer Ohrringe,” Berliner Museen 61 (1940) 42—47. S. Er- 


cegović-Pavlović, “Grozdolike vizantijske naušnice u Srbiji,” 
Starmar 18 (1967) 83—90. -S.D.C. 


EARTHQUAKES (sing. aetopos). Since most of 
the Byz. world lay within a region esp. vulnerable 
to earthquakes, a quake is recorded for almost 
every year of Byz. history, the best documented 
being those at Constantinople. As in pagan times, 
the Byz. interpreted quakes, like other NATURAL 
PHENOMENA, as heavenly portents, signifying either 


669 


670 | EASTER 


forthcoming catastrophe or divine displeasure at 
the sins of man. To atone for the divine anger 
manifested through quakes, the Byz. developed 
various liturgies, held processions, and frequently 
sought the intercession of a local holy man. Some- 
times relics were employed as a talisman to ward 
off quakes. As a perpetual reminder of the power 
of God’s wrath, an annual commemoration of 
many devastating quakes took place on the anni- 
versary of their occurrence; some became part of 
the liturgical calendar, at least at Constantinople 
and Alexandria. The Byz. were little interested in 
the natural causes of quakes, but there were al- 
ways a few advocates of the Aristotelian explana- 
tion that quakes were caused by the movement of 
winds in subterranean caverns. An 11th-C. histo- 
rian (Attal. 88.22-89.2) found it necessary to re- 
fute this theory. Photios, in his sermons and in 
the Bibliotheca, presented the traditional view that 
quakes are caused by our sins; pseudo-Symeon 
Magistros (TheophCont 673.10—12), however, ac- 
cused him of teaching that quakes were caused 
not by mankind’s sins but “by abundance of water.” 
The most significant quakes at Constantinople 
occurred in 365, 438, 447, 525, 557, 740, 886, 
869, 989, 1064, 1296, and 1346. A full list is in 
Grumel, Chronologie 476-81, but a modern cata- 
log is needed. 

LIT. F. Vercleyen, “Tremblements de terre à Constan- 
tinople: L'impact sur la population,” Byzantion 58 (1988) 
155-73. G. Dagron, “Quand la terre tremble... ,” 

8 (1981) 87—103. B. Croke, “Two Early Byzantine Earth- 
quakes and their Liturgical Commemoration,” Byzantion 51 
(1981) 122—47. Tremblements de terre, ed. B. Helly, A. Pollino 
(Valbonne 1984) 87—94, 183—219. G. Downey, “Earth- 
quakes at Constantinople and Vicinity, A.D. 342-1454,” 


Speculum 30 (1955) 596—600. B. Willis, Earthquakes in the 
Holy Land (Stanford 1928). -B.C. 


EASTER (Ido xa), the feast of the RESURRECTION 
(Anastasis), the Jewish Passover christianized, with 
Jesus being the new paschal sacrifice and lamb 
(see AMNOs). By the beginning of the grd C., the 
focus of the feast, which originally commemo- 
rated the entire victorious passover of Jesus from 
death to life, narrowed to the resurrection. BAP- 
TISM at the Vici preceding the feast makes the 
Christian as well as Christ protagonist of the ris- 
ing. The First Council of Nicaga canonized the 
celebration of Easter on the Sunday after the first 
full moon after the spring equinox. The Eastern 
use of astronomically inaccurate paschal tables 


and calendar led to differences in calculating East- 
ern and Western Easter. From the 4th C. onward, 
Easter was prepared for by Lent and with its 
FASTING and CATECHUMENATE, and more imme- 
diately by Hoty Week. Its celebration extended 
through the following week, called “bright week” 
or “renewal,” and throughout PENTECOST until its 
closure (apodosis) the day before the ASCENSION. 

Easter liturgy in Constantinople is detailed in 
the TYPIKON OF THE GREAT CHURCH (Mateos, Typ- 
icon 2:82—97) and in books of ceremonial (De cer., 
bk.1., ch.g5; pseudo-Kod. 231.17—238.4). Later 
Byz. Easter services, of Palestinian origin, are found 
at the end of the TRIODION and the beginning of 
the PENTEKOSTARION. 

In Constantinople the Easter vigil began Hoty 
SATURDAY evening in Hagia Sophia with festive 
VESPERS, during which the customary three LEC- 
TIONS were expanded to a series of fifteen Old 
Testament readings, eight of which were always 
read, with the others added only if necessary to 
occupy the people until the BAPTISMS and anoint- 
ings were finished and the procession was ready 
to enter. After the first lection, the patriarch went 
to the Great BAPTISTERY, where he blessed the 
waters and the oil of the catechumens and in- 
censed around the baptismal font thrice, then 
anointed and baptized the photizomenoi. After the 
conferral of baptism, the patriarch led the neo- 
phytes, now vested in robes of white, to the Church 
of St. Peter just east of Hagia Sophia, where he 
administered to them the SACRAMENT of chris- 
mation (confirmation). After all had been chris- 
mated with myron, the patriarch, accompanied by 
twelve bishops, led the neophytes in solemn 
procession, to the chant of Psalm 31[32], into 
Hagia Sophia to join the waiting congregation for 
the LITURGY, which began not with the usual Tris- 
AGION but with the baptismal TROPARION from 
Galatians 3:26. At this liturgy the neophytes com- 
pleted their initiation by receiving COMMUNION for 
the first time. 

LIT. G. Bertoniére, The Historical Development of the Easter 
Vigil (Rome 1972). Arranz, “Les sacrements,” OrChrP 51 


(1985) 60—86; 52 (1986) 145-78; 53 (1987) 59-106; 55 
(1989) 33—62. Talley, Liturgical Year 1—77. -R.F.T. 


ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS, conven- 
tional name for a group of historians whose works 
were dedicated to the history of the Christian 
church. EusesBIos OF CAESAREA was the founder 


of the genre, followed by GELAsiIos OF CAESAREA, 
PHILOSTORGIOS, SOKRATES, SOZOMENOS, and some 
other writers of the 5th and 6th C. The objective 
of Eusebios was to show the heroic progress of 
Christianity from the apostolic age to the victory 
of the new religion; this victory was achieved 
primarily due to the charismatic emperor Con- 
stantine I. History acquired a providential and 
teleological character, the line between miracle 
and reality was blurred, and political history 
merged with the biography of the holy man. The 
successors of Eusebios, both orthodox and heret- 
ical, stressed the local element, the piety of saints 
and bishops, and native traditions. In the 6th C. 
THEODORE LECTOR, in his compilation, tried to 
gather from his predecessors all substantial evi- 
dence concerning the development of Christianity 
after Constantine. Many of the works of ecclesi- 
astical historians (e.g., Basil the Cilician, John 
Diakrinomenos) are lost and known only from 
fragments or from the Bzbliotheca of Photios. After 
Theodore Lector, the genre practically disap- 
pears, and church history tended to be combined 
with general political history. In the 14th C. Ni- 
kephoros Kallistos XANTHOPOULOS returned to the 
genre when he composed his antiquarian Ecclesi- 
astical History, based on the works of earlier church 
historians and some hagiographical texts. 

LIT. La storiografia ecclesiastica nella tarda antichità (Mes- 
sina 1980). F. Winkelmann, “Rolle und Problematik der 
Behandlung der Kirchengeschichte in der byzantinischen 
Historiographie,” Klio 66 (1984) 257-69. L.C. Ruggini, 
“The Ecclesiastical Histories and the Pagan Historiogra- 
phy,” Athenaeum 55 (1977) 107-18. R.A. Markus, “Church 
History and the Early Church Historians,” in The Materials, 
Sources and Methods of Ecclesiastical History (Oxford 1975) 
1—17. A. Momigliano, “Pagan and Christian Historiogra- 


phy in the Fourth Century AD,” in The Conflict between 
Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1963) 


79799- —A.K. 


ECCLESIOLOGY (ékkAnovodoyia), a modern 
term to designate the study of the nature of the 
church. In Greek patristic literature and Byz. 
apologetic and dogmatic surveys, the church was 
never an object of systematic theological specula- 
tion. This lack of ecclesiological development, 
however, was not deliberate for the church was 
ultimately the context of all theology, the presup- 
position of all theological speculation. Besides, the 
church as a sociological phenomenon, as a visible 
institution with its own administrative structure 


ECLIPSES | 671 


and unity within the framework of the empire, 
was frequently the object of conciliar and imperial 
legislation. Texts such as the NOMOKANON OF 
FOURTEEN TITLES, the EPANAGOGE with its theory 
of the two powers, and the canonical corpus of 
the Council in TRULLO are in fact a rich source 
of information on church structure, discipline, 
and ecclesiological ideas. Equally, practical prob- 
lems generated by canon law, such as the relation- 
ship between ecclesiastical and imperial legisla- 
tion, were often the object of debate by canonists 
(cf. BaALsaMon, PG 104:981 B-C). 

In addition, from the 11th C. various authors 
dealt extensively with such issues as the preroga- 
tives of a METROPOLITAN and his relationship to 
the patriarch, right of appeal, ceLrBacy, the func- 
tions of the patriarch as president of the synod, 
canonical questions raised by the ARSENITE schism, 
and episcopal or clerical elections, depositions, 
ordinations, and resignations. Another essentially 
ecclesiological problem was of course the debate 
over PRIMACY (cf. PENTARCHY). The church’s un- 
derstanding of itself as an institution did not, 
however, emphasize structure or juridical cate- 
gories exclusively, for these, it was realized, could 
never adequately exhaust or define the ultimate 
reality of the church as a divme and earthly com- 
munity. 

LIT. Darrouzés, Ecclés. J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology 
(New York 1974) 79f. —A.P. 


ECLIPSES (sing. éxAeuis). The computation of 
a lunar or, even more, a solar eclipse was a diffi- 
cult problem for Byz. astronomers, but one that 
was often tackled, it seems, just to display the 
astronomer’s superior knowledge. Early surviving 
examples of eclipse computations are those by 
Pappos and THEON in the 4th C. and by STEPHEN 
OF ALEXANDRIA in the early 7th. Thereafter, until 
the Palaiologan period, there survives only one 
eclipse computation, for 1072, in a text based on 
an Arabic source (A. Jones, An Eleventh-century 
Manual of Arabo-Byzantine Astronomy [Amsterdam 
1987]). Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 2:g2f), how- 
ever, records how Alexios I Komnenos used a 
prediction of a total solar eclipse to his advantage 
in negotiations with the Pechenegs (K. Ferrari 
d’Occhieppo, JOB 23 [1974] 179-84). In the late 
Byz. period interest in eclipse prediction revived: 
we have computations in the translations from 


672 ECLOGA 


Persian and Arabic in the 1290s, in the treatises 
by Nikephoros GREGORAs and BARLAAM OF CA- 
LABRIA in the 1330s, a number of such computa- 
tions for the years 1374—1408 executed by John 
ABRAMIOS and his successors, and one by Michael 
Chrysokokkes in 1435. 

Eclipses were, of course, one of those NATURAL 
PHENOMENA regarded as ominous in Byz. The 
texts that instructed Byz. on how to interpret 
these omens include ProLemy (Astrological Effects 
2, 5—10), HEPHAISTION OF THEBES (Astrological 
Effects 1, 20-22), JOHN Lypos (On Omens 9), RHE- 
TORIOS OF EGYPT, and THEOPHILOS OF EDESSA 
((Astrological Effects) 6-7 [=CCAG 8.1:266—70]) 
as well as chapters of astrological texts translated 
from Arabic such as those of Abū Ma‘shar and of 
Ahmad the Persian (possibly ACHMET BEN SIRIN). 
The eclipse that marked the CRUCIFIXION was 
often indicated in art by the averted heads of the 
SuN AND Moon. 

Observations of Eclipses and Their Use for 
Dating Events. Reports of eclipses in Byz. docu- 
ments are to be used with caution. Although as- 
tronomically verifiable, the observational locations 
of most recorded Byz. solar and lunar eclipses are 
difficult to determine because of lack of precision 
in the historical records that is frequently com- 
pounded by textual corruption. Following the Ar- 
istotelian tradition Byz. scholars ascribed eclipses 
to natural astronomical causes, but the majority 
of the Byz. population interpreted them as divine 
signs or omens. Some eclipses were therefore in- 
vented or redated to suit a particular predictive 
purpose such as that of Pachymeres (Pachym., ed. 
Failler 1:59.4—6) foretelling the death of THEO- 
DORE II Laskaris in 1258. As in the case of 
COMETS, EARTHQUAKES, and FIRES, the annual 
commemoration of an eclipse (such as that of 8 
Aug. 891) was occasionally incorporated into the 
liturgical calendar (Synax.CP 878.g—16). The most 
reliably attested Byz. solar eclipses occurred on 6 
June 346; 28 Aug. 360; 19 July 418; 14 Jan. 484; 
29 June 512; 4 Oct. 590; 5 Nov. 644; 5 Oct. 695; 
15 Aug. 760; 16 Sept. 787; 14 May 812; 8 Aug. 
891; 22 Dec. 968. 

SOURCE. J. Mogenet, A. Tihon, et al., Nicéphore Grégoras, 
Calcul de Véclipse de soleil du 16 juillet 1330 (Amsterdam 
1983). 

oe Grumel, Chronologie 458—69. D.J. Schove, A. Fletcher, 
Chronology of Eclipses and Comets AD 1-1000 (Dover, N.H., 
1984). Pingree, “Chioniades & Astronomy” 136f, 156f. 
Idem, “The Byzantine Version of the Toledan Tables: The 


Work of George Lapithes?” DOP 30 (1976) 103f. H. Use- 
ner, Ad historiam astronomiae symbola (Bonn 1876) 25f. R.R. 
Newton, Medieval Chronicles and the Rotation of the Earth 
(Baltimore 1972) 515-59. -D.P., B.C., AC, 


ECLOGA (Exdoy7) rôv vópwv, lit. “selection of 
the laws”), a law book issued in Mar. 741 (rather 
than 726) by Leo III and Constantine V. The 
Ecloga presents in 18 titles the most important 
legal standards for everyday life, representing the 
first official attempt at a revival of the administra- 
tion of justice after over 100 years. Among the 
few substantive innovations are the restrictive DI- 
vorcE law (Ecloga 2.9), a regulation concerning 
division of war Booty (18), and the penal law 
(17). The section on penal law introduces, in ad- 
dition to a great number of punishable sexual 
offenses, a new system of punishment by MUTI- 
LATION that echoes the offense; it is surely to this 
that the announced “improvement in the sense of 
greater clemency” in the title of the law refers, 
because of the extensive restriction of capital pun- 
ishment. 

The originality of the Ecloga lies above all in its 
form. Its concise compilation of legal material and 
the fact that its selection and arrangement was 
oriented more to the circumstances of life than to 
legal systems made the Ecloga a prototype of the 
Byz. legal handbook. The Ecloga appears to have 
been quickly supplemented by the Appendix Ec- 
logae (ed. L. Burgmann, S. Troianos, FM 3 [1979] 
24—125), a heterogeneous collection of mainly 
penal law regulations. Along with the Appendix, 
which included the Nomos STRATIOTIKOS, the 
FARMER’s Law, and the RHODIAN SEA Law, the 
Ecloga constituted a corpus of secular law unri- 
valed until the end of the oth C. 

Under the Macedonian dynasty, the Ecloga was 
replaced, in a move to reappropriate Justinianic 
law, by the EPANAGOGE; the latter, however, re- 
mained strongly indebted in content and form to 
the Ecloga, as did the PRocHiRoN, issued some- 
what later, whose polemic, as Schminck has shown 
(Rechtsbiichern 64f), was directed not against the 
Ecloga but against the Epanagoge. The continuing 
popularity of the Ecloga is attested by the existence 
of numerous copies and compilations (some of 
southern Italian origin), the Zakon Supnyj Lyu- 
DEM and other Slavonic translations (see LAw IN 
SLAVIC COUNTRIES, BYZANTINE), an Arabic adap- 
tation (ed. S. Leder, Die arabische Ecloga [Frankfurt 


am Main 1985]), and an Armenian translation 
(see LAW IN THE East, BYZANTINE). 

Ep. L. Burgmann, Ecloga (Frankfurt am Main 1983). 
Eng. tr. E.H. Freshfield, A Manual of Roman Law: The Ecloga 
(Cambridge 1926). Russ. tr. E. Lipsic (Moscow 1965). 

LIT. Zacharia, Geschichte 16f. Sinogowitz, Strafrecht. E. 
Lipšic, Pravo i sud v Vizantit v IV-VIII vv. (Leningrad 1976) 
195-201. —-LB. 


ECLOGA AUCTA, an adaptation of the EcLoca. 
Designated in one MS as the “second Eklogadion,” 
it probably antedates the Macedonian period. As 
far as can be determined from the indirect (ECLOGA 
PRIVATA AUCTA) or fragmentary transmission, the 
author borrowed the structure and style of the 
Ecloga and copied some of its chapters verbatim, 
but revised, replaced, or expanded the rest. The 
changes are characterized by a renewed rap- 
prochement with Justinianic law; the MUTILATION 
punishments of the Ecloga are eliminated, with 
the exception of castration for sodomy (17.12b). 
Ep. D. Simon, S. Troianos, “Eklogadion und Ecloga 


privata aucta,” FM 2 (1976) 45—86. 


LIT. Troianos, Potnalios. —L.B. 


ECLOGA BASILICORUM, a legal commentary 
composed in 1142 by an unknown lawyer on a 
selection from the Basiuixa, which existed at the 
time but has not been transmitted independently. 
The commentary was intended to cover all 6o 
books of the Basilika but actually comprises only 
the first ten. Its sources are chiefly the complete 
text of the Basilika with scholia, the paraphrase of 
the Institutes by the 6th-C. jurist THEOPHILOS, and 
the legal writings of the 11th C. The commentary 
is characterized by explanatory paraphrases, ex- 
amples (thematismoi), short introductory explana- 
tions (protheoriat), and quotations of legal princi- 
ples (kanones). Recent imperial legislation is 
incorporated, and concrete examples are pro- 
vided, esp. for the area of court procedure. The 
beginning of the work, as handed down, is not 
original. 


ur. L. Burgmann, Ecloga Basilicorum (Frankfurt am Main 
1988). —-L.B. 


ECLOGA PRIVATA AUCTA, a compilation of 
the Ectoca and Ectoca aucta. It is itself poorly 
transmitted, but nonetheless provides crucial evi- 
dence for the text of the Ecloga aucta. The pro- 


ECONOMIC THEORIES | 673 


oimion, preserved in only one MS, shows minor, 
yet important, variations from the Ecloga. 

ED. Zepos, Jus 6:1—47. Eng. tr. E.H. Freshtield, A Revised 
Manual of Roman Law (Cambridge 1927). 

LIT. D. Simon, S. Troianos, “EPA Sinaitica,” FM 3 (1979) 
168~77. F. Goria, Tradizione romana e innovazioni bizantine 
nel diritto privato dell’Ecloga privata aucta: diritto matrimoniale 
(Frankfurt am Main 1980). E.E. Lipšic, Zakonodatel’stvo i 
jurisprudencija v Vizantu v IX-XI vv. (Leningrad 1981) 7— 
42. -L.B. 


ECONOMIC THEORIES. The church fathers 
dealt primarily with the problem of reconciling 
the primeval (“natural”) right of all men to the 
riches of the earth (air, water, land, etc.), which 
were created by God for the whole of mankind, 
with the reality of an unequal distribution of riches, 
the existence of wealth and poverty (see Poor). 
The solution of the problem was both historical 
and moral: historically approached, the reason 
for inequality was ORIGINAL SIN, the moral fall of 
mankind; the moral solution consisted in the dis- 
tinction between evil and good wealth, the latter 
being of honest origin and devoted to good pur- 
poses, that is, philanthropy and charity; thus ec- 
clesiastical and monastic PROPERTY was justified. 
In addition, the concept of “excessive” wealth 
(luxury) was developed that was contrasted with 
a self-sufficient, modest standard of living, albeit 
above the level of “blessed” poverty. This accounts 
for the elaboration of a hierarchy of properties 
and PROFITS that considered landed property more 
noble than mercantile property, treated profits 
from usury as indecent, proclaimed church prop- 
erty sacrosanct, provided different legal protec- 
tion (e.g., PROTIMESIS) for peasant property than 
the property of the DYNATOI, etc. 

There were no other consistent economic the- 
ories in Byz. although some attempts to under- 
stand the history and mechanism of economic 
forces were made. EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE 
suggested a history of mankind not in categories 
of fall and salvation but as a slow material progress 
from savagery to civilization (Kazhdan-Franklin, 
Studies 178f). Psellos, in the vita of St. AUXENTIOS, 
deliberated on the laws determining the function 
of the market (A. Kazhdan, Byzantion 53 [1983] 
550), and TzetTzes formulated the idea that labor 
sets the price of the product (eps. 81.16—82.2). 
PLETHON praised protectionist policy as a power- 
ful means to stimulate a Byz. economy suffering 
from the competition of Italian industry and trade. 


674 ECONOMY 


LIT. I. Seipel, Die wirtschaftlichen Lehren der Kirchenvdter® 
(Graz 1972). S. Giet, Les idées et l'action sociale de S. Basile 
(Paris 1941). E.F. Bruck, Kirchenväter und soziales Erbrecht 
(Berlin 1956). —A.K. 


ECONOMY. The Byz. economy was based pri- 
marily on AGRICULTURE; the intensive cultivation 
of land was typical of the littoral areas in both the 
Balkans and Asia Minor, whereas in the moun- 
tainous regions a pastoral economy predomi- 
nated. Urban life was also concentrated mostly 
along the coastline. The means of production 
were limited as is typical of the Middle Ages—the 
ERGASTERION, operated by a family (with the help 
of one or two laborers} and located in the same 
building as the living quarters, was the main site 
of industrial activity, larger factorylike units being 
reserved for state needs (mints, armories, pro- 
duction of luxury goods); but even the “factories” 
were assemblages of individual producers rather 
than cohesive entities. In the countryside, pro- 
duction was organized on small parcels of land 
with the help of traditional AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- 
MENTS requiring manual labor with only a limited 
use of animal power. The use of natural power 
resources was restricted mainly to water MILLS for 
grinding grain and to the AUTOMATA at imperial 
palaces; the mechanical “pre-revolution” of the 
12th and 13th C. touched Byz. only insignifi- 
cantly, and the wind mill (in evidence by 1300) 
appeared here later than in the West. Neverthe- 
less, until the end of the 12th C. Byz. was con- 
sidered the wealthiest country of Europe, rich in 
grain, wine, dairy products, clothing, and jewelry. 

Transportation (see TRAVEL), like production, 
was limited. Poor roaps rendered impossible 
overland trade of any significance, and the Byz. 
were mediocre sailors. The Roman domination 
over Mediterranean COMMERCE was weakened by 
the Arabs in the 7th C., and Byz. maritime activity 
was sharply curtailed by the growth of the Italian 
maritime republics from the 12th C. onward. The 
Byz. did not organize trading expeditions on a 
large scale, preferring to attract their neighbors 
to Constantinople, Thessalonike, or Trebizond 
rather than to sail ships or organize caravans to 
foreign centers, although some Greeks traveled 
to the Crimea, Egypt, and Montpellier. 

A monetary economy was always a characteristic 
of Byz., although some fluctuations in its history 
can be observed: unquestionably dominant in the 


4th—mid-7th C., it declined thereafter; it was then 
revived first in Constantinople and the littoral 
areas (after 800) and then inland; it was extremely 
active from the 11th to mid-13th C., but subse- 
quently Byz. coins were replaced by Italian cur- 
rency, as the Levantine trade was transferred to 
Venice and Genoa and their colonies on Byz. soil. 
A BARTER ECONOMY, including rents and salaries 
in kind, existed not only in the countryside but 
also in Constantinople where officials and physi- 
cians were paid for their services, in part, with 
grain, fodder, and clothing. 

Surviving figures on the Byz. BUDGET and pri- 
vate wealth are not reliable; it can, however, be 
safely stated that Byz. aristocrats derived their 
incomes more from their salaries (and related 
revenues) than from their estates (G. Litavrin in 
VizOé [Moscow 1971] 152~68). Assets were ex- 
pressed in terms of money rather than land. An 
example is the dowry of Theodora (Manuel I’s 
niece), which consisted of 100,000 hyperpers, plus 
10,000 hyperpers for wedding expenses as well 
as jewelry, clothing, carpets, etc., estimated at 
40,000 hyperpers, whereas her husband, Baldwin 
III of Jerusalem, gave her as a gift the city of 
Acre (William of Tyre, PL 201:734AB). Contrast- 
ing with this reality is the concept of Byz. moralists 
(e.g., Kekaumenos) that land is the most honor- 
able source of income. The nonmonetary wealth 
of Byz. aristocrats consisted of livestock as well as 
land. Income from trade was held in low esteem, 
sometimes even despised. 

The state played a major role in the Byz. econ- 
omy: it levied taxes on land and trade, retained 
the privilege of minting, possessed certain MO- 
NOPOLIES, exercised control over guilds, and owned 
vast lands and workshops. All these supplied the 
state with large revenues. At the same time, the 
state had enormous expenses: for the army and 
diplomacy; for the salaries of dignitaries; for 
building activity; and for various largesses for 
ecclesiastical institutions, officials, and the needy. 
The largesses either took the form of direct do- 
nations, or conferral of the right to a portion of 
taxes, Or EXEMPTION from taxation. The concen- 
tration of resources (in money and in kind) in the 
state treasury and their generous distribution 
among Officials, churches, and indigents (primar- 
ily in Constantinople) created in the capital an 
atmosphere conducive to the increased produc- 
tion of various goods (esp. objects of luxury and 


religious cult) and for the marketing of grain, 
meat, fish, etc. Constantinopolitan MERCHANTS, 
unlike those of Venice and Genoa who sought 
distant markets and resources, were not aggres- 
sive but conservative, awaiting imports and spoiled 
by the constancy of state demands. 

There are many blank spaces in the picture of 
Byz. economic development, but it can be pre- 
sented tentatively as follows: the late Roman econ- 
omy was evidently prosperous but based on the 
exploitation of the countryside by the city and of 
the province by the capital. By the mid-7th C. the 
urban economy was in decay, trade shrinking, the 
monetary economy contracting; on the other hand, 
the countryside recovered after its previous stag- 
nation and was able to compensate for the lost 
provinces. In the gth and 1oth C. slow revival 
concentrated around Constantinople, whereas in 
the mid-11th~—mid-13th C. it was the provincial 
town that benefited most and the countryside that 
was able to supply agricultural goods to neigh- 
boring countries. The domination of the Italian 
republics in the Mediterranean led to greater eco- 
nomic activity in Byz. territory, but Greek mer- 
chants and the Byz. state harvested only a slight 
portion of the growing revenues. 

LIT. M. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy 
(Cambridge 1985). A. Kazhdan, “Iz ekonomiteskoj žizni 
Vizanti XI-XII wv.,” VizO€ (1971) 169-212. N. Svoronos, 
“Remarques sur les structures économiques de l'Empire 


byzantin au XIe siècle,” TM 6 (1976) 49-67. P. Charanis, 
Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire 


(London 1973), pt-IV (1951), 94-153; pt-IX (1953), 412— 
24. Jacoby, Recherches, pt.I (1976), 42-48. A. Laiou, “The 
Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System,” 
DOP 34-35 (1980/81) 177—222. W. Treadgold, The Byz- 
antine State Finances in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries (New 
York 1982). -A.K. 


m9 66 


ECSTASY (éxoracts, lit. “displacement,” “a state 
outside one’s self”) designated a rapture or state 
beyond normal mental activity caused by deep 
EMOTIONS. According to the church fathers it is 
an “alienation” produced by the impact of fear, 
intoxication, sin, heretical opinions, etc. They did, 
however, recognize mystic ecstasy: thus METHO- 
DIOS of Olympos (Banquet, ch.8: PG 18:73C) speaks 
of Christ’s ecstasy that took place after his Incar- 
nation and Passion; Prokopios of Gaza (PG 
87:173B) defines ekstasis as “a state beyond normal 
consciousness” bestowed by God in his O1KONOMIA 
on such favored figures as Abraham, in the course 


ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH 675 


of which they received profound revelations. 
Adam, David, and some apostles are said to have 
enjoyed mystic ecstasy, which is to be distin- 
guished from the ecstatic frenzy of false prophets. 
The ecstatic vision of the divine light played a 
significant part in the teaching of SYMEON THE 
THEOLOGIAN and later in Hesycuasm. Ecstasy, 
sometimes characterized as “inebriation,” was usu- 
ally contrasted with dreams, although it could be 
accompanied by visions; its most typical feature 
was a complete disruption of the material senses 
so that a person could be “transported” to the 
supernatural world. 

Ecstasy was not a canonical subject in art. Ex- 
ceptionally, prophetic visions as depicted in the 
apse mosaic of the church of the Latomos mon- 
astery (now Hosios Davip) in Thessalonike, may 
include awestruck witnesses, but normally rapture 
was a state attributed to the beholder of a picture 
rather than to a protagonist in it. Late depictions 
of the TRANSFIGURATION sometimes show the 
apostles blinded and bowled over by the vision of 
the metamorphosized Jesus. -A.K., AC. 


ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH  (oixovyeriKds 
tratprapxns). Only in the 6th C. did the term 
come into regular use as a courtesy title for the 
archbishops of Constantinople (Mansi 8:1038A, 
1042D, 1058A). Patr. Menas, for example, used 
it in 536 (Mansi 8:959B). By the end of the cen- 
tury, under JOHN IV NEsTEuTEs, that title was 
also being used in official correspondence. Finally, 
by the gth C., under PuHorios, it entered official 
protocol in addressing the patriarch. MICHAEL I 
KEROULARIOS was the first to introduce it on his 
seal (Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.16). 

Strictly speaking, the qualifying term denoted 
the superior Orthodox patriarch of the ecumen- 
ical empire of Byz., whose see was also the impe- 
rial capital. It did not mean “universal” bishop, 
but “superior” bishop (H. Grégoire, Byzantion 8 
[1933] 570f). The title therefore was not intended 
to deprive Rome of its honorary primacy within 
the PENTARCHY; nor did it imply universal juris- 
diction over the entire church. Still, Popes Pela- 
gius lI (5'79g—go0) and GREGORY | THE GREAT were 
scandalized by it (Mansi 9:1213C—E). 

LIT. S.Vailhé, “Le titre de patriarche oecuménique avant 


saint Grégoire le Grand,” EO 11 (1908) 65—69. V. Laurent, 
“Le titre de patriarche oecuménique et la signature patriar- 


676 | EDESSA 


cale,” REB 6 (1948) 5-26. A. Tuilier, “Le sens de l'adjectif 
‘oecuménique’ dans la tradition patristique et dans la tra- 
dition byzantine,” Nouvelle revue théologique 86 (1964) 260- 
71. ~A.P. 


EDESSA ("Eéeooa, mod. Urfa in Turkey), capital 
of the province of OSRHOENE until it was lost to 
the Arabs ca.640; it remained an important Chris- 
tian and commercial center in the Islamic world 
until at least the 13th C. Situated in the Mesopo- 
tamian plain, Edessa is dominated on the south 
by a high rock and crossed by the Daisan River. 
Little remains of late Roman Edessa apart from 
sections of Justinian I’s circuit walls, the temenos 
walls of the present Great Mosque (which stands 
beside what was probably the north-south cardo), 
traces of various structures on the acropolis, and 
rock-cut tombs. Local written sources, however, 
supply concrete details concerning the period. 
Edessa was christianized in the 2nd C. when its 
king, Abgar IX (179-216), accepted the faith. 
The event was recorded in various legendary ac- 
counts that attribute the conversion of the king, 
identified by Eusebios as Abgar V the Black (4 
B.C.-A.D, 7, then 13-50), to a correspondence 
with Christ, who sent him the MANDYLION. The 
text of the letter was inscribed as a talisman above 
the city gates and the Mandylion came te be 
displayed in the cathedral. Christianity at Edessa 
was eventually represented by four groups (Mono- 
physites, Nestorians, Chalcedonians, Maronites). 
Church building is recorded in the CHRONICLE OF 
Epessa (of ca.540): a cathedral (312/13—29); its 
baptistery (369/70); and at least seven other 
churches (345—471), including that of the Apostle 
Thomas, visited by Ecerra. Altogether 30 churches 
are known by name. Bishops and governors pro- 
vided charitable and civic amenities between 458 
and 505: infirmary, towers, bridges, circuit walls, 
aqueducts, baths, praetorium. Eulogios also pro- 
vided 6,800 xestai of oil to light public porticoes. 
Following a flood Justinian rerouted the Daisan 
River and rebuilt the damaged southern part of 
the city, including the Cathedral of St. Sophia and 
the Antiphoros, the latter being, apparently, an 
open space in front of a forum. In 578—603 Bp. 
Severos erected porticoes and “numerous con- 
structions” (MICHAEL I THE SYRIAN, Chronicle 2:373). 
Edessa was a literary and intellectual center of 
Syriac culture, whose writers included the theo- 
logians APHRAHAT, EPHREM THE SYRIAN, and RAB- 


BULA of Edessa as well as JOSHUA THE STYLITE and 
Dionysios oF TELL-Mauré. The theological school, 
founded in 363 by immigrants from Nisibis, was 
closed in the 5th C. for Nestorian bias; it was 
subsequently refounded at Nisibis. 

During the 6th-C. Persian military campaigns, 
Edessa remained a rich, impregnable city. When 
it finally fell under Persian control from 602 to 
628, it supplied Chosroes II with 120,000 pounds 
of silver, much of it from the furniture revetments 
of St. Sophia and the city’s wealthy inhabitants. 
Herakleios resided there after his victory over the 
Persians in 628. Conquered soon thereafter by 
the Arabs, Edessa was recovered in 944 by the 
Byz., who removed the Mandylion to Constanti- 
nople. The city fell to the Crusaders in 1098. The 
local CHRONICLE OF 1234 records the conquest of 
Zengi in 1146 as particularly devastating, as was 
undoubtedly that of the Mongols. (For Edessa in 
Macedonia, see VODENA.) 

LIT. J.B. Segal, Edessa, the Blessed City (Oxford 1970). H. 
Leclaine, “Crises économiques a Edessa (494-5086) d'après 
la chronique du pseudo-Josué le Stylite,” Pallas 27 (1980) 
89-100. V.P. Stepanenko, “ISchany Edessy i vneSnepoliti- 


éeskaja orientacija goroda v 70-ch godach XI—na¢ale XII 
v.,” VizVrem 45 (1984) 87-94. -M.M.M. 


EDESSA, COUNTY OF. The first Crusader state 
in Syria, the county included Edessa and Saruj 
east of the Euphrates, and Tell Bashir, Kesoun, 
and other towns west of it. In 1097 Baldwin of 
Boulogne was invited by the Armenians of Edessa 
to aid them; their lord Thoros adopted Baldwin. 
Thoros was soon murdered by his own people 
(A.A. Beaumont in The Crusades and Other Histor- 
ical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro [New York 
1928] 104-12), and Baldwin became count. Ar- 
menians constituted a large part of the county’s 
inhabitants. The Byz. never yielded their claim to 
Edessa, but it was too remote for them to exercise 
authority. After ZANGI took Edessa, the area west 
of the Euphrates was preserved. In 1150, follow- 
ing the capture of Count Joscelin I, Countess 
Beatrice sold Tell Bashir, Aintab, Duluk, and a 
few other fortresses to Manuel I, who agreed to 
garrison them and pay Beatrice and her children 
a life-income. The Byz. troops, however, proved 
insufficient, and in 1151 Nor AL-Din easily seized 
these places. 


LIT. N. Elisséeff, Núr ad-Din (Damascus 1967) 2:457- 
62. ~C.M.B. 


EDICT OF MILAN, the name given by modern 
scholars to the first decree granting toleration to 
Christianity, supposedly issued by CONSTANTINE I 
and Licinius as a result of a meeting in Milan in 
313. The text of the edict, given by Eusebios of 
Caesarea (HE 10.5.2—14) and Lactantius (Lactant. 
De mort. pers. 48.2-12), grants religious freedom 
to both Christians and non-Christians and orders 
the return of confiscated church property. The 
authenticity of the edict was called into question 
by O. Seeck (ZKirch 12 [1891] 381) who pointed 
out that, according to Lactantius (Lactant. De mort. 
pers. 34; cf. Eusebios, HE 8.17.3—10), Galerius had 
issued a similar edict of toleration in 311. Others 
(e.g., Christensen, infra) have more recently ar- 
gued that the originator of the edict was Licinius 
and that he was following in the tradition estab- 
lished by Galerius. Both Constantine (in 306) and 
even MAXENTIUS (in 311) had declared toleration 
prior to 313 and the whole concept of the “Edict 
of Milan” should probably be discarded. Never- 
theless, the question continues to be debated (see 
M. Anastos, REB 25 [1967] 13—42). 

urt. T. Christensen, “The So-Called Edict of Milan,” 
CiMed 35, (1984) 129-75- —T.E.G. 


EDICTUM (7)6:xTov), edict, term used for general 
laws following Roman tradition. Edicta were usu- 
ally addressed to groups (all the emperor’s sub- 
jects or the inhabitants of a region or the members 
of a profession), but some were addressed to 
individuals (top officials, lay or ecclesiastic); they 
were usually signed by the emperor and coun- 
tersigned by the QuaEsToR. The edictum differed 
from the SANCTIO PRAGMATICA (pragmatikos typos) 
in that the latter was used for special laws, with 
general application but issued in response to a 
private request. With increasing frequency, laws 
were called novellae (constitutiones; see NOvELS), 
nearai (nomothesiat), or sakrai (from sacra lex). From 
the end of the 11th C. onward legislation was 
promulgated more and more in the form of a 
CHRYSOBULL Or a PROSTAGMA. 


Lit. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 71—84. 
-N.O, 


EDIRNE. See ADRIANOPLE. 


EDUCATION (zratéeta) in Byz. was based on two 
contradictory principles: Greco-Roman tradition 


EDUCATION 677 


and Christian faith. Christianity, in its extreme, 
rejected ancient civilization as permeated by false 
mythology, permissive and cruel morality, and a 
deceptive image of the world and its history; being 
a “religion of the Book,” however, it required of 
its followers an elementary aptitude for reading 
(see LITERACY) and the memorization of essential 
texts. The resolution of this contradiction was to 
maintain traditional educational methods and to 
make pagan literature acceptable by allegorical 
interpretation, by alleging derivation from Old 
Testament sources, by discerning in it a foreshad- 
owing of Christianity, or by concentrating on the 
form while rejecting the content. Egyptian exer- 
cise books of the 4th—7th C. still contained myth- 
ological names and traditional maxims and anec- 
dotes used for teaching reading and writing. 
Children in scHOOLS continued to be given the 
“venom” of Homer and the poets to develop their 
knowledge of language, while their home up- 
bringing was supposed to supply them with an 
“antidote” of moral precepts. 

The 7th C. was a watershed in the development 
of education. By that time the tertiary schools 
(universities) had disappeared, and even second- 
ary schools (those of grammar) became rare. In 
the gth C. the young CONSTANTINE THE PHILOS- 
OPHER was unable to find a GRAMMATIKOS in Thes- 
salonike. The scholarly curiosity of youth had to 
be content with private TEACHERS, in the form of 
individual teacher-STUDENT connections, as was 
the case with LEO THE MATHEMATICIAN who found 
on Andros a “wise man” to teach him rhetoric, 
philosophy, and arithmetic. The vast majority of 
those who overcame illiteracy acquired only the 
rudimentary skills of reading and writing with the 
help of parents and local literate men. Thus Jo- 
SEPH THE HYMNOGRAPHER, who was born to a well- 
to-do family, was taught by his parents; there is 
no mention in his vita of a professional teacher 
or of Joseph’s going to school. NICHOLAS OF STOU- 
DIOS was educated by his parents and continued 
his studies, from the age of ten, in the Stoudios 
monastery. These two examples may be atypical, 
however, and should be used with caution, since 
Joseph was born in Sicily and became a refugee 
in the Peloponnesos, while Nicholas was destined 
to be a monk. Other saints’ vitae on occasion 
mention teachers (didaskalot) to whom children 
were sent to learn era grammata, the act of read- 
ing. The vita of THEODORE or Epessa, which 


678 EDUCATION 


describes the saint’s education by a sophist So- 
phronios whom the Edessenes had as a “common 
teacher” and who taught the boy grammar, rhet- 
oric, and philosophy, is exceptional for gth-C. 
saints; in reality it is a later hagiographic “ro- 
mance” of the ioth C., reflecting the situation of 
the subsequent period. 

This shift occurred in mid-gth-C. Constantino- 
ple when Caesar Barpas organized the Mac- 
NAURA school to revive the “external [secular] wis- 
dom” that had been neglected by previous 
generations “which wallowed in boorishness and 
illiteracy” (TheophCont 185.2-5). Leo the Mathe- 
matician, the head of the school, taught philoso- 
phy, while his student Theodore instructed in 
mathematics, Theodegios in astronomy, and Ko- 
metas in grammar. This school was revived or 
refounded by Constantine VII (TheophCont 446.1— 
22). Two sources provide insights into school life 
of the 10th C.—the vita of ATHANASIOS OF ATHOS, 
who started as a popular teacher in Constantino- 
ple, and the correspondence of the anonymous 
teacher (see TEACHER, ANONYMOUS), Secondary 
education, under control of the state, was concen- 
trated in Constantinople and was organized on 
the private basis of teacher-student relations. It 
had as its major goal the formation of the higher 
echelon of functionaries. The main subject of 
teaching was GRAMMAR (with elements of elo- 
quence and philosophy); students also studied the 
dead language of the ancient classics. The subject 
matter for training was Homer, Aelian, Demos- 
thenes, etc., with the Bible added to this classical 
heritage. EPıMERISMS to the Psalms from the school 
of George CHorROBOSKOS served as a textbook. 

The 11th and 12th C. marked a new level in 
the development of Byz. education. An attempt 
was made to reintroduce the tertiary school, the 
UNIVERSITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE. Other educa- 
tional institutions were also active in the capital, 
including the school at the Church of the Holy 
Apostles described in detail by Nicholas Mesa- 
RITES, where the classes combined students of 
various ages, from children learning to count on 
their fingers to medical doctors discussing the 
pulse. The PATRIARCHAL SCHOOL was created, the 
new SCHEDOGRAPHIA was applied as a method to 
enhance independence of thought, and competi- 
tions of students took place. The greatest intellec- 
tuals of the time were involved in education, in- 
cluding John Mavuropous, Michael PseEt.os, 


EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE. Unlike Western 
universities, however, the Byz. school of the 11th— 
12th C. was not granted legal independence; it 
functioned under the sway of the state, its main 
figures (NOMOPHYLAX, MAISTOR TON RHETORON, 
HYPATOS TON PHILOSOPHON) being institutionally 
imperial officials. Moreover, from the end of the 
11th C. onward the church was acquiring insti- 
tutional impact on education. 

The fall of Constantinople in 1204 was a heavy 
blow to education, which had been concentrated 
in the capital. An attempt to found a Latin uni- 
versity in Constantinople was stillborn. In the 
Greek-controlled territories of the splintered em- 
pire there seem to have been no formal academic 
institutions, but only individual teachers who at- 
tracted small groups of devoted followers; thus 
the young Nikephoros BLEMmypes wandered from 
one teacher to another, via Nicaea, Smyrna, and 
Skamandros. He established a school with five 
students at the monastery of Gregory Thauma- 
tourgos in Ephesus. After the recapture of Con- 
stantinople in 1261 Michael VIII founded a “school 
of philosophy” headed by George AKROPOLITES. 
The school of Maximos PLANOUDES in Constanti- 
nople ca.1300 was linked with a monastery, al- 
though it was also supported by imperial grants 
(siteresia). Nikephoros Grecoras had his school in 
his room (ozkiskos) in the Chora monastery. All 
these private schools concentrated on grammar, 
even though time and again the disciplines of the 
QUADRIVIUM are proudly mentioned. Much infor- 
mation on education in the 14th and 15th C. is 
contained in the letters and other writings of 
Theodore HyrTakenos, George LEKAPENOS, and 
John CuortasMenos. The last evidence on Byz. 
schools is the correspondence of 1453 (J. Dar- 
rouzés, REB 22 [1964] 122), which mentions a 
school in Adrianople administered by a didaskalos 
and his young assistant. It was under the patron- 
age of the local judge and was probably attached 
to his house. 

LIT. G. Buckler, “Byzantine Education,” in Byzantium, 
ed. N. Baynes, H. Moss (Oxford 1948) 200-20. R. Guil- 
land, “La vie scolaire à Byzance,” BullBudé* 1 (1953) 63- 
83. A. Moffatt, “Schooling in the Iconoclast Centuries,” in 
Iconoclasm 85—92. K. Gaik, “Die christliche Pädagogik der 
Kirchenvater und ihre erziehungsphilosophischen Grund- 
lagen” (Ph.D. diss., Pädagogische Hochschule Rheinland, 
1978). Kazhdan-Epstein, Change 121-33. C. Constanti- 
nides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and 


Early Fourteenth Centuries (Nicosia 1982). Lemerle, Human- 
ism 281—308. —-A.K., R.B. 


EGERIA (4th C.), a wealthy nun from the western 
Mediterranean or a land on the Atlantic coast 
(Aquitaine? Galicia?) who left a detailed account 
(approximately one-third extant) of her journey 
to the Holy Land in 381—84. The earliest graphic 
account of Christian pilgrimage to survive, her 
Travels records observations and responses to a 
variety of LOCA SANCTA in Palestine, Syria, and 
Egypt. Included are elements of the natural ter- 
rain (e.g., trees “planted by the patriarchs”), hum- 
ble tombs and houses traditionally associated with 
heroes of the Old and New Testaments, churches 
that had been recently built by Constantine I, holy 
men (esp. in Egypt), and the local religious com- 
munity and liturgy (particularly in Jerusalem). 
Indeed, her account is most valuable for what it 
reveals of the topography, piety, and esp. the 
liturgy of the Holy Land as pilgrimage was ac- 
quiring its distinctive Christian character and a 
rapidly increasing number of participants. 

ED. Egérie, Journal de voyage, ed. P. Maraval (Paris 1982), 
with Fr. tr. 


uit. J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels? (Jerusalem-Warmin- 
ster 1981). —G.V. 


EGNATIA, VIA, Roman military road running 
across the Balkan peninsula, built in the second 
half of the 2nd C. B.c. It had two starting points 
on the Adriatic: Apollonia and Dyrrhachion. 
Thence it passed by Lychnidos (Ohrid), Herakleia 
Lynkestis (near Bitola), Edessa, Pella, and reached 
the Aegean Sea at Thessalonike. It then cut across 
the base of the Chalkidike peninsula to Amphi- 
polis and Philippi and originally terminated at 
Kypsela on the Hebros (Marica). Its extension to 
BYZANTION appears not to have borne the name 
of Egnatia. From the Hebros the road went to 
Herakleia (Perinthos, Marmara Ereğlisi), then 
(before Constantine I) struck inland to avoid the 
lagoons of Athyras (Büyük Çekmece) and Rhe- 
gion (Küçük Çekmece), passing through Kaino- 
phrourion (Kurfali?) and Melantias (Yarim Bur- 
gaz?); it reached Byzantion at the gate of Melantias. 
By ca.330 the stretch from Herakleia to Byzantion 
was shifted to the coast and made to pass by 
Selymbria, Athyras, Rhegion, and what was to 
become the suburb of Hespomon before termi- 
nating at the GoLpEN GaTE of Constantinople. 

A number of MILESTONES have been discovered, 
some of them post-Constantinian in date. The last 
epigraphically attested evidence of upkeep is of 


EGYPT | 679 


the reign of Valentinian and Valens (364-75), but 
PROKOPIOS OF CAESAREA (Buildings 4.8.5) records 
that the stretch between Hebdomon and Rhegion 
was first paved by Justinian I. Whatever its phys- 
ical condition, the Egnatia remained a major route 
of overland communication for much of the Middle 
Ages. 

LIT. N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia (Oxford 
1972) 1:19-58. Idem, “The Western Part of the Via Eg- 
natia,” JRS 64 (1974) 185-94. P. Collart, “Les milliaires de 
la Via Egnatia,” BCH 100 (1976) 177-200. L. Gounaro- 
poulou, M.B. Hatzopoulos, Les milliaires de la Voie Egna- 


tienne entre Héraclée des Lyncestes et Thessalonique (Athens 
1985). -C.M. 


EGYPT. As a province of the late Roman Empire, 
Egypt was simultaneously the principal source of 
the vital grain supply and the seedbed of a flour- 
ishing and original culture. Thoroughly reorga- 
nized by the reforms of Diocletian, the region was 
divided into six provinces for most of the period— 
Aegyptus I and II, Augustamnica, Arcadia, and 
THEBAID I and I]—and integrated into the fabric 
of the empire. The 4th C. was a time of radical 
and profound change. The old Roman metropolis 
with its administrative division called a nome (the 
chora) became a civitas plus its territorium; the hin- 
terland was made up of rural administrative dis- 
tricts (pagi) presided over by praepositi who took 
the place of the old strategoi. The taxation system 
was completely reworked according to principles 
of abstract productive units and collective respon- 
sibility. The workability of the liturgy system, which 
compulsorily assigned civic and administrative 
functions to members of the town councils and 
the decurion class, was shored up by ties to the 
central authority. The governor of Egypt was the 
AUGOUSTALIOS, with duces and praesides under him 
in the provinces. By 382 Egypt constituted a di- 
ocese of its own with its capital at ALEXANDRIA. 

After the Great Persecution in 303, the Chris- 
tian Church became a prime originator and car- 
rier of culture in Egypt. The COPTIC LANGUAGE 
emerged alongside Greek in the Bible and church 
services and eventually in record-keeping and 
public documentation; native Egyptian thinkers 
and writers were in the vanguard of thought in 
philosophy, theology, and belles-lettres. The mo- 
nastic movement, beginning with ANTONY THE 
GreaT and PacHomios, captured the imagination 
and channeled much of the best talent of Egyptian 
society. 


680 EGYPT 


The sth C., less well documented, saw a further 
transformation from the mobile world of post- 
Constantinian society to a new pattern of greater 
stability. The Copex THEoposIANUS already re- 
flects the growth of patronage and of attachment 
to one’s idia (Lat. origo, “place of origin”), which 
was to shape late antique Egypt. The fixed land- 
tax (demosios) payable in money did away with the 
older differentiated categories of land. The growth 
of the large estate (orkos) and the privilege of 
independent tax collection (autoprageia) are diffi- 
cult to trace in the extant sources, but it may be 
assumed that they were substantial and their ef- 
fects favored locally based productivity. The large 
monasteries became great landowners, encour- 
aging both economic and literary output. The 
increasing centralized power of the patriarchate 
of ALEXANDRIA, under such bishops as CYRIL and 
the monastic leadership of SHENOUTE, encouraged 













- a a 
MEDITERRANEAN Jenas 
Rosett fDamictta P 
Alexandria ^g h Jf SN SEA Deed Sea 
FR Ly], $5 : 
TaS 7 Pelousion 
PT 
giner 
akes 
Xima) NAT 
SINAL 
e PENINSULA 
= Phäria: 





Akhmim 
Pbow, 
Tabennisi 
j Koptos 24 
UP PER( EGYPT 
THEBAID: £thebes į 
Garo) NU BL AN 
CA DESERT 


EGYPT uau 
AND THE SINAI St. Symeon Be, 


9 Miles 100 
PENINSULA taal 


Ir ae z 


Egyptian ecclesiastical independence prior to the 
Council of Chalcedon (451). Open controversy 
over what constituted authentic patriarchal au- 
thority and succession produced polemical litera- 
ture, liturgical experimentation, and the begin- 
nings of a self-defning Egyptian Christian 
hagiography, esp. monastic biography. The first 
effort to compose a history of the Egyptian church 
in Coptic also occurred in the later 5th C. Egyp- 
tian poets traveled widely (see POETS, WANDER- 
ING), serving as court officials and envoys; Non- 
NOS OF PANOPOLIS reshaped the late Greek epic 
and told the Gospel story in hexameters. 

The tax reforms of Anastasios I (before 518) 
and the thorough reorganization of Egypt by Jus- 
tinian ls Edict 13 (probably 538/9) together re- 
structured and centralized the administration and 
its bureaucracy. The doux of each province held 
both civil and military power, and local tax collec- 
tion was managed by pagarchs, officials of the 
notable class who succeeded to the functions of 
the old decurions. The large landowners of each 
area grouped together as syntelestai to look after 
their interests and maintain the rights of their 
tenants. The estates of these proprietors func- 
tioned in a quasi-public manner: the rent (phoros) 
payable to an estate’s central office came to func- 
tion as a tax revenue, while the tenants of an 
estate performed jobs equivalent to compulsory 
services (leitourgeiai). The embole or annual grain 
shipment to Constantinople was maintained using 
vessels belonging to both magnates and monas- 
teries. Financial records were extremely thor- 
ough, as the abundant surviving papyri attest. By 
the 6th C. Egypt possessed a rich local culture 
that integrated with striking success classical pa- 
gan learning and a strong locally based Christian- 
ity. Comparative prosperity encouraged a flow- 
ering of the visual arts, esp. sculpture and textiles 
(see Coptic ART AND ARCHITECTURE), and an 
active literary life in both Greek and Coptic, pro- 
ducing works ranging from encomiastic poetry to 
philosophy, theology, homilies, and saints’ Lives. 
Coptic jurisprudence also came into its own. 

The successors of Justinian developed varying 
economic and religious policies for Egypt. Under 
Maurice all official documents had to begin with 
a Christian invocation. Abundant papyrus docu- 
mentation in both Greek and Coptic attests to the 
continuing vitality of economic and social institu- 
tions; the numerous papyrus codices of classical 


and patristic literature produced in the later 6th— 
early 7th C. illustrate the ongoing currents of 
Egyptian cultural life. Coptic visual art continued 
to flourish. Herakleios’s revolt against Phokas led 
to his taking control of Egypt ca.60g9. During his 
reign the Persians occupied Egypt between 618/ 
19 and 628/9, leaving behind papyrus documents 
in Pahlavi. Herakleios’s appointee to the Chalce- 
donian patriarchate, Kyros “the Caucasian,” also 
discharged civil functions. Both BENJAMIN I, the 
non-Chalcedonian patriarch, and the influential 
Upper Egyptian bishop Pesynthios of Coptos lived 
to be eyewitnesses of the Arab conquest, as did 
the monastic founder Samuel of Qalamun and 
the chronicler JOHN oF Nikiu. The political take- 
over of Egypt by a Muslim military force pro- 
ceeded piecemeal (640-42). Historians still have 
not satisfactorily explained the reasons for its suc- 
cess. Most of the late antique administrative struc- 
ture remained in place for about a hundred years, 
but after ca.800 the old culture began to die. 

LIT. J. Gascou, “Les grands domaines, la cité et l'état en 
Egypte byzantine,” TM g (1985) 1—90. R.S. Bagnall, K.A. 
Worp, Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt (Zutphen, 
Netherlands, 1978). R.S. Bagnall, Currency and Inflation in 
Fourth-Century Egypt (Decatur, Ga., 1985). Idem, “Late Ro- 
man Egypt,” DMA 10:453-56. The Roots of Egyptian Chris- 
tianity, ed. B. Pearson, J. Goehring (Philadelphia 1986). A. 


Bowman, Egypt after the Pharaohs (Berkeley 1986). 
—L.S.B.MacC. 


EIDIKON (e¿ôixór), imperial treasury and store- 
house. The etymology of the word is disputed; 
Guilland supported the view that it originates 
from idikos, “private,” whereas Bury (Adm. System 
98) flatly rejects this derivation and E. Stein (Stu- 
dien 149) connects the term with the word eidos, 
“ware.” Accordingly, it remains uncertain whether 
the eidikon was the emperor’s private treasury, that 
is, the successor to the department of the COMES 
RERUM PRIVATARUM, Or a special state treasury that 
had no connection with the emperor’s patrimo- 
nium. 

The first mention of the eidikon is in the oth C., 
from the reign of Theophilos; Laurent’s assertion 
(infra 305) that the institution was autonomous 
from the 7th C. is not supported by any evidence. 
The etdikon was a storehouse of precious goods, 
such as gold and silk as well as various materials 
for the needs of the army and the navy, and Arab 
dress for spies. The eidzkon functioned as a state 
treasury; one of its responsibilities was the pay- 


EKDOSIS | 681 


ment of ROGAI to senators. The head of the eidikon 
was called ezdikos (variants idikos and edikos) or epi 
tou eidikou, and from the 11th C. logothetes tou 
eidikou. In addition to regular notaries, his staff 
included ARCHONTES TON ERGODOSION and direc- 
tors of the ARMAMENTON and of the warehouses 
in the Great Palace. The sekreton of the logothetes 
tou eidikou was still functioning in 1081 (Lavra 1, 
no.43.65), and eidika (in the plural) are mentioned 
in a formula of exemption in 1086 (Lavra 1, 
no.48.50). Thereafter the department seems to 
have been abolished; Guilland suggests that it was 
replaced by the logotheston of the OIKEIAKOI. 

LIT. R. Guilland, “Les logothétes,” REB 29 (1971) 85- 


95. Laurent, Corpus 2:304—52. Délger, Beiträge 35—38. Oi- 
konomides, Listes 316-18. -A.K. 


EILITON (eiAnror, lit. “wound, wrapped”), a cloth 
spread over the top of the ALTAR for setting the 
eucharistic elements, the Byz. equivalent of the 
Latin corporal. Etlita were of linen (Symeon of 
Thessalonike, PG 155:317B) and possibly silk. In 
the post-Byz. period their function was superseded 
by the ANTIMENSION. As with other altar cloths, 
such as the ENDYTE, the eilita were given symbolic 
significance in liturgical commentaries, esp. as the 
winding sheets of Christ (e.g., pseudo-Sophronios 
in PG 87:3985B). No Byz. eiliton has survived, 
Although it is generally believed that ezlita were 
unadorned, they may, in fact, have had decora- 
tion: several painted representations of altar-tables 
show the eucharistic vessels placed over eilita-like 
covers decorated with corner GAMMATA, for ex- 
ample, the Melchizedek and Abel mosaic in S. 
Vitale, Ravenna, and the Communion of the 
Apostles mosaic in St. Sophia, Kiev. 

LIT. Soteriou, 


“Die Endyte,” JOB 15 (1966) 326-30. 


“Leitourgika amphia” 604-10. P. Speck, 
-A.G. 


EISAGOGE. See Ervanacuwr. 
EJMIACIN. See VAŁARŠAPAT. 


EKDIKOS. See PROTEKDIKOS. 


EKDOSIS (éxdoo1s, “issuing, publication”), or editio 
(Lat.), recension of the text of a work of literature 
made available by the author or by an editor for 
copying. First used by Alexandrian scholars to 


682 | EKKLESIA 


denote a recension of the text of Homer, in Byz. 
usage ekdosis often denotes a particular version of 
a text believed to have been approved by the 
author. Thus Puorios (Bzbl., cod.77) owned copies 
of two ekdoseis of the History of Eunapios and the 
first ekdosis of the Atticist lexicon of Ailios Diony- 
sios (Bibl. cod.152). The Breviarium of Patr. NikE- 
PHOROS I and the History of Niketas CHONIATES 
survive in two variant recensions that are possibly 
the work of the author. Sometimes successive ek- 
doseis of a text have become amalgamated in the 
MS tradition and can be reconstructed only in 
part by textual criticism, as is the case with the 
Ecclesiastical History of EuseBios OF Caesarea. Early 
versions of official texts were sometimes sup- 
pressed and replaced by later versions; thus the 
first version of the CODEX JUSTINIANUS, issued in 
528, but lost, is known only from the preface to 
the second editio, published ex repetita praelectione 
(De emendatione Codicis lustiniani, par.4). The term 
ekdosis is sometimes used in the Palaiologan period 
for a version of a classical text—most often a 
play—accompanied by marginal notes and other 
explanatory matter and prepared by a scholar for 
teaching purposes. It also sometimes denotes a 
collection of the letters or speeches of a Byz. 
writer, often in chronological order, as in the case 
of Michael CHoniaTeEs, and prepared by the au- 
thor himself or by a friend or pupil. In antiquity 
and the Middle Ages there is nothing correspond- 
ing to an “edition” of a printed book. Handwritten 
books are never entirely uniform. 

LIT. G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo? 
(Florence 1952) 187-393. H.-G. Beck, “Uberlieferungsge- 
schichte der byzantinischen Literatur,” in H. Hunger et al., 
Geschichte der Textiiberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen 


Literatur (Zurich 1961; rp. Munich 1978) 1:423-510. 
-R.B. 


EKKLESIA (Exxd\nota), PERSONIFICATION of the 
Church. Ekklesia usually occurs in liturgical con- 
texts and more rarely in Byz. than in the medieval 
West. Patristic exegesis made a protean figure of 
Ekklesia, recognizing her in the figures of Eve, 
Susanna, and other biblical heroines. She appears 
in these guises in wall painting and on sarcophagi 
of the 4th and 5th C. At Bawit, Ekklesia is rep- 
resented as a crowned and richly dressed woman. 
The Early Christian distinction between the eccle- 
sia ex circumcisione and the ecclesia ex gentibus, sym- 


bolized by the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, 
was not preserved. Nonetheless, Ekklesia is often 
paired with Synagogue, each portrayed as a draped 
woman. In monumental painting and in illus- 
trated Gospel books and homilies of Gregory of 
Nazianzos (Galavaris, Liturgical Homilies, fig.g4), 
Ekklesia and Synagogue are present at the Cru- 
CIFIXION, where Ekklesia is shown catching Christ’s 
blood in a chalice. This motif survives in monu- 
mental painting of the 13th—15th C., esp. in Ser- 
bia and on Mt. Athos (Millet, Athos, pls. 12.3, 
69.2). Another version, found at Kastoria, in which 
Ekklesia is led toward a church by one angel while 
another drives Synagogue from the scene, has 
been interpreted as an expression of local anti- 
Semitism (A.W. Epstein, Gesta 21 [1982] 26—28). 

LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 2:30—33. M.-L. Thérel, Les symboles 
de (“Ecclesia” dans la création iconographique de lart chrétien 


du Ille au Vie siècles (Rome 1973). Orlandos, Patmos 213- 
15. -A.C, 


EKKLESIARCHES (éxxdAyo.depyns, fem. èk- 
KAnowpxucoa), sacristan, a church official who 
was responsible for setting out the liturgical books, 
sacred vessels, eucharistic wine and bread, and 
for providing the appropriate number of candles 
and lamps for LIGHTING of the church. In mon- 
asteries, the ekklesiarches was one of the leading 
officials, appointed by the superior. At the Ber- 
BAIAS ELPIDOS NUNNERY in Constantinople, the 
ekklestarchissa, together with the OrKONOMOS, was 
second only to the superior; at Lips, however, she 
was subordinate to the skeuophylakissa (see SKEU- 
OPHYLAX). The ekklesiarches not only prepared the 
church for services, but led the monks or nuns in 
the singing of the offices, making sure that they 
knelt or stood at the proper moment, made re- 
sponses correctly, and that no sections of the 
office were omitted or recited in wrong order. 
The ekklesiarches also maintained proper discipline 
among the monks or nuns. The typikon of Bebaias 
Elpidos (pp.45.19—47.31) states that the ekklesiar- 
chissa should be a good singer who is very familiar 
with the liturgy, esp. since she is responsible for 
the instruction of novices in the chanting of the 
office. The ekklesiarches at the PETRITZOS monas- 
tery (Typikon, ed. Gautier, p.69.827—30) received 
an annual stipend of 20 nomismata. 


LIT. Arranz, Typicon 396f. Meester, De monachico statu 
24, 280. Darrouzeés, Offikia 285-88. -A.M.T. 


EKPHRASIS (éxdpacts), a formal description. 
Well known in ancient literature, description re- 
ceived its formal definition in the RHETORIC of the 
Roman Empire: the textbooks considered an ek- 
phrasis as a descriptive speech (logos) whose goal 
was to make the subject visible; HERMOGENES lists 
as subjects of ekphraseis persons, places, periods of 
time, actions, and feasts. NICHOLAS OF Myra adds 
to this list works of art. The theoreticians of rhet- 
oric perceived the ekphrasis as a kind of PROGYM- 
NASMA, but in practice the ekphrasis was essential 
to many major genres (epic, historiography, ro- 
mance, hagiography, etc.) or existed as a separate 
unit in prose (ekphrasis proper) or verse (EPIGRAM). 
While persons and actions became in practice the 
subject of other rhetorical genres, primarily 
PANEGYRICS, ekphraseis focused on the description 
of works of art, mainly buildings, either secular 
(e.g., by PRoKoPIOs OF Gaza, CHORIKIOS, Constan- 
tine Manasses) or sacred (by GREGORY oF Nyssa, 
PAUL SILENTIARIOS, Nicholas MESARITES); epi- 
grams often dealt with minor artifacts. Ekphraseis 
of cities were typical of the earlier period (e.g., 
Lrpanios on Antioch), disappeared for a long 
time, but were revived in the 13th—15th C. by 
THEODORE II Laskaris, Theodore METOCHITES, 
BEssARION, and John EuceEnikos. Ekphraseis of 
religious feasts were common, often inserted in a 
SERMON. Rhetoricians also produced descriptions 
of everyday objects: GARDENS (usually embedded 
in a romance), hunting scenes (Constantine Ma- 
nasses, Constantine PANTECHNES), and fairs (T1- 
MARION). Even parodical and critical ekphraseis are 
known: SYMEON THE THEOLOGIAN describes the 
silly behavior of the lazy merchant at a fair, and 
Gregory AnTIOCHOS the shabbiness of Serdica. 
uit. A. Hohlweg, RBK 2:33—75. G. Downey, RAC 4:921— 
44. Hunger, Lit. 1:170—88. Maguire, Art and Eloquence 22— 
52. B.D. Hebert, Spétantike Beschreibung von Kunstwerken 


(Graz 1983). D. Pallas, “Les ‘ekphraseis’ de Marc et de Jean 
Eugenikos,” Byzantion 52 (1982) 357-74. -A.K., F.M.J. 


EK PROSOPOU (k mwpoowzov), a generic term 
for deputy or representative, similar to ANTIPROS- 
oron. The Taktika of Leo VI (ch.4.7, PG 107:701C) 
applies this term to the STRATEGOS as imperial 
legate; Basil BOIOANNES, strategos and katepano of 
Italy, calls himself ek prosopou in a document of 
1023 (Guillou, Byz. Italy, pt.VII [1961], 28.30- 
31). Various functionaries, even metropolitans, 


EKTHESIS NEA | 683 


had ek prosopou as deputies. In the TAKTIKA of the 
gth~1oth C. the ek prosopou occupied a place lower 
than strategos and was considered a temporary 
representative of the strategos, katepano, or klei- 
sourarches. Ahrweiler (infra) hypothesizes that the 
ek prosopou had primarily fiscal functions but the 
evidence is not clear. Kekaumenos (Kek. 196.20) 
forms a noun ekprosopike for the district under an 
ek prosopou and states that it, along with archontia, 
could be a risky source of income; the ek prosopou 
of various themes (Anatolikon, Boukellarion, etc.) 
and regions (Athens, Philippopolis, etc.) are named 
on seals. In the 11th C. the asekretis Michael served 
as ek prosopou of [the logothetes] ton agelon (Zacos, 
Seals 2, no.845). The term probably disappeared 
after the 12th C., but in a document of 1214 (?) 
an obscure tax, ekprosopikion, is listed after KANIS- 
KION (Patmou Engrapha 1, no.23.9; cf. no.36.13). 
LIT. Ahrweiler, “Administration” 41f. Bury, Adm. System 


46f. Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija 305f. M. Mitard, “Etudes 
sur le règne de Léon VI,” BZ 12 (1903) 592-94. = —A.K. 


EKTHESIS (‘Ex@eots, “statement of faith”), the 
formula issued by Emp. Herakleios at the end of 
638 in an attempt to reconcile Chalcedonians and 
MonopnysitTes by supporting MONOTHELETISM. 
The text of the Ekthesis, which was written by Patr. 
Sercios I of Constantinople, attempted to end 
disputes concerning MONOENERGISM by forbid- 
ding a discussion of the energy in the person of 
Christ, while asserting that the two natures of 
Christ were joined by a single will (see FREE WILL). 
The formula “one will” had been proposed by 
Pope Honorius I (625-38) in a letter to Sergios. 
Although the Ekthesis was accepted by local coun- 
cils in Constantinople in 638 and 639, Herakleios 
soon realized the futility of his conciliatory at- 
tempt and did not press the issue. Constans II 
withdrew the Ekthesis, replacing it with the Typos 
(see Tyros oF Constans I) in 648. The Ekthesis 
was condemned at the Third Council of Constan- 
tinople in 680 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUN- 
CILS OF). 
ED. Mansi 10:991—98. 


LIT. V. Grumel, “Recherches sur l'histoire du mono- 
thélisme,” EO 29 (1930) 16—28. -T.E.G. 


EKTHESIS NEA (lit. “new setting out”), the only 
known Byz. CHANCERY handbook, dated 1 Sept. 


684 | ELATIKON 


1386. Preserved in many MSS, it concerns letters 
(PITTAKIA), mainly those written by ecclesiastics. 
Though not a true FORMULARY, it lists opening 
(and eventually concluding) formulas used by the 
patriarch of Constantinople in letters addressed 
to other patriarchs, autocephalous archbishops 
and suffragan metropolitans and archbishops; 
opening formulas used by the patriarch and by 
metropolitans when writing to other ecclesiastics 
and to lay rulers; presentation of the patriarchal 
pittakia; opening formulas for all kinds of letters 
of laymen and of ecclesiastics (only in MS Sinai 
gr. 1609); and transfers and promotions of bish- 
ops (ceremonies, documentary formulas). The Ek- 
thesis Nea is interesting for the political and social 
ideologies reflected in the formulas and for the 
unique insights it provides into the patriarchal 
chancery’s secret methods of preventing or dis- 
covering FORGERIES: the usage or lack of a seal, 
the kind and placement of the seal, the format in 
which the letter was folded, and the formulation 
and placement of the address all had to be com- 
bined according to strict, complicated, and secret 
rules in order to guarantee the authenticity of the 
document. 


ED. AND LIT. Darrouzés, “Ekthesis Nea.” -N.O. 


ELATIKON (éAqarixdy, probable etymology, “for 
marching”), an accessory tax mentioned in several 
documents of the 11th C. (e.g., Ivir., no.30.33; 
Lavra 1, no.39.7; Pantel., no.3.30), always in con- 
nection with SYNETHEIA. According to a treatise 
on TAXATION (ed. Délger 122.21-22), synetheia was 
collected for the pio1KeTas (an act of 1047 speaks 
of the synetheza of the diorketes and of elatikon [Ivir., 
no.29.96]), whereas elatikon was received by taxe- 
otai (probably the subalterns of the dzoiketaz), whose 
functions are not known. A novel of Alexios I, 
the so-called Palaia logarike (see LOGARIKE, PALAIA 
AND NEA), states that elatikon is collected by the 
GENIKON and transferred to officials called sE- 
KRETIKOI (Zepos, Jus 1:332.20—23). An act of 1098 
directs that synetheia and elatikon, as well as another 
secondary tax, dikeratoexaphollon, be paid to the 
owner or partial owner of the village (or of its 
part), Maria Basilakina (Délger, Schatz., no.65.13- 
14). Elatikon was calculated as a certain part of 
the main tax, and the total of synetheia and elatikon 
from a single estate should not rise above 10 
nomismata (Zepos, Jus 1:333.41—43). 


LIT. Svoronos, Cadastre 82f. Litavrin, VizObščestvo go. 
-A.K. 


ELECTRUM. See Coins. 


ELEGMOI MONASTERY. See HEtIou Bomon 
MONASTERY. 


ELEOUSA MONASTERY. See VELjusA Monas- 
TERY. 


ELEPHANTS (sing. é\égas). The Byz. knew both 
the African and Indian elephant; Kosmas INDI- 
KOPLEUSTES (3:353—54) distinguished between the 
Indians, who domesticated the elephant, and the 
Africans, who hunted them. Byz. armies fre- 
quently encountered war elephants during the 
Persian Wars (Prokopios, Buildings 2.1.11; Agath. 
110.8—11, 119.4—8). In the early 7th C. Hera- 
kleios made a triumphal entrance into Constan- 
tinople in a chariot drawn by four elephants that 
were exhibited in the circus and the Hippodrome 
(Nikeph. 22.20). By that time, however, the ele- 
phant was not widely used for warfare. The au- 
thor of the Anonymous Treatise on Strategy (6th C. 
or later) did not discuss fighting with elephants 
because he considered their use obsolete (Dennis, 
Military Treatises 44.20—21). 

Their appearance in the empire was a rare 
sight. MARCELLINUS ComEs reported the arrival of 
an elephant in Constantinople in the reign of 
Anastasios I (MGH AuctAnt X1.2.94, 33—34), while 
Jonn or EpHEsus (3.2.48, 3.6.10) described the 
“pious” behavior of several such beasts in the 
Hippodrome under Justinian I, perhaps booty 
from the Persian War. Constantine IX Monoma- 
chos obtained an elephant and a giraffe for his 
zoo in Constantinople (see ANIMALS). In the DIE- 
GESIS TON TETRAPODON ZOON (106.943) the ele- 
phant is mocked because his legs lack joints. The 
PHysIoLocos (128-33), however, portrays the el- 
ephant as a sacred animal whose characteristics 
and habits symbolize man’s fall and salvation. As 
the source of Ivory, its tusks were always prized; 
esp. large examples are shown among the offer- 
ings to an emperor on the BARBERINI IVORY. 

Statues of elephants stood in public places in 
Constantinople (Parastaseis 80.18—19, 98.9—193)- 
In most surviving mosaic representations the ge- 


nus is indeterminate, but the peristyle mosaic at 
the Great Palace of Constantinople clearly de- 
picts both an African and an Indian elephant, one 
attendant upon Dionysos, the other engaged in 
an ANIMAL COMBAT. An African elephant is de- 
picted with some verisimilitude in the Venice MS 
of the Kynegetika (see Opptan), fol.g6r; others, 
much more fantastic, occur among the fauna that 
adorn the frames of CANON TABLES. 

LIT. A. Cutler, “The Elephants in the Great Palace Mo- 


saic,” Bulletin de l'Association Internationale pour UEtude de la 
Mosaique Ancienne 10 (1985) 125-38. —Ap.K., A.C. 


ELESBOAM (‘EdcoBoas, ‘EAAnoGeatos), also 
called Kaleb Ella Asbeha; Christian king of Axum 
(from ca.520); saint; born ca.5,00, died ca.540. In 
alliance with Justin 1, Elesboam led an expedition 
to Himyar in 525, defeated the native king DHō- 
NuwaAs, and set in his place Sumayfa‘ Ashwa‘, 
who was eventually overthrown by ABRAHA; the 
latter nevertheless remained Elesboam’s vassal. 
Elesboam’s victory inscription was discovered in 
Marib (A. Caquot, Annales d'Ethiopie 6 [1965] 223- 
26). Elesboam did not succeed in transforming 
South Arabia into a fully integrated part of Axum. 
Malalas (Malal. 457f) describes the luxury of his 
costume and of his chariot pulled by four ele- 
phants. 

Elesboam was a Monophysite and the Axumite 
church acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Mon- 
ophysite patriarch of Alexandria. In Christian 
tradition he appears as a builder of churches and 
destroyer of idols in South Arabia (I. Shahid, DOP 


33 [1979] 55—66). 


LIT. Yu. Kobistanov, Axum (University Park, Pa.—London 
1979) 95-108. V. Christides, “The Himyarite-Ethiopian 
War and the Ethiopian Occupation of South Arabia in the 
Acts of Gregentius,” Annales d'Ethiopie g (1972) 115-46. 1. 
Shahid, The Martyrs of Najran (Brussels 1971) 252-60. A. 
Vasiliev, “Justin I (518-527) and Abyssinia,” BZ 33 (1933) 
67-77. -A.K 


ELEUTHEROS (é\sv6epos, lit. “free”), a fiscal 
category of peasants who were free from state 
payments; they were sometimes termed xenos, lit. 
“alien,” “unknown to the fisc,” or “not inscribed 
in the praktika.” The adjective eleutheros was first 
applied to things (/ver., no.15.20, 34-35, a.1008) 
with the notion of freedom “from any powerful 
and fiscal hand” (Lavra 1, no.55.24—25) as well as 
from any private ownership (Patmou Engrapha 2, 


ELIAS I 685 


no.61.31—32). In the 13th—is5th C. it was also 
used to categorize the status of persons. Eleutheroi 
are normally mentioned at the moment when 
imperial permission was granted to settle them on 
the property of (usually monastic) landlords. Their 
origins are obscure; we may surmise that they 
were paroikoi who had lost their property or had 
fled from their former lords or from the Turks. 
There is a common opinion that eleutherot were 
poor; in some cases, however, they do not seem 
any poorer than neighboring parozkoi, and it is 
difficult to distinguish clearly between the two 
categories. When settled, eleutheroi were reinte- 
grated into the main body of dependent peasants; 
their status of fiscal exemption was transitory, but 
the name eleutherot sometimes persisted. 

The similar category of agrafus, not inscribed 
in an official cadaster, is known in Latin Romania. 
Only on Venetian territory was state sanction re- 
quired (as in Byz.) to settle them on private lands— 
in Frankish Morea a free settler would become a 
villanus after remaining for a year and a day. 

LIT. Ostrogorsky, Féodalité 330-47. V.A. Smetanin, 
“Deklassirovannaja_ proslojka v pozdnevizantijsko] de- 
revne,” ADSV 4 (1966) 94-135. K. Chvostova, “K voprosu 
ob upotreblenii termina ‘elevter’ v vizantijskich opisjach 
XIH-XIV wv.,” VizVrem 44 (1983) 18—26. Jacoby, Re- 
cherches, pt.ILE (1975), 139-52. —M.B. 


ELIAS (‘HAtas), a spatharios and retainer of Jus- 
tinian IJ sent in 711 with a naval expedition to 
CHERSON and installed there as governor. Elias 
soon joined the revolt of PHILIPPIKOS, whereupon 
Justinian murdered his children and “compelled 
his wife to marry her Indian cook” (Theoph. 
379.16—-17). After Philippikos entered Constan- 
tinople, Elias was detailed to pursue Justinian into 
Asia Minor. Finding the emperor’s camp at Da- 
matrys and inducing his Byz. and Bulgarian troops 
to desert him, Elias personally decapitated Justin- 
ian and returned the head to Constantinople. 


LIT. Stratos, Byzantium 5:157—75.- —P.A.H. 


ELIAS I, patriarch of Jerusalem (23 July 494- 
Aug. 516); born ca.430, died Aila, on Red Sea, 
20 July 518. An Arab by birth, he spent his early 
youth as an anchorite in the Nitrian desert. Dur- 
ing the Monophysite persecution of TiMOTHEOS 
AiLouros Elias took refuge in the lavra of Eu- 
THYMIOS THE GREAT in Palestine, and in 473 was 
ordained priest. While serving at the Church of 


686 | ELIAS BAR SHINAYA 


the Anastasis in Jerusalem he founded two mon- 
asteries near Jericho. His episcopate was troubled 
by Monophysite infiltration into Palestine. In his 
resistance he received the help and repeated sup- 
port of St. SaBas. At the council of Sidon (511) 
the dissident opposition failed to force him to 
denounce the Council of CHALCEDON. His attitude 
ultimately caused his deposition and banishment 
(Aug. 516) to Aila as Monophysitism was strength- 
ened under Emp. Anastasios I. But his stand was 
also a factor in the failure of Anastasios to impose 
MonopnysitisM as the official faith of the empire. 
Significantly, the emperor’s selection of a succes- 
sor to Elias marks the beginning of Constantino- 
ple’s interference in the internal affairs of the 
patriarchate of JERUSALEM and in the appoint- 
ment of its patriarchs. 

LIT. S. Vailhé, “Les premiers monastères de la Pales- 
tine,” Bessarione 3 (1898) 340—51. F. Diekamp, Die origen- 


istischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert (Münster 1899) 
15—27. Papadopoulos, Hierosolym. 196—204. —A.P. 


ELIAS BAR SHINAYA, a scholar, monk, and 
priest of the Nestorian community; metropolitan 
of Nisibis (from 1008); born Nisibis ıı Feb. 975, 
died after 1049. Bilingual in Syriac and Arabic, 
he has to his credit a long list of works in both 
languages, only a few of which have been pub- 
lished in modern editions or studied by modern 
scholars. His particularly important contributions 
to scholarship were in Syriac grammar and lexi- 
cography, religious dialogue with the Muslims, 
and historiography. Elias was the only Nestorian 
man of letters to compose a universal history in 
Syriac, and it is this work alone, usually called the 
Chronography, that is well known. It survives in a 
unique MS (London, B.L. 7197) that dates from 
the writer’s own era. The Chronography is in two 
parts, the first of which includes the universal 
chronicle and a list of canons; the second part is 
a treatise on the calendar systems of the several 
communities in the Oriental patriarchates, com- 
plete with conversion tables to tabulate the ref- 
erences from one system to another. For Byz. 
history the chronicle is valuable for its notices of 
military engagements between the Arabs and the 
Byz., esp. in the 1oth and early 11th C. 

ED. Opus chronologicum, ed. E.W. Brooks, J.B. Chabot, 2 


vols. (Paris 1910; rp. Louvain 1954). Fr. tr. L.J. Delaporte, 
La Chronographie d’Elie bar-Sinaya (Paris 1910). 


LIT. Baumstark, Literatur 287f. Grat, Literatur 2: 177-89. 
Kh. Samir in R. Caspar, A. Charfi, Kh. Samir, eds., “Bib- 
liographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien,” Islamochristiana 3 


(1977) 257-84. -S.H.G. 


ELIAS EKDIKOS, theologian, fl. 11th C. (Beck, 
Kirche 588) or 11th-12th C. (Disdier, infra). His 
biography is unknown, and his works are often 
ascribed to other authors: MAXIMOS THE CONFES- 
SOR, JOHN OF KarpatHos, Nikephoros MoscHo- 
PouLos (N. Tomadakes, Athena 78 [1980-82] 284f). 
His major work is a FLORILEGIUM entitled Other 
Chapters, a compact presentation of Christian piety. 
Elias distinguishes three elements of the human 
being: the body (connected with azsthesis, the ca- 
pacity of feeling); the soul with its faculties, dianoia 
(“thought”) and logos; and nous (“reason”). The 
human being is normally mired in passions, but 
while Maximos considers all the passions as di- 
rected against nature, Elias is ready to accept that 
corporeal passions are kata physin (“according to 
nature”). The main path to salvation is, according 
to Elias, through acquiring apatheia, liberation from 
passions, and the fear of God is an important 
means to achieve this end. Apparently SYMEON 
THE THEOLOGIAN influenced Elias, but he differs 
from Symeon in the system of his imagery, pre- 
ferring agricultural and military metaphors and 
similes (Kazhdan, “Simeon” 18). 

ED. PG go:1401—61 (under the name of Maximos) and 
127:112g—76. 

LIT. M.-T. Disdier, “Elie l’Ecdicos et les ketera kephalaia,” 
EO 31 (1932) 17-43. N. Polites, “He pros ten theorian 
hodos Helia tou Ekdikou,” EEBS 43 (1977—78) 345-64. V. 


Laurent, “Le rituel de la proscomidie et le métropolite de 
Crète Elie,” REB 16 (1958) 116-42. ~A.K. 


ELIAS OF ALEXANDRIA, Neoplatonist com- 
mentator of Aristotle (6th C.), possibly the same 
person as Elias, prefect of Illyricum in 541, al- 
though the title APO EPARCHON could have a dif- 
ferent meaning. He seems to have succeeded 
OLYMPIODOROS OF ALEXANDRIA Ca.565—70 as the 
head of the Alexandrian philosophical school and 
was in turn succeeded by DAvID THE PHILOSO- 
PHER. The MS tradition of Elias is confused and 
the distinction between him, David, and the so- 
called pseudo-Flias as well as their distinction from 
earlier authors is not always clear. It is assumed 
that the oeuvre of Elias includes commentaries on 
Aristotle’s Organon, on Porphyry’s Isagoge, and 


probably Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy as well 
as some minor works. Although officially Chris- 
tian, Elias supported the ancient idea of the eter- 
nity of the world, whereas David mentions this 
doctrine without discussing it. Elias also followed 
Olympiodoros in defending the priority of the 
universal in nature as well as in logic. 

ED. A. Busse in CAG, 18.1. Westerink, Prolegomena xx— 
xxiii, xlvi-xlvii, 1. 

uit. L.G. Westerink, Texts and Studies in Neoplatonism and 
Byzantine Literature (Amsterdam 1980) 59-72, 93-99. D.J. 
O'Meara, Neoplatonism and Christian Thought (Norfolk, Va., 
1982) 83, 242 n.g. C.W. Miller, “Die neuplatonischen 
Aristoteleskommentatoren über die Ursachen der Pseud- 
epigraphie,” RhM 112 (1969) 124f. -A.K. 


ELIAS SPELEOTES, saint; born Reggio Calabria 
864?, died nearby at Saline, 11 Sept. 960. His vita, 
which attributes to him a longer life than that of 
the first hermit, ANToNny, mentions very wealthy 
parents and an accident that maimed his hand 
and led to the surname Monocheir (“One-Hand”). 
After unsuccessful attempts at becoming a hermit 
in Muslim Sicily and a recluse in Rome, Elias 
ultimately found a spiritual master in his Cala- 
brian homeland, the monk Arsenios. Together 
they fled Muslim attacks by crossing to Patras in 
the Peloponnesos. Upon returning to Reggio, they 
met ELIAS THE YOUNGER and his disciple Daniel, 
with whom Elias dwelt at Saline after their two 
masters had died. He then moved north to Meli- 
cucca, near Seminara, where he began to direct 
crowds of followers, first in a LAVRA involving 
many small caves, and then, after a vision of 
himself nurturing a hive of bees, in a monastery 
in a large cave. Elias was also a scribe who copied 
many books. His Life, written at Melicucca at least 
a generation later, features control over animals, 
exorcisms, prophesies, and ecstatic trances. He 
reportedly warned the patrikios Byzalon that he 
who resists the emperor resists the divine order 
and precisely predicted this rebel’s death. 

sources. AASS Sept. 3:843-88. V. Saletta, “Vita di S. 
Elia Speleota secondo il manoscritto Cryptense B. 8.XVII,” 
Studi meridionali 3 (1970) 445-53; 4 (1971) 272-315; 5 
(1972) 61—96. 

uit. BHG 581. E. Morini, “Eremo e cenobio nel mona- 
chesimo greco dell'Italia meridionale nei secoli IX e X,” 
Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 31 (1977) 355-58. G- 
Schirò, “Testimonianza innografica dell'attività scriptoria 


di s. Elia lo Speleota,” ByzF 2 (1967) 313-17. G. Matino, 
“Stratigrafia linguistica nella ‘Vita di S. Elia lo Speleota, ” 


ELIJAH | 687 


JOB 32.3 (1982) 237-45. M. Dunn, “Evangelisation or 
Repentance? The Re-Christianisation of the Peloponnese 
in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries,” Renaissance and Renewal 
in Christian History (Oxford 1977) 7of. ~J.M.H. 


ELIAS THE YOUNGER, saint; born Enna, Sicily, 
823?, died Thessalonike 17 Aug. 903. After hav- 
ing been twice captured by Muslim invaders of 
his homeland, Elias made his way to Jerusalem, 
where he received the monastic habit from Patr. 
Elias III (878—906). After returning to Sicily, Elias 
then crossed to the mainland where, 22 km south 
of Reggio, soon after 880, he founded the earliest 
known Calabrian Italo-Greek monastery, Saline 
(later called St. Elias, then Sts. Elias and Philare- 
tos). His peregrinations did not trouble his nearly 
contemporary biographer, since “every place is 
safe for those who follow the will of God” (ed. 
Rossi Taibbi, 46.607—08). Elias did not hesitate to 
preach morality to local Byz. officials, troops, and 
citizens, and his vita indicates that reform always 
led to victory, vice to defeat. Famous as a wonder- 
worker and a prophet of Arab raids, he caught 
the attention of Leo VI. After the fall of Taor- 
mina in goz, Leo summoned Elias to Constanti- 
nople; en route, at Thessalonike, just before he 
died, Elias predicted the attack on that city by 
Leo oF TRIPOLI. Elias’s corpse was returned to his 
monastery in Calabria. 

SOURCES. Vita di Sant'Elia il Giovane, ed. G. Rossi Taibbi 
(Palermo 1962). E. Follieri, “Un canone inedito per S. Elia 
Siculo,” BollBadGr n.s. 15 (1961) 15-23. 

tit. BHG 580. F. Cezzi, “La ‘Mens’ biblica nella ‘Vita di 
S. Elia il Giovane, ” Nicolaus 1 (1973) 345—60. G. Caliman, 
“Interazioni di lingua e società nella Vita di Sant'Elia il 
Giovane,” Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia. Universita di 
Napoli {n.s. 9) 21 (1978—79) 97-109. A. Amatulli, “Aspetti 
della relazione tra Chiesa e Stato nel ‘Bios’ di Elia di Enna,” 
Nicolaus 8 (1980) 195—203. -J.M.H. 


ELIJAH ('Hàias), Hebrew prophet who was taken 
up to heaven in a fiery chariot. John Chrysostom 
contrasted Elijah with Christ: in ascending to 
heaven, the former gave his cloak to Elisha (4 Kg 
2:13), whereas the latter gave the gifts of grace 
(charismata) to his disciples (PG 50:450). In a sec- 
ond homily Chrysostom compared Elijah’s cloak 
with the eucharistic body (sarx) of Christ (PG 
49:46). These ideas were not taken up in the 


688 | ELIS 


visual arts, although Elijah’s Ascent (4 Kg 2:11- 
13) appears as early as the Via Latina CATACOMB 
in Rome. More extensive narrative cycles are found 
in the Sacra PARALLELA, as illustrations to the 
Book of Kins, and, surprisingly, in the diakonitkon 
of the church at Morača (1252), where Elijah’s 
birth and ten other scenes from his life are de- 
picted (A. Skovran-Vukéevi¢, ZRVI 5 [1958] 149- 
72). Elijah’s most frequent appearance is in the 
New Testament image of the TRANSFIGURATION. 
Because of his association with mountains, Elijah’s 
name was attached to monasteries and settlements 
in lofty locations throughout the empire. A 12th- 
C. icon at Sinai (Soteriou, Eikones, no.74) may be 
due to a local cult on this mountain. Basil I was 
esp. devoted to Elijah, founding or rebuilding 
many churches dedicated to him. Elijah is occa- 
sionally cited in hagiography, as in the vita of 
Davip OF THESSALONIKE (ed. Rose, ch.16.31). 

LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 2:go—g3. E. Lucchest-Palli, L. 


Hoffscholte, LCI 1:607—13. Janin, Églises centres 143-46. 
~ J-H.L., A.C., C.B.T. 


ELIS. See ANDRAVIDA. 


ELISABETH THE THAUMATURGE, mid-5th- 
C. saint; born near Thracian Herakleia, died Con- 
stantinople; feastday 24 Apr. Elisabeth was born 
to a “noble and rich” couple, after a long period 
of sterility, on their estate on Thrakokrene (later 
Abydenoi). Orphaned at 15, she divided her gold, 
silver, and other property among the poor, eman- 
cipated her slaves, and confined herself in the 
nunnery of St. George on the Mikros Lophos, in 
Constantinople. Two years later her paternal aunt, 
hegoumene of the convent, died, and Patr. GEN- 
NADIOS | appointed Elisabeth in her place. Leo I 
conferred on the nunnery an imperial estate of 
St. Babylas in Hebdomon where a dragon dwelt. 
Elisabeth, in imitation of St. George whose con- 
vent she headed, “sealed” the dragon with her 
cross, spit on him (W. Lackner, AB 92 [1974] 
287f), and trampled him to death. She performed 
cures, including posthumous healing miracles. An 
anonymous Life of Elisabeth is preserved in a 
14th-C. MS, but Halkin (infra) dates this vita be- 
fore 591 on the basis of an argumentum ex silentio 
(no mention of the Avar devastation of Hera- 
kleia). It is plausible that Elisabeth’s legend is a 
female version of St. GzorGE and the dragon. 


source. F. Halkin, “Sainte Elisabeth d’Héraclée, abbesse 
a Constantinople,” AB g1 (1973) 251-64. 

LIT. BHG 2121-2122a. A. Kazhdan, “Hagiographical 
Notes,” Byzantion 56 (2986) 169f. —A.K. 


EŁIŠE, author of an Armenian History describing 
the unsuccessful revolt led by Vardan Mamixo- 
NEAN against Sasanian overlordship in 450/1. Of 
EhiSe little is known, and it is debatable whether 
he wrote as an eyewitness (as he claims) or whether 
this History was written after that of LAZAR OF 
P‘arpi, who describes the same events somewhat 
differently. 

Elige’s History is one of the most sophisticated 
works in early Armenian literature. Speeches, let- 
ters, and dialogue enhance Etige’s message; ac- 
cording to him, nation and Christian faith are 
one, the apostate and the traitor are identical. 
Ełiše was familiar with a wide range of Greek and 
Syriac texts, but his main model was the Macca- 
BEES. The setting is Armenia and Iran; Etige notes 
that the Byz. emperor MarciaAn abandoned the 
Christian Armenians to their fate. Some later Ar- 
menian writers (e.g., VARDAN VARDAPET) adduce 
this war of 450/1 as the reason for the absence 
from thé Council of CHaLcepon of bishops from 
Greater Armenia. Numerous theological works 
are also attributed to Etige, but their authorship 
is most uncertain. 

ED. Matengrut‘iwnk' (Venice 1859). Hayoc’ Paterazmin, ed. 
E. Ter-Minasean (Erevan 1957). History of Vardan and the 
Armenian War, tr. R.W. Thomson (Cambridge, Mass., 1982). 

uit. P.N. Akinian, Eliséus Vardapet, 3 vols. (Vienna 1932— 
60). V. Nalbandjan, Egise (Erevan 1972). R.W. Thomson, 
“Etisé’s History of Vardan: New Light from Old Sources,” 


in Classical Armenian Culture (Chico, Calif., 1982) 41-51. 
-R.T. 


ELPIDIOS (’Edzrié:os), a patrikios sent as strategos 
to Sicily by Empress Irene in Feb. 781. Within 
two months he was accused of supporting Caesar 
NIkEPHOROS and his brothers who were aspiring 
to the throne; Elpidios may even have proclaimed 
himself emperor. Irene sent the spatharios The- 
ophilos to arrest Elpidios; when the Sicilians would 
not surrender him, she had his wife beaten, ton- 
sured, and imprisoned with his sons in Constan- 
tinople. Perhaps it was in reaction to the revolt of 
Elpidios that Irene sought an alliance with CHAR- 
LEMAGNE through a marriage between his daugh- 
ter Rotrud and her son Constantine VI (C. Tsir- 
panlis, Byzantina 6 [1974] 347). In 782 Irene 


dispatched a large expedition to Sicily, forcing 
Elpidios to flee to North Africa, where the Arabs 
reportedly invested him with imperial regalia. In 
794 he accompanied Sulayman, the son of HARUN 
AL-RASHID, on a raid into Byz. territory (E.W. 
Brooks, EHR 15 [1900] 741). 


LIT. Guilland, Titres, pt. IX (1970), 329. —P.A.H. 


ELPIOS THE ROMAN. See OuLrios. 


EMBASSIES, FOREIGN. Foreign ambassadors 
and their retinues were received at the frontier 
by the service responsible for the imperial post; 
on their way to Constantinople, they were accom- 
panied by officials (basilikot), were provided with 
safe-conducts (sometimes CHRYSOBULLS), used the 
post (DROMOs) facilities, and were offered food 
and hospitality by the taxpayers of the regions 
that they crossed (this was a secondary tax). Once 
in the capital, they were in contact with the Ma- 
GISTER OFFICIORUM and in later centuries the Lo- 
GOTHETES TOU DROMOU, who also accompanied 
them in official meetings. They were the respon- 
sibility of the scrinium barbarorum (early period) 
and resided in a special residence, the apokresiart- 
kion. The emperor tried to impress them by dis- 
playing his power and wealth and by stressing his 
supremacy among rulers, sometimes by using me- 
chanical gimmicks (AUTOMATA); then he might 
invite them for meals and eventually have direct 
discussions with them, such as the ones vividly 
described by LIUTPRAND OF CREMONA. Simplicity 
prevailed in the later centuries with the decline 
of the empire. The exchange of presents was a 
standard feature of all incoming and outgoing 
embassies, whose security was guaranteed by the 
receiving state, sometimes (for barbarians) by giv- 
ing or exchanging hostages. (For outgoing Byz. 
embassies, see AMBASSADORS.) 

tit. D.E. Queller, The Office of Ambassador in the Middle 
Ages (Princeton 1967). A.D. Lee, “Embassies as Evidence 
for the Movement of Military Intelligence between the 
Roman and Sasanian Empires,” The Defence of the Roman 


and Byzantine East, ed. P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (Oxford 
1986) [= BAR Int.Ser. 297) 2:455—-61. -N.O. 


EMBOLOS (éuBodos), the regular late antique 
word for a colonnaded street, also denoted the 
porticoes that lined it. The frequent appearance 
of the term in texts and inscriptions of the 4th— 


EMBROIDERY 689 


6th C. reflects the appearance of the cities, in 
which emboloi were a prominent element, common 
to any place of size or pretension. The streets 
often served as main arteries through the cities 
(though many were closed to wheeled vehicles). 
The colonnades provided access to shops which 
formed the major commercial centers, often re- 
placing the ancient AGoras. As commerce flour- 
ished, vendors’ booths were often set up between 
the columns, and shops were extended out into 
the street despite official prohibition. Emboloi were 
particularly prominent in Constantinople where 
they connected all parts of the city. Principal em- 
boloi in Constantinople were those of the shops of 
the ARGYROPRATAI, of Domninos, of Leontios, and 
of Zeuxippos as well as the Grand (Makros) and 
the New (Neos) embolot. After the 7th C., emboloi 
in provincial cities generally lost their function 
and were frequently built over with houses. 

LIT. C. Foss, Ephesus After Antiquity (Cambridge 1979) 


65f. Janin, CP byz. 87—94. D. Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt 
im 6. Jahrhundert (Munich 1969) 60-63. —C.F., A.C. 


EMBROIDERY, either of silver (&4pyvpoxévrnta) 
or of gold (ypvooxévryta, also chrysosolenokenteta, 
chrysoklaba, and chrysoklabarika) was used for the 
COSTUME of emperors and high functionaries, li- 
turgical cloths, etc. It was executed by skilled 
artisans, or chrysoklabartot: Theophanes (Theoph. 
469.3—4) refers to an imperial workshop of chry- 
soklabarioi in Constantinople; Philotheos speaks of 
imperial tailors, chrysoklabarioi, and goldsmiths as 
participating in court ceremonial (Oikonomides, 
Listes 133.9—-10); and an EPITAPHIOS in Berat 
(ca.1376) is signed by a chrysoklabares George. The 
De ceremoniis frequently mentions embroidered 
costumes but rarely describes them in detail; once 
it speaks of the emperor’s purple MAPHORION as 
covered with gold-embroidered roses (De cer. 
529.15). Lhe Loros, esp. that worn by emperors, 
was particularly sumptuous, embroidered with gold 
and precious stones. The finest embroideries were 
done with silk, gold, or silver threads on purple, 
red, or blue silk backing. Silk threads were used 
primarily for faces and occasionally detail. Most 
of the design was embroidered with gold and 
silver threads made either as metal strips wound 
around a silk, often colored, yarn (these are known 
as chryso- and argyronemata or by the attributive 
solenotos or klapotos) or as finely drawn wires (known 


690 | EMESA 


as syrmata); both were applied by couching. Em- 
broideries could also include pearls and enamels 
(e.g., on the Great SaxKos of Patr. Photios of 
Moscow, 1409-13). 

Except for a few fragments from Egypt, surviv- 
ing embroideries are late in date; the Halberstadt 
KALYMMATA Of ca.1195 are probably the earliest 
datable example. Other important specimens in- 
clude the 13th-C. St. Lawrence textile sent to 
Genoa by Michael VIII Palaiologos (now in the 
Palazzo Bianco in Genoa) as well as the so-called 
DALMATIC OF CHARLEMAGNE, and the Thessalo- 
nike AER, both 14th C. The use of embroidery in 
the decoration of textiles appears to have in- 
creased with the decline of sILK weaving and a 
greater demand for specific figural compositions 
on liturgical cloths and costume in the Palaiologan 
period. 

LIT. G, Millet, Broderies religieuses de style byzantin (Paris 
1939—47). Koukoules, Bios 2.2:41—47. P. Johnstone, The 
Byzantine Tradition in Church Embroidery (London 1967). 
M.S. Theochares, Ekklesiastika chrysokenteta (Athens 1986). 
A. Chatzemichale, “Ta chrysoklabarika—syrmateina—syr- 


makesika kentemata,” in Mélanges offerts à Octave et Melpo 
Merlier, vol. 2 (Athens 1956) 447-98- -A.G. 


EMESA (Epesa, Eolea, Ar. Hims [Homs] in 
Syria), city of the province of Phoenicia Libanen- 
sis, at the crossing of routes from PALMYRA to the 
sea and from Damascus to the north. It became 
an autocephalous metropolitan see under the pa- 
triarch of ANTIOCH after the head of John the 
Baptist was discovered there in Feb. 453 by monks 
of the Spelaion (Cave) Monastery; the relic was 
placed in the cathedral and venerated by pilgrims. 
Although about 300 Greek inscriptions from Emesa 
(dating from the 1st C. B.c. onward) have been 
published (IGLSyr 5, nos. 2202-501), there are 
relatively few other archaeological remnants of 
the antique city; those of the Byz. period include 
a basilica and funerary chapel (ibid. 2205-11). 
The vitae of local saints, such as Julian of Emesa, 
and esp. the vita of SYMEON OF Emesa by Leontios 
of Neapolis (C. Mango in Byz. und der Westen 25— 
41) mention other, public buildings: a hippo- 
drome, theater, two baths. ROMANOS THE MELODE 
was a native of Emesa. The city was under Persian 
rule from 609/10 to 628. 

There are several conflicting accounts of the 
loss of Emesa to the Arabs in 635-36. Then Abū 
‘Ubayda al-Jarrah abandoned Emesa, and the Byz. 


force entered the city (Donner, Conquests 132f), 
but after the defeat of Yarmuk the situation 
changed and Herakleios left Emesa. The Arabs 
seized the city without bloodshed after the pop- 
ulation had paid a ransom (71,000 dinars) and 
probably turned the Church of St. John into a 
mosque (N. Elisséeff, EI? 3:397); the urban prop- 
erties left vacant were divided up among the Mus- 
lims (Donner, Conquests 247). Emesa remained 
under Muslim control thereafter except for short 
periods in the 1oth C.: the Arab geographer al- 
Istakhri (951) praised the climate, soil, and paved 
streets and markets of Emesa, but lamented the 
damage caused in the area by the Byz. (G. Le 
Strange, Palestine under the Moslems [rp. Beirut 
1965] 353f). Nikephoros II Phokas occupied Emesa 
in 969 and took away the head of John the Bap- 
tist; JOHN I TzrmiskeEs levied tribute there in 975; 
the Byz. burned the city in 983 and Basil II 
extended his authority over it in 995, setting fire 
to it yet again in ggg. 

LIT. P. Peeters, “La Passion de S. Julien d’Emése,” AB 
47 (1929) 44-76. —-M.M.M. 


EMIR (åmpâs, gipns), Turkish form of Arabic 
title ‘amir, generally meaning “commander” and 
largely used by the Islamic peoples. In early Is- 
lamic times only commanders of armies used the 
title, but later persons exercising administrative 
and financial authority adopted it. Under the SEL- 
JUKS it was given to military officers and to younger 
princes. In the late 13th and in the 14th C. it was 
used by lesser rulers such as those of the Turkish 
states that succeeded the old sultanate of RGM; it 
was finally used by the Ottoman sultan. The term 
appears in early Byz. sources (e.g., THEOPHANES 
THE CONFESSOR) as a loanword from the Arabic. 
The names of some Byz. families (e.g., Amiro- 
pouloi, Amiroutzes) originate from this title. The 
Song of the Ameras (Emir) forms the first section of 
the epic Dicenes AkriTas. It was gradually used 
alternatively with or replaced by the Turkish title 
BEG. 

ur. L. Bazin, EI? 1:1159. A.A. Duri, El? 1:438f. Mo- 
ravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2:66—68. E.A. Zachariadou, “Pa- 


chymeres on the ‘Amourioi’ of Kastamonu,” BMGS 3 (1977) 
57-70. -E.A.Z. 


EMMANUEL. See Curist: Types of Christ. 


EMMAUS (‘Eppaois, Ar. ‘Amwas), identified by 
Sozomenos as Nikopolis, and, according to Euse- 
bios of Caesarea, “a famous polis” in Judaea, on 
the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa. It was an au- 
tocephalous archbishopric under the jurisdiction 
of Jerusalem. It contained several goals of pil- 
grimage—a healing spring and churches. Ruins 
of a church and baptistery with mosaics of the 
5th/6th C. were discovered there. The city also 
had a Jewish and Samaritan population. Con- 
quered by the Arabs between 634 and 638, it was 
decimated by the plague of 639. Emmaus was 
displaced by Diospoxis and then Ramla, and later 
pilgrims give confused testimony concerning its 
location. The Byz. church was rebuilt in the Cru- 
sader period. 

It remains debatable (R. Janin, DHGE 15 [1963] 
428) whether the Emmaus mentioned in the Gos- 
pels as the place where Christ had revealed him- 
self to two of his disciples can be identified as 
Emmaus-Nikopolis. ' 

LIT. H. Vincent, F.M. Abel, Emmaüs, sa basilique et son 
histoire (Paris 1932). G. Hölscher, RE 17 (1937) 533-35- 


Wilkinson, Pilgrims 156. EAEHL 2:362—64. 
-G.V., Z.U.M. 


EMOTIONS (Tà 7am) were defined by Nemesios 
as a kind of movement (kinesis): movement ac- 
cording to nature is energy, whereas movement 
against nature is emotion or passion (PG 40:673C). 
Ancient ETHICS created an ideal of freedom from 
emotions—apatheia or ataraxia—and church fa- 
thers inherited from the ancients a condemnation 
of emotions, which were identified as vices; thus 
Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote, in accordance with 
Romans 7:5, of sinful passions working in our 
body (PG 66:808AB). The hegoumenos Dorotheos 
in the 6th C., however, drew a distinction between 
the two—pathe are evil desires and hamartiai (vices) 
their energies, or realizations (PG 88:1621D). 
Theologians emphasized consistently that God has 
no emotions and is apathes (Gregory of Nyssa, PG 
45:49B). 

The solemnity of Byz. ceremonial, ecclesiastical 
and imperial alike, rejected emotional move- 
ments; an uncontrolled gesture or unbalanced 
BEHAVIOR were signs of barbaric, uncivilized up- 
bringing, whereas an ideal appearance presup- 
posed “measure,” “balance,” and “rhythm,” or 
harmony and symmetry (Ljubarskij, Psell 235f) in 
contrast to emotional outbursts. Ammianus Mar- 


EMOTIONS | 691 


cellinus described the “statuesque” pose of Con- 
stantius II, and the imperial portraits of the 4th 
C. presented motionless, “stony” figures. Patience 
was treated as a necessity in any situation and 
would be rewarded in heaven (E. Osborn, Ethical 
Patterns in Early Christian Thought [Cambridge 1976] 
133). Hagiographers also emphasized that their 
heroes and heroines acted without emotion in the 
most distressing situations, even on the verge of 
death. At the same time, the Byz. distinguished 
between good and bad emotions: LAUGHTER was 
a bad emotion, whereas tears (see CONTRITION) 
were always welcome and indicated a sympathetic 
character; the gentle smile also fit the ideal of 
sanctity. Strong emotions such as passionate LOVE 
of God were also acceptable in Christians. The 
PASSION OF CHRIST is the focus of the theology of 
salvation. From the 12th C. onward Byz. writers 
presented emotions ever more boldly (e.g., delight 
in dancing and even obscure BODY LANGUAGE); 
they participated enthusiastically in processions 
and even displayed emotions that trespassed on 
the conventional moral code. 

Representation in Art. In art, emotions were 
expressed less through physiognomy than through 
GESTURE. D. Winfield (DOP 22 [1968] 128) sug- 
gested that painters limited themselves to two 
basic facial attitudes: one for emotional distur- 
bance, one for tranquility. Confronting innumer- 
able impassive saints, the modern observer may 
doubt even the second category (L. Brubaker, 
Word and Image 5 [1989] 19—32). The reason for 
this lack of animation was not necessarily the 
sacred nature of the image: similar expressionless 
faces characterize scores of warriors, mimes, and 
dancers on bone CASKETS AND BOXES, the largest 
preserved class of secular art. Manuel Curyso- 
LORAS (PG 156:57D-—59A) echoed the 3rd-C. 
theoretician Philostratos (Die Bilder, ed. O. Schön- 
berger [Munich 1968] 4.21—22), who had pre- 
scribed that artists convey dispositions, as these 
are reflected in faces. The steeply angled brows 
of mourners in the Vienna GENESIS convey ob- 
vious feeling, but, while many 5th- and 6th-C. 
images show open-mouthed horror or smiling 
pleasure, no extant works of art display the range 
of expressions that CHoRIKIOS oF Gaza and Ni- 
cholas MEsARITES purport to describe. Except for 
the sorrowful Virgin in Crucifixion scenes, emo- 
tional manifestations are rare even in the “pa- 
thetic” phase of 12th-C. MONUMENTAL PAINTING; 


692 EMPEROR 


in the 14th C., the Massacre of the Innocents is 
performed by murderers treated at worst as CAR- 
ICATURES. 


Lit. Maguire, “Depiction of Sorrow.” —A.K., A.C. 


EMPEROR (called BASILEUS, AUTOKRATOR, also 
DESPOTES), the pinnacle of Byz. POLITICAL STRUC- 
TURE and society, whose extraordinary position is 
reflected in virtually every creation of Byz. civili- 
zation. The ideology of his power came from 
Rome, refashioned by Christian and Hellenistic 
conceptions. The divinely promoted emperor was 
considered to have been elected commander in 
chief, whether it was the army, senate, or CITIZENS 
that acted as God’s agents by their ACCLAMATION. 
This lack of juridical clarity helps explain the 
LEGITIMACY of military success, the absence of 
hereditary succession (designated successors were 
made co-emperors), and the vitality of USURPA- 
TIONS. 

From the 7th and 8th C. onward, Byz.’s new 
social conditions fostered the gradual appearance 
of a legitimacy of birth—PoORPHYROGENNETOS— 
and lineage. The providential ruler chosen by 
God (ek theou on coms—DOC 3.1:179) was con- 
ceived as God’s representative on earth, the SUN 
and serenity were his chosen metaphors, and he 
enjoyed unique liturgical and executive privileges 
within the church (A. Michel, Die Kaisermacht in 
der Ostkirche (843—1204) [Darmstadt 1959]). As 
the source of law, he was not bound by it (Basil. 
2.6.1; cf. e.g., Leo VI, nov.47) and some believe 
he possessed a right of land ownership over the 
entire empire (Kazhdan, Gosp.klass. 229-35). Al- 
though Byz. frequently revolted against emperors 
and killed or toppled them, and their effective 
authority was somewhat ambiguous, few ques- 
tioned the idea of emperor. The reality of his 
power lay in a professional army and a bureau- 
cracy expert at extracting wealth through elabo- 
rate taxes and extensive private revenues, the 
whole enhanced by PROPAGANDA and the em- 
peror’s centrality to Byz. mentality and PATRIO- 
TISM—a system unparalleled in European states 
before the 13th C. 

The emperor was distinguished from his sub- 
jects (douloi) by his seclusion in the PALACE and 
his way of life (a living archaism in the 1oth C.); 
by a sacral status inherited from the IMPERIAL 





Emperor. The emperor and four court officials; min- 
iature in a manuscript of the Homilies of John Chry- 
sostom (Paris, Coislin 79, fol.2r); 11th C. Bibliothéque 
Nationale, Paris. Emp. Nikephoros III Botaneiates is 
seated before Truth and Justice. 


CULT; by his use of PURPLE and GOLD (e€.g., CHRY- 
SOBULLS), CEREMONY, and INSIGNIA; and by a 
sanctity indirectly derived from the cult of Con- 
stantine I and the commemoration of his succes- 
sors in the Synaxarion of Constantinople. He was 
united with his subjects by the exercise of his 
powers, his justice (cf. the story of Theophilos 
and the marketplace: TheophCont 87.9—88.3) and 
PHILANTHROPY, by ceremony and prayers that 
concretized their mutual relations, by their OATHS 
of allegiance, and by their payment of taxes. His 
relations with the aristocracy were explicitly de- 
fined by the office and dignities he granted them. 

By Ostrogorsky’s count, 88 emperors ruled 
Constantinople from 324 to 1453 for an average 
reign of about 13 years, or 12 without the excep- 
tional longevity of the Palaiologoi (an average of 
over 19 years from 1259 to 1453). This apparent 
stability contrasts with high turnover in periods 
of crisis (e.g., 695—717, seven emperors came to 


power in 22 years; 797—820, five in 23; 1055-81, 
seven in 26; 1180—1204, six in 24) and numerous 
failed usurpations. The unusual political and ad- 
ministrative continuity favored by this longevity 
must be reckoned a factor in Byz.’s survival. 

Patterns of the transmission of power changed 
significantly, the most important trends being the 
decline of election—partly supplanted by success- 
ful usurpation—and the growth of family succes- 
sion in later dynasties of Komnenoi and Palaio- 
logoi. The period 324—610 saw ten designated 
successors take power without significant violence 
against the senior emperor; seven of these suc- 
cessors were family members, six more were 
elected, and four took power violently, although 
among them Constantine I and Julian could claim 
family and institutional rights. Family and usur- 
pation loomed larger from 610 to 1204, when 32 
co-emperors succeeded, 25 of whom were off- 
spring and six more coopted into the imperial 
family; Michael I Rangabe might claim election, 
but he was the son-in-law of Nikephoros I. Twenty- 
one took power violently. 

The family dominated late Byz. succession: eight 
emperors, all with close family connections by 
blood or marriage, took power as designated suc- 
cessors, although two used violence to enforce 
their claims; moreover, the two elected emperors 
were sons of emperors. Of the four usurpers, two 
were closely related to a predecessor. 

The institutional background of emperors re- 
flects the political structure: the early Byz. army 
(324—610) supplied 12 emperors, the bureaucracy 
only Anastasios I, while the imperial family pro- 
vided nine emperors, if one includes Constantine 
I and Bastiskos. The period of the 7th—12th C. 
reflects the triumph of lineage, and the bureau- 
cracy and palace milieux gained against the army: 
the former supplied roughly one emperor for 
every two from the army. The bureaucracy dis- 
appears as a recruiting ground for late Byz. em- 
perors. 

Except for Zeno, the European provinces sup- 
plied all early Byz. emperors of known back- 
ground born outside of Constantinople down to 
Tiberios II; thereafter, Asia Minor (with some 
exceptions, e.g., Irene and Basil I) predominated 
for emperors born outside Constantinople, re- 
flecting its enhanced economic and social signifi- 
cance. In its final centuries, the empire’s reduced 


EMPHYTEUSIS 693 


size severely limited the possibilities and their 
significance. 

Most new emperors came from the aristocracy. 
Nonetheless, the rise of nonaristocrats to supreme 
power through imperial service (e.g., Justin I, 
Basil I, Michael IV) was an exceptional but per- 
sistent phenomenon down to the Komnenoi; more 
common, probably, was the rise of second- 
generation aristocrats (e.g., Valens, Justinian I). 
Aristocratic background and the premium Byz. 
placed on literacy meant a high level of culture 
among the overwhelming majority of emperors, 
many of whom, like Justinian I, Constantine VII, 
or Manuel II, have left significant writings. (For 
list of emperors, see BYZANTIUM, HISTORY OF.) 


LIT. Das Byzantinische Herrscherbild, ed. H. Hunger 
(Darmstadt 1975). —M.McC. 


EMPHYTEUSIS (éu¢vrevors), in the 4th C., the 
term referring to a set of administrative regula- 
tions whereby estates belonging to the crown were 
transferred to private cultivators. By the late 5th 
C. emphyteuses had developed into a specific type 
of written contract governing long-term, usually 
perpetual leases of real property applicable not 
only to crown lands but to holdings of private and 
ecclesiastical landlords. Emp. Zeno defined emphy- 
leusis as a right distinct from lease or sale, al- 
though possessing certain qualities of both (Cod, Just. 
IV 66.1). An emphyteuta could not be evicted as 
long as he paid an annual fee (solita pensio) or 
presented to his master receipts (apodochae) for 
public services; his tenement was heritable and 
could be alienated unless the tenant had lost the 
contract, emphyteuticum instrumentans (Cod.Just. IV 
66.2—3). 

In case of sale, the owner possessed a right of 
preemptive purchase and was otherwise entitled 
to a payment equal to 2 percent of the purchase 
price. Persons undertaking an emphyteutical con- 
tract were required to pay an initiation fee, to 
keep the land in cultivation, and to return it 
unimpaired. Special restrictions (Justinian I, novel 
120) were placed on the use of emphyteusts for 
ecclesiastical lands in order to prevent the alien- 
ation of church property. Later jurisprudence 
adhered closely, with some simplifications and 
modifications, to Justinianic regulations. After the 
7th C. emphyteusis appears primarily to have been 


694 EMPORION 


applied to ecclesiastical property. Legal texts re- 
tain the traditional meaning of the term (e.g., D. 
Simon, S. Trojanos, FM 2 [1977] 67f) up to the 
15th C. (e.g., Xénoph., no.32.29—30), whereas in 
documents of the 13th—15th C. the term emphy- 
teuma was applied to the urban milieu (Constan- 
tinople, Thessalonike, Serres) and denoted, like 
enotkion, “house rent,” the annual payment for a 
house built by the tenant (A. Kazhdan, JOB 39 
[1989] 22). 

uit. D. Simon, “Das friihbyzantinische Emphyteuse- 
recht,” Akten der Gesellschaft fiir griechische und hellenistische 
Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 3 (Vienna 1982) 365-422. G. Weiss, 
“Die Entscheidung des Kosmas Magistros über das Paré- 
kenrecht,” Byzantion 48 (1978) 477-500. —A.J.C. 


EMPORION (ċ¿urópıov, umópıo in later sources, 
e.g., the Chronicle of the Tocco), a term of ancient 
origin (J. Rougé, Recherches sur Vorganisation du 
commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l'empire ro- 
main [Paris 1966] 108) designating a place of trade, 
found along frontiers, coasts, and trade routes. 
Primarily associated with seaports, they are also 
attested in inland areas, such as Thrace and Bi- 
thynia. Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 75-56-57) 
defines the emporion of Corinth as “the lower polis.” 
In charters emporia (usually juxtaposed with Kas- 
TRA) are small settlements of urban type where 
ships can be docked (Lavra 1, no. 55.59—60, 
a.1102). Near the emporion tou Kotzinou, on the 
island of Lemnos, was the kastron of the same 
name (Dionys. no. 25.12-15, a.1430), and the 
Lavra of Athanasios was said to own a house in 
the kastron Kotzinou and two more in the emporion 
(Lavra 3, no. 164.4-5, a.1415), which according 
to another document (Lavra 2, no. 77.108, a.1284?) 
was located at the seashore. The term might des- 
ignate a commercial quarter of a town, a market 
situated outside the urban fortifications (e.g., em- 
porion of Adrianople), or a settlement which was 
in itself a marketplace, as in the case of Sagou- 
daous, donated by the sebastokrator Isaac Komne- 
nos to the Kosmosoteira monastery at BERA. In 
scholarly literature the term also has a number of 
meanings—from early medieval trading settle- 
ments in the West (R. Hodges, Dark Age Economics 
[New York 1982] 47—65) to small Byz. towns 
(Litavrin, VizObstestvo 122-24) to great coastal 
cities (M. Sjuzjumov, VizVrem 8 [1956] 26-41). 
LIT. M. Živojinović, “Settlements with Marketplace Sta- 
tus,” ZRVI 24-25 (1986) 407-12. —-A.K. 


EMPRESS (augusta, airyovota, Bacihtooa; cf. E. 
Bensammar, Byzantion 46 [1976] 243-91). Le- 
gally, the empress depended on the emperor (Di- 
gest 1.3.31; Basil. 2.6.1; Scholia Bas. 2.6.1), but in 
favorable circumstances late Roman empresses, 
such as Pulcheria, Ariadne, Theodora (wife of 
Justinian I), or Sophia (wife of Justin II) might 
wield great power, esp. through a REGENCY. Their 
social background (e.g., the marriage of Honorius 
and Arkadios to generals’ daughters) illuminates 
the empire’s changing political structure; con- 
versely, the case of the wife of Justinian I, Con- 
stantine VI, or Theophilos shows how such mar- 
riages generated power and influence for the 
woman’s family. Newcomers on the throne tried 
to solidify their power by marriage to an estab- 
lished empress, from Marcian and Pulcheria to 
Nikephoros III Botaneiates and Maria of “Alania.” 

In the late Roman period the status of empress 
was granted only grudgingly to imperial women: 
of the first 26 emperors’ 30 known wives (324— 
527) only nine were augustae. Four others became 
augustae as mother, sister, etc. These early augustae 
issued coinage, authenticated documents with lead 
seals (Licinia Eudoxia—Zacos, Seals 1, no.2759), 
wore imperial insignia, and possessed their own 
retinues. Their public life, largely separate from 
their spouses, involved a kind of parallel court 
and ceremonies with the female elite (McCormick, 
Eternal Victory 203f). Like Leontia (602), some 
became empress at their husband’s accession, some 
on marriage, and others afterward or not at all, 
whence the different coronation options in De 
ceremoniis (De cer., bk.1, chs. 39—41). The reasons 
are not always clear, but down to the 8th C., at 
least, empress status could follow the birth of a 
male heir (D. Missiou, JOB 32.2 [1982] 489-98). 

The solidification of Byz. aristocratic lineages 
and the Komnenian privatization of the state 
probably enhanced the power of the empresses. 
They kept most earlier privileges and wives be- 
came empresses more regularly—for example, 
Alexios I crowned Irene Doukaina one week after 
his accession and his dynastic successors’ spouses 
appear to have been simultaneously crowned and 
married or affianced. As Irene, Theodora (wife 
of Theophilos), Zoe, Eudokia Makrembolitissa, 
Maria of Antioch, and Anna of Savoy show, suc- 
cessful female regency became more frequent, 
while Irene, Zoe, and her sister Theodora even 
ruled briefly in their own names. From Anna 


Dalassene’s administration of the empire onward, 
acts issued by empresses survive that compare 
with those of their male counterparts and that 
show them administering very considerable wealth 
(F. Barišić, ZRVI 13 [1971] 143-202; U.V. Bosch 
in Mél.Dujéev 83—102). 

From 788 to 881 sources mention BRIDE SHOWS 
for selecting imperial spouses. Diplomacy began 
to bring foreign wives for emperors in the 8th C., 
when marriages with Khazar princesses were fol- 
lowed by failed negotiations for Frankish ones. 
Foreign brides might be coached in the Greek 
language and Byz. customs before arriving in 
Constantinople (Theoph. 455.23—25) and changed 
their NAMES when they assumed Byz. identity. 
Their geopolitical status peaked under the Kom- 
nenoi, with brides from the German Empire and 
Capetian France. Such alliances became so usual 
in late Byz. that a ceremony was established for 
the ADVENTUS of imperial fiancées from abroad, 
but Palaiologan wives came from lesser echelons 
of regional potentates. 

LIT. K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley 1982). S. 


Maslev, “Die staatsrechtliche Stellung der byzantinischen 
Kaiserinnen,” BS 27 (1966) 308-43. ~M.McC. 


ENAMELS. Enameling is a means of embellish- 
ment in which Gtass, colored with metallic oxides, 
is heated until it melts and fuses with metal. Al- 
though enameling techniques varied over time 
and place, the Byz. were best known for their 
cloisonné enamel, in which cells divided by thin 
strips of gold (cloisons) are filled with glass and 
fired. After cooling, the composite surface of glass 
and metal is ground and polished. The lustrous 
result became the norm for enamels of the 1oth— 
12th C., which were used on icons, reliquaries, 
book covers, chalices, and crowns, and even sewn 
onto ecclesiastical vestments. 

The Byz. precursor of cloisonné was a tech- 
nique in which enamel, often thinly applied, was 
contained within loops of filigree (either wire or 
strips set on edge) that determined the outline of 
the desired motif. The earliest example is a me- 
dallion portrait of a 5th-C. empress (Wessel, Byz. 
Enamels, no.2), probably Licinia Eudoxia, consort 
of Valentinian III. This filigree technique was in 
use at least until the 7th C. 

Cloisonné enamel was the technique used from 
the gth C. onward, and Buckton (infra) has sug- 


ENAMELS 695 


gested that the origin of Byz. cloisonné technique 
is to be found in the Carolingian world. Whatever 
its origin, the technique was well established in 
Byz. for RELIQUARIES and ENKOLPIA by the time 
the votive crown of Leo [VI] was made (Treasury 
S. Marco, no.8). The emperor appears in a loros 
and stemma on one of the medallions. The busts 
of Leo and of saints on these medallions have 
backgrounds of translucent green, which is char- 
acteristic of gth-C. enamel. 

Already apparent here is the substitution of 
enamels for precious stones, which were still used 
on other votive crowns. GEMS are again absent on 
a CHALICE inscribed “Lord, help the Orthodox 
emperor Romanos” (ibid., no.10), an ancient sar- 
donyx vessel, the lip of which is enclosed in a 
metal band with enamel images, including those 
of Christ, the Virgin, and Lazaros the icon painter. 
Their haloes and garments, displaying a great 
variety of blues, are silhouetted against the gilt 
metal, instead of having an enamel background. 
This technique became standard from the 1oth 
C. onward and is responsible for the “typical” 
Byz. enamel, with the figure isolated against the 
gold of the plaque or medallion. A second sar- 
donyx chalice with an identical inscription was 
likewise brought to Venice as booty from Con- 
stantinople in or after 1204 (ibid., no.11). 

Numerous enamels have been seen as products 
of late gth-10th-C. GEORGIAN ART, but work from 
the Caucasus is hard to distinguish from Byz. 
examples; further difficulties of identity and au- 
thenticity are raised by the alterations and forg- 
eries undertaken by 19th-C. dealers and restorers. 
Unquestionable, datable Byz. enamels include the 
LiMBURG AN-DER-LAHN RELIQUARY and some pre- 
cious objects of the 11th C. usually interpreted as 
crowns of Constantine IX (Wessel, Byz. Enamels, 
no.32) and Michael VII (the so-called Holy Crown 
of Hungary—Studien zur Machtsymboltk des mittelal- 
terlichen Ungarn, eds. F. Fülep, E. Kovacs, Zs. 
Lovag [Budapest 1983]). 

Constantinople as a source of “export enamels” 
is also apparent in two enameled triptychs, pos- 
sibly brought to the West by WIBALD OF STAVELOT. 
The most celebrated example is the Pata D’ORO, 
the largest surviving complex of such materials; 
part of it was in Venice by the early 12th C. The 
original form and content of this object is much 
debated, not least the question of which of several 
empresses named Irene is depicted on it. It is 


696 ENANTIOPHANES 


certain that the Pala was enlarged and further 
embellished with loot from the Fourth Crusade, 
including enamels of six scenes of the lives of 
Christ and the Virgin. According to Sylvester 
SYROPOULOS, these enamels were recognized in 
1438 by Patr. Joseph II as coming from the Pan- 
tokrator monastery in Constantinople (S. Bettini 
in Treasury S. Marco 41f). 

Byz. enamels are distinguishable from Venetian 
work by the fineness of their cloisons and their 
saturated colors, qualities esp. evident on icons 
such as the full-length St. Michael in Venice (Trea- 
sury S. Marco, no.19), the effect of which is accen- 
tuated by gemstones. In the case of other pieces 
of the 12th—13th C., enameled backgrounds have 
reappeared, now using Opaque colors, not the 
translucent green of the gth C. This technique 
has been attributed to Thessalonike (Wessel, Byz. 
Enamels, nos. 60, 63). From the late 14th C. on- 
ward, enamel was increasingly used in conjunc- 
tion with other media: cloisonné tondi depicting 
archangels, prophets, and church fathers were 
juxtaposed with repoussé scenes on the silver-gilt 
cover (Treasury S. Marco, no.20) of a Greek lec- 
tionary, copied by a certain Sophronios at Ferrara 
before 11 Nov. 1439. Among the latest Byz. 
enamels are the eight medallions at the extremi- 
ties of the gilded filigree cross inside the BEssa- 
RION RELIQUARY. 

Lit. K. Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th 
Century (Greenwich, Conn., 1967). D. Buckton, “Byzantine 
Enamel and the West,” ByzF 13 (1988) 235-44. M.E. Frazer 
in Treasury S. Marco 109-76. L.Z. Khuskivadze, Medieval 
Clotsonné Enamels at the Georgian State Museum of Fine Arts 
(Tbilisi 1984). E. Kovacs, Zs. Lovag, The Hungarian Crown 
and Other Regalia (Budapest 1980). P. Hetherington, 
“Enamels in the Byzantine World: Ownership and Distri- 
bution,” BZ 81 (1988) 29-38. -M.E.F., D.B. 


ENANTIOPHANES. See Anonymous, “ENAN- 
TIOPHANES.” 


ENCAUSTIC. See Icon: Painted Icons. 


ENCHEIRION (éyyeipiov), a rectangular piece 
of soft material, embroidered with gold thread, 
that was worn as a vestment by a bishop over his 
STICHARION. It was attached to his belt so as to 
hang down over his right thigh. Its use was ap- 
parently restricted to bishops. First attested as a 
vestment in the book of pseudo-Germanos I on 


the liturgy (PG 98:396B) and in a letter of Patr. 
NIkEPHOROS I (PG 100:200C) and in representa- 
tions of the late 10th C. (MENOLOGION OF BASIL 
II, pp. 54, 74, 188, 254, 340), the encheirion was 
replaced during the 14th C. by the stiffer, lozenge- 
shaped EPIGONATION. 


LIT. Braun, Liturgische Gewandung 551-55. Papas, Mess- 
gewdnder 131-36, 150-53. -N.P.S. 


ENCYCLICAL (lit. “circular”), in the narrow sense 
of the word, a formal pastoral letter sent by the 
pope to the entire church; the term was used 
from 1740 (E. Mangenot, DTC 5.1 [1939] 14). 
However, in late Roman practice the terms enky- 
klios epistole or enkykhon gramma were applied to 
“circulars” written by church fathers of great au- 
thority: thus, Clement of Rome reportedly wrote 
enkykltoi epistolar “to be read in holy churches” 
(EPIPHANIOS, Panarion 30.15.2). Origen sent en- 
kyklia grammata (Eusebios, HE 6.18.4); Alexander 
of Alexandria wrote 70 enkyklioi epistolai addressed 
to various bishops and devoted to the refutation 
of Arianism (Epiphanios, Panarion 69.4.3). The 
term was applied also to letters of certain patri- 
archs: Anatolios in 451/2, Gennadios I in 458/9, 
Pyrrhos in 63g, Paul II in 642, etc. Theophanes 
the Confessor (Theoph. 22.16) relates that the 
First Council of Nicaea dispatched to Alexandria, 
Libya, and the Pentapolis an enkyklios epistole con- 
cerning the Arian heresy. Evacrios SCHOLASTI- 
Kos (HE 3.7) employs the term antenkyklia, saying 
that Emp. Basiliskos, fearing the resistance of 
Patr. Akakios, withdrew his previous pro- 
Monophysite enkyklia and issued antenkyklia con- 
firming the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. 
The term enkyklios apparently fell into disuse after 
the 10th C. -A.K. 


ENCYCLOPEDISM, a conventional term intro- 
duced by Lemerle to replace the less precise “Ma- 
cedonian Renaissance” as a characterization of 
Byz. culture of the gth C. through the beginning 
of the 11th C. The main feature of this period 
was the “organization” of an administrative and 
cultural structure; for this purpose various man- 
uals were produced—on the bureaucratic hier- 
archy (TAKTIKA), on tax collecting (see TAXATION, 
TREATISES ON), on military tactics and strategy 
(STRATEGIKA), On agriculture (GEOPONIKA); Ro- 


man law was systematized in the BAsILIKA and 
related texts, and rules for the guilds of Constan- 
tinople (the Book OF THE EPARCH) were issued. It 
was also a period of active TRANSLITERATION OF 
TEXTS from uncial to minuscule and of attempts 
to gather, observe, and appreciate the ancient 
heritage—from Photios’s BiBLIOTHECA to the 
Soupa. The systematization and “organization” 
also covered such spheres as EDUCATION, hagiog- 
raphy (SYMEON METAPHRASTES), and church dec- 
oration. The activity of ConsTANTINE VII Por- 
PHYROGENNETOS and his court was the focal point 
of new tendencies, resulting in the compilation of 
such works as DE THEMATIBUS, DE ADMINISTRANDO 
IMPERIO, and DE CEREMONIIS. The epoch pro- 
duced many polymaths, like LEo THE MATHEMA- 
TICIAN, PHOTIOS, and ARETHAS OF CAESAREA, but 
the emphasis was not on creativity, but on copying 
and collecting. 


LIT. Lemerle, Humanism 121-346. Wilson, Scholars 79- 
147. —A.K. 


- 


ENDEMOUSA SYNODOS (évinpotaa avvosos), 
the permanent, standing synod of bishops in which 
the activity and business of the patriarchate of 
CONSTANTINOPLE was decided. Its administrative 
and judicial functions included canonical disci- 
pline and dogmatic and liturgical issues. [ts mem- 
bership, convoked and presided over by the pa- 
triarch, consisted of all those bishops visiting or 
residing (endemountes) in or near the capital. As a 
technical term its name first appears in 448 
(RegPatr, fasc. 1, no.g8), although the genesis of 
the institution itself probably stretches back to the 
4th C. when Constantinople became the imperial 
residence. It was indeed natural, if not inevitable, 
for individual bishops to gravitate to the imperial 
capital for personal and official business, that is, 
whenever they wished to submit some petition or 
complaint to its court, hence the permanent na- 
ture of the synod. Indeed, its convocation was 
commonplace by the Council of CHALCEDON (451), 
when this established custom was first solemnly 
recognized (canons 9, 17). 

Initially, because of its very nature, the com- 
position of the endemousa was not fixed. By the 
gth C., however, it was restricted to metropolitans, 
autocephalous archbishops, and the five admin- 
istrative functionaries of the patriarchate. Despite 
these limitations, its membership again increased 


ENDYTE | 697 


with the Turkish invasions of the 11th C. and the 
subsequent growth of the number of fugitive bish- 
ops residing (usually permanently) in Constanti- 
nople. The larger extraordinary councils con- 
vened during the Palaiologan period (in the 
controversy over PALAMISM, for example) were 
not identical with the endemousa. 

LIT. B. Stephanides, “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der 
Synoden des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel,” ZKirch 55 


(1936) 127-57. J. Hajjar, Le synode permanent dans l'Église 
byzantine des origines au XI* siècle (Rome 1962). -A.P. 


ENDYTE (évév7%), a cloth that covers the top and 
all four sides of the ALTAR. Apart from a possible 
instance in the museum of S. Marco in Venice, 
only representations of such cloths survive from 
the Byz. period, most from the 6th to 7th C., as 
in the Melchizedek mosaic at S. Vitale and the 
bema of Sant’Apollinare in Classe, both in Ra- 
venna. Textual references to endytai continue from 
the mid-8th C. until the end of the empire; special 
attention is paid to them in the DE CEREMONIIS 
since, on Great Feasts, emperors either kissed or 
changed these altar vestments (see Speck [1966] 
infra, nos. 18—24). Although the endytai repre- 
sented in the MENOLOGION oF Basix II (pp. 14, 
324, 358) have only geometrical ornament, those 
referred to in earlier literature are much more 
elaborate. PAUL SILENTIARIOS (Friedlander, Kunst- 
beschrieb. vv. 759—805) tells of a purple silk altar 
cloth at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople bearing 
images of Christ, Peter, Paul, and, on its hem, 
hospitals and churches founded by Justinian I. 
Bp. Victor of Ravenna had a cloth of gold and 
silver with his own likeness made for the Basilica 
Ursiana, and Archbp. Maximian’s endyte for the 
same church had not only his portrait but “the 
whole story of our Lord” (AGNELLUS, ed. Holder- 
Egger, 324.28-33; 335.37—-40). The Iconoclastic 
Council of 754 (Mansi 13:332B) declared that 
figure-bearing cloths might not be destroyed but 
could be altered with the permission of the patri- 
arch and the emperor. Thereafter most refer- 
ences occur in ¢ypika, such as that of the PETRITZOS 
MONASTERY (ed. Gautier, REB 42 [1984] 123.1730- 
33), and INVENTORIES such as that of Patmos (ed. 
C. Astruc, TM 8 [1981] 22), since endytai were a 
favorite offering of church benefactors. 

uit. P. Speck, “Die Endyte,” JOB 15 (1966) 323-75. 
Idem, “Nochmals: Die Endyte,” Potkila byzantina 6 (1987) 
333-37. Soteriou, “Leitourgika amphia” 604-06. -—A.C. 


698 | ENERGY 


ENERGY (évépyeta). According to Clement of 


Alexandria, Origen, Eusebios of Caesarea, and 
other church fathers, the activity of the Logos in 
creation and redemption derives ultimately from 
God the Father; it is opposed by the “activity” 
(energeia) of the DEMONS (energoumenos = “demon- 
possessed”). In the writings of the church fathers 
the doctrine of the divine energies reaches its 
zenith in the definition of the two energies, or 
wills, in Christ, corresponding to his two natures, 
as opposed to the doctrine of MONOTHELETISM. 
Important for the philosophical orientation pre- 
dominant in late Byz. thought is the real distinc- 
tion between God’s essence and his energies (in 
the plural, but referring to the Trinity as a unity) 
represented by Gregory PALAMAS, set in the 
framework of the Orthodox doctrine of grace and 
knowledge in opposition to BARLAAM OF CALA- 
BRIA. According to Palamas, the three divine per- 
sons necessarily remain hidden and inaccessible 
to the faithful, while the uncreated energies— 
which are one with the divine essence and, ac- 
cordingly, representations of it (as, e.g., the light 
of Transfiguration)—convey to him participation 
in divine life. 

As a result of the unsystematic and polemical 
manner of expression characterizing his occa- 
sional writings and his somewhat arbitrary and 
selective use of the theology of the church fathers, 
Palamas attracted a long line of opponents, both 
in his lifetime and later (e.g., Gregory AKINDYNOS, 
Nikephoros GREGORAS, the Kypones brothers, 
John KyparissioTes), who believed that knowl- 
edge of God was connected essentially to the Cre- 
ation. Both sides appealed, rightly or wrongly, to 
pseudo-Dionysios THE AREOPAGITE, or at least to 
various aspects of his apophatic and cataphatic 
theology. 

LIT. J. Meyendorff, Introduction à l'étude de Grégoire Pa- 
lamas (Paris 1959) 279-310. D. Wendebourg, Geist oder 
Energie (Munich 1980) 11—64. Ch. Yannaras, “The Distinc- 
tion between Essence and Energies and its Importance for 
Theology,” SVTAQ 19 (1975) 232-45. F. Carcione, 
“Energheia, Thélema e Theokinetos nella lettera di Sergio, 
patriarca di Costantinopoli, a papa Onorio Primo,” OrChrP 
51 (1985) 263-76. ~G.P. 


ENGASTRIMYTHOS (éyyao7piuvéos, lit. “belly- 
talker’), a witchlike descendant of the ancient 
Sibyls or prophetesses. Engastrimythoi, often male, 
were ventriloquists who disguised their voices and 
made mantic utterances, as if a deity or demon 
were acting within and speaking through them. 


Their activities are attested in the 4th C. by pseudo- 
Justin (PG 6:1324A) and in the 5th C. by Theo- 
doret of Cyrrhus (PG 80:337C); in the 6th C. a 
female engastrimythos was admitted to the imperial 
court after Justin II showed symptoms of insanity, 
in order to “make known the facts about his 
illness” (vita of SYMEON THE STYLITE THE YOUNGER, 
ed. P. van den Ven 1:180, ch.209.15—16). Canon 
60 of the Council in TRULLO condemned people 
who feigned possession; the practice must have 
continued, however, as Theodore Balsamon, in 
his gloss to this canon, denounces those “who 
feign being possessed as a means of profit, and 
proclaim certain things with the evil, satanic gaze 
of the prophetesses of the pagans” (Rhalles-Potles, 
Syntagma 2:441.13—15). (See also ORACLE; S1ByYL- 
LINE ORACLES.) 


LIT. Trombley, “Trullo” 6. -F.R.T. 


ENGLAND (Bperravia). The Roman province of 
Bretania was probably abandoned by the empire 
after 428 or even 442 (H.S. Schultz, JRS 23 [1933] 
36—45), but some contatts with the East seem to 
have been maintained. In the 6th C. Prokopios of 
Caesarea had copious information about remote 
Bretania, which he viewed as lying at the extrem- 
ity of the known world; the 6th—7th-C. SUTTON 
Hoo Treasure also provides evidence for these 
links, and the 7th-C. vita of JoHN ELEEMON men- 
tions a ship from Alexandria carrying zinc from 
Bretania. Two Greeks, Theodore of Tarsos (arch- 
bishop of Canterbury) and Adrian (born in Af- 
rica), played an important part in the English 
church of the 7th C., ushering in a brief period 
of Greek cultural and religious influence on the 
island (see BEDE). Some English pilgrims visited 
Byz., and Byz. influence on English political ter- 
minology is reflected in the title of King Athelstan, 
basileus Anglorum (a.931). 

Official diplomatic relations resumed in the mid- 
11th C., attested to by several Byz. seals found in 
England—one of Sophronios II of Jerusalem 
(ca.1059—64) (V. Laurent, NC 72 [1964] 49f) and 
one of the envoy John-Raphael, after 1066 (V. 
Laurent, NC 71 [1963] 93—96). After the Norman 
conquest some Anglo-Saxon refugees offered their 
services to Alexios I and are mentioned as Inglinoi 
in several of his chrysobulls (C. Head, Byzantion 
47 [1977] 186-98). Alexios I established an En- 
glish colony at Kibotos or Chevetot (on the Gulf 
of Astakos). English VARANGIANS are mentioned 


as late as 132g. Several Byz. diplomatic missions 
to England are recorded in the 11th and 12th C. 
Manuel I Komnenos sent embassies in 1170, 1176, 
and 1177 and conducted a lively correspondence 
with King Henry I] (1154-89), no doubt in the 
hope of securing his support against the French 
and Normans, who threatened the empire. The 
Latin conquest of Contantinople (1204) con- 
tributed to a renewed but short-lived English in- 
terest in Greek learning during the 13th C., as 
evidenced by the collection of Greek MSS by John 
of Basingstoke, who actually studied in Athens, 
and the scholarship of the Franciscans Robert 
GROSSETESTE and Roger Bacon. The last major 
contact between Byz. and England occurred in 
1400 when ManuEL II PALAloLocos visited Eng- 
land for two months in a largely unsuccessful 
attempt to enlist the financial and military support 
of Henry IV (1399-1413) against the Turks. 

LIT. D.M. Nicol, “Byzantium and England,” BalkSt 15.2 
(1974) 179-203. K.N. Ciggar, Byzance et l'Angleterre (Leiden 
1976). J. Shepard, “The English and Byzantium,” Traditio 
29 (1973) 53—92. Idem, “Another New England?—Anglo- 
Saxon Settlement on the Black Sea,” BS/EB 1 (1974) 18- 
39. R.S. Lopez, “Le problème des relations Anglo-Byzantines 
du septième au dixième siècle,” Byzantion 18 (1948) 139- 
62. —R.B.H. 


ENKAINIA (éyxaiven), ceremony of dedicating 
or consecrating a city (e.g., Constantinople, 11 
May 330), a secular monument (e.g., Constantine 
Ps mausoleum, 21 May 337), or a church (also 
called kathierosis). The term had been applied to 
the Temple in Jerusalem, but by the 4th C. Eu- 
sebios of Caesarea used it to describe the dedica- 
tions of churches in Tyre and Palestine. The pur- 
pose of enkainia was to make the space holy, and 
early Christian writers stressed the similarity be- 
tween BAPTISM and the dedication of a church; 
accordingly, lustration with holy water occupied 
an important place in the enkainia rite. Usually 
preceded by a syNaxis, the ceremony was concen- 
trated around the ALTAR, which was washed, 
anointed, and covered; a procession with relics 
and EXORCISM also formed a part of the ceremony. 
These ritual steps are summarized by Patr. Ger- 
manos I in his commentary (Germanos, Liturgy 
56) and commented on at length by Symeon of 
Thessalonike (PG 155:305—32). The vita of Patr. 
EuTHYMIOs describes the enkainia of the Church 
of the Anargyroi at PsAMATHIA: monks from 
nearby monasteries spent the entire night in prayer 
and thanksgiving, and at dawn a procession of 


ENKLEISTOS | 699 


torchbearers, with the cross and Gospel book, 
wended its way to the newly built church. After 
the dedication the hegouwmenos of the Psamathia 
remained inside the building for 40 days. 

According to Athanasios of Alexandria (PG 
25:612B), the dedication of a church was impos- 
sible without the order (prostaxis) of the emperor. 
The rite of enkainia could be performed by the 
patriarch, e.g., Photios conducted the enkainia of 
the Nea EXxKLEsIA (1 May 880). The date of such 
a ceremony was often chosen to coincide with one 
of the GreaT Feasts, as in the case of Justinian 
I’s Hagia Sophia (25 Dec. 537). Enkainia was also 
the term used for the annual celebration of the 
dedication of a church (Mateos, Typicon 2:186), 
and esp. the TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY. 

LIT. P. de Puniet, DACL 4:374-405. M. Black, “The 
Festival of Encaenia Ecclesiae in the Ancient Church with 
special reference to Palestine and Syria,” JEH 5 (1954) 78- 
85. P. de Meester, Rituale-benedizonale bizantine (Rome 1930) 
151-218. E. Ruggieri, “Consacrazione e dedicazione di 


chiesa, secundo il Barberinus gr. 336,” OrChrP 54 (1988) 
79—118. Goar, Euchologion 653-71. —A.K., A.C., R.F.T. 


EN KEREM (Ar. ‘Ayn Karim), a site 7 km west 
of Jerusalem with remains of three churches of 
the s5th/6th C.: two basilicas, one of which was 
dedicated to the Holy Martyrs of God, and a 
chapel of the Visitation. Some vague evidence 
indicates the place’s connection with the cult of 
JOHN THE Baptist: there was an 8th-C. church of 
St. Elizabeth “in the village of Encharim,” and 
EpIPHANIOS HAGIOPOLITES locates “the family 
house” of John on “Mt. Carmel,” which is inter- 
preted by Wilkinson (Pilgrims 156) as En Kerem. 

The site is related to the legend in the Proro- 
EVANGELION OF JAMES (22:3), according to which 
St. Elizabeth and the infant John were saved dur- 
ing the Massacre of the Innocents by a mountain 
that opened up to conceal them. A clay EVILOGTA 
in Monza portrays this event (Vikan, Pilgrimage 
Art, fig.12). 

LIT. Abel, Géographie 2:295f. Ovadiah, Corpus 94—96. B. 


Bagatti, // santuario della Visitazione ad ‘Ain Karim (Jerusalem 
1948). -G.V., A.K. 


ENKLEISTOS (éyxaAetovos, “enclosed”), term at- 
tested from the 4th C. for a monk or nun who 
confined himself or herself in a cell, under a vow 
of perpetual seclusion. An enkleistos might either 
lead the solitary life of a HERMIT, as in the case of 


700 | ENKOLPION 


St. PELAGIA (who disguised herself as a monk and 
lived in a cell on the Mount of Olives in Jerusa- 
lem), or, like St. NEOPHYTOS ENKLEISTOS of Cy- 
prus, be attached to a monastic community after 
a period of isolation. Neophytos lived in a cave, 
which he excavated and enlarged so that it could 
accommodate a tomb and a chapel for the cele- 
bration of the liturgy. He eventually became the 
hegoumenos of a koinobion but performed no ad- 
ministrative duties, leaving them to the ozkonomos 
and docheiarios of the monastery. The typikon of 
Neophytos is the only monastic rule that pre- 
scribes that the hegouwmenos must be an enkleistos; 
the typikon of the EUERGETIS MONASTERY in Con- 
stantinople permitted the hegoumenos to be an 
enkleistos, but did not require it (C. Galatariotou, 
REB 45 [1987] 132f). Other enkleistoi who achieved 
sanctity were DAviD OF THESSALONIKE, who re- 
portedly spent 70 years in an enkleisterion (John 
Moschos, PG 87:2921B); STEPHEN THE YOUNGER 


(PG 100:1148C); and PLATO OF SAKKOUDION. 
—A.M.T. 


ENKOLPION (żykóànmorv, lit. “in” [or “on] the 
bosom”), an object with Christian imagery, or 
containing a sacred relic or inscription, worn 
around the neck. Enkolpia were produced in vir- 
tually all materials used for JEWELRY. They could 
take the form of a simple disc, with figures, scenes, 
and/or inscriptions, or be a container of some 
sort. The enkolpion protected the wearer by means 


ENKOLPION. Enkolpion; enamel and gold, 10th C. Vir- 
ginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond. On one side of 
the enkolpion, the Virgin orans is represented with Sts. 
Luke and John; on the other Christ is fanked by Sts. 
Paul and Peter. 





of its imagery or, in the case of a RELIQUARY, by 
its contents. 

The term enkolpion may encompass many other 
objects—phylakteria, EULOGIAI, AMULETS. Enkolpia 
were in use from the 4th C. onward and have 
been found throughout the Byz. world. Literary 
accounts describe them given as gifts or as be- 
longing to individuals: a 12th-C. historian 
(Nik.Chon. 451.85—87) records one that depicted 
the Virgin Mary, to which Isaac II Angelos was 
esp. attached and which he embraced while con- 
fessing. 

LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 2:152-64. H. Gerstinger, RAC 
5:322-32. M.C. Ross, “A Byzantine Gold Medallion at 
Dumbarton Oaks,” DOP 11 (1957) 247-61. A. Lipinsky, 


“Enkolpia cruciformi orientali in Itaha,” BollBadGr 37 (1983) 
51-59. -S.D.C., A.C. 


ENKOMION (éyxwptov), or panegyric, a speech 
of praise. The authors of ancient rhetorical text- 
books identified enkomion with eprpeictic of the 
good in general (thus Theon in RhetGr, ed. Spen- 
gel 2:61.22), and aceordingly MENANDER RHETOR 
(pp. 2—6) believed that enkomia included praise of 
cities, men, animals, accomplishments, and arts; 
he excluded only hymns to the gods. As special 
types of enkomia, Menander lists the BASILIKOS 
Locos and, reluctantly, the PROSPHONETIKOS LO- 
Gos. 

Byz. practice, however, distinguished enkomion 
from EKPHRASIS and limited it to the praise of 
persons: saints, emperors, patriarchs, and others. 
The praise of saints was the subject of HAGIOG- 
RAPHY; the emperor and patriarch were eulogized 
by official rhetoricians on regular days (EPIPHANY 
and the Lazarus SaTuRDAY, respectively), and 
enkomia in prose and verse were delivered on 
special occasions—weddings (EPITHALAMION), fu- 
nerals (EPITAPHIOS Or MONODYy), victory celebra- 
tions, and so forth. Encomiastic elements occur in 
historical works, even though some historians, 
following Lucian, tried to distinguish between 
enkomion, a consistent praise of a person, and 
history, which aimed at the truth (Ljubarskij, Psell 
139f). On the other hand, the enkomion of one 
person might prove to be an INVECTIVE against 
another. Panegyrics of private persons, side by 
side with those of emperors and patriarchs, be- 
came common from the end of the 11th C. At 
the same time parodical enkomia were composed 


on frivolous subjects, for example, on a flea (by 
Michael PseLLos, and later Demetrios Curyso- 
LORAS). 


Lit. Hunger, Lit. 1:120-32. —E.M.J., A.K. 


ENNOMION (vvómov, from nome, “pasture”), a 
tax and/or charge on pasture land and/or on the 
right of pasturage. The term was used in Hellen- 
istic and Roman papyri as well as in several in- 
scriptions (S. Avogadro, Aegyptus 14 [1934] 293- 
97). In Byz. it appears first in Peira 37:2 and is 
frequent in later praktika. In Peira, ennomion is a 
charge paid by the owners of livestock grazing on 
a common pasture; the collected sum was divided 
between the owners of the pasture (including those 
peasants who had no livestock) according to the 
amount of state taxes paid by each. In a praktikon 
of 1073, ennomion is a part of the lord’s revenue 
collected from certain pastures (Patmou Engrapha 
2, NO.50.123—24, 136) and measured per capita: 
1 miliaresion for a horse or ass, 1 nomisma for 
100 sheep (ibid., no.50.314—315). A metrological 
treatise (11th C. or later) calculates the ennomion 
of sheep also as 1 nomisma for 100 animals but 
gives a higher rate for other livestock (water buf- 
faloes, mares, and cows)—1 nomisma for 3 ani- 
mals (Schilbach, Met. Quellen 59.30, 60.10—14). In 
later documents, ennomion appears as an annual 
payment inscribed in praktika, and its correlation 
with the telos-oikoumenon does not seem to be fixed: 
thus, in a charter of 1319, “the ennomion of sheep 
and swine” together with the charge on bees makes 
24 percent of the entire payment (Lavra 2, 
no.106.22—23); in a praktikon of 1321—together 
with linobrocheion (see BANALITY), about 5 percent 
(Xénoph., no.15.24—27); in a praktikon of 1317— 
together with aerikon, 3 percent (Lavra 2, no. 
104.165—66). 

It is difficult to distinguish the ennomion levied 
on livestock (the melissennomion, a charge on bee- 
hives, is also known) from the dekateia on herds 
(choirodekateia and probatochotrodekateia). Ennomion 
was usually collected by a private owner: thus 
Andronikos II Palaiologos in 1319 granted the 
monks of Hilandar the right to levy the emperor’s 
relatives, archontes, stratiotai, and all laymen and 
clerics who let their animals graze on the pasture 
of the village of Georgela (Chil., no.41.73-82). 
But it could be a state levy—thus, in 1447 a 
metochion of the Lavra on Lemnos was granted 


ENOIKION 701 


200 sheep free from ennomion (Lavra 3, no.171.9g— 
10). 
uit. N. Svoronos in Lavra 4:162. Schilbach, Metrologie 


262f. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnošenija 123f. Litavrin, Viz- 
Obséestvo 220-23. -M.B. 


ENOCH (‘Evox), son of Carn or Jared and father 
of Methuselah; one of the biblical patriarchs. The 
Book of Enoch stands first in pseudo-Athanasios’s 
list of APocRYPHA. Three major versions of it 
survive. Enoch I, known only in an Ethiopic trans- 
lation from Hebrew or Aramaic, is a work of the 
Hellenistic period. Enoch II exists only in Old 
Slavonic. It is an enigmatic text, probably trans- 
lated from Greek (ca.1000?), although N. Meščer- 
skij (TODRL 19 [1963] 130-47) suggested the 
possibility that it was translated directly from He- 
brew. Enoch II describes how the patriarch was 
taken up to God through seven heavens and then 
returned to describe his vision. Its theology is 
uncompromisingly monotheistic, its ethics per- 
meated by sympathy with the needy and by sexual 
chastity. The date of the original composition 
cannot be established. Enoch III, a Hebrew apoc- 
alypse of the 5th—6th C., deals with a journey of 
Rabbi Ishmael into heaven, where he met Enoch, 
son of Jared, whom God had elevated above the 
angels and appointed as his viceroy. 

ED. and LIT. Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, vol. 4 (Ma- 
drid 1984). The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch, ed. M. Black 
(Leiden 1985). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, ed. 


J. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y., 1983) 5-315. R.H. 
Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford 1893). —J.1., A.K. 


ENOIKION (évotxcov), RENT paid for a leased 
property. In classical antiquity the term enoikion, 
meaning house rent, seems to have been distin- 
guished from phoros, rent for the lease of a work- 
shop (ERGASTERION); already in late Roman Egypt, 
however, the two terms were contused (Kikhman, 
Egipet 44). Often used in the Book of the Eparch, 
enoikion designated primarily the rent for an er- 
gasterion, but merchants staying in MITATA also 
had to pay enotkion. The term and its cognates 
continued to be used in late documents: an act of 
donation of 1338 mentions three ergasterta enoi- 
kiaka (Koutloum., no.18.44) near the emporton of 
Serres. Sometimes the word enotkiaka is used as a 
noun to designate rooms for rent (Lavra 2, 
no.71.70); in an act of donation of 1115 (Lavra 1, 


702 | ENTABLATURE 


no.60.35), however, enotkiaka are contrasted with 
houses and evidently mean workshops. 

Michael Attaleiates collected the enozkion of 24 
nomismata for a bakery, 14 nomismata for a per- 
fumery, and 5 nomismata for “houses” used by a 
physician (P. Gautier, REB 39 [1981] 43.440—45). 
Charters also provide some data about the amount 
of enotkion: in 1294, 200 hyperpers for a tower 
(pyrgos) containing several workshops (e.g., for 
shops selling woolen gartnents) and a kitchen (MM 
4:286.4—7); in 1342, 700 hyperpers for a chain 
of shops—grocery stores, perfumeries, a bakery, 
and vegetable markets (Lavra 3, no.123.115—33); 
in 1419, 30 hyperpers for “houses” (Xénoph. 
no.32.21); in 1445, eight nomismata and a vessel 
of flaxseed oil for a workshop processing flaxseed 
(Lavra 3, no.168.4—7). In a prostagma of 1202 (MM 
3:50-53) the rent for houses and ergasteria is 
called either enotkion or emphyteuma; the latter term 
is usually explained as the rent for a newly estab- 
lished shop. 

The payment of rent sometimes caused discon- 
tent in Constantinople. As a result, on one occa- 
sion Emp. Romanos I paid the enotkika of impov- 
erished inhabitants of the city (TheophCont 429.22). 


LIT. Bk. of Eparch 1536. —A.K. 


ENTABLATURE, a horizontal beam carried on 
columns marking the juncture of load and sup- 
port in trabeated construction. In ancient archi- 
tecture the entablature was divided proportion- 
ately into three parts, bottom to top: architrave 
(Or EPISTYLE), frieze, and cornice. In arcuate ar- 
chitecture (Roman, early Christian, and Byz.) en- 
tablatures disappeared to be replaced by a mold- 
ing, sometimes elaborately carved, marking the 
crowns of the arches carried by the columns, the 


floor level of the galleries, or the springing of 


major arches supported by piers. Entablatures 
were used in Old St. Peter’s (central nave only) 
and survive in S. Maria Maggiore, Rome; at Stou- 
dios and Sts. Sergios and Bakchos (exedrae only), 
Constantinople; Church of the Nativity, Bethle- 
hem; and in the columnar TEMPLA of Byz. churches 
built during and after the gth C. (See also IMpost 
BLOcK.) -W.L. 


ENTERTAINMENT. For amusement the Byz. 
enjoyed games and spectacles such as CHARIOT 
RACES in the hippodrome, triumphal processions, 


visits of foreign dignitaries and ambassadors, re- 
ligious festivities and panegyreis (see Farr), BAN- 
QUETS, and CEREMONIES that provided recreation 
and excitement. The streets were also the setting 
for various kinds of shows with exotic or strange 
ANIMALS and wild beasts. Performances were given 
by acrobats, jugglers, magicians, ACTORS, and 
MIMES. Apart from this kind of popular entertain- 
ment people found recreation in board GAMES 
such as CHESS, in gambling, and in various SPORTS. 
HUNTING, HAWKING, and equestrian sports at- 
tracted mostly the aristocracy. The common peo- 
ple went to TAVERNS, where they engaged in DANCES 
and jesting, while BATHS and the THEATER grad- 
ually declined tn importance. On certain holidays, 
like the feastday of Sts. Markianos and Martyrios 
or the January festival, there was CARNIVAL-like 
masquerading and processions in which even the 
clergy participated along with the people. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 3:246-69. M. Poljakovskaja, A. 


Cekalova, Vizantija: byt i nravy (Sverdlovsk 1989) 98-114. 
—Ap.K. 


ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. Celebrated on PALM 
Sunpay, Christ’s Entry marks the beginning of 
his Passion (Mt 21:1-11, Mk 11:1—10, Lk 19:29- 
40, Jn 12:12—19). Its imagery shifted with shifting 
interpretations of the Passion. On the 4th-C, Jun- 
ius Bassus sarcophagus (Volbach, Early Christian 
Art, pl.42), the Entry adopted the iconography of 
imperial apveNTus that itself had already shaped 
the Gospel account. Showing a youthful Christ 
astride a donkey greeted by the personification of 
Jerusalem, the Entry proclaimed the Passion as 
Christ’s victory over death and the beginning of 
his sovereignty in the eternal Jerusalem. A differ- 
ent, more narrative inflection characterizes the 
6th-C. versions (Rossano GosPELS, fol.1v), where 
Christ is a mature man seated side-saddle and 
welcomed by palm-waving crowds who lay their 
coats in his path. The Passion had by now ac- 
quired an emphasis on sacrifice, and henceforth 
a narrative version of the Entry focusing on Christ's 
humanity predominated. Post-Iconoclastic art re- 
placed the personified city with the figure of a 
mother and child; other symbolic details are the 
Spinario, or boy removing a thorn from his foot 
(Berlin ivory—Rice, Art of Byz., pl.115), and the 
prophet Zechariah (cf. Zech g:g). Palaiologan art 
emphasizes the steepness of Christ’s downward 
path to symbolize his descent into Hell. 


LIT. E. Lucchesi Palli, RBK 2:22-30. D. Mouriki, “The 
Theme of the ‘Spinario’ in Byzantine Art,” DChAE* 6 
(1970—72) 53—66. -A.W.C. 


ENVERI, i5th-C. Turkish poet and chronicler. 
All that is known of his biography is that he 
accompanied MEHMED II on campaigns to Wal- 
lachia, Bosnia, and Lesbos in 1462—63. He was 
the author of the Desturname (Book of the Grand 
Vizier), a universal history commissioned by 
Mehmed IlI’s grand vizier Mahmud Pasha (who 
functioned in an official capacity 1455—68). Writ- 
ten in Turkish verse, the Desturname was com- 
pleted in 1465. Relevant to Byz. studies is book 
18, which celebrates the Aydınoğulları, or emirs 
of Aypin, chiefly Umur Bec (died 1348), and 
books 19-22, which cover Ottoman themes to 
1464. Enveri’s unparalleled account of Umur Beg’s 
campaigns rests on excellent, evidently contem- 
porary sources. Its value in clarifying the liaison 
between JOHN VI KanTakouZzENos and Umur Beg 
during the Civit WAR oF 1341—47 is demon- 
strated by P. Lemerle (L’Emirat d’Aydin, Byzance et 
L'Occident, Recherches sur “La Geste d’Umur Pacha” 
[Paris 1957]). Enveri’s treatment of the Ottoman 
dynasty in books 19—20 also depends primarily 
on an anterior source, but is much less detailed 
and significant. His information in books 21 and 
22 about Mahmud Pasha, a scion of the Angeloi 
who converted to Islam after 1451, is of great 
importance. 

ED. Book 18—Le Destén d’Umur Pacha, ed. 1. Mélikoff- 
Sayar (Paris 1954), with Fr. tr. Incomplete ed.—Diisturnamei 
Enveri, ed. M. Yinang, in Türk tarih encümeni külliyaı 15 
(Istanbul 1929). 


LIT. H. Akin, Aydın Oğulları Tarihi hakkında bir Araştırma 
(Ankara 1968) xi-xii. —S.W.R. 


ENVIRONMENT. The Byz. perceived their nat- 
ural surroundings mostly in standardized, con- 


ventional terms: the DESERT was the region ot 


“mountains and caverns and holes in the earth” 
(e.g., BARLAAM AND IOASAPH, ed. Woodward, Mat- 
tingly, p.48.20—21), the mountains precipitous and 
unassailable, the sea seething with waves. When a 
civilized area was described, the accent lay on its 
material assets, not its pleasurable aspects: cities 
were said to possess temperate climate, fertile soil, 
and sweet water in abundance. The image of the 
world was usually presented as a catalog of ab- 
stract designations of individual categories. The 


EPANAGOGE | 703 


vocabulary of a writer (e.g., Niketas Choniates) 
might contain numerous names of trees, flowers, 
and animals, but these flora and fauna were rem- 
iniscences of ancient scholarship rather than live 
elements of real environment. The GARDENS in 
romances are as deprived of individuality as the 
EMOTIONS revealed in this setting. 

Some exceptions, however, can be discovered. 
Gregory Antiochos describes a miserable winter 
in Bulgaria—the barrenness of the land, the ears 
of travelers assaulted by the bleating of sheep and 
the grunting of pigs; the description is sarcastic 
but vivid (Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 219f). Gre- 
goras is esp. rich in fresh images of nature: a tree 
reflected in a pool (Greg. 2:705.10—19); the king- 
fisher building its nest in the sand in stormy 
winter weather (3:130f); Mt. Athos, blessed with 
forests and flowery meadows, where in the morn- 
ing the nightingale, singing in a grove, blends its 
song with the matins prayers of monks (2:714f). 
Also notable are the letters of MANUEL II PALAO- 
Locos, who frequently describes his natural sur- 
roundings, whether a storm at sea, a barren plain 
in Anatolia, or the pleasures of the environs of 
Thessalonike, with their cool springs, shady trees, 
fragrant flowers, and birdsongs (eps. 16, 45, 67, 
68). 

uit. R. Attfield, “Christian Attitudes to Nature,” Journal 
of the History of Ideas 44 (1983) 369~-86. P. Cesaretti, “Eus- 


tazio di Tessalonica e Vetimologia di physis: una fonte 
stoica?” Studi classici e orientali 36 (1986) 139-45.  -A.K. 


EPANAGOGE (Eravaywyń, Return to the Point), 
correctly Eisagoge (Etoaywy7 tov vópov, Intro- 
duction to the Law), a law book of the emperors 
Basil I, Leo VI, and Alexander, divided into 40 
titles. Patr. PHorios took part in the composition 
of the work, which was probably promulgated in 
886; he wrote the preface and the two most im- 
portant titles (2 and 3), on the emperor and on 
the patriarch. The Epanagoge was to serve as an 
“introduction” to the comprehensive legislation 
known later as the BasiLika and to replace the 
Ecloga of the Isaurian emperors. The source of 
the Epanagoge, which comprises nearly all spheres 
of law, is almost exclusively the Corpus JuRIs 
Civilis, whose regulations were to a certain extent 
intentionally altered or even falsified; the Ecloga, 
too, served as a model. Although the Epanagoge 
stopped being officially circulated soon after its 
promulgation and was replaced by the PROCHIRON 


704 EPANAGOGE AUCTA 


about 20 years later, many of its regulations were 
adopted into private law books (EPANAGOGE AUCTA, 
EPANAGOGE CUM PROCHIRO COMPOSITA, Syntagma 
of Matthew Biastares). The law book is trans- 
mitted in few MSS; extensive scholia to it have 
been preserved which sometimes comment criti- 
cally on the text. 

ED. Zepos, Jus 2:229-368, 410-27. 

LIT. V. Sokol’skij, “O charaktere i zna¢enii Epanagogi,” 
VizVrem 1 (1894) 17-54. J. Scharf, “Photios und die Epana- 
goge,” BZ 49 (1956) 385—400. Idem, “Quellenstudien zum 
Prooimion der Epanagoge,” BZ 52 (1959) 68-81. Troianos, 
Peges 100—05. —A.S. 


EPANAGOGE AUCTA, a law book that consists 
of 54 titles and an appendix; it is based on the 
EPANAGOGE and, from Title 17 onward, the Pro- 
CHIRON. The BasiLika were also used as an im- 
portant source. The unknown compiler was ac- 
quainted with the legislative works produced under 
Leo VI; thus he summarized approximately 30 
Nove.s oF Leo VI, gave preference to the mar- 
riage property law of the Prochiron, and often 
detached the new regulations of the Prochiron 
from their context. He knew that the EcLoca was 
an “Isaurian” law book (15.8). The Epanagoge 
aucta, which is transmitted in about 10 MSS, bears 
the rubric “Leo the emperor” and shows no traces 
of later laws. Thus, it is probable that it originated 
soon after Leo’s death (912). 

ED. Zepos, Jus 6:49-216. 

LIT. Zacharia, Prochiron, cv—cxxxii. L. Burgmann, “Neue 


Zeugnisse der Digestensumme des Anonymos,” FM 7 (1986) 
106-08. -A.S. 


EPANAGOGE CUM PROCHIRO COMPOS- 
ITA, a law book in 42 titles that is composed of 
the EPANAGOGE and the Procuiron. In some of 
the few surviving MSS, the compilation also in- 
cludes excerpts from the BasILika as well as nu- 
merous marginal glosses. Some scholia to the 
Epanagoge (esp. to title 19) are integrated into the 
work. The law book, fragments of which have 
been preserved in a palimpsest MS of the 1oth 
C., is ascribed in its rubric to “the emperor Leo 
the Philosopher,” and was presumably produced 
soon after the death of Leo VI (912). 

LIT. Zacharia, Prochiron, xcix—civ. D. Simon, “Inhalt und 
Bedeutung der neuentdeckten Bruchstiicke der Epana- 
goge cum Prochiro composita (EPc),” JOB 23 (1974) 151— 
78. W. Waldstein, “Zur Epanagoge cum Prochiro compos- 
ita,” ZSavRom 91 (1974) 375-83- -AS. 


EPARCH (émapxos or vmapyos), the name of 
several officials, the most important of which was 
the EPARCH OF THE CITY; other officials bearing 
this title were the eparchs of lesser towns. Except 
in the case of Thessalonike, they are known only 
from the late Roman period, and in Thessalonike 
the eparch acted under the supervision of the 
DOUX. Guilland (infra) also gives a list of eparchs 
as chiefs of offices (eparch of the court, nyktepar- 
chos, and so on), but J.-C. Cheynet (BS 45 [1984] 
50f) argues that some of them never existed while 
others functioned only during late antiquity. Thus 
the eparch of the army is known in the 6th C. but 
not after that date (A. Failler, REB 45 [1987] 
199f). The title of APO EPARCHON (the former 
eparch) is known primarily from sources of the 
6th—8th C. 

LIT. R. Guilland, “Etudes sur histoire administrative de 
l'Empire Byzantin—L’Eparque I. L’éparque de la ville,” BS 
42 (1981) 186-96. -A.K. 


EPARCHIA (ézrapxia), province, the term used 
by narrative sources, primarily of the 11th and 
12th C., as synonymous with the official THEME. 
In ecclesiastical vocabulary eparchia meant an epis- 
copal province. 


uit. Ahrweiler, “Administration” 6of. -—A.K. 


EPARCHIUS AVITUS, Western Roman em- 
peror (9 July 455-18 Oct. 456); born Clermont, 
Gallia, ca.395—400, died 457°. A member of the 
Gallic aristocracy, Eparchius was descended from 
the patrikios Philagrius (PLRE 1:693), of whom 
nothing is known. Eparchius was related to many 
senatorial families, Gaius Apollinaris Srponius 
being his son-in-law; he served under command 
of general AETIUS and enjoyed Visigothic sup- 
port. Eparchius was praetorian prefect in Gaul in 
439. In 455 PETRONIUS Maximus appointed Epar- 
chius magister militum and sent him as envoy to 
the Visigoths; when Petronius was murdered, first 
the Visigoths and then the Gallic nobles urged 
Eparchius to accept the diadem; he was pro- 
claimed emperor at Arles. Eparchius sent an em- 
bassy to Emp. Marcian asking for recognition but 
did not receive it, even though he boasted that 
his request had been granted. After his return to 
Italy, unable to stop the Vandal pillaging or to 
revitalize the grain supply of starving Rome, 
Eparchius incurred the hatred of both the indig- 


enous population and the Germanic mercenaries. 
RICIMER defeated Eparchius at Piacenza on 17 
Oct. 456, deposed him, and appointed him bishop 
of Piacenza. R.W. Mathisen (BSC Abstracts 9 [1983] 
37f) hypothesizes that the Gallic nobles attempted 
to return Eparchius to the throne and that he left 
for Gallia but died en route. 

LIT. O. Seeck, RE 2 (1896) 2395-97. PLRE 2:196—98. 


K.F. Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien 
(Tübingen 1948) 152-54- -A.K. 


EPARCH OF THE CITY (ézapxos Ts TóNewsS), 
successor of the late Roman URBAN PREFECT, the 
governor of Constantinople. The eparch of the 
city was considered supreme judge in Constanti- 
nople and its vicinity, second only to the emperor, 
and was the chief of police responsible for order, 
decoration, and ceremonial in the capital; as the 
head of the city police the eparch also had juris- 
diction over prisons. Other functions were to con- 
trol commercial and industrial activity in the cap- 
ital, as reflected in the Book OF THE EPARCH. 
CHRISTOPHER OF MYTILENE characterizes in detail 
the symbolism of the eparch’s attire and of the 
trappings of his white horse (no.30.12—26); for 
example, the gilded copper bosses on the horse’s 
harness represented the eparch’s concern for the 
poor. In the Kletorologion (gth C.) PHILOTHEOS lists 
the following members of the eparch’s staff: sym- 
PONOS, LOGOTHETES TOU PRAITORIOU, district 
judges, GEITONIARCHAI, PARATHALASSITES, exarchs 
and prostatai [of the guilds?], BOULLOTAI who ap- 
pended seals to merchandise, and others; of this 
list, the 10th-C. Book of the Eparch mentions ex- 
archs and prostatai, boullotes, and symponos (possibly 
in a different function), but it introduces other 
assistants of the eparch—the LEGATARIOS and the 
mitotes, inspector of the quality of silk textiles 
(Stockle, Ziinfte 93). After 1204 the role of the 
eparch declined and his office was divided up 
among several kephalatikeuontes (K.-P. Matschke, 
BBulg 3 [1969] 81-101) under the pressure of 
feudal forces. Seals of the eparch of the city dating 
from the 6th to the early 13th C. are known 
(Laurent, Corpus 2:545—79). 

uit. R. Guilland, “Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de 
Empire Byzantin—L’Eparque. I. L’éparque de la ville,” 
BS 41 (1980) 17—32, 145-80, with corr. by J.-C. Cheynet, 
BS 45 (1984) 50-54. D. Feissel, “Le préfet de Constanti- 


nople, les poitds-étalons et l’estampillage de largenterie au 
Vie et au Vile siècle,” RN? 28 (1986) 119-42. —A.K. 


EPEREIA | 705 


EPEIKTES (ézretxrns, on seals regularly epiktes), 
official on the staff of the komes tou staulou, who 
is mentioned in all TaxtTiKa of the gth and 1oth 
C. According to a 10th-C. ceremonial book (De 
cer. 480.1—3), he was responsible for providing 
the fodder and water for horses as well as horse- 
shoes, bridles, and saddles. His function was prob- 
ably the management of the imperial stables—at 
any rate, a seal of the 8th or gth C. belonged to 
the “epeiktes of the imperial stables” (Zacos, Seals 
1, no.1806), and the owner of another was an 
“imperial epetktes” (no.2480C). Basil, the “eperktes 
of the basileus” (Skyl. 179.73; he is called just a 
plain eperktes in TheophCont 362.17), participated 
in the conspiracy of Samonas. At the end of the 
1oth C. Christopher Doukas was called Epeiktes, 
an epithet viewed by Polemis (Doukai 27) as a 
nickname. It is unclear how the term penetrated 
into the Armenian milieu—in the 1060s an Ar- 
menian “Pecht” served as a doux of Antioch; an 
Armenian prince “Epicht” was murdered by Greeks 
ca.1078 (Kazhdan, Arm. 124—26). 


LIT. Oikonomides, Listes 339. —A.K. 


EPEREIA (é7npeia, lit. “abuse, contumely”), a 
term that, at least from the 10th C. onward, was 
used by fiscal officials to designate extraordinary 
state “requisitions” (Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 167) or 
special taxes (Délger, Beiträge 61). An act of 927 
contrasts the state (demoteleis) epereiat with military 
service (strateiai), both due for the land (Ivir., 
no.1.8—g); an act of 974 (?) mentions epereia side 
by side with ANGAREIA, aplekton, and the (illegal) 
MITATON (Lavra 1, no.6.22—23). Later documents 
sometimes give a list of epereiai: thus, an act from 
ca.1200 includes angareiai, KASTROKTISIAI, PSO- 
MOZEMIA, and several other charges (Xerop., 
no.8.17—18). A privilege of 1199 has an unusual 
list of epereiai connected with trade: KOMMERKION, 
dekateia (TITHE) ot wine, charge tor shipping (nau- 
lon), etc. (Patmou Engrapha 2, no.59.7—8). The 
term demosiake (state) epereia (e.g., Zepos, Jus 
1:366.8) indicates that the central government was 
owed these charges, whereas Theophylaktos of 
Ohrid spoke of douleiai and epereiai required by 
local authorities (Letters, ed. P. Gautier, no.12.20). 
Accordingly an act of 1429 mentions “the demo- 
stake and other eperetai” (Lavra 3, no.167.19~20), 
and a chrysobull of 1405 refers to “epereia archon- 
tike and demosiake” (Binon, Xéropotamou, no.20.24). 


706 EPHESUS 


Thus, the term seems to have no strict, technical 
meaning. Having a connotation of “abuse” it could 
denote various types of charges and was primarily 
employed in the clauses of tax exemption. It is, 
however, questionable whether the exemption 
“from all epereiat” designated, as Solovjev and 
MoSin (Grčke povelje 437) suggest, freedom from 
all taxes. 


LIT. N. Svoronos, Lavra 4:156f. Chvostova, Osobennosti 
236-38. —-M.B. 


EPHESUS (’Edegos, near mod. Selcuk), seaport 
of Aegean Asia Minor. As capital of the province 
of Asia, Ephesus enjoyed considerable prosperity 
due to commerce, banking, and the patronage of 
the proconsul and the metropolitan bishop. Con- 
stantius II, Arkadios, and esp. Justinian I adorned 
the city, which is best known from its remains. 
They indicate that classical public works and ser- 
vices—theater, market, baths, the civic center, and 
marble-paved, colonnaded streets lined with 
shops—were maintained and that richly deco- 
rated private houses continued to be built until 
the early 7th C. The city was christianized by the 
4th C. and saw the erection of churches and mon- 
umental crosses and the transformation of open 
public spaces as private buildings encroached on 
them. The numerous Late Antique buildings usu- 
ally used spotia and were adorned with frescoes, 
mosaics, and marble. Prosperity ended ca.614, 
when large parts of Ephesus were destroyed (by 
Persians or earthquakes), never to be restored. 
New fortifications enclosed less than half the 
ancient city and created a new defensive center 
around the Church of St. John a mile away. Its 
walls were probably a response to the Arab attacks 
that began in 654. Ephesus became a city of the 
THRAKESION theme; in the 1oth C., it was the 
center of a rouRMA of the theme of Samos. Ephe- 
sus was the site of a major regional fair in the 8th 
C., which generated considerable revenue. By the 
gth C., neglect and the resultant silting had ruined 
the harbor and the city had moved to the hill 
around the Church of St. John to become an 
inland fortress. The city survived the attack of 
the Paulicians in 867/8 or 869/70, had Italian 
concessions after 1082, and was occupied by the 
Turks 1090—96. It was then usually known as 
“Theologos” (after St. Jonn) or simply the “Kas- 
tron.” In 1147 Ephesus was host to the Second 
Crusade and in 1206 recognized the Laskarids, 


under whom it became a center of learning. Ni- 
kephoros BLeEMMyDES taught here, with George 
Akropolites and Theodore Laskaris among his 
pupils. The late 13th C. brought Turkish threats, 
temporarily dispelled by the Catalan Grand Com- 
pany, which made Ephesus its base in 1304; it fell 
to the Turks of Aydin the same year. 

Traditions that associated Ephesus with St. Paul, 
the Apostle John, the Virgin, and the Srven 
SLEEPERS made it the natural site for the councils 
of 431 and 449 and the frequent goal of pilgrim- 
age. 

Monuments of Ephesus. Ephesus preserves nu- 
merous civic buildings and two huge churches: 
the Basilica of the Virgin, seat of the councils, 
built in the 4th C. and twice rebuilt on a smaller 
scale after the 6th C., and the Basilica of St. John. 
The latter, the largest and most important church 
in the city, had its beginnings in the tetrapylon 
MARTYRION erected over John’s purported tomb 
as early as ca.300 and was mentioned by EGERIA 
(23.10) in the last quarter of the same century. 
Probably ca.450 a cruciform church with a wooden 
roof was built on the site, incorporating the tetra- 
pylon at its crossing. The western arm, with one 
or two narthexes, contained a nave and two aisles, 
while the eastern arm had four aisles and termi- 
nated in an apse. The church was rebuilt under 
Justinian I, with work beginning before 548 and 
completed prior to 565. The cruciform plan was 
maintained but the building was now covered with 
a series of six domes resting on massive piers. 
The western arm, longer than the others, con- 
sisted of two such bays, while the crossing, north, 
south, and east arms each had a single bay in a 
design described by Prokopios (Buildings 5.1.4—6) 
as closely resembling that of the Church of the 
Hoty ApostT es, Constantinople. The church was 
flanked by an octagonal baptistery built in the 5th 
C. and a domed, octagonal skeuophylakion, or sac- 
risty, erected in the late 6th or early 7th C. St. 
John’s was the scene of an annual miracle when 
healing dust issued from the evangelist’s tomb at 
the time of his feast on 8 May. 


LIT. C. Foss, Ephesus After Antiquity (Cambridge 1979). J. 
Keil, H. Hörmann, Die Johanneskirche [= Forschungen in 
Ephesos, 4.3] (Vienna 1951). P. Verzone, “Le fasi costruttive 
della basilica di S. Giovanni di Efeso,” RendPontAcc 51-52 
(1982) 213-35. M. Büyükkolanci, “Zwei neugefundene 
Bauten der Johannes-Kirche von Ephesos: Baptisterium 
und Skeuophylakion,” IstMitt 32 (1982) 236-57- 

-C.F., MJ. 


EPHESUS, COUNCILS OF. Two important 
councils were held in Ephesus. 


COUNCIL OF 431. The third ecumenical council 
was summoned by THeEoposios II to settle the 
conflict between the Antiochian Christology of 
Nestorios of Constantinople and that of the Al- 
exandrian school represented by Cyrit. Lasting 
from 22 June to 22 July, the council had approx- 
imately 150 participants at its opening. The lively 
political and ecclesiastical rivalry between the pa- 
triarchal sees of Alexandria and Constantinople 
complicated the long-standing opposition be- 
tween the two schools. Although the council did 
not formulate its own Christological statement, it 
did accept that of the First Council of NICAEA 
(325) as interpreted by Cyril. In effect, it ap- 
proved his theology that the humanity and divin- 
ity of the incarnate Christ were united in one 
hypostatic union—henosts kath’hypostasin. By so 
doing, it formally recognized the propriety of 
Mary’s title THEoTOKos (God-bearer), which Nes- 
torios had denied. Finally, the council also con- 
demned the beliefs of Pelagius (see PELAGIANISM) 
as heresy. These matters were decided before the 
arrival of JOHN I, patriarch of Antioch, and his 
delegation. The latter understandably refused to 
accept the Cyrillian majority’s condemnation of 
Nestorios. A brief schism followed, ending in 433 
when Cyril and John were finally reconciled. The 
doctrinal and ecclesiastical victory had neverthe- 
less gone to Alexandria. Cyril’s rival, Nestorios, 
and his theology were crushed and humiliated. 
Ephesus is the first general council with extant 
original acts. 

sources. Acta—ACO 1:1~-5. Neue Aktenstiicke zum Ephes- 
inischen Konzil von 431, ed. E. Schwartz (Munich 1920). 
Homilien und Briefe zum Konzil von Ephesos, ed. B.M. Weischer 


(Wiesbaden 1979). J. Rucker, Studien zum Concilium Ephes- 
inum zur 1500-Jahrfeier des dritten ökumenischen Konzils (Mun- 


ich 1935). 

LIT. Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles 2:287-377. P.T. Camelot, 
Ephèse et Chalcédoine (Paris 1962). J. Meyendorff, Christ in 
Eastern Christian Thought (Washington, D.C.—Cleveland 1969) 
3-31. A. Crabb, “The Invitation List to the Council of 
Ephesus and Metropolitan Hierarchy in the Fifth Century,” 
JTASt n.s. 32 (1981) 369—400. —-A.P. 


“ROBBER” COUNCIL (Latrocinium). The council 
(8—22 Aug. 449) was summoned by THEODOsIOs 
II to settle the case of EurycHes, who had been 
condemned by Patr. Favian (22 Nov. 448) for 
teaching that Christ had only one nature after the 
Incarnation. The council of some 140 bishops, 


EPHOROS 707 


including two papal legates who objected to the 
proceedings, was pressured by the domineering 
Dioskoros, patriarch of Alexandria, and his 
violence-prone monastic followers to rehabilitate 
Eutyches and to depose Flavian. It likewise rejected 
the moderate but precarious theological compro- 
mise reached after the council of 431 by CYRIL of 
Alexandria and Jonn I, patriarch of Antioch. 
Despite the repeated requests of the Roman le- 
gates, the Tome of Pope Leo I to Flavian was 
never read. According to W. de Vries, these pro- 
ceedings have often been exaggerated by scholars 
and may in fact have been no less uncanonical 
than the actions of other councils (OrChrP 41 
[1975] 357-98). Eutyches’ Monophysitism contin- 
ued to disturb the doctrinal unity and security of 
both church and empire until CHALCEDON (451). 

SOURCES. Acta—ACO Tom.I], vol. i, pars. 1:68-86, 108- 
120, 136-151; II, ñi, 1:42—-g1. Akten der Ephesinischen Synode 
vom Jahre 449, ed. J. Flemming (Berlin 1917). 

LIT. P.T. Camelot, “De Nestorius à Eutych: L'opposition 
de deux christologies,” in Grillmeier-Bacht, Chatkedon, 1:213- 
42. H. Bacht, “Die Rolle des orientalischen Ménchtums in 
den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chal- 
kedon (431~—519),” ibid., 2:197—231. —A.P. 


EPHOROS (éd¢opos, lit. “overseer”), term for an 
ancient Spartan magistrate, revived in the 11th C. 
It is not found in the TAKTIKA of the gth and ioth 
C. On seals, ephoroi bear the high ranks of proedros 
and vestes and sometimes combine their duty with 
judicial functions, as in the case of Theodore, 
judge of the veLUM and ephoros. On the other 
hand, charters of 1044—88 mention the ephoroi of 
imperial KOURATOREIAI who, according to N. Oi- 
konomides (TM 6 [1976] 138), administered all 
the kouratoreiai over the entire empire. The staff 
of the ephoros included notaries and domestikot. 
The term is found in the letters of Theodore 
Propromos (PG 133:1239A) and MICHAEL ITA- 
LIKOS (ep.18). At the end of the 12th C. Niketas 
CuHonrTEs held this post, but it disappeared after 
1204. 

Ephoros was also the term for the lay adminis- 
trator of a monastery, who was responsible for its 
economic management; the term is first attested 
in the 11th C. Other terms used for this position— 
epitropos, antileptor, and prostates—are found in 10th- 
C. sources. The ephoros was granted ownership 
(kyriotes) of the monastery and its properties and 
was supposed to be its protector, assuring, for 


708 | EPHRAIM 


example, that it received fiscal exemptions (M. 
Nystazopoulou, Symmetkta 1 [1966] 85-94). The 
ephoros might play an important role in the elec- 
tion of the HEGOUMENOS and would have the power 
to remove him. Galatariotou (infra) concludes that 
an ephoros was more commonly appointed by aris- 
tocratic KTETORS or founders; nonaristocratic Ty- 
PIKA either deliberately refrain from making this 
sort of appointment or appoint an ephoros to serve 
primarily as a contact with the outside world and 
to represent the monastery’s business interests 
and not to intervene in the internal administration 
of the monastery. In aristocratic typika, the ephoros 
is usually a relative of the ktetor, and the term is 
often a euphemism for a charistikarios (Ahrweiler, 
Structures, pt. VII [1967], 3f), who received finan- 
cial benefit from the monastery, which he was 
granted as CHARISTIKION. Such ephoro: sometimes 
abused their privileges and brought ruin on the 
monastery. 

In a nontechnical sense, the term ephoros was 
applied to the ecclesiastical 01kKONOMOs and sa- 
KELLARIOS (Darrouzés, Offikia 555.1—2). 

LIT. Laurent, Corpus 2:631—66. Délger, Beiträge 45. W. 
Seibt, “Drei byzantinische Bleisiegel aus Ephesos,” in Li- 
terae numismaticae Vindobonenses: Roberto Goebl dedicatae (Vi- 
enna 1979) 151—54. Galatariotou, “Typika,” 101-06, 113— 
16. Konidares, Nomtke theorese 182~—88. J.P. Thomas, Private 
Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire (Washington, 
D.C., 1987) 218-20, 253-58. R. Morris, “Legal Terminol- 


ogy in Monastic Documents of the Tenth and Eleventh 
Centuries,” JOB 32.2 (1982) 284-88, 290. —A.K., A.M.T. 


EPHRAIM, mosaicist who worked with BasiLius 
PICTOR in 116g in the Church of the Nativity at 
BETHLEHEM. Ephraim’s name is found in the Greek 
portion of a partially preserved bilingual inscrip- 
tion formerly situated above the Gospel scenes in 
the church’s choir. It describes him as historiogra- 
phos kai moustatoros, names MANuEL I, AMALRIC I, 
and Raoul, bishop of Bethlehem, and gives the 
date for the work’s completion. The inscription is 
fully recorded on the flyleaf of a monastic mis- 
cellany, now Jerusalem, Greek Patr. Taphou 57. 

uit. B. Bagatti, Gli antichi edifici sacri di Betlemme (Jeru- 
salem 1952) 6of. A. Cutler, “Ephraim, Mosaicist of Beth- 


lehem: The Evidence from Jerusalem,” Journal of Jewish 
Art 12—13 (1986—87) 179-83. -AC. 





EPHRAIM ('Edpaiz), chronicler from Ainos in 
Thrace; fl. at the end of the 13th C. or early 14th 
C. Ephraim is known only from his chronicle in 


dodecasyllables that presents the history of Old 
and New Rome through their rulers, from the 1st 
C. a.D. to 1261. It is followed by a verse catalog 
of the bishops of New Rome from the foundation 
of the church by the apostle Andrew to the acces- 
sion of Patr. Isaiah in 1323. The latter is the only 
chronological] indication for Ephraim’s life. The 
chronicle’s sources are ZONARAS, Niketas CHONI- 
ATES, and George AKROPOLITES, and is most de- 
tailed for the period 1204—61. Ephraim is true to 
his sources; variations and departures from them 
are minor and can be ascribed more to the needs 
of the meter than to independent knowledge. 


ED. Chronographia, ed. O. Lampsides, 2 vols. (Athens 
1984-85). 

LIT. O. Lampsides, Beiträge zum byzantinischen Chronisten 
Ephraem und zu seiner Chronik (Athens 1971). Hunger, Lit. 
1:478—80. —-RJ.M. 


EPHREM THE SYRIAN, theologian and hym- 
nographer; saint; born Nisibis ca.306, died Edessa 
g June 373; feastday 28 Jan. Born probably to 
Christian parents (although his Syriac Life states 
that his father was a pagan priest), Ephrem spent 
most of his life in Nisibis, serving as a deacon. 
After the Persian occupation of Nisibis in 363, he 
moved to Edessa. Hagiographical accounts (e.g., 
the spurious sermon ascribed to GREGORY OF 
Nyssa) credit him with confuting ARIANISM in 
Egypt and visiting Basi. THE GREAT at Caesarea. 
His diverse writings (exegetical, dogmatic, polem- 
ical, ascetic), mostly in verse, were composed in 
Syriac but translated into Armenian, Greek, Latin, 
and Church Slavonic. Most important is his litur- 
gical poetry, which includes hymn cycles on church 
feasts, funeral hymns, and polemics against var- 
ious heresies, esp. those of ARrus, Bardesanes, 
and Mant. Two other favorite themes were grim 
descriptions of the Day of Judgment and the 
supreme virtues of the Virgin Mary. Ephrem was 
a major influence on the development of Syriac 
and Byz. HYMNOGRAPHY. Despite some modern 
scepticism (J. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le 
Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance 
[Paris 1977] 22f), his impact on ROMANOS THE 
MELODE in terms of theme and imagery (e.g., 
heat, light, the “thorny nature” of man) seems 
certain (W.L. Petersen, VigChr 39 [1985] 171-87). 

Representation in Art. Ephrem was depicted 
as a monk with a scant beard from at least the 
1oth C. (Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, no.B.58). The 


scene of his death, a popular post-Byz. composi- 
tion, had its origin in the Byz. period: the corpse 
of the saint, laid out on a bier in an open land- 
scape, was surrounded by vignettes of eremitical 
life, showing monks at work in their rocky cells 
or preparing to descend by various means of 
transport for the funeral. These elements, which 
appear already in 11th-C. MSS of the Heavenly 
Ladder of JOHN KLiMax, were occasionally used 
for scenes of the death of other saints as well (e.g., 
ARSENIOS THE GREAT). 

ED. For editions see M. Roncaglia, “Essai de bibliogra- 
phie sur saint Ephrem,” Parole de l'Orient 4 (1973) 343-70. 
Eng. tr. S. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit: Eighteen Poems of 
Saint Ephrem? (London 1983). Paraenesis: Die altbulgarische 
Ubersetzung von Werken Ephraims des Syrers, ed. G. Bojkovsky, 
R. Aitzetmuller, 3 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau 1984-87), 
with Germ. tr. 

LIT. A, Vööbus, Literary, Critical and Historical Studies in 
Ephrem the Syrian (Stockholm 1958). E. Beck, Ephrams des 
Syrers Psychologie und Erkenntnislehre (Louvain 1980). T. Bou 
Mansour, “La défense éphrémienne de la liberté contre les 
doctrines marcionite, bardesanite et manichéenne,” OrChrP 
50 (1984) 331-46. P. Yousif, “Histoire et temps dans la 
pensée de saint Ephrem de Nisibe,” Parole de l'Orient 10 
(1981-82) 3—35. J. Martin, “The Death of Ephraim in Byz- 
antine and Early Italian Painting,” ArtB 33 (1951) 217-25. 
J. Myslivec, LCI 6:151—53. —B.B., N.P.S. 


EPHTHALITES ('E¢fadAitar), a Hunnic people 
whose history and nomenclature are not clear. 
Many scholars assume that the peoples variously 
referred to as (H)Ephthalites, White Huns, Ye- 
Ta, Haydatila, Chionites, and Kidarites are related 
and of Hunnic origin. Christensen (infra) believes 
the Kidarites and Ephthalites to have been differ- 
ent peoples on the basis of Prokopios, who says 
that the latter were white-skinned. In any case, 
the presence of this single group (or plurality of 
groups) in Sasanian Iran is demonstrable from 
the 4th C. through the reign of Chosroes I Anū- 
shirwan in the 6th C. Migrants from Mongolia, 
they settled along the Oxus River probably in the 
late 4th C.; under their king Grumbatas they 
participated in the expedition of Shapur II against 
Byz. Mesopotamia in 359; as Kidarite Huns, they 
settled in Bactria and Gandara in the 5th C. They 
participated in the dynastic struggle on behalf of 
Pér6z against his brother Hurmazd III in 457 and 
later took Péroz captive. This evidently inaugu- 
rated a period of strife and tension, settled finally 
in 557 by Chosroes Antshirwan who, in alliance 
with the Turkic khan Silziboulos, crushed the 
Ephthalites and divided their lands with the Turks. 


EPIC | 709 


The ethnological discourse of Prokopios (Wars 
1.3) on the Ephthalites indicates that they were 
sedentarized and yet also retained Central Asiatic 
shamanistic customs; for example, the hetairai of 
the chief were interred alive with their deceased 
master. 

tir. A.D.H. Bivar, in EI? 3:303f. The Cambridge History 


of Iran, ed. E. Yarshater, 3.1 (Cambridge 1983) 142, 146- 
48; 3.2:768-71. Christensen, Sassanides 292-94. -S.V. 


EPIBOLE (mBo, Lat. adjectio stertlium) was the 
official transfer of abandoned land, together with 
its fiscal obligations, to relatives, co-contributors, 
or members of the same village or fiscal unit. The 
measure, initially meant to stabilize state revenues, 
enhanced the development of the fiscal commu- 
nities described in 8th—10th-C. texts; it ended by 
indicating a complicated procedure by which, at 
every revision of the CADASTER, the KANON was 
reassessed, taking into consideration the previous 
assessments and all eventual increases or de- 
creases of fiscal obligations or taxable assets of 
each fiscal unit (village or large landowner); the 
established fiscal burden was then distributed to 
individual contributors. The basic characteristics 
of the institution survived in the late 11th and 
early 12th C., but the way it was actually applied 
had by then changed considerably owing to the 
decline of small landed property and the increase 
of state lands and large privileged private prop- 
erties. At this time officials began to consider the 
possibility of a unified rate of epzbole for the whole 
empire. 

LIT. Svoronos, Cadastre 119-29. Idem, “L’Epibolé à l'é- 


poque des Comnénes,” TM 3 (1968) 375~—95. Lemerle, Agr. 
Hist. 46f. -N.O. 


EPIC. Several types of epic flourished in the late 
Roman period: (1) PATRIA, or histories of cities 
such as Tarsos, Berytus, and Nicaea; CHRISTO- 
DOROS OF KOPTOS wrote patria in epic verses on 
Constantinople, Thessalonike, and other cities (Al. 
Cameron, Historia 14 [1965] 489); (2) epic enkomia 
of famous persons, primarily emperors and high 
officials, by such authors as CLAUDIAN (who wrote 
both Latin and Greek epics), the empress 
ATHENAIS-EUDOKIA, Kyros of Panopolis, and 
Corippus; (3) mythological epics by Nonnos, 
QUINTUS OF SMYRNA, KOLLOUTHOS, MOUSAIOS, etc. ; 
and (4) biblical epics, an attempt to reproduce 
various Old and New Testament episodes in HEX- 


710 EPICLESIS 


AMETERS; Of these the paraphrase of St. John’s 
Gospel, probably by Nonnos, is the most remark- 
able. Many of these epics are lost (esp. the city 
histories) and known only from fragments or ci- 
tations in Libanios, the Souda, and other sources. 
PRoKLOsS defended Homer against Plato’s criticism 
(S. Koster, Antike Epostheorien [Wiesbaden 1970] 
99—114), while introducing a threefold division 
of poetry: the sublime, full of divine virtues; the 
middle, having educational purposes; and the 
lower, which with the help of imitation and fan- 
tasy leads the soul into error. 

Epic form was occasionally used for works with- 
out epic content, such as didactic poetry. Diony- 
sios Periegetes (2nd C.) and Oppian (3rd C.), 
authors popular in Byz., wrote in hexameter, as 
well as Markellos of Side, a physician of the 2nd 
C. From the 4th C. onward, hexameter was re- 
placed in didactic works by iambic trimeters and 
prose; on the other hand, CeNTOs preserved Ho- 
meric meter and vocabulary but were sometimes 
far removed from an epic character. 

After the first half of the 7th C., epic disap- 
peared, although even much later (12th C.) poets 
praised imperial military achievements in hexa- 
meter. The last 7th-C. epic enkomzon, by GEORGE 
or Prisipia, was already iambic. The later epic 
Dicenes Axritas differs in meter, content, and 
language from earlier examples and is closer to 
the tradition of soldiers’ songs than to Homer. 

LIT. Christ, Literatur 2.2:959-74. M. Roberts, Biblical 
Epos and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity (Liverpool 
1985). B. Abel-Wilmanns, Der Erzdhlaufbau der Dionysiaka 
des Nonnos von Panopolis (Frankfurt am Main 1977) 88—90. 


Beck, Volksliteratur 48-97. G.W. Elderkin, Aspects of the 
Speech in the Later Greek Epic (Baltimore 1906). -A.K. 


EPICLESIS (é7rixAynots), invocation for the com- 
ing of the Holy Spirit (or, rarely, the Logos) to 
sanctify; esp. the epiclesis in the ANAPHORA, which 
asks the Father to send his Spirit or invokes the 
Spirit to come upon the bread and wine to change 
them into the body and blood of Christ for the 
spiritual benefit of the communicants. Such a con- 
secratory epiclesis, first seen in CYRIL of Jerusalem 
(ed. Piédagnel, p.124.2—3), is a later explication 
of the more primitive general invocation upon 
the church and its offering for the fruits of com- 
MUNION and reflects the greater emphasis on the 
role of the Spirit in the aftermath of the First 
Council of Constantinople. Whether it was the 


epiclesis itself that constituted the formula of con- 
secration, as the Second Council of Nicaea stated 
(Mansi 13:265D), or the words of Jesus over the 
bread and cup (“This is my body . . .”) became 
a source of dispute with the Latins from the 14th 
C. 

LIT. J.-H. McKenna, Eucharist and Holy Spirit (Great Wak- 
ering, Essex, 1975) 29-82. -R.F.T. 


EPIDEICTIC (émidecxrixa, lit. “fit for display”), 
or epideictic oratory, one of three branches of 
RHETORIC as defined by Aristotle. This distinction 
was accepted in the treatise Division of Epideictic 
Speeches ascribed to MENANDER RHETOR, who di- 
vided speeches into praise (subdivided into hymns 
and ENKOMIA) and INVECTIVE. The term, however, 
was rare in Byz. usage, and neither Aphthonios 
nor NIcHOLAS OF Myra use it; according to 
APHTHONIOS (p.21.5), enkomion was not an “epi- 
deictic speech,” but an expository one (ekthetikos). 
The term reappears infrequently in later com- 
mentaries on Menander, for example, John Doxo- 
PATRES (Rabe, Prolegomenon 150.8), and was evi- 
dently replaced by less abstract notions such as 
enkomion and EKPHRASIS. The word early acquired 
the negative connotation of “showing off,” and 
EusEBIOS OF CAESAREA (PG 24:748B) accused 
MARKELLOS OF ANKYRA Of “showing off Hellenic 
science and ignoring divine knowledge.” 


uit. Martin, Rhetorik 177—210. Kennedy, Rhetoric 23-27. 
~A.K., E.M J. 


EPIFANIJ PREMUDRYYJ, or Epiphanios the Wise, 
monk of the Trinity monastery of St. Sergej near 
Moscow; died ca.1420. His reputation as the most 
florid hagiographer of Rus’ rests primarily on his 
vita of St. Stefan of Perm’ (died 1395). The vita’s 
elaborately expressive and emotive verbal devices 
are sometimes thought to be a literary and aes- 
thetic extension of the spirituality of HESYCHASM, 
although features of the style can be traced to 
Serbian vitae of the 1gth—14th C. and indeed to 
Byz. rhetoric (M. Muli¢, TODRL 23 [1968] 127- 
42). Epifanij parades his knowledge of patristic 
and Byz. hagiographic traditions and of the Greek 
language, and he was prominent among those 
who represented the hesychast culture of Con- 
stantinople and Athos in Rus’ (see KIPRIAN), prob- 
ably having spent time in Constantinople and 
Athos himself. He wrote an enkomion and, in 1418, 


a vita of St. Sergej of Radonez (died 1392), which 
survives in a version reworked by PacHomyy Lo- 
GOFET. In a letter to the archimandrite Kirill of 
Tver’, Epifanij describes the activities and work- 
ing methods of THEOPHANES THE GREEK, from 
whom he requested and copied a miniature de- 
piction of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. 

ED. Zitie sv. Stefana, episkopa Permskogo, ed. V. Družinin 
(St. Petersburg 1897); rp. with introd. by D. Čiževskij (The 
Hague 1959). Drevnie iitija prep. Sergija Radonežskogo, ed. 
N.S. Tichonravov (Moscow 1892-1916); rp. with introd. 
by L. Müller, Die Legenden des Heiligen Sergij von Radonež 
(Munich 1967). Eng. tr. M. Klimenko, The “Vita” of St. 
Sergii of Radonezh (Houston 1980). “Pismo Epifanija Pre- 
mudrogo k Kirillu Tverskomu,” ed. O.A. Belobrova in 
Pamjatniki literatury drevnej Rusi. XIV—seredina XV veka (Mos- 


cow 1981) 444-46. 
Lit. Fedotov, Mind 2:195—245. F. Kitch, The Literary Style 


of Epifani) Premudryj (Munich 1976), G. Prochorov, “Epi- 
fanij Premudryj,” TODRL 40 (1985) 77-91. ~S.C.F. 


EPIGONATION (ézvyovartiov), a lozenge of stiff 
embroidered cloth worn as a vestment by a bishop 
over his STICHARION. It measured about 30 cm on 
each side and was attached to the belt so as to 
hang down over the right knee. Its use was re- 
stricted to bishops at least until the 14th C. First 
mentioned in the 12th C. by Theodore Balsamon 
(Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 4:478.25—66), who states 
that it represents the cloth with which Christ 
washed the feet of the apostles, the epigonation 
gradually replaced the softer ENCHEIRION. The 
earliest surviving examples, which date from the 
14th C., are embroidered with an image of the 
ANASTASIS. 

LIT. Braun, Liturgische Gewandung 550-54. Papas, Mess- 
gewänder 130-53. M. Soteriou, “Chrysokteneton epigona- 
tion tou Byzantinou Mouseiou Athenon meta parastaseos 


tes eis Haidou Kathodou,” BNJbb 11 (1934) 284-96. John- 
stone, Church Embroidery 18f, pls. 51-52. -N.P.Š. 


EPIGRAM (¿riypaupa), originally an INSCRIP- 
TION, esp. a funerary inscription; in Hellenistic 
and Roman times a short poem, usually in elegiac 
couplets, often with an erotic or satiric theme. In 
the early centuries of Byz., though caustic cyni- 
cism and eroticism can still be seen in epigrams 
(e.g., of PALLADAS and later of PAUL SILENTIARIOS 
and AGATHIAS), such subjects were already being 
replaced by soberer topics that reflected a chris- 
tianized society, as in the funerary epigrams of 
GREGORY OF Nazianzos. Thus the epigrams of 


EPIGRAPHY 711 


GEORGE OF PisIDIA or THEODORE OF STOUDIOS 
frequently deal with icons, saints, or church fes- 
tivals. Epigrams were also used in doctrinal po- 
lemics, as during the Iconoclast period, or to vent 
personal spleen (as in CONSTANTINE OF RHODES). 

During the 10th C. ANTHOLOGIES of classical 
and Byz. epigrams were made, first by KEPHALAS 
and later by the anonymous compiler, or compi- 
lers, of the Anthologia Palatina (see GREEK AN- 
THOLOGY). Epigrams continued to be a fertile genre 
whose wide-ranging and prolific practitioners in- 
cluded Jonn GEOMETRES, John Mauropous, and 
CHRISTOPHER OF MYTILENE. From the 12th C. 
onward there is a tendency, as in the poems of 
Theodore Propromos and Manuel PHILES as well 
as in numerous anonymous verses, for epigrams 
to revert to their primary use as dedicatory in- 
scriptions attached to votive offerings (icons, church 
vessels, etc.) and on tombstones (cf. Lampros, 
“Mark. kod.” 3-59, 123-92). A particular form 
of epigram was the metrical inscription on SEALS 
(sometimes one line long), giving the name, title, 
and office of the seal owner. Still used, neverthe- 
less, for an enormous variety of topics normally 
written in 12- and 15-syllable lines, they are per- 
haps now best called “occasional verse.” 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 2:165~73. A.D. Kominis, To byzantinon 
hieron epigramma kai hoi epigrammatoporot (Athens 1966). W. 
Hérandner, “Customs and Beliefs as Reflected in Occa- 
sional Poetry,” ByzF 12 (1987) 235~—47. Q. Cataudella, “In- 
flussi di poesia classica anche latina negli epigrammi cris- 
tiani greci,” in Studi in onore di Aristide Colonna (Perugia 
1982) 79—92. B. Lavagnini, “L’epigramma e i] commit- 
tente,” DOP 41 (1987) 339-50. —-E.M.J. 


EPIGRAPHY. A discipline of Byz. epigraphy does 
not yet exist. While it cannot be said that it will 
occupy the same central position as it does in 
classical studies, it can nevertheless make a sub- 
stantial contribution in a variety of fields (e.g., 
institutions, prosopography and onomastics. lin- 
guistic frontiers, etc.). Ideally, it should encom- 
pass all types of writing except in MSS, in partic- 
ular the following: 


1. INSCRIPTIONS On stone, including graffiti 

2. Painted and mosaic inscriptions (those on mo- 
saic pavements, which form an important group, 
cease with very few exceptions in the 7th C.) 

3. Objects of household and religious use, includ- 
ing jewelry and amulets 

4. Coins, seals, and weights 


712 | EPIGRAPHY 


5. Brick stamps (limited primarily to the 4th—6th/ 
yth C.) 
6. Ivories and steatites 


For some of the above categories (ivories, steatites, 
coins, and seals) we do have more or less complete 
corpora, but most of the other material remains 
extremely scattered in works such as publications 
of individual monuments, excavation reports, re- 
gional surveys, and museum catalogs, where Byz. 
inscriptions are interspersed with antique ones. 

Strictly speaking, Byz. epigraphy ought to in- 
clude all inscriptions originating within the em- 
pire, whatever their language (Greek, Latin, Syr- 
iac, Coptic, Armenian, etc.). In practice, however, 
those in indigenous languages have been left to 
their respective specialists and attention has been 
concentrated on those in Greek and Latin. The 
boundary between the latter two up to the 6th C. 
runs across the Balkan peninsula, roughly along 
a line from DyRRACHION to Odessos (VARNA) and 
in Africa between the Roman provinces of Libya 
and Tripolitana. The use of the two “prestige” 
languages, however, particularly of Greek in the 
eastern provinces, does not necessarily reflect the 
most commonly spoken language in an area; for 
example, in Syria up to the Arab conquest the 
vast majority of inscriptions are in Greek. A case 
may also be made for including in the sphere of 
Byz. epigraphy regions outside the empire where 
Greek inscriptions of Byz. character have been 
found (e.g., Nubia, 8th—12th C.). Greek was also 
used in PROTO-BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS, and the 
ALANS wrote their inscriptions in Greek characters 
(ioth—1 2th C.). 

The first aim of the epigraphist is correct read- 
ing, which involves the resolution of ABBREVIA- 
TIONS, MONOGRAMS, and CRYPTOGRAMS, and fa- 
miliarity with formulas and titulature. A concurrent 
preoccupation concerns the evolution of script, 
since it permits the dating of inscriptions within 
broad limits when an absolute date is not given, 
which is in the majority of cases. By and large, 
Byz. inscriptions before the year 1000 are in cap- 
ital letters, written without division between words 
and hardly ever accented. LIGATURES between 
vertical letters (like M, N) are frequent; that of o 
plus v (X) comes into widespread use from the 
end of the 5th C. onward. Abbreviations are lim- 
ited to titles, professions, dates, nomina sacra, and 
the conjunction kai. An important change in script 


occurs in the early 11th C.: abandoning its earlier 
sobriety, it strives after an ornamental effect. It 
borrows an increasing number of ligatures and 
abbreviations current in MSS and places one letter 
above or within another with a consequent loss of 
legibility. One can almost say that the content 
becomes secondary to calligraphy. 

The thematic classification of inscriptions, as it 
has been elaborated for classical antiquity, is only 
partly applicable to the Byz. period. The following 
breakdown is tentative: 


1. Sacred texts 

2. Decrees (practically none after the 6th/7th C.) 
and grants of privileges. The latter are ex- 
tremely rare, but note the painted chrysobulls 
in the Brontochion church, Mistra (ed. G. 
Millet, BCH 23 [1899] 100-118), and at STA- 
GOI. 

3. Tokens of official control or regulation (corns, 
SILVER STAMPS, WEIGHTS, BRICK stamps) 

4. Marks of ownership (e.g., boundary stones) 
and authentication (SEALS) 

5. Records of building and/or decoration 

6. Honorific inscriptions accompanying statues 
or portraits (almost none after the 6th/7th C.) 

7. Records of death (EprrapHia and commem- 
orative graffiti) 

8. Acclamations 

g. Invocations, pious and magical formulas 

10. Dedications, often introduced by the formula 
Deesis tou doulou 

11. Epigrams, often on small objects (e.g., ivories, 
icon frames, crosses, etc.) 

12. Painters’ “signatures” (none before the 11th 
C. and rare thereafter) 


It should be noted that many inscriptions, esp. 
those in verse, are preserved by way of MS tra- 
dition—the GREEK ANTHOLOGY, among the works 
of poets such as Theodore Prodromos and Man- 
uel Philes—although it is often difficult to deter- 
mine whether their compositions were in fact in- 
scribed. As an example of a real inscription 
preserved in this manner we may quote the epi- 
gram on the Sangarios bridge (attributed to Aga- 
thias), which is found in the Palatine Anthology 
(AnthGr 9:641) and Constantine VII Porphyro- 
gennetos (De them. 5, ed. Pertusi 70.21—26). 

LIT. J.S. Allen, I. Sevéenko, Dumbarton Oaks Bibliogra- 


phies, 2.1. Epigraphy (Washington, D.C., 1981). F. Bérard, 
D. Feissel et al., Guide de l’épigraphiste (Paris 1986). C.M. 


Kaufmann, Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik (Freiburg 
1917). L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, H. Leclercq, DACL 7.1 
(1926) 623-1089. M. Guarducci, Epigrafia greca, vol. 4 
(Rome 1978) 299-556. -C.M. 


EPILEPSY. See INSANITY. 


EPIMANIKIA (émipavixia, émidvixa), a pair 
of detachable gold-embroidered cuffs worn as a 
vestment over the sleeves of a bishop’s STICHA- 
RION. Contrary to Lampe, who says that epimanika 
are first mentioned in the Liturgy ascribed to John 
Chrysostom, the first reference is that by the mid- 
11th-C. Patr. PETER III of Antioch, who spoke of 
encheiria, epimanikia, and EPIYRACHELIA orna- 
mented with gold as details of the patriarchal 
costume (PG 120:800C). They occur in represen- 
tations of bishops as early as the mid-1oth C. (e.g., 
Bible of Leo SAKELLARIOS, fol.3), or even the late 
gth C. (tympanum mosaics in Hacia Sopuia, Con- 
stantinople); it is not entirely certain, however, 
that these early images show detachable cuffs. 
The use of epemanikia was still restricted to bishops 
in the late 12th C. according to Theodore Balsa- 
mon, who says they represent the bonds that 
encircled Christ’s wrists during the Passion (Rhalles- 
Potles, Syntagma 4:478.16—24). All the epimanzhia 
that have survived date from the post-Byz. period. 

LIT. Bernadakis, “Ornements liturgiques” 131. Braun, 


Liturgische Gewandung 98—101. Papas, Messgewdnder 81— 
105. —N.P.S. 


EPIMERISMS (sing. émipeptopos, “distribution, 
parsing”), elementary word-by-word commentar- 
les on literary texts intended for school use and 
comprising parsing, MORPHOLOGY, ORTHOGRAPHY, 
prosody, semantics, and ETYMOLOGY. Epimerisms 
on Homer existed from late antiquity. George 
CHOIROBOSKOS composed epimerisms on the 
Psalms, which were in use as a schoolbook in the 
10th C. The classicism of the Palaiologan period 
led to the composition of epimerisms on select 
works of AELIANUS, the Philostrati, and AGAPETOS 
by such scholars as Maximos PLanoupnss (S. Lind- 
stam, Eranos 19 [1919-20] 57-92) and Manuel 
MoscHopouLos. George LAKAPENOS even com- 
posed epimerisms on a collection of his own let- 
ters. Anonymous epimerisms on prayers and other 
short religious texts are numerous and impossible 


EPIPHANIES 713 


to date. The epimerisms on Homer and the Psalms 
were originally separate books, while the later 
epimerisms seem from the first to have been writ- 
ten in the margins or between the lines of the 
text that they were designed to explain. Used for 
grammatical instruction as well as for textual ex- 
egesis, epimerisms were therefore sometimes de- 
tached from their texts and rearranged alphabet- 
ically. Akin to the epimerisms on literary texts 
were the word-by-word grammatical explanations 
of schede, short pieces of text, often of ambiguous 
meaning, which were widely used in schools from 
the 11th C. onward for instruction in grammar 
(see SCHEDOGRAPHIA). 

ED. Epimerism: Homerici, Pars prior, epimerismos continens 
qui ad Iliadis librum A pertinent, ed. A.R. Dyck (Berlin-New 
York 1983). Anecdota graeca Oxoniensia, ed. J.A. Cramer 
(Oxford 1835) 1:1-472, 2:331-—426. 

LIT. L. Cohn, RE 6 (1909) 179-81. H. Erbse. Beitrage 


zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien (Munich 1960) 230-50. 
-R.B. 


EPIPHANEIA (‘Emidavera, biblical and Syr. Ha- 
math, Ar. Hamah or Hamat in mod. Syria), city 
on the Orontes River and bishopric of Syria II. 
A Roman temple was transformed (by 400?) into 
a church, which was later rebuilt (in 595?) and 
dedicated to the Theotokos and Sts. Kosmas and 
Damianos. There are epigraphic references (5th— 
6th C.) to this building and to another church 
and a winter bath at Epiphaneia (IGLSyr 5, 
nos. 1999—2004). That part of the KAPER KoRAON 
TREASURE of 6th—7th-C. liturgical silverware that 
is known as the Hamah Treasure was reportedly 
found at Epiphaneia. EvaGRios SCHOLASTIKOS was 
born in Epiphaneia. After the Arab conquest of 
the city in 636-37 (Donner, Conquests 112, 148- 
51) the Church of the Theotokos was transformed 
into the Umayyad mosque, which still survives, 
although Nikephoros II Phokas is said to have 
burned the mosque of Epiphaneia during a raid 
in 968. 

ut. D. Sourdel, EI? 3:119—21. P.J. Riis, Temple, Church 
and Mosque (Copenhagen 1965). —M.M.M. 


EPIPHANIES. Appearances of a god or benefi- 
cent manifestations of the divine in a human 
context, epiphanies were a staple of late antique 
paganism in both religious and state imperial cults. 
Mystery cults organized their rituals around epi- 


714 EPIPHANIOS 


phanies, shrines of healing gods recorded mirac- 
ulous cures as epiphanies, and the imperial cult 
celebrated as an epiphany the emperor’s birthday, 
arrival in a new place, accession to office, out- 
standing deeds, and ceremonial appearances at 
court. Christ’s life, too, came to be understood in 
terms of theophanic events, or epiphanies. The 
6th of Jan. (EPIPHANY) was the earliest feast cele- 
brating Christ’s manifestation as divine and united 
the Baptism, ADORATION OF THE Maal, and mir- 
acle at Cana. Christ’s early life was dotted with 
epiphanies marked by angelic appearances (AN- 
NUNCIATION, admonitions to Joseph, heavenly hosts 
at the Nativity); apocryphal Gospels added oth- 
ers. The single such appearance during his min- 
istry is the TRANSFIGURATION, but his miracles, 
being beneficent manifestations of the divine, were 
also regarded as epiphanies, and they early ac- 
quired the appropriate iconography with a disci- 
ple to serve as a witness. Epiphanies recur in the 
Passion and its aftermath: the ENTRY INTO JE- 
RUSALEM, patterned after an imperial epiphany, 
the ANASTASIS, ASCENSION, and PENTECOST. (See 
also VISIONS.) 


LIT. Grabar, Martyrium 2:131—92. -A.W.C. 


EPIPHANIOS, bishop of Salamis (Constantia) in 
Cyprus (from 367); saint; born Eleutheropolis in 
Judaea ca.315, died at sea en route to Salamis 
from Constantinople 12 May 403. First prominent 
as founder of a monastery near his birthplace 
(ca.335), Eptphanios served as metropolitan in 
Cyprus for 36 years. A rigorous Nicene, he com- 
batted all heresies, esp. Origenism; his struggle 
against the latter involved him respectively with 
JEROME and THEOPHILOSs of Alexandria in serious 
conflict against JOHN II of Jerusalem (394) and 
Joun Curysostom at Constantinople in 402. He 
was equally hostile to classical education, perhaps 
deliberately affecting a poor Attic style, which, 
according to Jerome, enabled him to reach the 
masses through his writings. 

His most important works include the Ankyrotos 
(lit. “holding fast like an anchor”), the Panarion 
(or Refutation of All the Heresies), and a volume 
misleadingly entitled On Weights and Measures, 
which is actually a biblical dictionary. His criti- 
cisms of religious art (now generally thought to 
be genuine) prefigure the Byz. controversy over 
Iconoc.asM. Epiphanios recommended to Emp. 


Theodosios I that curtains adorned with sacred 
images be removed and used for burial shrouds 
and that frescoes be whitewashed (Ostrogorsky, 
Bilderstr. 67—75; Mango, Art 41-43). His works 
were translated into a number of medieval lan- 
guages, including Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, 
Syriac, and Church Slavonic. 

ED. PG 41-43. Epiphanius, ed. K. Holl, 3 vols. (Leipzig 
1915—33; vols. 2—3, rp. Berlin 1g80—85). Eng. tr. F. Wil- 
liams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I (Leiden- 
New York 1987). “To ‘Peri metron kai stathmon’ ergon 
Epiphaniou tou Salaminos,” ed. E.D. Moutsoulas, Theologia 


41 (1970) 618-37; 42 (1971) 473-595; 43 (1972) 631-70; 
44 (1973) 157-210. For complete list of ed., see CPG 2, 


nos. 3744-807. 
ir. C. Riggi, “La figura di Epifanio nel IV secolo,” SéP 


8 (Berlin 1966) 86-107. P. Nautin, DHGE 15 (1963) 617-— 
31. D. Fernandez, De marivlogia sancti Epiphanii (Rome 
1968). H.G. Thümmel, “Die bilderfeindlichen Schriften 
des Epiphanios von Salamis,” BS 47 (1986) 169-88. 
-B.B., A.M.T. 


EPIPHANIOS HAGIOPOLITES, the author of 
the first Byz. description of the Holy Land; fl. 
end of the 8th C. (J. Darrouzés in DHGE 15 
[1963] 615) or in the gth C. (Hunger, Lit. 1:517). 
Nothing is known of him. His short PROSKYNE- 
TARION begins with his journey via Cyprus and 
Tyre to Jerusalem, from which he took trips to 
Alexandria, “the great Babylon of the Pharaoh,” 
Raithou, and Mt. Sinai, and to Gethsemane, the 
Jordan River, and Galilee. The Loca sancta de- 
scribed are connected with the Old Testament 
(Joseph’s warehouses, Moses’ miracles); with Christ, 
the Virgin, and people related to them (e.g., the 
tomb of Lazarus); and with some saints (the tomb 
of Kyros and John in Edessa). Certain monasteries 
are named, as are the places where the patriarch 
of Jerusalem officiated. Some sentences of Epi- 
phanios duplicate a section of a legend about 
Constantine I the Great, but it remains unclear 
which of the texts has priority. Neither the Arab 
presence nor Charlemagne’s protectorate are 
mentioned. Epiphanios used to be confused with 
his namesake from Constantinople, the hagiog- 
rapher who compiled vitae of the apostle ANDREW 
and of the Virgin. 

ED. H. Donner, “Palastina-Beschreibung des Epiphanios 
Hagiopolita,” ZDPV 87 (1971) 42—91, with Germ. tr.; with 
Russ. tr. V. Vasil’evskij, “Povesť Epifanija o Ierusalime,” 
PPSb 4.2 (11) (1886). 

tir. A.M. Schneider, “Das Itinerarium des Epiphanios 
Hagiopolita,” ZDPV 63 (1940) 143-54- -A.K. 


EPIPHANY (7a "Emidavia), the feast of lights (ta 
phota), also called ta theophania, celebrating the 
Baptism of Christ in the Jordan River. Epiphany 
originally commemorated not a single event, but 
a mystery, the appearance of salvation in Jesus 
revealed in a cluster of New Testament events, 
principally Jesus’ birth and his baptism. Histori- 
cizing tendencies in the 4th C. led to a separation 
of the cluster: the NATIviTy was moved to 25 Dec. 
and the Baptism was then celebrated by itself on 
6 Jan. The feast gained importance during the 
controversies over the divine origins of Christ and 
with the subsequent definitions of the First Coun- 
cil of NICAEA. 

Epiphany is celebrated with a solemnity matched, 
among the fixed GreaT Feasts, only by that ac- 
companying the Nativity. There is a preparatory 
Sunday, a four-day forefeast, a paramone vigil (as 
before the Nativity) that includes a blessing of the 
waters, a SYNAXIS honoring JOHN THE BAPTIST on 
the day following the feast (7 Jan.), and eight days 
of afterfeast (Mateos, Typicon 1:174-91). The 
blessing of the waters, an important part of the 
ritual, is attested already in 387 at Antioch by 
John Chrysostom (PG 49:365f). According to a 
1oth-C. ceremonial book (De cer., bk.1, chs. 3, 25— 
26), the patriarch and the emperor celebrated the 
vigil at the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr 
at the Daphne Palace and the Epiphany rite itself 
in the Church of Hagia Sophia; on the day of 
Epiphany the emperor, honored at a number of 
receptions by the FAcTIONS, confirmed new MAG- 
ISTROI to office. 

Representation in Art. The feast of the Bap- 
tism of Christ was represented by the grd C. and 
had acquired its standard composition by the 6th 
(Cathedra of Maxrmian): Christ frontal or in pro- 
file in the water, John the Baptist to one side, 
angels to the other, the dove descending in a light- 
burst from above, the personified Jorpan below. 
Post-Iconoclastic versions added a cross in the 
water, referring to the cross at the pilgrimage site 
‘in Palestine (Hosios Loukas); two disciples and 
the axe at the root of a tree (cf. Lk 3:9; MENO- 
LOGION OF BasiL II, p.299); swimmers, linking 
this with John’s other baptisms; and a dragon in 
the depths, associating Christ’s descent into the 
water with his descent into Hades (see ANASTASIS). 
The Baptistery at Hacia Sopuia in Constantino- 
ple (by 1200) embedded the Baptism in a cycle of 
scenes of John’s ministry. In Palaiologan art the 


EPIROS 715 


Baptism was incorporated in such a five- to seven- 
scene cycle, and Christ’s precipitous descent into 
the water was emphasized to permit analogies 
with his descent into the cave at birth and into 
Hades at death. Only in miniatures in the 12th- 
C. MS, Chicago, Univ. Lib. 965 (fols.37r, 61v) is 
the Baptism separated from the descent of the 
Spirit in accordance with Scripture (Lk 3:21-22). 

LIT. Talley, Liturgical Year, esp. 112-34. M. Dubarle et 
al., Noél, Epiphanie, retour du Christ (Paris 1967). Millet, 
Recherches 170-209. Underwood, Kariye Djami 4:252-76. 
D. Mouriki, “Revival Themes with Elements of Daily Life 


in Two Palaeologan Frescoes Depicting the Baptism,” in 
Okeanos 458-88. -R.F.T., A.W.C. 


EPIROS ('Hreipos), northwestern Greece, a 
mountainous area between the Pinpos and the 
Ionian Sea, with a rich coastal area, important for 
its connections with the West. Perhaps under Dio- 
cletian the province of Epiros was separated from 
ACHAIA, and by the time of the VERONA List 
(produced between 328 and 337) it was divided 
into the provinces of Old Epiros (in the south) 
and New Epiros (in the north), both administra- 
tively part of the diocese of Moesia, later trans- 
ferred to that of Macedonia. According to Hiero- 
kles (Hierokl. 651.3—654.1), Old Epiros (capital 
NIkopo.uis) had 12 cities and New Epiros (capital 
DYRRACHION) had nine. The area was plundered 
by the Vandals in the 5th C. and many of its cities 
were fortified or refortified by Justinian 1 (F. 
Wozniak in Nikopolis, ed. E. Chrysos [Preveza 1987] 
263-67). Epiros was overrun by the Slavs in the 
late 6th—7th C. and most of the cities disappeared. 

Restoration of Byz. contro] came largely from 
the sea beginning in the 8th C. The themes of 
Dyrrachion and Nikopolis were created in the gth 
C. By the end of the 12th C. many smaller terri- 
torial units were organized: a chrysobull of 1198 
lists the provinces of Dyrrachion, “Jericho et Cani- 
non,” IOANNINA, Drynoupolis, and Nikopolis; some 
of them included private units—episkepseis, called 
pertinentia in the ParTITIO. ROMANIAE (in Arta, 
Acheloos, Lesiana, etc.); the Partitio also lists “char- 
tolarata” of Glavinica and of Bagenetia. In the 
igth C. an independent principality (see Epiros, 
DESPOTATE OF) emerged, engulfing all these areas. 

Epiros was inhabited by Greeks, Slavs, Alba- 
nians, and Vacas; Italians also penetrated the 
area. The ecclesiastical center of Epiros until ca.800 
was Nikopolis; it was later succeeded by Naupak- 


716 | EPIROS, DESPOTATE OF 


tos, whose suffragans in the 10th C. were Boun- 
ditza (probably not Bouponirza?), Aetos, Ache- 
loos, Rogoi (or ARTA), loannina, Photike or Bella, 
Adrianoupolis (Drynoupolis), and BourHROTON 
(Notitiae CP 7:575-83). Many early Christian 
churches have been found, esp. at Nikopolis and 
along the coast, while later monuments are more 
common in the interior, esp. around Arta. 

LIT. TIB 3:37—97. E. Chrysos, “Symbole sten historia tes 
Epeirou kata ten protobyzantine epoche (d'-st' aiona),” 


EpChron 23 (1981) g—104. D. Pallas, RBK 2:207~334. 
~T.EG. 


EPIROS, DESPOTATE OF, one of the indepen- 
dent Greek states established after the fall of 
Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Cru- 
sade, along with the empires of NICAEA and TRE- 
BIZOND. The term despotaton can be properly ap- 
plied only for the 14th-15th C.; it is first used in 
a chrysobull of 1342. Although related to the 
ANGELOS dynasty in Constantinople, the early rul- 
ers of Epiros used the family names Komnenos 
and Doukas. The state was founded by MICHAEL 
I Komnenos Doukas, who gained control of the 
entire northwestern coast of Greece and much of 
Thessaly. His ambitious brother THEODORE KoM- 
NENOS Doukas captured Onrip in 1216. Theo- 
dore, who dreamed of recovering Constantinople, 
took Thessalonike from the Latins in 1224 and 
was crowned as emperor, thus briefly setting him- 
self up as a rival to the emperor of Nicaea. In 
1242, however, Theodore’s son John was forced 
by Jonn III VatatzeEs to substitute the title des- 
potes for “emperor,” and in 1246 Thessalonike 
was annexed by Nicaea. During the reign of Mi- 
CHAEL II Komnenos Doukas, Nicene forces tem- 
porarily conquered much of Epiros after the bat- 
tle of PELAGONIA (1259). But Epiros recovered its 
independence by 1264 and continued to be ruled 
by Greek despotai until 1318, when it came under 
the control of the Italian Orsini family (1318—37). 

After a brief period of restoration of Greek 
rule, Epiros was occupied by the Serbs in 1348. 
The CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA describes the un- 
popular rule of THomas PRELJUBOviC¢ over loan- 
nina from 1366/7 to 1384, while Arta was gov- 
erned by the Albanian clan of Spata. In the late 
14th C. Ioannina returned to Italian control, first 
under the Florentine Esau Buondelmonti (1385— 
1411) and then under the house of Tocco, which 
also acquired Arta from the Albanians. Epiros 


was conquered by the Ottomans in the 15th C.; 
Ioannina fell in 1430, Arta in 1449. The geo- 
graphical isolation of Epiros, esp. the barrier of 
the PInDos mountain range, enabled it to remain 
separate from the Byz. Empire until the Turkish 
conquest, but the Byz. emperors always regarded 
rulers of Epiros as rebels and maintained the right 
to confer the title DESPOTES. 

In the 13th C. Epiros was populated primarily 
by Greeks alongside whom lived Slavs (for whom 
the names of Macedonians, Bulgarians, and 
DrovucosirEs were used), ALBANIANS, VLACHS, 
Jews, Turks, Armenians, and Latins. The surviv- 
ing documents reflect a society composed primar- 
ily of free peasants who formed communities and 
enjoyed the right of protimesis. Towns had a 
strong landowner class, mostly free peasants; de- 
pendent peasants were rare (D. Angelov, Izvestija 
na Kamarata na narodnata kultura, serija: Humani- 
tarni nauki 4.3 [Sofia 1947] 3—46). The region 
consisted of several themes (e.g., Bagenetia, Ache- 
loos, Skopje, and Drama) which normally in- 
cluded a single town and its environs; the gover- 
nor of a theme was usually called doux, but also 
kephale, energon, etc. (D. Angelov, BS 12 [1951] 


Greek Despotai of Epiros and Emperors at 
Thessalonike (1205—1318) 


Ruler Reign Dates 
MICHAEL I KOMNENOS 

Doukas, ruler of Epiros 1205~1215 
THEODORE KOMNENOS DOUKAS 

ruler of Epiros 1215—1230 


emperor at Thessalonike 1224/5? Or 1227-1230 


Manuel Angelos, emperor at 


Thessalonike 1230-1237 
John 

emperor at Thessalonike 1237-1242 

despotes at Thessalonike 1242-1244 
DEMETRIOS ANGELOS DOUKAS, 

despotes at Thessalonike 1244-1246 


MIcHae- I] KOMNENOS 
Douxas, ruler of Epiros 
(despotes of Epiros from 
ca.1249) 

NIKEPHOROS I KOMNENOS 
Doukas, despotes of Epiros 


ca.1230—1266/8 


1266/8— 1296/8 
Thomas, despotes of Epiros 1296-1318 


Source: Based on Nicol, Epiros H 252, with modifications. 


59—62). (See table for a list of the rulers of Epiros 
from 1205 to 1318.) 

LIT. D.M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros (Oxford 1957), 
rev. L. Stiernon, REB 17 (1959) go—-126. D.M. Nicol, The 


Despotate of Epiros, 1267—1479 (Cambridge 1984). 
—A.M.T., A.K. 


EPISCOPALIS AUDIENTIA, identified in the 
Codex Justinianus as the juridical powers and priv- 
ileges conferred upon bishops. Actually, Christian 
leaders had heard and decided disputes involving 
members of their local congregations since Chris- 
tian antiquity. Only under Constantine I did such 
arbitration receive official recognition. Constan- 
tine introduced the episcopal tribunal into Roman 
civil legal procedure by ordering that either party 
in a suit might have the case heard by a bishop. 
By the early 5th C., however, the government 
modified this, restricting the bishop’s juridical 
powers to mediation and stipulating that both 
parties to the dispute had to consent (cf. Cod. Just. 
I. 4.7, 8). In sum, episcopal judicial activity in civil 
matters had ceased to exist, except in the form of 
arbitration inter volentes (“between willing [par- 
ties]”). Under Justinian I, however, a layman in- 
volved in a dispute with a cleric was once again 
able to bring his case to the bishop’s court (nov.86). 
Moreover, a law of Herakleios (Reg 1, no.199) 
stipulated that all civil suits brought against clerics 
in Constantinople were to be heard by the patri- 
arch (cf. the later decree of Alexios I, Reg 1, 
no.1071). 

In trials involving clergy the bishop continued 
to act as judge. Episcopal tribunals, in fact, had 
jurisdiction over all civil and disciplinary cases in 
which the litigants were clergy. Conciliar legisla- 
tion insisted that such trials were the exclusive 
concern of ecclesiastical courts and that clerics 
could settle their differences only in such courts 
(Council of CHALCEDON, canon Q). 

tir. G. Vismara, Episcopalis Audientia (Milan 1937). A.P. 
Christophilopoulos, “He dikaiodosia ton ekklesiastikon di- 
kasterion epi idiotikon diaphoron kata ten byzantinen per- 
iodon,” EEBS 18 (1948) 192—201. J.N. Bakhuizen van den 
Brink, Episcopalis Audientia (Amsterdam 1956). W. Selb, 
“Episcopalis audientia von der Zeit Konstantins bis zur 
Nov.XXXV Valentinians III,” ZSavRom 84 (1967) 162- 
217. A. Michel, “Ein Bischofsprozess bei Michael Kerulla- 
rios,” BZ 41 (1941) 447-52- —A.P. 


EPISKEPSIS (ézioxeyis, lit. “care, inspection”), 
a fiscal term with three different meanings. (1) 


EPISTOLAE AUSTRASICAE | 717 


Most commonly, it refers to a particular property 
belonging to the imperial domain (basilike episke- 
psis—Délger, Beiträge 120.19), a fiscal unit com- 
posed of a collection of properties held by the 
emperor or a member of the imperial family and 
sometimes by other individuals (in 10th—13th-C. 
documents). The monastery of Patmos was granted 
annually 700 modioi of grain from the emperor’s 
episkepseis on Crete but, at the end of the 12th C., 
it was impossible to provide the monastery with 
grain, since the government had given these epi- 
skepseis over to some local nobles for a cash pay- 
ment (MM 6:131.6—10). (2) Episkepsis could refer 
to a fiscal division of a THEME (in documents up 
to the 12th C.). (3) The term was also used to 
describe the actual daily “administration of prop- 
erty,” particularly of imperial property. 

LIT. Délger, Beiträge 151. D. Zakythenos, “Meletai peri 
tes dioiketikes diaireseos kai eparchikes dioikeseos en to 
Byzantino kratei,” EEBS 17 (1942) 34-36. N. Oikonomides, 
“He dianome ton basilikon ‘episkepseon’ tes Kretes,” Pe- 


pragmena tou B’ diethnous Kretologikou synedriou 3 (Athens 
1968) 195—201. Jacoby, Société, pt. VI (1967), 423. -M.B. 


EPISKEPTITES (é7toKenrtirys), a subaltern of- 
ficial mentioned in the gth-C. Kletorologion of 
PHILOTHEOS; there were episkeptita: in the depart- 
ments of the promos, the EPARCH OF THE CITY, 
the agelai (see LOGOTHETES TON AGELON), and the 
KOURATORES. The majority of them were admin- 
istrators of imperial domains (the so-called EPI- 
SKEPSIS), such as the protospatharios Stephen, epi- 
skeptites of the imperial ktemata in 996 (Ivir. 11, 
no. 10.6). Episkeptitai of several locations, small and 
large (including Peloponnesos and Armeniakon), 
are mentioned on seals. Ecclesiastical episkeptita 
were accountants dispatched by the OIKONOMOS 
(MM 5:355-31)- 

uit. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 132f. Oikonomides, Listes 
312. —A.K. 


EPISTOLAE AUSTRASICAE, collection of let- 
ters assembled at Metz late in the 6th C. that 
documents Byz. DIPLOMACY and military relations 
with the Merovingian Franks. This activity was 
prompted chiefly by Constantinople’s efforts to 
buy effective military support for Byz. operations 
in Italy. King Theudebert I sent two letters to 
Justinian I (eps. 19—20, between 536 and 538 and 
546/7, respectively) and one letter to King Theu- 


718 | EPISTOLAE VISIGOTICAE 


debald (ep.18, ca.548/g). Epistle 48 went to a 
Lombard leader in connection with Byz. efforts 
to defend reconquered Italy under Justin II (W. 
Goffart, Traditio 13 [1957] 77—82) or Tiberios I, 
while the largest group reveals relations of Chil- 
debert IJ and Brunichildis with Emp. Maurice, 
who expressed dissatisfaction with Frankish co- 
operation in a letter of 1 Sept. 584 (Reg 1, no.83). 
Epistles 43—45 were probably carried to Constan- 
tinople in 586 in an attempt to liberate Bruni- 
childis’s nephew, held hostage there. Fourteen 
letters introduced the Frankish ambassadors dis- 
patched to Byz. in connection with the attack on 
Italy in 588. Their addressees include members 
of the imperial family, the patriarch, and leading 
court officials and show how the Franks under- 
stood the structure of power in Constantinople. 
Other letters concern Frankish cooperation with 
the EXARCHS of Italy Smaragdus (ep.46) and Ro- 
manus (eps. 40—41). 

ep. W. Gundlach, MGH Epust. 3:111-53. Cf. D. Nor- 


berg, Eranos 35 (1937) 105-15. 
LIT. E. Ewig, Die Merowinger und das Imperium (Opladen 


1983). —M.McC. 


EPISTOLAE VISIGOTICAE, 7th-C. collection of 
letters that preserves the courteous correspon- 
dence of Sisebut, king of the VisicoTHs, and 
Caesarius, patrikios and governor of Byz. Spain. 
Their contents concern negotiations with Con- 
stantinople ca.615 (F. Görres, BZ 16 [1907] 530— 
32) for a peace treaty to end Gothic military 
successes against the Byz. during the disastrous 
early period of the reign of Herakleios. 

ED. Miscellanea Wisigotica, ed. J. Gil (Seville 1972) 3-14. 
W. Gundlach, MGH Epist. 3:661—go. 

LIT. T.C. Lounghis, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident 


depuis la fondation des états barbares jusqu'aux Croisades (407— 
1090) (Athens 1980) 106f, 422f. —M.McC. 


EPISTOLOGRAPHY, or the art of writing let- 
ters, a genre of Byz. literature akin to RHETORIC, 
popular with the intellectual elite. Copious ex- 
amples survive from all periods, in more than 150 
published collections containing approximately 
15,000 letters (Mullett, infra 75). Antecedents for 
the form exist from the classical period (e.g., the 
letters of Aristotle or Plato, whether genuine or 
spurious, or those of Herodes Atticus), and also 
in the Pauline Epistles of the New Testament, 
which themselves show awareness of Hellenistic 


epistolary practice (as described by, e.g., pseudo- 
Demetrios, On Style, chs. 223-35). Byz. letters 
preserved substantial elements of the ancient 
genre—in form, composition, and the system of 
imagery; direct quotations and borrowings were 
very common. 

The first flowering of the Byz. letter, combining 
influences from both the Christian tradition and 
the classical Greek, appeared in the 4th C. with 
the collections of Emp. JULIAN, LiBanios, SYNE- 
sios, and the CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS (who became 
a model and quarry for later writers). To this 
period also belongs the fictitious correspondence 
of the apostle Paul with the philosopher Seneca 
that survives only in a Latin version. After the 
4th C., letter writing became less fashionable, al- 
though some voluminous collections are pre- 
served (esp. that of IsipoRE OF PELOUSION); after 
Theophylaktos SIMOKATTES the genre virtually 
disappears until its revival by THEODORE OF STOU- 
bios and Puotios. Thereafter it plays a leading 
role as a literary genre, becoming esp. popular in 
the Palaiologan period. The peak of epistolo- 
graphic activity falls in the 11th-12th C., when 
such masters as PsELLOS, EUSTATHIOS OF THES- 
SALONIKE, Gregory ANTIOCHOS, and Michael 
CuoniatTes worked, and John TzeTzEs created an 
original, albeit unwieldy, genre of letters accom- 
panied by verse commentaries. 

The theoreticians of late Roman rhetoric, HER- 
MOGENES and APHTHONIOS, ignored epistologra- 
phy, but it is discussed by other theoreticians of 
the SECOND Sopuistic and later, esp. in the pseu- 
donymous Epistolary Characters (between the 4th 
and 6th C.) wrongly attributed to either Libanios 
(J. Sykutris, BNJbb 7 [1930] 108-18) or Proklos. 
Theon of Alexandria (1st-2nd C.) classed epis- 
tolography as a PROGYMNASMA under the heading 
of ETHOPoIIA, or character drawing, for the op- 
portunities it gave to depict character. Pseudo- 
Proklos suggested a definition of the letter as a 
written conversation (homilia) between people who 
are separated and produced a sophisticated cate- 
gorization of 41 types of letter. He emphasized 
the ideals of clarity (sapheneia) and reasonable 
length. The clearest indication of the Byz. concept 
of the ideal letter can be found in letters that 
themselves discuss the form, as in the letter of 
GREGORY OF Nazianzos to his nephew (ep.51, ed. 
Gallay). There he recommends that letters should 
be brief, clear, and phrased like a conversation 


with an absent friend and should treat serious 
topics with elegant expression. Epistolography re- 
ceived no attention in the general handbooks until 
the 14th C., when Joseru RHAKENDYTES devoted 
a chapter to it in his encyclopedia. The technique 
of letter writing was presumably taught by ex- 
ample from model collections, such as MS Patmos 
706. 

Byz. letters survive mainly in copies, with the 
exception of numerous papyri and late letters that 
were preserved in the fabric of bookbindings (J. 
Darrouzés, REB 22 [1964] 72f and n.3). They 
were nearly always intended for publication, either 
in the sense of public reading or through circu- 
lation as a collection. Some collections of letters 
were made from copies kept by the authors, oth- 
ers were gathered from the recipients by a later 
editor. Evidently many an author (e.g., John 
Tzetzes) rearranged and edited his letters before 
issuing the collection. Letters were frequently, if 
not normally, meant to be read aloud, not just to 
the intended recipient but also to an appreciative 
audience. Evidence for such occasions is intermit- 
tent but persistent from the 4th C. to the Palaio- 
logan period. In this way epistolography filled the 
gap created by the disappearance of the THEATER; 
like rhetoric in general, letter writing uses theat- 
rical terminology. 

Byz. lacked regular mail service. Imperial letters 
were sent with special couriers; private individuals 
used friends, casual acquaintances, or servants as 
letter bearers (grammatophoroi). Letter writers 
sometimes complain of the difficulties of finding 
a suitable emissary. For example, the governor 
Theodore Branas dispatched a letter announcing 
the invasion of the Cumans with a monk who was 
walking to an annual panegyris in the town of 
Kouperion; the monk, however, “stuffed the let- 
ter in his bosom and consigned it to the darkness 
of his black robes,” and failed to deliver it 
(Nik.Chon. 500.78—g2). The grammatophoros was 
supposed to be a “living letter” (empsychos epistole) 
and convey factual information, while the letter 
served as a literary ornament added to the mes- 
sage. Often the letter was accompanied with a gift 
that could range from a book to fish and fruit. 

Letters can usefully be divided according to 
their purpose, into official, private, and literary 
examples. The letters dispatched by emperors, 
patriarchs (NicHoLas I, ATHANASIOS I), and off- 
cials, as well as petitions addressed to them, func- 


EPISTOLOGRAPHY | 719 


tioned as documents and were eventually quoted 
and referred to as such; some official letters are 
preserved in the minutes of meetings where they 
had been read aloud. Private letters were limited 
to the exchange of opinions between two corre- 
spondents, whereas literary letters were addressed 
(at least by implication) to a broader audience and 
often dealt with invented persons and situations. 
According to their content, letters can be divided 
into diplomatic, theological, and scholarly ex- 
amples; letters of recommendation, indoctrina- 
tion, and censure; and letters of consolation. Many 
letters express only banal politeness and standard 
friendship with conventional complaints about the 
correspondent’s silence. The erotic letter died out 
after ARISTAINETOS. 

The letter was not clearly distinct from related 
genres. The connection between conversation, 
homily, and letter was close, and a number of 
sermons exist in letter form. A letter could grow 
into a theological tract, as did Photios’s lengthy 
letter to ASot I (ed. B. Laourdas, L. Westerink, 3 
[1985] 4-97), or into a historical work, such as 
the epistle of the monk THEODosios to Deacon 
Leo on the capture of Syracuse in 880 (Hunger, 
Lit. 1:359f). The preamble to a major work could 
take the form of a letter; Photios’s letter to his 
brother Tarasios introduces his BIBLIOTHECA. On 
the other hand, larger literary works could in- 
clude letters; thus Kantakouzenos (Kantak. 3:94.2— 
99.9) quoted in his History the vernacular letter of 
the sultan of Egypt. 

Though the Byz. letter may have aimed at orig- 
inality combined with ornamentation and ele- 
gance in phrasing, variation in theme was not so 
important. A standard structure evolved, includ- 
ing—as expected—a greeting, inquiries after the 
correspondent’s health, statements of the subject 
matter, and closing expressions of good will. Un- 
der Christian influence, however, certain for- 
merly standard phrases changed. ‘l’hus in the 
exordium the old formula “A greets B” was usu- 
ally replaced by “B is greeted by A,” since accord- 
ing to the Christian tradition of tapeinotes (see 
Mopesty, Toros oF) it was improper for the 
author to place himself first. Alongside the old 
formulaic conclusion “Be healthy” appears an 
elaborate prayer for divine blessing on the ad- 
dressee and his family. The letter was considered 
a rhetorical piece, and the correspondent some- 
times asked to be forgiven for his inadequacies. 


720 | EPISTYLE 


Special attention was paid to prooimia that showed 
the correspondent’s extensive knowledge of bib- 
lical and classical literature. Formulaic content was 
accompanied by vivid observations, witty jokes, 
and expression of true feelings. Certain topics 
recur, giving scope for the writer’s ingenuity in 
phraseology: the letter was a sign of friendship, 
it was a gift, it revealed the sender’s soul, it united 
separated friends while lamenting the distance 
that divided them and the loneliness this entailed. 
It must be remembered that the real subject mat- 
ter of a letter was often delivered orally by the 
courier; hence, though obscurity for its own sake 
was not recommended, letters frequently contain 
generalities rather than specific details, thus in- 
creasing the already existing trends toward “de- 
concretization” and abstraction. At times, and esp. 
when a writer can be detected borrowing phrases 
and even complete letters from other authors, 
one feels that Byz. letters rarely include any “real” 
information. 

Nevertheless, the genre is an important source 
for studying Byz. history and culture. Many de- 
scribe or allude to crucial events and are esp. 
useful for establishing the relations between var- 
ious members of the intelligentsia and the intel- 
lectual atmosphere of the empire. Because letters 
are part of a conversation rather than a source of 
direct information, the chronology and identifi- 
cation of the persons or events mentioned may 
be difficult; the problem is sometimes alleviated 
by the presence of LEMMATA, or headings, with 
some factual indications, or by the existence of 
chronologically ordered collections of letters, fre- 
quently prepared by the author himself (Tzetzes, 
Michael Choniates, etc.). Sometimes, however, the 
lemmata were added by a later editor and provide 
erroneous information on the names and offices 
of the addressees. Another problem is that ficti- 
tious letters can be intermixed with real ones or 
form a special collection. In MS tradition the body 
of the correspondence is usually divided, with the 
letters of each correspondent forming a separate 
unit; the establishment of interconnected pairs 
remains, as a rule, problematic. 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:199—239. J. Sykutris, RE supp. 5 
(1931) 218-20. N. Tomadakes, Byzantine epistolographia* 
(Athens 1969). M. Mullett, “The Classical Tradition in the 
Byzantine Letter,” in Classical Tradition 75-93. J. Dar- 
rouzes, Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle (Paris 1960). Idem, 


“Un recueil épistolaire du XIIe siècle,” REB 30 (1972) 199— 
229. V.A. Smetanin, “Teoretiteskaja časť epistolologii i 


konkretno-istorigeskij efarmosis pozdnej Vizantii,” ADSV 
16 (1979) 58-93. Idem, Vizantijskoe obščestvo XHI-XV vekov 
po dannym epistolografu (Sverdlovsk 1987). G.T. Dennis, “The 
Byzantines as Revealed in their Letters,” in Gonimes. Neo- 
platonic and Byzantine Studies Preented to L.G. Westerink at 75 
(Buffalo, N.Y., 1988) 155-65. —E.M.J., A.K. 


EPISTYLE (émic7ridtov, okós), or architrave, 
lower part of the Roman ENTABLATURE, the beam 
of the Byz. TEMPLON. Already from the 6th C. 
epistyles are decorated with figures of Christ and 
saints (S. Xydis, ArtB 29 [1947] 8). The Deesis 
appears on the most important epistyles of the 
1oth—11th C., most of them found in Asia Minor 
(J.-P. Sodini, Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie Antique 
[Paris 1980] 130-33). These are carved in marble 
and inlaid with glass paste and mastic, evoking 
more elaborate epistyles of the period known to 
have been decorated with enamels (TheophCont 
331.1) and perhaps ivory plaques (K. Weitzmann 
in Festschrift fiir Karl Hermann Usener [Marburg 
1967] 11-20). Ordinary examples of the 10th— 
11th C. display geometric patterns, intercon- 
nected roundels, or arcaded patterns filled with 
palmettes, with a cross at the center, bosses, and, 
often, animals at either end. A richer vocabulary 
and an awakened interest in plasticity are evident 
from the 12th C., esp. in Greece (L. Bouras, 
DChAE* g [1977—79] 71). From the late 11th C. 
the epistyle is often surmounted by an elongated 
panel with the Deesis, the GREAT FEASTS, scenes 
from the life of a patron saint, or portraits of the 
apostles (K. Weitzmann in Byz. und der Westen 
163). 


LIT. M. Chatzidakis, RBK 3:329—-38. Grabar, Sculptures 
II 44f, 47-49, 111f. —L.Ph.B. 


EPITAPHIOS (émrdduos), technical term with 
two meanings. 

Liturgical Cloth. The large piece of silk used in 
the Burial of Christ procession at the Holy Sat- 
urday orthros, symbolically interpreted as the bier 
of Christ, was called an epitaphios. Epitaphior are 
usually embroidered either with the image of the 
Dead Christ (AMNos) or with the Lamentation 
(threnos) and inscriptions. They evolved from Late 
Byz. AERES, which they resemble in their overall 
shape and figural decoration, but the texts on the 
epitaphiot derive from Paschal hymns, esp. the 
troparion beginning Noble Joseph. The appearance 


EPITAPHIOS | 721 





Eprrapuios. Epitaphios of Nicholas Eudaimonoiannes. Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 


of epitaphioi as distinct liturgical cloths coincided 
with the formalization of the Holy Saturday ritual 
in the early 14th C. Surviving Byz. epitaphioi, all 
fine gold and silk EmBROIDERIES, include those of 
John of Skopje (1349) and Syropoulos (late 14th 
C.), both at Hilandar; of Nicholas Eudaimo- 
noioannes (ca.1407, in the Victoria and Albert 
Museum, London); and that of Euphemia and 
Eupraxia (ca.1405, Putna). 

LIT. Millet, Broderies 86—109, pls. 176-216. Idem, “L’ep- 
itaphios: l'image,” CRAI (1942) 408-19. Johnstone, Church 
Embroidery 25f, 36—40, pls. 93-120. Taft, Great Entrance 
216-19. -A.G. 

Funeral Speech (éurdduos AOyos). MENANDER 
RHETOR distinguished several types of epitaphios: 
a pure ENKOMION (usually delivered some time 
after the death of the person commemorated), 
MONODY, consolatory speech (PARAMYTHETIKOS), 
and epitaphios proper; in the three last types the 
elements of praise, lamentation, and consolation 
are to be mixed in different proportions. 

Byz. practice did not retain this categorization, 
and rhetoricians employed the terms indiffer- 


ently. Encomiastic epitaphiot were composed to 
commemorate biblical personages or saints, usu- 
ally in connection with the translation of relics; 
they formed a kind of sermon. Secular epitaphioi 
were pronounced or written, in prose or verse, 
relatively soon after the death of their subject. 
The subjects of epitaphiot were emperors, patri- 
archs or other ecclesiastics, relatives or friends of 
the rhetorician, and—esp. from the late 11th C.— 
members of the high aristocracy. Apart from the 
insights they can offer into the structure of family 
life (e.g., George TORNIKIOS on Anna Konmene’s 
upbringing), epitaphioi frequently provide valu- 
able prosopographical information and other his- 
torical details. 

In late Roman epitaphioi praise and lamentation 
prevail: in Himerios and Lipanios the mention 
of blessed future life (makarismos) is minor. Even 
later, in the lamentation included in DIGENES AK- 
RITAS, the theme of the irrevocability of the loss 
predominates. Under Christian influence, how- 
ever, the theme of consolation was added, and 
the rhetor began to downplay the feeling of loss 


722 | EPITELEIA 


and to emphasize the forthcoming heavenly re- 
ward. Normally conventional and objectified, epi- 
taphioi sometimes became a means to express per- 
sonal emotions, as in the monody on Stephen 
Skylitzes by Theodore Propromos. On the other 
hand, some writers exercised their skill in mock- 
heroic laments for dead birds (Constantine Ma- 
NASSES, MICHAEL ITALIKOS). 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:132~—45. J. Soffel, Die Regeln Men- 
anders fiir die Leichenrede (Meisenheim an Glan 1974). D. 
Hadzis, “Was bedeutet ‘Monodie’ in der byzantinischen 
Literatur?,” Byzantinistische Beiträge (Berlin 1964) 177-85. 
A.C. Danelli, “Sul genere letterario delle orazioni funebri 
di Gregorio di Nissa,” Aevum 53 (1979) 140-61. J. Alissan- 
dratos, “The Structure of the Funeral Oration in John 
Chrysostom’s Eulogy of Meletius,” BS/EB 7 (1980) 182-98. 
A. Sideras, “Byzantinische Leichenreden,” Leichenpredigten 


als Quelle historischer Wissenschaft, vol. 3 (Marburg 1988) 17— 
49. ~AK., EMJ. 


EPITELEIA (émurédeva, from epiteleo, “to pay in 
full”), a fiscal term designating various cash pay- 
ments of taxes or other charges that ordinarily 
were due the fisc. The term appears in documents 
(predominantly praktika and acts of sale) from 
1209 (MM 4:121.17—19) through the end of the 
empire. Ahrweiler has discerned three basic situ- 
ations among the numerous fiscal procedures in 
which the term and its derivatives were employed. 
(1) When real property was transferred between 
private parties, the recipient agreed to pay the 
seller (or donor) an annual epiteleca designed to 
cover the fiscal charges burdening the property 
until the revision of the praktika. (2) If the transfer 
involved property for which the seller had 
EXKOUSSEIA, the buyer agreed to continue paying 
the seller an annual epiteleia to cover the amount 
of the exkousseia. (3) In a common form of pronoia 
grant, the fiscal charges burdening one party, 
which were alienated by the fisc for the benefit of 
another party, were called an epiteleia, which the 
recipient of the grant received for life or several 
generations. There appears to be no correlation 
between the size and price of property and its 
epiteleia (Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnoseniya 158f), though 
documented rates for epiteleiai, while varying 
greatly, tended to approximate or slightly exceed 
rates of fiscal assessment. 

LIT. Ahrweiler, Structures, pt.V (1954), 71-93; pt.VI 
(1957), 369-72. Docheiar. 141f. C. Zuckerman, “The Dis- 


honest Soldier Constantine Planites and His Neighbours,” 
Byzantion 56 (1986) 314-31. —M.B. 


EPI TES KATASTASEOS (èri r7js katraotáoews, 
lit. “chief of presentations”). Since katastasis also 
means “order,” Bury (Adm. System 118f) rendered 
the title as master of ceremonies and connected 
the epi tes katastaseos with the late Roman comes 
dispositionum; G. Ostrogorsky and E. Stein (Byzan- 
tion 7 [1932] 206-10) noted that the scrinium dis- 
positionum is unknown after 534 and connected 
this official with the comes admissionum. The 10th- 
C. De ceremoniis links the epi tes katastaseos with 
SILENTIARIOI and even considered him as one of 
the szlentiarioi (De cer. 238.4) and as a member of 
the kouboukleion (503.5—6), the service of the im- 
perial bedchamber. The gth-C. TAKTIKON of Us- 
penski refers to him twice (Oikonomides, Listes 
57-25, 59-17), situating him first between the pro- 
tonotarios of the dromos and the archon of the ar- 
mamenton, that is, among the civil officials, and 
secondly, at the bottom of the list of courtiers, 
concurring with the information of the De, cere- 
monwus. Another problem is raised by the Kletoro- 
logion of PHILOTHEOS, which defines the post as a 
special axia (ibid., 109.7) and states that its staff 
consisted of hypatoi, vestitores, silentiarior, and syn- 
kletikoi (1 25.8—12), who at least in part were dig- 
nitaries rather than court officials. 


LIT. Oikonomides, Listes 309. ~A.K. 


EPI TES TRAPEZES (6 èri THs Tpa7élns), aulic 
courtier in charge of imperial banquets; he intro- 
duced guests, together with the PINKERNES waited 
upon the emperor, and delivered dishes from the 
emperor’s table to the guests. The epi tes trapezes 
was a eunuch; seals from the 8th C. onward in- 
dicate that he sometimes combined his duties with 
those of the KOUBIKOULARIOS Or PARAKOIMOME- 
Nos. The vita of MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR men- 
tions an epi tes trapezes as existing in the mid-7th 
C., but this evidence must be used with caution 
since the text is of later date. Some epi tes trapezes 
commanded troops and fulfilled special state as- 
signments. Seibt distinguished the epi tes trapezes 
from the domestikos tes trapezes (known from 680 
onward) who was not a eunuch. The epi tes trapezes 
possessed a varied staff, called hypourgia, and was 
assisted by a domestikos tes hypourgias. Along with 
the emperor’s epi tes trapezes there was a banquet 
chief for the empress, known both from the TAK- 
TIKA and from seals (Seibt, Bleisiegel, nos. 48—49). 
Seibt hypothesizes that in the 7th C. the epi tes 


trapezes assumed the major functions of the kas- 
TRESIOS; ca.800 certain of these functions were in 
the hands of the kENaRIOS. From the 13th C. both 
epi tes trapezes and domestikos tes trapezes were high 


ranks conferred on nobles; among the holders of 


this dignity were members of such families as 
Tarchaneiotes, Nestongos, and Notaras. Both terms 
appear in later romances (P. Pieler, JOB 20 [1971] 
194, 213, 218). Nikephoros GreGoras relates a 
legend that the dignity of epi tes trapezes, from the 
time of Constantine I the Great, was hereditary 
for the princes of Russia. 

uit. Bury, Adm. System 125f. Guilland, Institutions 1:23°7— 
41. W. Seibt, “Uber das Verhältnis von kenarios bzw. do- 
mestikos tes trapezes zu den anderen Funktiondren der 


basilike trapeza in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit,” BZ 72 (1979) 
34—38. Seibt, Bleisiegel 152-57. —A.K. 


EPITHALAMION (ézfaddmtos Adyos), a speech 
in either prose or verse to celebrate a marriage, 
whether of a private individual or a member of 
the imperial family. Examples survive from the 
4th C. (e.g., Hrmerios, or.g, with a protheora, 
“introduction,” on the principles governing the 
composition of epithalamia); the 6th C. (e.g., CHO- 
RIKIOS OF Gaza, or.5, on a triple wedding, and 
the epithalamion of Dioskoros OF APHRODITO); 
and esp. from the 12th C., when many imperial 
couples were hymned in this way (e.g., Theodore 
PRODROMOS, on the wedding of the sons of Anna 
Komnene and Nikephoros Bryennios). The genre, 
considered a form of ENKOMION, early attracted a 
rich collection of erotic allusions drawn from Greek 
mythology (cf. MENANDER RHETOR, On Epideictic 
Speeches, ch.6), which in the 12th C. combined 
with imperial imagery to produce a new and be- 
wildering exuberance of plant, animal, and cosmic 
symbolism. 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:150. Kennedy, Rhetoric 68f, 147. M. 
Regali, “Forme e motivi dell’epitalamio nella poesia di 


S. Gregorio Nazianzeno,” Muséon g6 (1983) 87—96. 
-E.MJ. 


EPITHET (é7i6erov) can be considered as a rhe- 
torical TROPE (Martin, Rhetorik 264). Greek au- 
thors rarely used the term (e.g., the gnd-C. gram- 
marian Apollonios Dyskolos, in Grammatici graeci, 
ed. R. Schneider, G. Uhling, vol. 2.2 [Leipzig 
1910; rp. Hildesheim 1965] 56f); Latin theoreti- 
cians stressed that epithets were to be used spar- 
ingly. Eustathios of Thessalonike, in his commen- 


EPITIMION | 723 


tary on the Odyssey (Eust.Comm.Od., p.1459.32- 
35), noticed the deliberate use (or avoidance) of 
epithets that would demonstrate the author’s at- 
titude toward heroes. In late Roman and Byz. 
practical aesthetics, epithets acquired an exagger- 
ated importance. First, many writers (pseudo- 
DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE, NONNOS OF PANO- 
POLIS, GERMANOS I) strove to create very long 
epithets, mostly composites, to stimulate the imag- 
ination and to reveal the enigmatic nature of the 
cosmos. Second, the growing role of ceremonial 
in society enhanced the creation of rigidly for- 
malized epithets (the emperor was always eusebes, 
“pious,” the serpent, “wicked” or “creeping”), so 
that the epithet was becoming an antonomasia, that 
is, an appellation substituted for a proper name, 
as the “Queen of Cities” was a designation for 
Constantinople. The individual writer had to rec- 
oncile two contradictory principles—the trend 
toward pompous epithets and the patristic pre- 
scription of plain and “truthful” exposition (the 
latter quality was consistently praised in Photios’s 
BIBLIOTHECA). Byz. literature presents a broad 
range of stylistic approaches, from the matter-of- 
factness of JOHN VI KANTAKOUZENOS to the ag- 
glomeration of epithets in EPIDEICTIC oratory. 


LIT. Averincev, Poetika 109-28. —A.K. 


EPITIMION (ézuriutov), a penalty imposed on a 
penitent by the priest following sacramental 
confession. The term was already in use by the 
4th C. (Basil the Great, PG 32:721A). As a rule 
these penitential exercises, mentioned in Byz. can- 
onical and ascetical literature, presupposed re- 
pentance and consisted of prayer, fasting, Scrip- 
ture reading, prostrations, almsgiving, and, on 
occasion, temporary exclusion from the Eucharist. 
They were distinguished by their largely positive 
character and relative mildness from such formal 
punishments (t2moriat) as EXCOMMUNICATION, SUS- 
pension, or deposition, which were inflicted by 
the church for more serious transgressions such 
as heresy or apostasy. Since sin was understood 
as a disease rather than a legally punishable crime, 
epitima in Byz. penitential practice and theology 
were viewed as corrective remedies, that is, as a 
form of spiritual healing. At any rate, they were 
never reduced to a payment of a fine due to God. 
In sum, the Western juridical notion of sin as a 
violation of the law, in which PENANCE constitutes 


724 | EPITOME LEGUM 


punishment or satisfaction payable to God, is for 
the most part not a feature of Byz. PENITENTIAL 
literature. 

LIT. K. Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen 
Ménchtum (Leipzig 1898). H. Koch, “Zur Geschichte der 
Bussdisziplin und Bussgewalt in der orientalischen Kirche,” 
HistJb 21 (1900) 58-78. G. Wagner, “Bussdisziplin in der 
Tradition des Ostens,” Liturgie et remission des péchés (Rome 
1975) 273-93. J. Grotz, Die Entstehung des Bussstufenwesens 
in der vornicdnischen Kirche (Freiburg im Breisgau 1955). 


EPITOME LEGUM (Extract from the Laws), the 
conventional term for a law book that has been 
transmitted in various versions. The oldest ver- 
sion must have been closely related to the Epitome 
Laurentiana, which contains 50 titles, follows the 
title sequence of the Prochiron and dates to “the 
first year of Constantine, the son of Leo” (913— 
g14?). “In the first year of Romanos” (921) an 
extensive revision of the text was made that al- 
tered also the sequence of titles. The author of 
both these versions must have been the Symbatios 
named in the preface. The aim of the law book 
was presumably an improvement and expansion 
of the Prochiron; the additions, most of them deal- 
ing with private and penal law, were based almost 
exclusively on the Corpus Juris Civilis. The MS 
tradition of the Epitome Legum is limited. The 
published edition (of Zacharia von Lingenthal) is 
based on the MS Oxford Bodl., Barocc. 173, for 
titles 1-23, and on Vat. gr. 2075 (which repre- 
sents another version) for titles 24—45. 

ED. Zepos, Jus 4:261—585, 596—619. 

LIT. Zacharia, Prochiron 287-310. Ch.M. Moulakis, Stu- 
dien zur Epitome Legum (Munich 1963). J. Maruhn, “Der 


Titel 50 der Epitome,” FM 3 (1979) 194-210. Troianos, 
Peges 114-17. —A.S. 


EPI TON ANAMNESEON (6 èri tov àva- 
uvýoewv), an official who, according to a 14th-C. 
ceremonial book (pseudo-Kod. 185f), used to re- 
cord warriors and other people distinguished by 
their exploits; in the 14th C. he had no clear-cut 
function. Guilland (infra) views the epi ton ana- 
mneseon as the successor of the magister memoriae, 
a late Roman official in the bureau of the magister 
scriniorum and asserts that the office of epi ton 
anamneseon existed long before Constantine IX. 
He includes George Spanopoulos, a contempo- 
rary of Alexios I, in the list of “memorialists” even 
though the text explicitly calls Spanopoulos “the 
former genikos” (Zepos, Jus 1:334.3-5). Very few 
epi ton anamneseon are known. Under Andronikos 


III, the epi ton anamneseon Spanopoulos acted as 
MESAZON, according to a vague expression of Kan- 
takouzenos (Kantak. 2:99.1—2); another epi ton 
anamneseon, Logaras, addressed a letter to An- 
dronikos III (S. Lampakes, EEBS 42 [1975—76] 
405). There were also epi ton anamneseon in the 
patriarchal chancery—one of them, Petriotes, 
composed a preamble to a patriarchal letter of 
1365 (MM 1:472.28—29) and several other docu- 
ments (Darrouzés, Offikia 35,7, n.3). 


LIT. Guilland, Titres, pt.XXIV, 147f. -A.K. 


EPI TON DEESEON (6 ¿mi tov Senoewr), official 
whose duty was to receive petitions addressed to 
the emperor and to answer them. He is usually 
considered the successor of the late Roman mag- 
aster memoriae (or a memoria) who, according to the 
NOTITIA DIGNITATUM, dictated adnotationes and 
preces; it should, however, be noted that the office 
of a certain Benivolus, memoriae scrinius praesidens 
(RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA, Church History 11.16), is 
rendered in Greek by Sozomenos (Sozom. HE 
7.13.5) not as epi ton deeseon, but as ho epi tois 
grammateusi ton thesmon; his function was to for- 
mulate laws (O. Seeck, RE 2.R. 2 [1923] 898). The 
earliest known epi ton deeseon is Theodore, owner 
of a seal of the 7th C. (Laurent, Corpus 2, no.230). 
The epi ton deeseon has no title higher than proto- 
spatharios on seals through the first half of the 
11th C. The importance of this official rose in the 
second half of the 11th and the 12th C., when he 
was not only honored as protoproedros (Laurent, 
Corpus 2, nos. 253~54), but the office was held by 
members of the noblest families, such as the Kom- 
NENOI, SKLEROI, KAMATEROI, and KASTAMONITAI. 
George Chatzikes was still active as epi ton deeseon 
in 1321 (Reg 4, no.2450), and the office is men- 
tioned by pseudo-Kopinos. The Kletorologion of 
PHILOTHEOS omits any mention of the staff of the 
epi ton deeseon but at least one seal of a notary of 
petitions is known (Laurent, Corpus 2, no.255). 
There were also provincial epi ton deeseon—in Sic- 
ily, Peloponnesos, and so on—known by their 
seals, as well as epi ton deeseon of the patriarch 
(Darrouzés, Offikia 378f); one patriarchal epi ton 
deeseon was EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE. 

LIT. Guilland, Titres, pt-XXII (1965), 97-118. Bury, Adm. 
System 77£. Oikonomides, Listes 322. M. Fluss, RE 15 (1932) 
655-57- —A.K. 


EPI TON KRISEON (6 èri tv Kpicewy), judicial 
office created between 1043 and 1047, before the 


foundation of the law school under a NomoPHy- 
LAX. A scholion to Basil. 7.1 (ed. H.J. Scheltema, 
ser. B, 1:36) lists the epi ton kriseon as one of four 
effective judges holding tribunals, alongside the 
droungarios [tes viglas], quaestor, and eparch. Ac- 
cording to Attaleiates, the court of an epi ton 
kriseon had to resolve the legal problems presented 
to it by thematic judges—as Oikonomides (TM 6 
{1976} 134) suggests, due to the low level of legal 
knowledge of provincial judges—but it was not a 
court of appeal. Seals of several epi ton kriseon 
survive, including one of [Alexios?] ARISTENOS. 
The epi ton kriseon is not mentioned as the head 
of one of the four courts in Manuel I’s novel of 
1166, but is mentioned in the 12th-C. EcLOGA 
BASILICORUM (e.g., at B.g.1.64 = C.7.44.1 [p. 372 
of Burgmann’s edition}). The office existed at 
least until 1204; Niketas CHONIATES was one of 
the last ep: ton kriseon. 


LIT. Zacharia, Geschichte 374f. Ahrweiler, “Administra- 
tion” 7of. Laurent, Corpus 2:473-75. -A.K., R.J.M. 


EPI TOU KANIKLEIOU. See KANIKLEIOS. 


EPITRACHELION (émizpay7Atov), a liturgical 
stole, generally of silk, which was worn over the 
STICHARION only by priests and bishops. The nar- 
row strip of cloth, about 2 m in length, hung 
down in front in two overlapping panels that were 
sometimes fastened together. Though represen- 
tations of efitracheha are not found before the 
roth C., the term is attested as early as the 8th C. 
(Germanos, Liturgy, ch.18, ed. Borgia 17.16—20); 
according to pseudo-Germanos, the epitrachelion 
or phakiolion represents the cloth on Christ’s neck 
by which he was dragged to his Passion. In the 
artistic representations, all that can be seen of the 
epitrachelion is its fringe and its lowest band of 
ornament (since it is generally covered by the 
PHELONION), but actual epitracheha that have sur- 
vived from the 14th or 15th C. have an elaborate 
embroidered decoration: images of saints stand- 
ing under arcades, or busts within roundels. The 
figures are outlined in pearls. 

LIT. Braun, Liturgische Gewandung 601-08. Papas, Mess- 
gewinder 153-212. Johnstone, Church Embroidery 16-18, 
pls. 31-34. M. Corovié-Ljubinkovic, “Arhijerejsko odeja- 
nije nepoznatog raškog mitropolita,” Zbornik narodnog muzeja 
u Beogradu 4 (1964) 289—306. -N.P.Š. 


EPOIKOS (ézrotxos, “inhabitant”), term designat- 
ing free peasant-taxpayers in the Treatise on Tax- 
ation (Dölger, Beiträge 119.24) and in certain, mostly 


EP'REM MCIRE | 725 


13th-C., documents. In the latter, the word is at 
times applied to parotkoi (MM 4:255.20—30), in- 
habitants of towns (e.g., loannina—MM 5:82.12), 
as well as “clerics, soldiers and all the common 
people” (Sathas, MB 6:641.20-21), and appears 
to mean simply “resident.” 


LIT. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnosenya 77—80. Solovjev-Moiin, 
Grčke povelje 438f. Ostrogorsky, Paysannerie 41. —M.B. 


EPOPTES (éz6éz7y7s, lit. “overseer”), the desig- 
nation of two officials. 

1. The gth-C. Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS men- 
tions epoptai as subaltern officials under the EPARCH 
OF THE CITY; the BOOK OF THE EPARCH ignores 
them and Stoéckle (Ziinfte 93) identified them with 
mitotar, supervisers of silk weavers. 

2. Epoptat were also fiscal functionaries in the 
GENIKON whose duty was to check the amount of 
individual tax payments, allowing reductions 
(SYMPATHEIAI) Or increasing the required sum. 
Their activity is described in a treatise on TAXA- 
TION (ed. Délger), and they are often mentioned 
in the 11th-C. privileges given to monasteries, 
along with eExisoTal. The functions of epoptai and 
exisotai are barely distinguishable. Epoptai were 
stationed in themes. Several charters of 941-56 
(Lavra 1, nos. 2—3; Xerop., no.1) mention a certain 
protospatharios Thomas, asekretis, epoptes, and ana- 
grapheus of Thessalonike, who directed the sale of 
KLASMATA; a later document (/vir. 1, no.g0) refers 
to sympatherai granted by the epoptes Thomas as 
well as his “addition” (tax-increase) in the same 
area. The last mention of epoptai is in Manuel I’s 
edict of 1153. Délger argued that epoptai, together 
with exisotai, are mentioned in a law of 496; this 
law is preserved only in the BasiLika (56.8.13), 
and its attribution to Anastasios I is, according to 
the editors, H. Scheltema and N. van der Wal 
(ser. A, 7 [1974] 2570), spurious. Furthermore it 
is not known when ihe Greek translation was 
produced. 


LIT. Délger, Beiträge 79—81. -A.K. 


EP'REM MCIRE (“the Less”), translator; died 
end of 11th C. One of the most important Geor- 
gian scholars of the 11th C., Ep‘rem was educated 
in Constantinople. His father was Vače K‘ari¢’isdze 
of Tayk‘/Tao, who moved to Constantinople with 
other Georgian nobles in 1027. By midcentury 
Ep‘rem was on the Black Mountain, where other 
Georgians including GEORGE MT‘Ac’MINDELI were 


726 ERAS 


also active in translating Greek texts. Ep‘rem was 
superior of Kastana from ca.10g1 until his death. 
His renderings of Greek are notable for their 
clarity and exactness; his output was immense. 
His translations include patristic works (John 
Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistles; Gregory of 
Nazianzos, Homilies; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, His- 
tory); dogmatic theology (John of Damascus, 
Fountain of Knowledge); mystical theology (pseudo- 
Dionysios the Areopagite); and ascetic works (Basil 
the Great of Caesarea, Asketikon; Ephrem the Syr- 
ian, Asketikon; John Cassian, De Institutis, which 
EUTHYMIOS THE IBERIAN had begun on Mt. Athos; 
and Palladios, Historia Lausiaca). 


UIT. Tarchnišvili, Georg. Lit. 182—98. -R.T. 


ERAS. See ALEXANDRIAN ERA; ANTIOCHENE ERA; 
BYZANTINE ERA; DIOCLETIANIC ERA. 


ERCHEMPERT, gth-C. Lombard monk of Mon- 
tecassino and envoy to Pope Stephen V (885-91). 
He composed verses for a martyrology (ed. in U. 
Westerbergh, Beneventan Ninth Century Poetry 
[Stockholm 1957] 77—81) and, at Capua after 885, 
wrote a Hystoriola Langobardorum Beneventi degen- 
cium that traces the history of the duchy of BE- 
NEVENTO from 774 and breaks off in 889. Al- 
though Erchempert was hostile to foreigners, 
particularly the Byz. (“equal to beasts and. . . 
worse than Agarenes,” ch.81), by whom he was 
captured in 886 (ch.61), he provides unique in- 
formation on Byz. Italy and Byz.’s role in the 
conflicts among the southern Italian principalities 
and Arabs. 

ED. G. Waitz, MGH SRL 234-64. 

LIT. P. Meyvaert, DHGE 15 (1963) 685-87. F. Ava- 
gliano, LMA 3:2124f. ~M.McC. 


ERGASTERIA BASILIKA. See FACTORIES, IM- 
PERIAL. 


ERGASTERION (épyaoryptov), a workshop or 
small retail store, or combination of the two. Jus- 
tinian I distinguished tradesmen who operated 
“an ergasterium or other legitimate business” 
(Cod.Just. IV 32.26, par.2) from the ILLUSTRES. 
Cognate terms, such as ergasteriakos (working man) 


or ergasteriarches (foreman of a workshop), were 
also used in the late Roman period. It is impos- 
sible to calculate the number of workshops in a 
city, but Justinian’s novels 43 and 59 give a rough 
idea by indicating that the owners of 1,100 erga- 
steria in Constantinople that belonged to the Great 
Church (Hagia Sophia) were exempted from 
making contributions for funeral expenses. The 
1oth-C. Book of the Eparch lists ergasteria in Con- 
stantinople of ARGYROPRATAI, VESTIOPRATAI, LINEN 
merchants, SOAPMAKERS, GROCERS, BAKERS, and 
owners of TAVERNS. 

Documents also name various kinds of erga- 
steria, some of which are the same as those men- 
tioned in the Book of the Eparch: sardamarikon er- 
gasterion, a grocery store (Lavra 3, no.123.120— 
21) or mankipikon ergasterion, a bakery (Lavra 3, 
no.148.10—11); some are different, such as the 
workshop of a myrepsos or perfume and unguent 
maker (Lavra 3, no.123.110), a workshop for the 
production of flaxseed oil (Lavra 3, no.168.4—5), 
or a potter’s workshop (Lavra 1, no.4.4); some- 
times mills are described as ergasteria. Several doc- 
uments stress that ergasterta were located in the 
marketplace or forum. The Book of the Eparch 
explicitly prohibited argyroprata: from working at 
home, stating that they must ply their trade in 
their shops on the Mese; linen weavers, on the 
other hand, were forbidden to sell their goods in 
their ergasteria but had to peddle them on their 
backs on market days. 

Several workshops (potteries, glass factories, 
smithies) have been excavated in Corinth, Sardis, 
and elsewhere. A well-excavated glass factory in 
Corinth occupied one room in a house and con- 
tained only a single furnace; the empty space in 
front of the furnace was an 11 sq m area that 
could accommodate only a master and one ap- 
prentice. An act of 1419 (Xénoph., no.32.8~10) 
mentions five grocers’ ergasteria “in the great stoa” 
in Thessalonike that were eventually joined and 
transformed into a wineshop; they also must have 
been small. 

Ergasteria could be the property of landowners 
(including churches and monasteries) who leased 
them out. Oikonomides (infra) calculates that the 
income from an ergasterion equaled about 6 per- 
cent of the investment; the tax on the ergasteria 
that he investigated ranged from about 3 percent 
to 11—13 percent of the income. 


Church fathers used the term broadly in a met- 
aphorical sense: Gregory of Nazianzos calls Al- 
exandria the ergasterton of education (PG 35:761A); 
EPHREM THE SyRIAN considers marriage “an er- 
gasterion of life” (ed. J.S. Assemani 3:210F); the 
womb is frequently characterized as “the ergaste- 
rion of nature.” Accordingly, a gabled building 
labeled ta ergasteria tou martyriou in a mosaic at 
Yakto (D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements [Prince- 
ton 1947] pl.LXXIXa) probably designates the 
site of a martyrdom. 

LIT. Stéckle, Zünfte 71-73. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 
309-15. N. Oikonomides, “Quelques boutiques de Con- 
stantinople au Xe s.,” DOP 26 (1972) 345-56. G.R. David- 
son, “A Medieval Glass-factory at Corinth,” AJA 44 (1940) 
297—324. J.S. Crawford, The Byzantine Shops at Sardis (Cam- 
bridge, Mass., 1990). —A.K. 


EROS, god of love in Greek mythology; fre- 
quently a plural form, Erotes, was introduced in 
Greek poetry. Christian poets continued to use 
the image of Eros as an allegory of love: PAuL 
SILENTIARIOS complained of the persecutions of 
Eros, who is stronger than law and wounds with 
his arrows. Much later, Eustathios MAKREMBO- 
LITES, in his romance Hysmine and Hysminias (bk.2, 
chs. 7—9), described the triumph of Eros mounted 
on a chariot; he is attended by people of all ages 
and walks of life, by birds and animals, and even 
by Night and Day in the shape of huge women. 
The image of the luxurious garden of Eros was 
frequent in Byz. literature. 

Theology had difficulties with the concept of 
Eros. On the one hand, there was a tendency to 
identify Eros with Christian agape (see Love). OR- 
IGEN contributed much to this idea, and it was 
retained in the exegesis of the SonG oF SONGS; in 
pseudo-Dionysios THE AREOPAGITE, Eros is Di- 
vine Nature itself, and it was possible to speak of 
man’s love for Christ as “wounding eros,” esp. in 
bridal imagery. On the other hand, the fathers 
tried to draw the line between agape, which was 
good, and the erotes who were diabolical. 

In a MS of pseudo-Oppian in Venice (Marc. gr. 
479), Eros is depicted as a winged naked youth 
flying through the air and shooting his arrows at 
a group of Olympian gods (Weitzmann, infra, 
fig.143). 

LIT. O. Schneider, RAC 6:310-12. Poljakova, Roman. 


1oof. Armstrong, Philosophy 470f. Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 
122-25, 183f. —-A.K., A.M.T. 


EROTOPAIGNIA | 727 


EROTAPOKRISEIS (épwtamoxpicets), a distinc- 
tive genre of Byz. literature, a combination of 
DIALOGUE and GNOMAI. Erotapokriseis are series of 
questions and answers related to dogma, exegesis, 
canon law, riddles, etc. They are either anony- 
mous, or the participants in the “conversation” 
are shadowy figures deprived of any characteri- 
zation, one of them playing the role of teacher, 
another the pupil. There is no strict sequence in 
the development of questions, although some unity 
of subject matter is preserved. Answers are for- 
mulated in gnomic form as an unquestionable 
truth, leaving no room for uncertainty. Erotapo- 
kriseis are known from ca.40o; they gained pop- 
ularity in the 7th—gth C. when the greatest theo- 
logians (Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus, 
Photios) worked in this genre; one example is 
ascribed to Anastasios of Sinai. After the Amphi- 
lochia of Photios, the most developed example of 
erotapokriseis, they became infrequent; Nicholas of 
Methone and Niketas of Herakleia were among 
the rare practitioners of the genre. They were 
revived in the 15th C. by writers such as Symeon 
of Thessalonike and Mark Eugenikos. The genre 
(mostly in the form of translations) was popular 
in medieval Slavic literature (cf. the IZBORNIK of 
1073). 


uit. C. Heinrici, Griechisch-byzantinische Gesprachsbticher 
(Leipzig 1911). -A.K. 


EROTOPAIGNIA (Epwroraiyvia, “Games of 
Love”), a collection of vernacular love poems in 
POLITICAL VERSE found in a unique late 15th-C. 
MS, though the poems themselves are older. The 
Erotopaignia include three alphabetic ACROSTICS 
(“Alphabets of Love”), all incomplete and with 
stanzas of varying lengths; an Hekatologa (“Hundred 
Words”), a counting song in which a young girl 
lightheartedly challenges her lover to list the ways 
in which he has suffered for her; and an assort- 
ment of letters, laments, and songs not unlike the 
songs and letters found in LipisTRos AND RHO- 
DAMNE. Once thought to have come from Rhodes 
(and thus sometimes called “Rhodian Love Songs”), 
their place of origin is unknown; some of the 
amatory vocabulary, however, with references to 
enslavement to Eros, suggest that the Erotopaignia 
come from the mixed Frankish-Greek milieu that 
produced the vernacular verse ROMANCES. Anon- 
ymous, probably not the work of a single author, 


seas ye Ay apui 


E 


CONTINUED 


ESOTHYRION (€ca6vptov), also enthyrion, a (fis- 
cal?) term designating lands situated close to the 
center (KATHEDRA) Of a chorion and specifically to 
a (rural) church (e.g., Dochetar., no.60.2). The 
Treatise on Taxation (ed. Dölger, Beiträge 115.28~ 
30) makes a distinction between esothyra and exo- 
thyra. lands of a peasant located within and outside 
the village; as time went on, the exothyra were 
transformed into hamlets (agridia). Together with 
AUTOURGIA, esothyra were considered the most 
valuable part of a srasıs or estate. The praktika of 
the 14th and 15th C. often mention esothyr()a in 
peasants’ holdings or use specific terms referring 
to gardens: exokepion (Esphig., 0.8.42), esokepion 
within the chorion (Chil., no.g2.28), a chapel with 
an esokepion (Patmou Engrapha 2, n0.74.32-33), 
esokepion outside the kathivma-courtyard (Dionys., 
no.23.7), esopertbolion (Xerop., no.18A.60), esupert- 
bolion with nut trees (Esphig., no.14.127), esokepo- 
peribolion (Esphig., no. 14.86). There were also “in- 
ner” CHORAPHIA. The exo- (outer) designation seems 
to have been infrequent in later documents: a 
praktikon of 1284 registers “the inherited arable 
land of 140 modiot with an exothyrion” located 
somewhere away from the household (Lavra 2, 


10.73.90). 


ur. Dolger, Beiträge 136f. -A.K. 


ESPHIGMENOU MONASTERY, late 10th-C. 
foundation on Mt. ArHos. Located on the north- 
east coast of the peninsula, 3 kin east of HrLan- 
DAR, the monastery is first mentioned in 998 when 
Theodore was hegoumenos, Its original name was 
Esphagmenou (“the slaughtered”), perhaps a ref- 
erence to Christ, the sacritiaal lamb. kspmg- 
menou (Eodeypévov) prospered in the 11th C., 
acquiring vast properties on the Athonite penin- 
sula. At this time the monastery housed a certain 
number of Chalcedonian Armenians, including 
Theoktistos, who was hegoumenos in the 1030s and 
became protos of Athos ca.1035. In ca.1001 Ni- 
kephoros, a monk of Esphigmenou, was sent on 
an important mission to the Charsianon, where 
he founded a monastery and probably exercised 
influence on the recently annexed Caucasian lands 


(A. Kazhdan, Vestnik Frevanskogo universiteta: Ob- 
Stestvennye nauki [1974] no.3, 236-38). 

The establishment reached its zenith in the 14th 
C., when it was an imperial cenobitic monastery 
housing 200 monks and owning more than 12,000 
modioi of land, chiefly in Chalkidike and the Stry- 
mon valley. Among the monks who spent some 
time in residence there were ATHANASIOS (1), the 
late 13th-C. patriarch of Constantinople, and Gre- 
gory PALAMAS, hegoumenos in 1335—36, who at- 
tempted to introduce HESYCHASM into the mon- 
astery. Stefan Uroš IV Dušan issued two chrysobulls 
in 1346-47 confirming the monastery’s titles to 
various properties, and granting certain tax ex- 
emptions (Esphig., nos. 22-23). The history of 
Esphigmenou becomes obscure after the Otto- 
mans took control of Athos in 1430. 

The 31 Byz. documents preserved in the mon- 
astery’s archives range in date from 1034 to 
ca.140g, and include early 14th-C. praktika that 
provide information on peasant households in 
Macedonia. The library holds more than 100 MSS 
of Byz. date (Lampros, Athos 1:170—gg), the most 
valuable of which is an illuminated 11th-C. meno- 
logion with miniatures on purple parchment (Frea- 
sures 2, figs. 327-408). The treasury contains a 
mosaic icon of the 14th C., depicting the blessing 
Christ (Furlan, {cone a mosaico, 10.35). 

SOURCE. Actes d'Esphigménon, ed. J. Lefort (Parts 1973). 

LIT. Treasures 2:200—55, 361-85. D. Anastasievic, “Esfig- 


menskie akty carja Dušana,” SemKond 10 (1938) 57-68. 
-A.M. T., AC. 


ESQUILINE TREASURE, a hoard of mostly do- 
mestic objects made in the 4th C., unearthed on 
the Esquiline Hill in Rome in 1793. The precise 
contents of the treasure are a matter of dispute 
as no inventory was made at the time of its dis- 
covery. Shelton (infra) demonstrated that of the 
61 objects eventually associated with the treasure 
only 31 can definitely be documented as part of 
the original hoard; 27 pieces now remain, most 
of which are in the British Museum. Authenti- 
cated items include one bronze ewer and 30 silver 
objects: nine monogrammed dinner plates (one 
now missing), a bowl, a flask, the elements of a 
CHERNIBOXESTON set, two caskets, six furniture 


729 


730 | ESTATE 


ornaments (= four TycHes of Constantinople, 
Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome; a Pair of Hands), 
and six horse trappings. Of the documented ob- 
jects, in addition to the missing silver plate, a 
lamp, lampstand, and a second plate have also 
been lost. 

The quality and nature of the objects, which 
included dinner and toilet articles as well as insig- 
nia of office (the Tyches and Hands), indicate 
that the treasure belonged to a family of high 
standing. The mixture of pagan imagery and 
Christian inscriptions is characteristic of the Late 
Antique period in general. A date of 379-83 for 
the manufacture of the objects and for their role 
as wedding gifts was originally hypothesized on 
the basis of inscriptions on the silver. The names 
of Secundus and Projecta appear on one casket. 
Monograms on the plates were deciphered as 
those of Turcius Secundus, supposedly a member 
of the gens Turcia prominent in 4th- to 5th-C. 
Rome, and of his wife Projecta Turcii. The latter 
was in turn considered to be the Projecta, aged 
16, whose epitaph was composed by Pope Da- 
masus (366—84). Shelton challenged these identi- 
fications and datings, suggesting instead that the 
treasure was made over a period of years 330-70 
tor several members of the Turcius household. 

ur. K.J. Shelton, The Esquiline Treasure (London 1981). 
Eadem, “Vhe Esquiline Treasure: The Nature of the Evi- 
dence,” AJA Bo (1985) 147-55. Al. Cameron, “The Date 
and the Owners of the Esquiline Treasure,” ibid., 135-45. 

~M.M.M. 


ESTATE. In Byz. various terms, often of peri- 
phrastic character, were used to denote the estate: 
agros (field), orkos (house), ktemata (properties), 
PROASTEION (suburb), zeugelateion (lit. “driving a 
yoke of oxen”); a monastic estate provided with a 
chapel was called a MerocHion. An estate usually 
included a mansion, DEMESNE land, and lands 
worked by tenants as well as hilly pastures. Within 
the estate, the Byz. distinguished the enthyria or 
ESOTHYRA, located close to its nucleus, from the 
remote exothyra (Treatise on Taxation, ed. Délger, 
Beiträge 115.24-33); they also distinguished au- 
TOURGIA as the most profitable portions of the 
estate. Balsamon (Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 2:595.4— 
18) describes salt-pans, olive groves, vineyards, 
meadows, watermills, and pottery workshops as 
autourgia, he acknowledges the flexibility of the 
concept, since an autourgion could cease to pro- 
duce income, while an exochoron proasteion could 


become profitable. In documents vineyards (L. 
Petit, JRAIK 6 [1900] 29.26—27), watermills (Lavra 
2, NO.105.24), VIVARIA, and the enigmatic aulakia 
and gripobolia (Lavra 2, 10.104.177-8) were con- 
sidered autourgia. 

An estate usually did not coincide with the vir- 
LAGE but occupied a part of it, while the other 
part of the village either belonged to the VILLAGE 
COMMUNITY or formed another estate: thus, in the 
village of Gradec in 1300, one landlord held 26 
peasant households, a collective of owners had 19, 
one man had eight, another seven, and three lords 
possessed one household each. Estates could form 
a complex outside the village or comprise dis- 
persed tenures in different villages. 

Estates of the late qth-5th C.—complete with 
VILLAS, pasturage, and orchards—are represented 
in contemporary floor mosaics (Dunbabin, Mosaics 
122, figs. 111-13), but Byz. equivalents are un- 
known. 

Liv. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnosenija 64-72. J. Lefort, “Ra- 
dolibos: Population et paysage,” TM 9 (1985) 195-234. 
Délger, Beiträge 136f, 151. P. Gounaridis, “L'exploitation 
direct de la terre par l'Etat de Nicée (1204-61). Le zeu- 
gélateion,” Ho agrotikes kosmos ston Mesogeiako choro (Athens 
1988) 619-26. -A.K., AC. 


ESTOIRE D’ERACLES, traditional title of the 
works of a group of French historians of the 
Crusades, comprising the translation of WILLIAM 
oF Tyre made in France in 1220-23 and various 
vernacular continuations of widely varying value 
and origin. The name derives from the opening 
words’ reference to Emp. Herakleios in connec- 
tion with the rise of Islam. The discrepancies and 
elaborations of the French translation with respect 
to William’s original Latin seem to have no inde- 
pendent historical value (Morgan, infra [1973] 
185-87). Several of the continuations are ex- 
tremely valuable, particularly that for the years 
1184—97, which derives from the lost Holy Land 
chronicle of Ernoul (presumably Ernoul de Gi- 
belet, associate of Bahan I, lord of Ibelin and 
Ramla, in Palestine [ca.1187—93]) and sheds light 
on the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims in 1187; 
the reigns of Andronikos 1 Komnenos, Isaac H 
Angelos—whosce portrait was supposedly painted 
above the door of every monasterv in Constanti- 
nople (ed. Morgan, infra [1982] 29), Alexios UI 
Angelos, and Conrad of Montferrat (Morgan 26— 
30); the Third Crusade; and the conquest of Cy- 
prus (Morgan 116-21) from the perspective of 


Outremer. The various continuations give sub- 
stantially the same account of the Fourth Crusade 
(ed. de Mas Latrie, 348-95) and provide much 


data on politics in the Levant and the relations of 


Bvz. and Armenia to the Crusader states. 

Ep. Estotre-—RHC Occid. 1 (Paris 1844). De Mas Latrie, 
Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier (Paris 1871). 
M.R. Morgan, La continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184- 
1197) (Paris t982) 17—199. 

Lir. M.R. Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Contin- 
uations of William of Tyre (Oxtord 1973). Idem, “The Roth- 
elin Continuation of Wiliam of Tyre” in Outremer, 244- 
—M.Mc. 


57 
ESZTERGOM RELIQUARY. This silver-gilt and 
enamel reliquary, kept in the cathedral treasury 
of the Hungarian city of Esztergom, displays a 
sizable piece of the True Cross, surrounded by 
images in three registers: above are two mourning 
angels; at the center Constantine I and Helena 
point to the relic in its sunken cross-shaped cavity; 
illustrations of Christ’s Road to Calvary and De- 
scent from the Cross are below. Between the arms 
of the cross appear four enameled disks, with 
inscriptions reading “Christ gives grace to Chris- 
tians.” Inset enamel strips with quatrefoils define 
the borders of the panel and the relic. This panel 
once formed the inner part of a triptych, the 
wings of which have been lost. The present frame 
is a Palaiologan addition. The reliquary’s bright, 
opaque coloring, its fragmented borders, the rec- 
tilinear setting of the cloisons (thin strips of gold) 
and, in the inscriptions, the iota decorated with a 
nodule are characteristic of mid-to-late 12th-C. 
enamels; parallels are the feast scenes added to 
the Pata p’Oro in Venice after 1204 and two 
teardrop shaped panels on a composite icon in 
the Hermitage (Iskusstvo Vizantii 2, no.540). The 
date of 1190 assigned to the reliquary in the 17th- 
C. will of Cardinal Kutassy of Hungary therefore 
seems to be accurate. 


LT. Wessel, Byz. Enamels, no.49. Ornamenta Ecclesiae, ed. 
A. Legner, vol. 3 (Cologne 1985) 116. ~M.E.F. 


ETCHMIAXIN (Ejmiacin). See VAŁARŠAPAT. 


ETERIANO, HUGO, lay theologian and author; 
born Pisa between ca.1110 and 1120, died Velle- 
tri? (Italy) 1182. Eteriano studied theology and 
philosophy in France and Italy and went to Con- 
stantinople ca.1160 with his brother, Leo Tuscus, 
who became an imperial interpreter. In Constan- 


ETERNITY | 731 


unople Eteriano continued his studies and became 
an adviser to Emp. Manuel I Koninenos on Latin 
theology and the UNION OF THE CHURCHES. His 
background in Latin SCHOLASTICISM was influen- 
tial in resolving a Christological controversy at the 
local council of 1166 in Constantinople (see under 
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF) where he argued 
with DEMETRIOS OF LAMPE. At the emperor's re- 
quest, Eteriano, with Leo's help, wrote a polemical 
treatise, On the Holy and Immortal God (also known 
as On the Heresies of the Greeks), which sought to 
demonstrate that both the Greek and Latin church 
fathers taught the dual procession of the Holy 
Spirit (the FiLIOQUE). The book, written in both 
languages, was sent to Pope ALEXANDER III in 
1177. At the request of two German scholastics, 
Eteriano compiled the Book on the Difference be- 
tween Nature and Person (ca.1179), which consisted 
of translations of Greek patristic texts on Trini- 
tarian theology and his comments on them. Pope 
Lucius II] made Eteriano a deacon and a cardinal 
in 1182, the year of his death. 

ED. Herestes—PL 202:227-3y6. “The ‘Liber de Differentia 
naturae et personae’ by Hugh Etherian and the Letters Ad- 
dressed to Him by Peter of Vienna and Hugh of Honan,” 
ed. N. Haring, MedSt 24 (1962) 1-34. 

tir. P. Classen, “Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 
und die Lateiner,” BZ 48 (1955) 339-68. A. Dondaine, 


“Hugues Ethérien et Léon Toscan,” Archives d'histoire doc- 
trinale et littéraire du moyen âge 19 (1952) 67-134. -F.R. 


ETERNITY (aiwy) can only be defined negatively 
in relation to TIME, either as a duration without 
beginning or end or as existence without change 
or (temporal) succession. Eternity as an attribute 
of God was first discussed in the Christian era by 
Arius and the early Arians (e.g., EUnomios). They 
argued that the Son was generated “before the 
ages” but was not “co-eternal” with the Father. In 
this sense, GREGORY OF Nyssa (as the First Council 
of Nicaea had already done) also opposed the use 
ot the term “unbegotten” as an essential attribute 
of God the Father, since it excluded the Son of 
God from the Trinity. The definition of eternity 
was also linked to the revelation of the name 
Yahweh, in that the eternal God as “Life itself” 
transcended even infinity (without beginning, 
without end). Probably in view of the Gnostic 
doctrine of the emanation of the aeons, or even 
the eternity reserved for men and angels, John 
of Damascus (Exp. fidei 15, ed. Kotter, Schriften 
2:43f) admitted that eternity may not always mean 
“aeon” in the strict sense. The Palamite doctrine 


732 | ETHICS 


of ENERGIES with the presentation of a divine. 
uncreated light came out of the framework of the 
Cappadocian doctrine of eternity. 

tre. ECE. Owen, “Aion and aionios © JTRSt 37 (1936) 
267-89, 390-404. D. Balás, “Eternity and Time in Gregory 
ot Nyssa's Contra Euromium ` in Gregor von Nyssa und dir 
Philosophie, cd. H. Dorrie, M. Altenburger, U. Schramm 
(Leiden 1976) 128-55. -G.P. 





ETHICS. Fthical reflection m Byz. often took 
place in the context of discussion of questions of 
moral theology, in which Christian revelation was 
the fundamental reference (e.g., for concepts such 
as SIN, VIRTUE, VICE, DEVIL). Ethics in the strict 
sense, a philosophical inquiry independent of re- 
ligion first established as a distinct science by Ar- 
ISTOTLE, also survived, esp. in the continued in- 
terest taken by Byz. thinkers in ancient philosophy. 
As in the case of his corpus of Locic, Aristotle’s 
ethical works formed a core around which Byz. 
commentaries, glosses, and paraphrases accumu- 
lated. His Nicomachean Ethics was read with ancient 
anonymous scholia and those of Aspasios, to which 
were added partial commentaries by MICHAEL OF 
EpHEsus, FustraTios oF Nicaka, and a slightly 
later Byz. anonymous, the whole constituting a 
corpus translated into Latin by Robert GROSSE- 
TESTE. A paraphrase of the Nicumachean Ethics was 
copicd for John VI Kantakouzenos. On the basis 
of such materials, summaries of ethics were pre- 
pared, for example, by Jonn or Damascus, Mi- 
chael PseLLos, and JosepPH RHAKENDYTES. 

Another ethical system that had a considerable 
impact on monastic circles was STOICISM, as rep- 
resented in the works of Epictetus, Marcus Au- 
relius, and the stoicizing On Virtues and Vices (De 
virtutibus et vitiis) attributed to Aristotle (and copied 
for ARETHAS OF CAESAREA) and the Concerning the 
Emotions (Peri pathon) attributed to Andronikos of 
Rhodes as well as in a number of popular mor- 
alizing anthologies. An example of an ethical sys- 
tem based on principles Stoic in inspiration is 
provided by Plethon’s treatise On Virtues. 

Less broad in appeal was the ethical theory of 
NEOPLATONISM as formulated in particular in the 
Sentences of PorPHYRY. The solutions proposed by 
the Neoplatonists (esp. PROKLOs and AMMONIOS) 
to the problem of Evit—evil is not a substance, 
but a privation of good, in particular in the form 
of moral turning away from God—and its rec- 
onciliation with FREE wILL and divine providence 


were, however, adopted by Psellos and by the 
sehastokrator Isaac KOMNENOS. Indeed, im its iden- 
tification of the ethical good (eudaimonia) as umon 
with God, to be attained in contemplation by 
means of purifving by virtue the soul of its cor- 
poreal existence, Neoplatonism had already given, 
through the Cappadocian fathers, a fundamental 
structure to Byz. moral theology. 

Aristotelian ethics could be integrated into this 
structure, in Psellos’s view, in that the lowest type 
of virtue, “political virtue,” concerns the rationally 
ordered and harmonious life of man as a union 
of soul and body, a life formulated by Aristotle 
and including practical wisdom and political ac- 
tion. The higher levels of virtue, purificatory and 
contemplative, which Porphyry added to political 
virtue, indicate for Psellos the path that leads man 
as immortal soul to transcend the world and reach 
greater union with God. The same place is as- 
signed to Aristotle’s ethics in the Christian life by 
Eustratios of Nicaea. BARLAAM OF CALABRIA pro- 
posed in his Ethics according to the Stoics (PG 
151:1341—-64) a similar integration of Stoic and 
Platonic ethics: Stoic ethics prescribes the ideal 
life for man as he is; Platonic ethics concerns life 
beyond this world. (See also BEHAVIOR.) 

ur. H. Mercken, The Greek Commentaries on the Nicoma- 
chean Ethics of Aristotle in the Latin Translation of Robert 
Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (1253) (Leiden 1973). B. 
Yambrun-Kraskar, Georges Gémiste Pléthon. Traité des vertus 
(Athens-Leiden 1987). -1).0°'M. 


ETHIOPIA (from Ac@toves, supposedly the peo- 
ple with “burnt faces”), the geographical-racial 
(not political) designation of the region in Africa 
south of Byz. territory, esp. south of Egypt. The 
eastern part of Ethiopia including South Arabia 
was sometimes called Inpra and the inhabitants 
Indians (e.g., Sozom., HE 2:24; THEODORET 1:22). 
Although Ethiopia was a general designation, it 
was usually qualified to pinpoint the specific area 
under discussion. Eusebios (HE 2:1.13) specifies 
Meroitic Nubia when he speaks of the Ethiopia 
that is ruled by a queen. Prokopios, discussing the 
Himyarite wars, speaks of “the Ethiopians who 
are called Axumites” (Wars 1:19, 17). Byz. histo- 
rians were aware of tribal groupings and political 
units within Ethiopia, for example, BLEMMYEs, 
Nobades, Axumites. Individuals identified as 
ETHIOPIANS were to be found in Egyptian mon- 
asteries, the most notable being Moses the Black 
of Sketis (early 5th C.). No part of Ethiopia was 


ever included in the Byz. Empire, but in the 7th 
C. both Lower Nusia and esp. AxumM were Byz. 
allies. The Arab conquest of North Africa cut off 
Ethiopia from Byz. 

ur. V. Christides, “The Image of the Sudanese in Byz- 
anne Sources,” BS 43 (1982) 8-17. F. Snowden, Blacks in 
Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience (Cam- 
bridge, Mass.. 1g70). P.L. Shinmer, “he Nilotic Sudan 


and Ethiopia, ¢.660 BC to AD 6000 in CHAfr 252-71. 
-D.W.]. 


ETHIOPIANS (A¿biones). From classical times 
the term Ethiopian referred to all dark races from 
the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean: specifically, to 
the Cushite inhabitants of the kingdoms of Meroe 
and Axum. This inaccurate terminology, reflect- 
ing both Ptolemy’s geography and Ethiopia’s own 
position on the way to India, was inherited by the 
Byz., whose attitude toward “blacks” greatly dif- 
fered from that of Westerners (C. Prager, /MRS 
17 [1987] 260, n.5). 

St. Moses the Black, a Nubian, is referred to as 
Ethiopian or Libyan; THEOPHILOS THE INDIAN, 
possibly from the Maldive Islands, ts variously 
described as Ethiopian, Blemmys, or Libyan (G. 
Fiaccadori, Studi classici e orientali 33 [1983] 295- 
300; 34 [1984] 273f and n.12). Yet trade with 
India and events in 6th-C. NajrAn soon led to a 
better knowledge of Axum and Abu tis, both vis- 
ited by KOSMAS INDIKOPLEUSTES €a.518. As allies 
in control of the eastern routes, the Ethiopians 
were then favorably regarded by diplomats and 
merchants alike. Between 644 and 678 the wide- 
spread hope of an Ethiopian intervention against 
the Mesopotamian Muslims in fulfillment of Psalm 
67(68):31 still focused on the Axumite power. 
METHODIOS OF PATARA even claimed Ethiopian 
origins for the Byz. Empire, ultimately equating 
it with Ethiopia (M.V. Krivov, in Proceedings of the 
gth International Congress of Ethiopian Studies [Mos- 
cow 1988] 6, 111-17). After the Islamic conquest 
of Egypt, the decrease in relations with Nubia and 
the decline of Axum prevented further contacts 
between the Byz. and Sudanese or Abyssinian 
blacks—although the “Ethiopians” serving in 
Theophilos’s army or those involved in the go4 
Arab raid on THESSALONIKE may have been Su- 
danese mercenaries. 

From the roth C. onward men of color are 
indeed mentioned frequently in Byz. literature, 
but the vast majority of references, following the 
old Mediterranean stereotype of imaginary blacks, 


ETHIOPIANS | 733 


is generic: either connected with scriptural prob- 
lems (E. Benz, Abba Salama 6 [1975] 17-36) or 
totally devoid of any anthropological reality, as 
representing the proverbial darkness impossible 
to “wash off” (after Lucian, Against the Ignorant 
Book Collector 28). Bordering upon and overlap- 
ping the same cliché are the Ethiopian DEMONS 
that typify the spirit of fornication in early mo- 
nastic hagiography (P. Devos, AB 103 [1985] 61— 
74). Thus Ethiopians becaine protagonists of dis- 
turbing dreams (P.-A. Fevrier, Bulletin archéolo- 
gique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques 
n.s. 19 B [1985] 295 and n.8). This kind of dce- 
monology took shape in Egyptian milieux sub- 
jected to the savage raids of Nubian tribes, and 
spread then to Syria and Palestine and later to 
areas lacking direct experience of “evil blacks”: 
but color awareness never implied racial preju- 
dice, nor did black chromatic symbolism, of su- 
perstitious origin, necessarily refer to ethnic types 
(E. Lepore, ParPass 39 [1984] 310-20). 

The interpretations of scriptural Ethiopians 
prevailed over the scanty associations with de- 
mons and internal phantoms, whose fright fulness 
lay, however, not so much in the color of their 
skin as in other physical features (J. Winckler, 
JHS 100 [1980] 160-65). Far from the “racial” 
image of black hypersexuality, the /liad’s “blame- 
less Ethiopians” (bk.1:423) were models of conti- 
nence and dignity (which again precluded the 
identification between blacks and slaves); credited 
with wisdom and astrological learning, they be- 
came a symbol of Christianity’s ecumenical mis- 
sion, like the black King of the Epiphany. 

The sarne developments and sensibility are found 
in the visual arts, esp. MSS of the 11th—1eth C. 
Besides the small and conventional negroid fig- 
ures used for decoration, Ethiopians with distinc- 
tive African traits appear, for instance, the BLEM- 
MYES in the MENOLOGION OF Basi. I1; and demons 
are usually depicted as black. According to the 
Byz. eschatological perspective, blacks are also 
shown, chiefly in “Pentecost” scenes, among the 
nations reached by the preaching of the Apostles 
(Kazhdan-Fpstein, Change 185). 

LIT. L. Craceo Ruggini, “Leggenda e realtà degli Etiopi 
nella cultura tardoimperiale,” IV Congresso Internazionale di 
Studi Etiopici, vol. 1 (Rome 1974) 141-93. J. Devisse, Fhe 
Image of the Black in Western Art, vol. 2.1 (Fribourg 1979) 
97—148, 212-41. J.-M. Courtès, “Traitement patristique de 
la thématique “éthiopienne, “ ibid. g—31, 2909—11. P.J. 
Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley 1985) 
17f, 38-40, 53-57. 103, 168. -G.F. 


734 | ETHIOPIC LITERATURE 


ETHIOPIC LITERATURE, the literature writ- 
ten in Ge'ez, the southern Semitic language of 
successive Christian kingdoms of the region that 
is now Erniopia. Of three main periods, only the 
first, the Axumite period (4th—6th C.), was di- 


rectly influenced by Byz. literature in the form of 


translations from Greek religious texts to fulfil 
the needs of newly christianized Axum. By the 
6th C., the Old Testament had been translated 
from the Septuagint and the New Testament from 
an Antiochene Greek text aided by reference to 
a Syriac version, The Book of Jubilees, the Apoc- 
alypse of Esdra, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the 
Book of Enoch were included in the Ethiopic 
canon. 
the church fathers, esp. Cyril of Alexandria; the 
Synodos, a collection of conciliar decrees; the Lives 
of Sts. ANTONY THE GREAT and Paul the Hermit; 
the rule of St. PacHomios, the PHysIoLoGos, and 
various liturgical texts all belong to this period. 
During the revival of Ge‘ez literature (14th—15th 
C.), vitae of indigenous saints were produced that 
show indirect Byz. influence via models surviving 
from the earlicr period. After the 14th C., the 
region, isolated from Byz. since the Arab con- 
quest, developed an indigenous literature subject 
to some Copto-Arabic influence. (See also KEBRA 
Necasr.) 


Storia della leiteratura etiopica (Milan 
-D.W.J. 


ur. E. Cerulli, 


1956). 


ETHNARCH (¿bvápxns, lit. “leader of a people 
or nation”), a term (possibly of Hellenistic Jewish 
origin) to designate any ruler of barbarians: thus, 
Philostorgios (Philostorg. HE 34.7) used it for the 
Jewish ruler of Himyar, Theophanes the Confes- 
sor (Theoph. 268.30) for the chiefs of the Sklav- 
enes, Constantine Manasses (Historiae v.2525) for 
the Vandal kings, etc. Church fathers designated 
pagan national gods as edhnarchaz, and accordingly 
Basil the Great (PG 29:656B) considered the angel- 
ethnarch as a guardian appointed to each ethnos. 
By the end of the 10th C. the term ethnarch (as 
well as satrap) entered the Byz. state hierarchy: 
the Taktikon of Escurial (Oikonomides, Listes 271.24, 
273.29) mentions both the ethnareh and his to- 
poteretes. In 1051 Constantine IX appointed the 
patrikios Bryennios as ethnarch and sent him against 
the Pechenegs, and ca.1078 BoR. was protopro- 
edros and ethnarch (Bryen. 283.2). Since a seal 
calls him proedros and megas primtkertos of the eth- 
nikoi (V. Sandrovskaja, PSb 23 [1971] 29), it is 


The Qerlos, a compilation of writings of 


plausible that the ethnarch of the 11th C. was a 
high-ranking commander of foreign mercenaries. 


ir. Oikonomides, Listes 333. -S.B.B., A.K. 


ETHNOLOGY as a separate discipline did not 
exist in Byz., but ethnological problems were 
touched upon by various writers. This was not 
only because of human curiosity but esp. because 
of the political situation of an empire that con- 
stantly had to deal with a variety of peoples at- 
tacking it, trading with it, or settling on its terri- 
tory. The Byz. considered themselves as the chosen 
people and viewed FOREIGNERS as BARBARIANS; 
they nonetheless left valuable descriptions rang- 
ing from folkloric fantasies (e.g., in the vita of 
Makarios OF RoME), to pragmatic information 
(e.g., the STRATEGIKON OF MAURICE), to narratives 
of embassies (e.g., PRiskos of Panion). The works 
of historians (Prokopios, Theophylaktos Simo- 
kattes, Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, Leo 
the Deacon, Anna Komnene, Laonikos Chalko- 
kondyles, among others) are esp. rich in ethno- 
logical descriptions. Pictorial images of various 
peoples are to be found in scenes of PENTECOST, 
in the illustrations to Psalters and Octateuchs, in 
the images of the Last JUDGMENT, and in such 
secular MSS as the Madrid Skylitzes (M. Garidis, 
Byzantion 39 [1969-70] 86—91). 

The Byz. emphasized the continuity of ethno- 
logical groups and applied to contemporary peo- 
ples ancient names (such as Seythians) and ancient 
lopot characterizing their behavior, habits, food, 
and dress (B. Zastérova, BBA 52 [1985] 16—19). 
Some observers (e.g., Pachymeres) recognized 
modification in language and clothing because of 
assimilation; Chalkokondyles noted the process of 
cultural differentiation over time. Cultural devel- 
opment, unless ascribed to divine influence, was 
considered as a technological progression from 
the primitive gathering of food to civilization. In 
Tzetzes’ view this led to moral decline, whereas 
Eustathios of Thessalonike connected it with the 
development of law and righteousness. 

tir. K.E. Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie, vol. 
2 (Wiesbaden 1980) 184-95, 226-520. K. Dieterich, Byzan- 
tinische Quellen zur Länder- und Völkerkunde, 2 vols. (Leipzig 
1912). K. Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch- 
römischen E:thnographie (Basel 1918). -A.K. 


ETHOPOIIA (7Go7rotia, lit. “character-drawing,” 
Lat. sermocinatio), a rhetorical figure, one of the 
PROGYMNASMATA. According to HERMOGENES (ed. 
Rabe, g—11), it was “an imitation of the character 


of the person described,” such as “what kind of 
words Andromache would have pronounced while 
mourning over Hector” (hence the words rivas 
Gv ELTOL Adyous in the ttle of many Byz. ethopouai). 
‘The person had to be a “real” individual, either 
historical or mythological, but statements put into 
his or her mouth were invented. Hermogenes 
divides ethopoitai into ethical (with the emphasis 
on character), pathetic (with the emphasis on 
emotion), and mixed. 

In the 4th—-6th C. (Libanios, Severos of Alex- 
andria, rhetorical school of Gaza) ethopoua re- 
mained a rhetorical exercise, drawing the material 
primarily from mythology and stressing unusual 
and unreal situations. Some later Byz. ethopouat 
(e.g., by Nikephoros Chrysoberges) retain a con- 
ventional character. A number of authors of the 
iuth—12th C., however, developed the genre far 
beyond a school exercise: even mythological sub- 
jects (e.g., Pasiphaé’s infatuation with a bull, by 
Nikephoros Basilakes) could sound erotic and 
nonorthodox (H.G. Beck, Byzantinisches Erotikon 
(Munich 1984] 113). At the same time biblical and 
hagiographical themes were introduced; historical 
personages of the day, such as Nikephoros II 
Phokas, were featured, and elements of everyday 
life emerged. Eustathios of Thessalonike pre- 
sented a certain Neophytos of Mokissos complain- 
ing that he had been robbed in a bathhouse. This 
ethopoiia is full of irony underscored by references 
to mythology and to Christian moral imperatives. 
The ethopotia form was used as an element of 
other genres, e.g., in Psellos’s Chronography (O. 
Schissel, BZ 27 [1927] 271-75). 

After the 12th C. the popularity of ethopoiia 
declined, the pattern became more conventional, 
and even Manuel II’s ethopotia on the words that 
Timur allegedly addressed to Bayezid I was de- 
prived of any real content (H. Hunger in Studien 
zu älteren Geschichte Osteuropas 1 (Graz-Cologne 
1959] 156t). An exception is Alexios MAKREM- 
BOLITES’ Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor, 
which has the title of ethopotia. 


Lir. Hunger, Lit. 1:108-16. H.M. Hagen, Ethopotia (Er- 
langen 1968). Lausberg, Handbuch 1:407-11. -A.K., LS. 


ETYMOLOGIKA (érupodoyixd), lexika giving the 
derivation, real or imagined, of words. Early Greek 
thinkers saw language as a natural phenomenon; 
the Stoics saw it as a conventional system based 
on analogy. Both looked for a correspondence 


ETYMOLOGY | 735 


between the form and meaning of words and 
propounded explanations based on this principle. 
In the 5th C. Oros and Orion made collections of 
such explanations, which survive only in frag- 
ments (Das atticistische Lexikon Oros, ed. K. Alpers 
[Berlin 1981]). Ninth-C. Byz. scholars drew on 
these works, as well as on LEXIKA, Commentaries, 
etc., to compile their own etymologika. The earliest, 
the Etymologicum genuinum, survives in two 1oth- 
C. MSS, but has not yet been completely edited. 
A slightly later compilation from similar sources, 
the Etymologicum Gudianum, is probably connected 
with PHorios and his circle. ‘The compiler of the 
Soupa used both of these. About the mid-1eth C. 
another compiler drew material from the Gen- 
uinum and the Gudianum, as well as from the 
lexikon of rare words falsely attributed to CYRIL 
of Alexandria. In the independent spirit of 12th- 
C. scholarship he freely abbreviated, transposed, 
and modified what he found in his exemplars. 
This compilation, known as the Etymologicum mag- 
num, was used by EUSTATHIOS OF “PHESSALONIKE. 
The unpublished Lexikon Symeonis, a shorter com- 
pilation of the same period, sometimes follows the 
Genuinum more closely. The explanations offered 
by the etymologika are often fanciful, for example, 
a&yann (love) from “to lead everything” (aye Tò 
Trav); yupvoes from KUTT, “since the naked [man] 
(yupvos) stoops (KUmTet) in order to conceal his 
pudenda in shamc”; káunàos (camel)—because 
“she bends her thighs (Kaparet Tovs pnpovs)”; 
AUT (sorrow) from “to open (Avew) the counte- 
nance (rovs reas) for tears.” Nonetheless, these 
compilations are valuable for the light they throw 
on the Byz. understanding of their own literary 
language, as well as for their quotations from lost 
Greek texts. 

ED. Etymologicum magnum, ed. T. Gaisford (Oxford 1848; 


rp. Amsterdam 1965). For complete list of ed., see Hunger. 
Lit. 2:45-48. Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum, ed. 
POW. Stare (beipay 0810, 0p. THdesienn 1973). 

uT. R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der griechischen Etvmologika 
(Leipzig 1897). K. Alpers. Bericht über Stand und Methode 
der Ausgabe des Etymologicum Genuinum (Copenhagen 1969). 
N. Wilson, “On the Transmission of the Greek Lexica,” 


GRBS 23 (1982) 369-75. -R.B. 


ETYMOLOGY, a division of grammar in anti- 
quity, which in the 4th C. acquired special signif- 
icance as a tool for discovery of concealed links 
between essence and phenomenon. Broadly ap- 
plied by TamBiicHos, it became fashionable with 
literati of the 5th C. when various EPYMOLOGIKA 


736 EUAGEIS OIKOI 


were compiled. Far from giving scientihe expla- 
nations, Byz. etymology eagerly suggested muhi- 
farious interpretations (Krumbacher, GBL 573- 
75) probing various paths to penetrate behind 
the sound of the word: thus, anthropos was con- 
sidered to originate from ano (“up”) and from 
various verbs meaning “to jook“ or “to be in- 
clined.” During the 1oth-C. encyclopedic revival, 
the search for the etymology of geographical names 
became popular, and the chroniclers (pscudo- 
SYMEON MAGISTROS, GENESIOS, etc.) included 
etymological explanations, partly borrowed from 
Strabo, partly invented, but as a rule fantastic 
(A. Diller, TAPA 81 [1950] 245-53); Constantine 
VIPs team of writers in the DE rHEMATIBUS also 
developed pseudohistorical and = mythological 
etymologies, although the explanations of some 
names (BOUKELLARION, OpsIKION) are factual 
(Hunger, Lil. 1:532). Etymology appears also as a 
vehicle of polemic and praise: the names of saints 
were interpreted as emphasizing their virtue, the 
names of opponents their folly or vice: thus, Ni- 
kephoros Gregoras called the followers of Pa- 
LAMAS palamnaioi (“murderers”) (H. Hunger, As- 
pekte der griechischen Rhetorik [Vienna 1972] 13f). 
EUSTATHIOS OF ‘CHESSALONIKE effectively used 
etymologies in his antimonastic polemic, linking 
asketes with askos (Cwineskin”) and laura with spo- 
desilaura (“whore”) (Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 
152). ALK. 


EUAGEIS OIKOI (evaysis oikot), a category of 
pious institutions, also called ¢heioi or divine. Prob- 
ably in the 6th C., the previous philanthropic 
organizations (see PHILANTHROPY) created by 
Christians to assist the poor, the aged, and the 
infirm became more insututionalized. At the same 
time they became powerful landowners, and Jus- 
tintan fin novel 120 of 544 regulated their rights 
to acquire or lease properties; in the category of 
pious institutions the legislator included hostels 
(XENODOCHEIA), HOSPITALS, poorhouses (PTOCHO- 
TROPHEIA), ORPHANAGES, and sometimes churches 
and monasteries as well. Byz. law distinguished 
between euagers oikoi and imperial estates; the ad- 
ministration of some pious institutions, however, 
was incorporated into the state system. In the 
TAKTIKA Of the gth and roth C. chartoulario’ and 
xenodochoi of euageis oikoi are mentioned, and in 
acts of the iaith C. the otkonomos of euagets oikot 
appears. In the reth C. the latter official was 


replaced by the [megas] logariastes of euage sekreta 
(Patmou Engrapha 1, nos. 18.438, 19.26; Lavra 1, 
no.68.1). The term seems to have disappeared 
after 1204. Specific otkot such as Eleutheriou and 
ManGana were closely linked to the economy of 
the imperial court. 

uit. Dolger, Beiträge 40—42. M. Kaplan, Les propriétés de 
la couronne et de CE glise dans Empire byzantin (Paris 1976) 
17-21. Constantelos, Philanthropy 149-51. Oikonomides, 
“Evolution” 138-40. -A.K., AJC. 


EUBOEA (EvBo.a, in Western sources Negro- 
ponte), large island in the Aegean Sea (second in 
size only to Crete) off the east coast of Greece. It 
consists of three parts: the well-irrigated and for- 
ested north, a mountainous central section with 
fertile coastal valleys, and an unproductive south; 
the central section is separated from Bororia 
only by the narrow strait of Euripos. Hierokles 
(Hierok]. 644.10, 645.6—8) lists four poleis in Eu- 
boca: Adepsos/Aidepsos in the north, CHALKIS 
and Porthmos (mod. Altveri) in the middle, and 
Karystos in the south. Some settlements (Avion, 
Oreos) are attested as bishoprics from the 8th or 
gth C. onward, but nothing is known of their 
urban character. Archaeological excavations have 
revealed mosaics, remains of basilicas, and frag- 
ments of sculpture through the 7th C., even from 
remote areas of the island. The establishment of 
monasteries in the 31th and 12th C. (e.g., Panagia 
Peribleptos near Politika) are an indication of Byz. 
recovery. 

Owing to its isolated location, Euboea seems to 
have suffered little from hostile invasions. Vandal 
fleets reached the island in 466 and 475, but there 
is no evidence of Avar and Slavic attacks. Arabs 
from Tarsos attempted to capture Chalkis in the 
870s, but details of this expedition are hard to 
establish (Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.1 [1968] 56, n.1); 
the city was burned by the Venetians in 1171, As 
an administrative unit Euboea existed at least 
through the 8th C., as shown by a seal of Kosmas, 
the diotketes of Euboea (Zacos, Seals 1, no.2078), 
‘Thereafter the island was part of the theme of 
Hevias and was designated Chalkis or Euripos; 
from the rgth C. it took the name NEGROPONTE, 
although Byz. historians continued to call it Eu- 
boca until the 15th C. (e.g., Kritob. 165.19, Douk. 
75-19). From 1332 the Turks began to attack 
isolated areas on Euboea and in July of 1470 the 
island fell to them. Until the 15th C. the church 


of Euboea was under the administration of Ath- 
ens. Under Latin domination the church of Eu- 
boca was an important outpost of papal power. 

Most of the surviving churches on Euboea date 
trom the 13th and 14th C., and are found in the 
Karystos section of the island. They are small, 
single-aisled, barrel-vaulted churches, founded, 
according to their fresco inscriptions, primarily 
by local couples. Although their fresco programs 
are fundamentally Byz. in character, some West- 
ern iconographic influences are evident, perhaps 
deriving from Romanesque MSS. Western traits 
also appear in haloes, painted architecture, and 
the special outlining of figures (A. Koumoussi, Les 
peintures murales de la Transfiguration de Pyrgi el de 
Sainte-Thècle en Eubée [Athens 1987)]). 

uT. J. Koder. LMA 4:66-08. Th. Skouras, “Ochyroseis 
sten Euboia,” Archeion Euboikon Meleton 20 (1975) 327-400. 
H. Liapes, Mesatonika Mnemeta Eubowas (Athens 1971). A. 


loannou, Byzantines toichographies tes Euboras (Athens 1959). 
-T.E.G.. N.P.S. 


EUCHAITA (Eùxáira, now Avkat), city of Pon- 
ros, west of AMaseEIa. In the 5th C., Euchaita 
served as a place of exile for many prominent 
clergymen, including the patriarchs of Constan- 
unople and Antioch. It was made a city by Ana- 
stasios I, who foruhed the polzsma after an attack 
by Huns in 515. It was burned by the Sasanians 
in 615, attacked by the Arab caliph Mu‘awiya in 


640, and occupied by Arabs during the winter of 


663/4. On this last occasion, while the Arabs plun- 
dered the city and demolished the Church of St. 
Theodore, the population fled to forts in the 
nearby hills. Nevertheless, the city recovered and 
the church was rebuilt. Euchaita was a city of the 
ARMENIAKON theme; the Arabs ambushed the stra- 
legos and captured the treasury of the theme in 
810 (Theoph. 48g.17—20). The works of the met- 
ropolitan John Mauropous show that the festival 
of St. Theodore was the scene of a crowded fair 
in the mid-1ith C. Its later history is unknown. 
Originally a suffragan bishopric of Amaseia, Eu- 
chaita became an autocephalous archbishopric by 
the 7th C.; its increasing importance derived from 
the cult of St. THropore Teron transferred here 
from Amaseia. Euchaita became a metropolis un- 
der Leo VI. No remains have survived. The re- 
lation between Euchaita and the neighboring Eu- 
chaneia (named Theodoropolis by John I Tzimiskes 
IN 972) is not clear. 


EUCHARIST 737 


Lit. C. Mango, I. Sevéenko, “Three Inscriptions of the 
Reign of Anastasius I and Constantine Vw" BZ 65 (1972) 
379782. N. Oikonomides, “Le dédoublement de Saint 
Théodore ct les villes dEuchaita et d’Euchaneia.” AB 104 
(1986) 327-35. F. Trombley, “Che Decline of the Seventh- 
Century Town: The Excepuon of Euchatta.” in Byzantine 
Studies in Honor of M. Anast (Malibu 1985) 65—go. rev. A. 
Kazhdan, Enytheia yg (1988) 1977200. C. Zuckerman, “Fhe 
Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. Theodore 
the Recruit (BHG 1764) REB 46 (1988) 191-210. 

-C.F. 


EUCHARIST (evxaproria, “thanksgiving”“), prin- 
cipal Christian liturgical service, called the Lyr- 
URGY or the Divine Liturgy in Byz. usage. Based 
on Jesus’ command (Lk 22:19) to repeat in mem- 
ory of him what he did at the Last Supper, the 
Eucharist is first seen (in 1 Cor 10—11) as a ritual 
meal in which bread and wine are offered and 
blessed as Jesus’ body and blood in memory of 
his saving work, esp. his sacrificial death (1 Cor 
10:26). Originally celebrated in the context of an 
agape meal, perhaps daily, by the 2nd C. the 
Eucharist had been separated from the agape, 


joined to a service of scripture LECTIONS, and 


associated with Sunday as the ritual symbol of the 
risen Jesus’ enduring presence among his follow- 
ers. In the grd C. appear the first written formulas 
of the ANAPHORA or central prayer expressing the 
service’s significance. Eucharist is considered a 
sacrifice (thysia) because it is the SACRAMENT of 


Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross as well as an icon of 


the “heavenly liturgy” or permanent self-offering 
that Jesus offers before the throne of the Father 
(Heb 8-10, 12:22-4), a favorite theme of Byz. 
COMMENTARIES. 

Within Byz., Eucharist was a source of theo- 
logical disputes, esp. with the Iconoclasts, who 
held that the consecrated bread and wine were 
the only true typos or ezkon of Jesus (S. Gero, BZ 
68 [1975] 4—22). Against this the Second Council 
of Nicaea defined that the consecrated bread and 
wine are no image, but Jesus himself (Mansi 
13:264). The Byz. also quarrelled with others over 
eucharistic practice (sce Latin Rite, ZEON, Epr- 
CLEsIS). Byz. eucharistic theology achieved its clas- 
sic synthesis in the commentary of Nicholas Ka- 
BASILAS, who not only inaintained a balanced 
position fair to Latin views, but also found a via 
media between the two opposing tendencies of 
Byz. eucharistic theology, represented in the 12th 
C. by Soterichos PANTEUGENOS, who seemed to 
reduce the Eucharist memorial to a subjective 


738 EUCHELAION 


remembrance, and the ultrarealism of Michael 
Grykas, who held that in the Eucharist Jesus was 
really immolated (M. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica 
christianorum orientalium, vol. 3 [1930] 317-25; R. 
Bornert, Les commentaires byzantins [Paris 1966] 
229-33). 

Eucharist was originally celebrated at Byz. only 
on Sundays, Saturdays, and reasts. By the 8th- 
gth C. Byz. LECTIONARIES provide Jections for 
weekday Eucharist (P.M. Gy in Miscellanea G. Ler- 
caro, vol. 2 [Rome 1967] 255-59), though this was 
probably only in monasteries since the TYPIKON 
OF THE GREAT CHURCH does not have such lec- 
tions. Only ca.1053 or 1054 did Constantine IX 
Monomachos assign revenues to have Eucharist 
celebrated daily in Hagia Sophia (Skyl. 477-64- 
69). Daily Eucharist never became the rule in Byz., 
though the SroubiTE Typika provide for it except 
on the ferias of Lent and Holy Week (PG 
g9:1713B). It was celebrated less frequently in 
monasteries after the introduction of the Sagarric 
TYPIKA, though there was provision for COMMU- 
NION via the PRESANCTIEIED liturgy on days with- 
out Eucharist (Taft, Fast & West 61-80). (For 
representations of Christ’s celebration of the Eu- 
charist, see LORD’S SUPPER.) 

ur. G. Kretschmar, Theologische Realenzyklopddie, vol. 1 
(Berlin-New York 1977) 59—89, 229-78. J. Betz, Die Eu- 
charistie in der Zeit der griechischen Väter, 2 vols. (Freiburg 
1955-1961). J.-M.R. Tillyard, The Eucharist, Pasch of God's 
People (New York 1967). K. Stevenson, Eucharist and Offer- 
ing (New York 1987). -R.F.T. 


EUCHELAION. See UNCcTION. 


EUCHOLOGION (evyoddytov), prayer book used 
by the principal liturgical ministers (bishop, priest, 
deacon) for all services of the BYZANTINE RITE. A 
vast anthology whose contents vary widely from 
MS to MS, the early euchologion contained the 
PRAYERS and DIAKONIKA for the cathedral services 
of the capital and was the principal LITURGICAL 
BOOK Originating in Constantinople. The earliest 
of the numerous surviving MSS of the euchologion 
is Vat. Barb. gr. 396, dating from the second half 
of the 8th C. (A. Strittmatter, EphLit 47 [1933] 
329-67). 

Used even in monasteries for the Eucharist, the 
euchologion became more and more monastic in 
character as the Palestinian HOURS introduced by 


the Stoudite monasteries of Constantinople grad- 
ually merged with elements of the cathedral hours 
(ASMATIKE AKOLOUTHIA) to form a new, hybrid, 
monastic office in Constantinople (see STOUDITE 
Typixa). Arranz (“Asmatikos Hesperinos” 109- 
16) classifies various MSS of the euchologion on 
precisely this basis: their relative purity in trans- 
mitting the asmatike akolouthia of Constantinople 
or their degree of monastic content. A. Jacob, on 
the basis of their text of the Chrysostom liturgy, 
divides euchologion MSS into two recensions, the 
ancient and the new, subdividing the former 
into two families, Constantinopolitan and south 
Italian. Printed versions distinguish between the 
Mega euchologion (and extracts thereof, such as the 
hieratikon or lettourgikon), which contains the Eu- 
charist service, VESPERS, and ORTHROS, and the 
Mikron euchologion (or hagiasmaterion), which con- 
tains the other sacraments, blessings, funerals, 
and occasional services. 

ED. J. Goar, Euchologion sive rituale Graecorum? (Venice 
1730; rp. Graz 1960). 

rit. A. Jacob, “La tradition manuscrite de la Liturgie de 
saint Jean Chrysostome (Ville—XIle siécles),” Eucharisties 
d'Orient et d’Oceident, vol. 2 (Paris 1970) 109-38. Taft, Creat 
Entrance Xxxi-Xxxiv. -R.F.T. 


EUCLID, ancient Greek mathematician; fl. ca.goo 
B.c. in Alexandria and perhaps Athens. Euclid’s 
best known and most influential work, The Ele- 
ments, was the basic textbook on geometry for the 
Byz., who normally studied it in the revision pre- 
pared by THEON OF ALEXANDRIA. The most fa- 
mous copy of this revision is Oxford, d’Orville 
301, dated 888, which belonged to ARETHAS OF 
CAESAREA. The original version is preserved only 
in the gth-C. Vat. gr. 190. Commentators on The 
Elements include PAPPOS OF ALEXANDRIA, PROKLOS, 
and S1MPLIKIOS. LEO THE MATHEMATICIAN gained 
such renown for his understanding of Euclidean 
theorems that the caliph al-Ma’mtn tried to lure 
him to Baghdad (Lemerle, Humanism 173-78). 
Among later scholars who wrote on Euclid were 
Maximos PLANoubES, George PacHyMERES, Ni- 
kephoros Grecoras, Isaac ARGYROS, and BAR- 
LAAM OF CALABRIA. The Elements was translated 
into Latin (by Borrutus) and into Arabic. 

Two other works of Euclid, the Data and the 
Optics, Survive both in an original version and in 
a revision by Theon. Both works were translated 


into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn, and there is an 
anonymous Latin translauon of the Optics, per- 
haps made im the rath C. Pachymeres used the 
original version of the Optics in book g of his 
Quadrivium. 

The Mirrors, which is attributed falsely to Eu- 
clid, is perhaps by Theon. Two musical works, 
the Introduction to Harmony and the Division of the 
Seale, are sometimes ascribed to Euclid in Greek 
MSS; the first is most probably the work of Cleoni- 
des, though the second may be in part Euclid’s. 

eD Scholia—Elementa, ed. E.S. Stamatis, vol. 5.1-2 
(Leipzig 1977). 

tir. l Bulmer-Vhomas, J. Murdoch, DSB 4:414-59- 

-D.P. 


EUDOKIA (Evdoxia), feminine personal name. 
‘The word is frequent in the New Testament, 
meaning “good will, favor.” Unknown in the 4th 
G., the name was evidently coined for ATHENAIS 
and soon thereafter given also to the elder daugh- 
ter of Valentinian III. It was not widely used in 
the early period, even though Theophanes lists 
four Eudokial. However, in the late Byz. acts of 
Lavra, vols. 2—3, Eudokia holds sixth place among 


female names, between Theodora and Zoe. 
-A.K. 


EUDOKIA INGERINA (‘lyyepiva), mistress of 


Michael II], wife of Basi I, mother of Leo VI 
and Alexander; born ¢a.840, died Constantinople 
882/3. She was the daughter of Inger, who was 
perhaps of Scandinavian origin (Mango). Around 
855 Michael took Eudokia as his mistress, anger- 
ing his mother THEODORA and THEORTISTOS, both 
of whom hated her “for her impudence” 
(TheophCont 655.3-4). Despite his marriage to Eu- 
dokia Dekapolitissa, Michael apparently contin- 
ued his involvement with Eudokia Ingerina, al- 
though nothing was heard about her for a decade. 
Kislinger speculates that ca.856 Michael married 
her to a son of Caesar Barpas to legitimize her 
social status and that Bardas took up with her 
after his son’s death. 

In 865/6 she married Basil; the notion that she 
is named and depicted on an ivory casket that is 
said to have been a wedding present for the cou- 
ple has been shown to be false (A. Cutler, N. 
Otkonomides, ArtB 70 [1988] 77—87). In Sept. 
866 Eudokia gave birth to Leo. Some scholars 


EUDOKIA MAKREMBOLITISSA 739 


consider this a nominal marriage, arranged by 
Michael to give legitimacy to Leo, who was his 
child. but most assert that Leo was actually Basil’s 
son (Ch. Toul, Parnassos 21 [1979] 15-35). If 
Fudokia continued as Michael’s mistress, then her 
son Stephen, born in Nov. 867, would have been 
Michael's child as well. With Basil she had Alex- 
ander and three daughters; she is portrayed with 
her two sons in the Paris Grecory. Eudokia be- 
came inyolved ca.878 with a Niketas Xylinites, 
whom Basil forced to be tonsured. In 882 she 
arranged a BRIDE SHOW for her son Leo, at which 
he chose ‘Theophano, one of Eudokia’s relatives. 
In his funeral oration for Basil, Leo called Eu- 
dokia “the finest of women” (A. Vogt, I. Haus- 
herr, OC 26.1 [1932] 52.18). 

Lit. C. Mango, “Eudocia Ingerina, the Normans, and 
the Macedonian Dynasty,” ZRVI 14/15 (1973) 17-27. E. 
Kislinger, “Eudokia Ingerina, Basileios 1., und Michael 
LL,” JOB 33 (1983) 119-36. -P.A.H., A.C. 


EUDOKIA MAKREMBOLITISSA, empress (22/ 
23 May—31 Dec. 1067); died after 1078. Niece of 
Patr. MicHaArEL | Keroutarios, Eudokia married 
Constantine Doukas by 1049. Before he became 
CONSTANTINE X, she bore him Michael, two other 
sons, and two daughters; thereafter she had Kon- 
stantios and a daughter. She became augusta (EM- 
press) during her husband’s reign; as he was 
dying, she swore, in the presence of Patr. JOHN 
VIII XIPHILINOs, synod, and senate, never to re- 
marry. Following Constantine’s death, she ruled 
for her sons, the emperors MICHAEL VII and 
Konstantios, who appear with her on her coins. 
Supported by the caesar John Doukas, she made 
her own official decisions. The Turks continued 
to attack the eastern frontier; Caesarea and the 
region of Antioch were plundered. The Byz. 
troops, badly paid and provisioned, were demor- 
alized. Realizing the need for a male ruler, Eu- 
dokia obtained from the patriarch the annulment 
of her oath and selected as her new husband 
Romanos (1V) DroGengs. She bore htm Nikepho- 
ros and Leo. When, after the battle of Mantzikert, 
Romanos was released by ALP ARSLAN and sought 
to regain his throne (early Oct. 1071), Eudokia 
hesitated. The caesar John summarily forced her 
into her own convent of Piperoudion; NikEPHO- 
ros III recalled her to Constantinople. A copy of 
the Sacra PARALLELA prepared for Eudokia de- 
picts her with Constantine Doukas and their sons 


740 | EUDOKIMOS 


(Spatharakis, Corpus, fig.126). I. Kalavrezou-Max- 
einer (DOP 3% [1977] 305-25) suggested that 
Eudokia appears with Romanos IV on a contro- 
versial ivory in Paris, against the traditional view 
that the depiction is of Romanos I] and his em- 
press. 


tir, Oikonomides, Documents, pu JIL (1963), 101-28. 
-C.M.B., A.C. 


EUDOKIMOS (Evédoxinos), saint; born Cappa- 
docia 807, died Charsianon? 840. His father Basil 
was reportedly influential at court, and Eudoki- 
mos began his career in Constantinople. Theo- 
philos supposedly appointed him stratopedarches of 
Cappadocia (although Eudokimos’s low tite of 
KANDIDATOS is incompatible with the high office 
he allegedly received). He fought victoriously and 
when he died was buried in the ornate uniform 
of a general. 

His Life is preserved in two versions, one by 
SYMEON METAPHRASTES; Ch. Loparev (infra [1g08]) 
considered the other to be the original, if not 
composed by IGNarios THE Deacon then at least 
created in his circle. Actually, however, it was 
written by Constantine AKROPOLITES (H. Dele- 
haye, AB 51 [1933] 270f), who suppressed some 
details of the Metaphrastic version, itself not rich 
in information. The first part of the Life is a 
biography of the saint: although he was a soldier 
and not a hermit, he displays the whole range of 
traditional virtues, such as celibacy and concern 
for the poor. The second section describes mira- 
cles performed both at Eudokimos’s tomb and 
during the translation of his relics to Constanti- 
nople; the most vivid is the story of the theft of 
the corpse from Charsianon, at the request of 
Eudokimos’s mother, by the monk Joseph (arbi- 
trarily identified by Loparey with JOSEPH THE 
HyMNOGRAPHER): the corpse supposedly lifted his 
arms and legs in order to help Joseph remove his 
garment. The hagiographer does not mention 
Iconoclasm; Ševčenko (“Hagiography” 127) calls 
Eudokimos “a good candidate for an Iconoclast 
saint.” 

Representation in Art. Eudokimos, whose por- 
traits first appear in 11th-C. MSS of the menologion 
of Symeon Metaphrastes. is almost invariably de- 
picted as a young saint in full military costume. 
In wall painting, despite his natural death, he is 


paired with true martyr-warriors such as GEORGE 
and DEMETRIOS. 

sources. Ch. Loparev, “Zitie sv. Eudokima praved- 
nogo,” Pamjatniki drevnej pis'mennosti g6 (1893) 1-23. Idem, 
IRAIK 18 (4908) 199—219. 

uit. BHG 606—607¢. Ch. Loparey, “Vizanuijskija Zitija 
syjatych VIH=-IX vekov,” VizVrem 17 (1910) 114719. Da 
Costa-Louillet, “Saints de CP” 783-88. -A.K. NPS. 


EUDOXIA (Evdoéia), wife of ARKADIOS and em- 
press (from g Jan. 400); died Constantinople 6 
Oct. 404. Daughter of a Roman mother and Bauto, 
a Frankish general of Valentinian II, Eudoxia 
possessed outstanding beauty (Zosim. 5.3.2). She 
grew up in Constantinople and married Arkadios 
on 27 Apr. 395. She bore the emperor five chil- 
dren, including PuLCHERIA and THeEoposios H. 
Although pregnant during much of her short 
reign, Eudoxia was involved in politics and man- 
aged to secure the fall of the powerful eunuch 
Eutropios. Her outspokenness and alleged vanity 
earned the opposition of JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, who 
reportedly compared her to Jezebel and Salome; 
the conflict between the two threatened the nor- 
mal harmony between the people of Constanti- 
nople and the Theodosian house. Upon Eudoxia’s 
urging, Chrysostom was exiled in 403, but pop- 
ular response forced the court to recall the bishop. 
He was again exiled in 404. Later in the year 
Eudoxia suffered a fatal miscarriage, interpreted 
as punishment for her opposition to the popular 
bishop. 

uT. Holum, Theodosian Empresses 48-78. F. van Om- 
meslaeghe, “Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l'impératrice 
Eudoxie,” AB 97 (1979) 1831—59- -T.F.G. 


EUERGETIS MONASTERY, a foundation of the 
mid-11th C., located in the European suburbs of 
Constantinople, approximately 3 km outside the 
land walls. It was dedicated to the Fheotokos 
Euergetis (Eùspyéris). The original founder, Paul, 
retired to his country estate in 1049 and built a 
few simple cells for the handful of monks who 


joined him in his monastic retreat. After Paul’s 


death in 1054, his successor as hegoumenos, Tim- 
othy, put Euergetis on a solid financial base and 
constructed a new church and larger kellia. Tim- 
othy, who lived as an enklezstos, was revered as the 
second founder. Circa 1055 he composed two 


rypika, a foundation fypikon containing a rule for 
daily life and a very lengthy liturgical typekon, an 
important example of SrouDIrE TYPIKA. 

The foundation typekon, which served as a model 
for the typika of the Kosmosoteira (see BERA), 
Mamas, HeEtiou BoMON, KECHARITOMENE, and 
HILANDAR Monasteries, is Our primary source of 
information about the Euergetis monastery. The 
monastic complex included a hospice to provide 
lodging and medical care for travelers and the 
sick; distributions of food were made daily to the 
poor. Euergetis also had a metochion within the 
walls of Constantinople. During the Latin occu- 
pation of Constantinople (1204—61) the monas- 
tery was given as a dependency to MONTECASSINO, 
but apparently the Greek monks were not ex- 
pelled. St. Sava or SERBIA visited the monastery 
several umes between 1196 and 1235 and was a 
major benefactor of the institution. Euergetis dis- 
appears from the sources after the 13th C. It 
should be distinguished from the Constantinople 
monastery of Christ Euergetes, which possessed 
an icon bearing this epithet and was a foundation 
of the 10th or 11th C. (A. Cutler, DOP 37 [1983] 
42). 

sources. Liturgical typizkon—ed. Dmitrievskiy, Opisanie 
1:256-614. Foundation iypikon—ed. P. Gautier, “Le typi- 
kon de la ‘Thestokos Evergétis,” REB 40 (1982) 5-101. 

curr. J. Pargoire, “Constantinople: Le couvent de 
lEvergétis,” LO g (1906) 366-73; 10 (1907) 155-67, 259- 
63 (title varies). Janin, Eglises CP 178-83. —A.M.T.. A.C. 


EUGENEIANOS, NIKETAS, tath-C. writer. A 
disciple or friend of Propromos, Eugenetanos 
(Evyeveravos) led a hard life (according to his 
own very rhetorical statements), until he was res- 
cued by the sebastos and megas droungartos Stephen 
Komnenos, whose teacher Eugeneianos claimed 
to have been. In 1156/7 he wrote a monody on 
Stephen; he probably also dedicated an epithala- 
mion to Stephen's wedding in the eariy 11508. 
Eugencianos dedicated to Prodromos another 
monody in prose, as well as two in verse (C. 
Gallavotti, SBN 4 [1935] 222-31). A. Sideras (JOB 
37 [1987] 181—200) suggests that Eugeneianos 
was the author of an anonymous monody that is 
preserved in Heidelbergensis 18 and has signifi- 
cant snnilaritics with a monody of Prodromos 
(whom Eugencianos could imitate). An example 
of such imitation is also Eugeneianos’s romance 


EUGENIKOS, JOHN | 741 


Drosilla and Charikles; the work contains various 
allusions to Byz. reality, and the portrait of Dro- 
silla, the heroine, coincides verbatim with that of 
the ideal bride of his epethalamion. In the romance 
Eugeneianos combines a lofty lyricism with carthy 
scenes and parody. Some of his epigrams are also 
preserved (S. Lainpros, NE 11 [1914] 353-58). 
D. Christides identified Eugencianos as the author 
of an anonymous dialogue ANACHARSIS OR ANA- 
NIAS and several letters. 

ED. R. Hercher, Erotici scriptores Graeci (Leipzig 1859} 
2:437-552; corr. Q. Cataudella, FEBS 39-40 (1972- fi 
29—32. Russ. tr. F. Petrovskij, ae Evgenian, Povest 
Drosille i Chartkle (Moscow 196g). L. Petit, “Monodie de 
Nicétas Eugéneianos sur Théodore parte VizVrem 9 
(1902) 446-63. 

urr. Hunger, Lit. 2:133-36. A. Kazhdan, “Bemerkun- 
gen zu Niketas Eugenianos,” JOB 16 (1967) 101-17. M. 
Kyriakis, “Of Professors and Disciples in ‘IT'welfh (sic) Cen- 
tury Byzantium,” Byzantion 43 (1973) 108-19. F. Conca, “H 
romanzo di Niceta Eugeniano: modelli narrativi e stilistici,“ 
SicGymn 39 (1986) 115-26. -A.K. 


EUGENIKOS, JOHN, churchman and writer; 
born Constantinople after 1394, died after 1454/5. 
The younger brother of Mark EuGENIKos, John 
Eugenikos (Evyevixés) was a married deacon who 
held the positions of notary and numophylax at the 
patriarchate. Like his brother a fierce opponent 
of Union, he stayed only briefly at the Council of 
FERRARA-FLORENCE. On his way home from Ven- 
ice in 1438, he survived a shipwreck and, in re- 
sponse to this narrow escape, wrote a work titled 
Oration of Thanksgiving (ed. Lampros, infra, 271— 
314). Because of his opposition to the council, he 
was exiled to the Morea, where he joined the 
group of literati at Mistra (1439-47). He also 
traveled to Trebizond, his father’s birthplace, and 
to Mesembria (1454/5). He ended his life admin- 
istering the metropolis of Lacedaemonia (Sparta). 
Eugenikos was a prolific author who wrote in a 
variety of genres; many of his works are still 
unpubiisned. Mis polemical writings include an 
Antirhetikos attacking the Decree of Union of 1439. 
He composed several paramythetiko: and monodies, 
ekphraseis of icons, a threnos on the fall of Constan- 
tinople (which was soon thereafter translated into 
Slavic), kanones and hymns, prayers, and sermons. 
Recently, A. Sideras ascribed to Eugenikos an 
anonymous monody (Byzantion 54 [1984] 300- 
14). His encomiastic ekphrasts of Trebizond (ed. 
O. Lampsides, ArchPont 20 [1955] 25-36) differs 


742 EUGENIKOS, MANUEL 


radically from the ekphrasis of BessaRIon: while 
the latter concentrated on the trade of this “em- 


porton of the world” and on the architecture of 
the palace, Eugenikos praised the rustic beauty of 


meadows and forests around the city and their 
gorgeous vegetation. Among his hagiographical 
writings is a eulogy of James the Persian (ed. C. 
Hannick, AB go [1972] 261-87), of whom Euge- 
nikos possessed a relic, and an akolouthia for his 
brother Mark (ed. L. Petit, SBN 2 [1927] 195- 
235). Of his letters 36 survive, many of them 
attacking Latin doctrine. In his introduction to 
the Aithiopika of HELIODOROS (H. Gartner, BZ 64 
[1971] 322-25), Eugenikos suggested a “mystical” 
interpretation of this erotic romance (S. Polja- 
kova, VizVrem 31 [1971] 244). 

ED. Letters—ed. S. Lampros, Pal. kai Pel. 1:47-218. 
271-322. For complete list, see D. Stiernon, DictSpir 8 
(1974) 501-06. 

LT. C. Tsirpanlis, “John Eugenicus and the Council of 


Florence,” Byzantion 48 (1978) 264-74. PLP, no.6189. 
-A.M.T., A.K. 


EUGENIKOS, MANUEL, wall-painter, deco- 
rated the monastery church of Calendžicha 
(Georgia) at the behest of Dadian Vameq I, prince 
of Mingrelia (1384—96). His large body of surviv- 
ing work has been related to frescoes in the church 
of Theodore Stratelates at Novcorop and to an 
icon at Mt. Sinai. Although his name is Trapezun- 
tine, Greek and Georgian inscriptions at Calen- 
dzicha report that Eugenikos was brought from 
Constantinople. 

irr. T. Velmans, “Le décor du sanctuaire de l'église de 
Calend2zikha,” CahArch 36 (1988) 137-159. I. Lordkipan- 
idze, “La peinture murale de ‘Tsalendjikha,” He Symposium 
International sur Cart géorgien (Tbilisi 1977) 1-16. H. Belting, 
“Le peintre Manuel Eugenikos de Constantinople, en Géor- 
gic.” CahArch 28 (1979) 103-34. PLP, no.6 192. -AC. 


EUGENIKOS, MARK, metropolitan of Ephesus 
(1437-45), anti-Latin theologian, and saint; born 
Constantinople 13947, died Constantinople 23 June 
1445 (J. Gill, BZ 52 [1959] 31); feastday 19 Jan. 
Son of the deacon George Eugenikos, who was 
sakelhos of Hagia Sophia, Eugenikos received 
the baptismal name of Manuel. After his father’s 
death, Eugenikos studied in Constantinople with 
John CHorrasMENos and George PLETHON. In 
1420 he became a monk on Antigone (Princes? 
Islands); two vears later he returned to the capital, 


where he entered the MANGANA monastery and 
was eventually ordained a priest. Shortly before 
the Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE, Eugenikos was 
made metropolitan of Ephesus. He attended the 
council as one of the leading Byz. theologians and 
presented the extreme Greek position concerning 
the FILIOQUE (M.A. Orphanos in Phaloxenia [Mtin- 
ster 1980] 2293—32) and PURGATORY (C. Tsirpanlis, 
BS 37 [1976] 164-200). He was the only Greek 
delegate who refused to sign the decree of Union 
(1439). After his return to Ephesus via Constan- 
tinople, he was imprisoned for two years on Lem- 
nos (1440—42). Eugenikos has been both criticized 
as a “narrow-minded obstacle to Union” (Gill) and 
praised as an uncompromising and consistent 
supporter of the conciliar Christian tradition 
(Tsirpanlis). He was canonized by the Orthodox 
church in 1456; his brother John EUGENIKOsS wrote 
his vita (ed. S. Pétridés, ROC 15 [1910] g7—107). 
An akolouthia also suryives (ed. L. Petit, SBN 2 
[1927] 193-235). 

In his numerous theological works Eugenikos 
defends PaLamisM (e.g., 72 Kephalaia) and the 
anti-Latin position on filioque and purgatory. A 
few of his letters are preserved as well as hagio- 
graphical compositions and hymns (kanones in 
honor of the Virgin). He also wrote ekphraseis on 
paintings that indicate his appreciation of art (D. 
Pallas, Byzantion 52 {1982} 357-74) and solutions 
to philosophical questions (aporiaz) such as the 
existence of a soul in animals, evil, and free will. 
Many of his works remain unpublished. 

ED. PG 159:1024-93; 160:19—105, 112—204, 1080-1104, 
1164-1200; 161:12-244. Kephalaia—ed. in W. Gass, Die 
Mystik des Nikolaus Cabasilas vom Leben in Christo (Leipzig 
1899) pt.2, 217-32. And-Latin works—ed. L. Petit. PO 15 
(1927) 25-168; 17.2 (1923) 336-522. For full list of works, 
see Tsirpanlis, infra 1og—18 and Tusculum-Lexikon 237. 

ur. J. Gill, “Mark Eugenicus, Metropolitan of Ephesus.” 
in Personalities 55-64. C. Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the 


Council of Florence (Thessalonike 1974). PLP. no.6193. 
-A M.T. 


EUGENIOS (Evyévios), martyr and saint, alleg- 
edly a victim of Dioeletian’s persecutions; feastday 
20 or 21 Jan. In Symeon Metaphrastes (PG 
116:467—506) he appears as an associate of the 
martyr Eustratios (see Five MARTYRS OF SEBAS- 
TEIA), but in the Synaxarion of Constantinople Eu- 
genios is depicted as the principal hero of another 
group of martyrs, consisting of Valerianus, Can- 
didius, and Aquilas (Synax.CP 406-07). In both 


cases, the persecutor is Lysias, doux of “Satalea” 
(Satalea is the name of several towns in Asta Minor 
and Armenia). Whatever the origin of the legend, 
by the rath C. Eugenios became the patron of 
PREBIZOND: one of the major churches in Trebi- 
zond was dedicated to him, and under the Grand 
Komnenoi his image was common on the local 
coins, the so-called aspra komnenata (M. Kurgan- 
skis, ArchPont 45 [1978] 27). His martyrdom is 
illustrated in the MENOLOGION OF BastL IL. 

Jons (VHD Nipiitinos, the future patriarch 
and a native of Trebizond, compiled the passio of 
Eugenios and wrote about his miracles (M. van 
Esbroeck, OrChrP 47 [1981] 392). The latter pro- 
vide information on climate, everyday life, and 
on an appearance of the Rus’ in Trebizond in the 
days of “Constantine the Younger.” The martyr- 
dom of Fugenios and his posthumous miracles 
were also the subject of several later works, some 
anonymous and some by known authors (Joseph, 
metropolitan of Trebizond [1364-67], John La- 
zaropoulos, Constantine Loukites) who were ac- 
tive at the court of the Grand Komnenoi in the 
14th C. The Miracles by John Lazaropoulos is rich 
in factual historical material, beginning with Basil 
I and including both Trebizond and the neigh- 
boring lands (Iberia, Chaldia, and even Cherson). 

sources. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Sbornik isteénikov 
po storu Trapezundskoy imperii (St. Petersburg 1897). Q. 
Lampsides, “Hagios Eugenios ho Trapezountios,” ArchPont 
18 (1953) 129—201. 

ur. BHG 6o08y-613. O. Lampsides, Hagios Eugenios ho 
pohouchos tes Trapezountos (Athens 1984). F.I. Uspenskij, 
Očerki iz istorti Trapezuntskoj imperi (Leningrad 1929) 13, 
23f. Janim, Eglises centres 266-70. -A.K., N.P.S. 


EUGENIOS OF PALERMO, high-ranking offi- 
cial at the Sicilian court; admiral (from 1190), 
translator, and poet; born Palermo ca.1130, died 
¢a.1203. Henry VI imprisoned him in 1195—96; 
after his release he was appointed master cham- 
berlain ot Apulia and Ferra di Lavora (1198- 
1202). Jamison’s identification of Eugenios with 
Hugo Falcandus Siculus has not proved valid. 
Eugenios belonged to the group of Sicilian intel- 
lectuals versed in Arab, Latin, and Greek culture. 
He translated Ptolemy's works from Arabic into 
Latin and Sibylline oracles from Greek into Latin; 
he also wrote Greek poems. He focused on human 
behavior, treating it on the basis of classical and 
patristic tradition with a slight tint of personal 
experience. Eugenios published and perhaps ed- 


EUGENIUS ITI 743 


ited a version of Stephanites and Ichnelates by Sy- 
meon SETH, and in his poems he developed the 
theme of the instability of human life, typical of 
Byz. didactic literature of the 11th—12th C. He 
praised the ideal of ascetic life; in another poem 
he presented the ideal image (eikon) of the ruler— 
somewhat vaguely, but emphasizing military 
prowess (v.21.60-66). Many other poems are ded- 
icated to such topics as greediness, garrulity, cal- 
umny, and virginity. 

ED. Versus iambic, ed. M. Gigante (Palermo 1964), with 
Ital. tr. 

urr. E. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily, His Life and 
Work (London 1957). M. Gigante, “Il tema dell’ instabilità 
della vita nel primo carme di Eugenio di Palermo,” Byzan- 
lion 33 (1963) 325-56. Idem in J Bizantini in Malia, eds, G. 
Cavallo et al. (Milan 1982) 628-30. -ALK. 


EUGENIUS, usurper (from 22 Aug. 392); died 6 
Sept. 394. A former teacher of Latin grammar 
and rhetoric, Eugenius was magister scrinu at the 
court of Valentinian H when the latter was mur- 
dered in 392. When ARBOGAST, the Frankish ma- 
gister militum, failed to hold power in his own 
name, he appointed Eugenius as Western em- 
peror. Eugenius was nominally a Christian but, as 
a moderate in the religious controversies, he was 
acceptable to the pagans of Italy, who chafed 
under the autocratic religious policies of Theo- 
dosios I. When Eugenius could not secure the 
recognition of Theodosios, he threw himself fully 
into the arms of the pagan party. Under the 
direction of the praetorian prefect Nicomachus 
FLAVIANUS paganism revived in Italy. Theodosios 
elevated his son Honorius to imperial rank in 393 
and marched against Eugenius the next year. At 
the battle of the Frigidus, Eugenius was taken 
prisoner and executed. 

LIT. Stein, Histoire 1:211-17. Matthews, Aristocracies 238— 
47. H. Bloch, “A New Document of the Last Pagan Revival 
in the West. gaa—aa4 a.p..” HTAR 28 (ioan) 100-244. H 
Szidat, “Die Usurpation des Eugenius,” Historia 28 (1979) 


487-508. B. Baldwin, “Jordanes on Eugenius: Some Fur- 
ther Possibilities,” Antichthon 11 (1977) 103f. -T.E.G. 


EUGENIUS III (Bernardo Pignatelli of Pisa), pope 
(from 15 Feb. 1145); died Tivoli 8 July 1153. 
Eugenius spent almost all of his papacy in a strug- 
gle against the Romans, who expelled him from 
the city even before his consecration. A Cistercian 
and follower of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius 
sancuoned the Second Crusade (1 Dee. 1145) and 


744 EUGENIUS IV 


tried to achieve union with the Greeks (ROGER II 
of Sicily, in contrast, tried to use the Crusaders 
for his own purposes against Byz.). After the 
failure of the Second Crusade, Eugenius was forced 
to seek alliance with Roger; he took advantage of 
Roger's military support to return to Rome in 
Nov. 114g but did not break with Conran HI 
and his ally Manuel I Komnenos. 

uY. JG. Rowe. “The Papacy and the Greeks (1 122- 
1153). ChHist 28 (1959) 122-26, 130, 310-27. M. Macear- 
ronce, Papato e impero (Rome 1959) 11-103, -ARK. 


EUGENIUS IV (Gabriele Condulmaro), pope 
(from 3 Mar. 1431); born Venice ca.1383, died 
Rome 23 Feb. 1447. After ascending the papal 
throne Eugenius had to deal with the resistance 
of many Halan cities, including Rome (from which 
he fled in 1434, not returning until 1443), as well 
as church prelates who assembled a council in 
Basel. He carried on negotiations with Emp. Journ 
VIII Patatotocos and transferred the council 
from Basel to Ferrara, where he brought the 
emperor, Patr. Joseren II, and their retinue of 
700 men. At the Council of FeRRARA-FLORENCE 
(1438-39) a decree of union was signed, but it 
was short-lived. Eugenius tried to attract to the 
union other separated Eastern churches—namely 
the Armenians and the Copts. After the council 
the pope promised to send a fleet of ten ships to 
John and to rouse Germany and Hungary to 
action against the Turks. Fhe fleet was delayed 
but the papal nuncio Garatoni arrived in Con- 
stantinople to outfit ships and crossbowmen. A 
papal letter to Garatoni of 25 Aug. 1440, how- 
ever, reveals the growing tensions between the 
two churches and the inclination of the pope to 
reduce the patriarchate of Constantinople to the 
level of an ordinary local church. Eugenius sup- 
ported the expedition of Hunyanı that ended in 
1444 in a defeat at VARNA—a disaster that deni- 
onstrated the futility of Byz. expectations of a 
Western crusade. 

UT. J. Gill, Eugenius IV (Westminster, Md.. 19621). Th.V. 
Tuleja, “Eugenius JV and the Crusade of Varna,” Catholic 
Historical Review 35 (1949) 257-75. D. Caccamo, “Eugenio 
IV e crociata di Varna.” ASRSP 79 (1960) 35-87. -A.K. 





EUGENIUS VULGARIUS, southern Italian cleric 
whose surname may indicate Bulgarian back- 
ground; fl. Naples? ca.goo. Hoping for material 


reward, Eugenius dedicated to Leo VI four flat- 
tering Latin poems—including one figure poem 
in the shape of a pyramid, complete with a prose 
explanation of its symbolism. He also composed 
verses for Pope Sergius HI (gog—1t) and local 
potentates and wrote defenses of Pope Formosus 
(ed. E. Dümmler, Auxilius und Vulgarius [Leipzig 
1866] 117-39). His metrical martyrology reflects 
Byz. tradition on BarNasas the Apostle (ed. P. 
Meyvaert, AB 84 [1966] 360-67). 
eD. P. von Winterfeld, MGH Poel. 4.1:412-40. 


ur. Watteubach, Levison, Lowe. Deutsch. Gesch. Vorzeit 
u. Karol. 4400. B. Schieffer, LMA 4:85. -M.McC, 


EUGIPPIUS, abbot of the monastery of Lucul- 
lanum and hagiographer; died Castellum Lucul- 
lanum, near Naples, after 533. Isidore of Seville 
mentions the spiritual rule which Eugippius wrote 
for his monastery. He corresponded with a num- 
ber of churchmen, including Dionysius Exicuus. 
Eugippius was also known to Cassioporus, who 
(Institutiones 23) deprecates his neglect of secular 
studies but praises his biblical scholarship, rec- 
ommending his Selections from the Works of St. Au- 
gustine. Fugippius is best known for his Life of St. 
SEVERINUS, the apostle of Noricum, whose disci- 
ple he was and whose remains were deposited at 
his monastery. ‘his biography was written in some 
haste ca.511 to get ahead of an anonymous rival 
whose study of the monk Bassus provoked fears 
that his treatment of Severinus would be too lit- 
erary for ordinary readers. It was sent for ap- 
proval (duly received) to the Roman deacon Pa- 
schasius as a Memorandum (Commemoratorium), a 
title that disingenuously plays down its own con- 
siderable rhetoric. Although giving Severinus his 
meed of miracles and other supernatural skills, 
the Life emphasizes secular events, set down in 
accurate chronological sequence and providing 
overall a unique eyewitness picture of the last 
decades of the western Roman province of Nori- 
cum, esp. the social life of river towns between 
Vienna and Passau. 

Ep. Vita Sancti Severini, cd. T. Niisslein (Stuttgart 1986). 
R. Noll, Eugippius: Leben des heiligen Severin? (Berlin 1963; 
rp. New York 1965). with Germ. tr. Eng. tr. L. Bieler, L. 
Krestan, Eugippius: Phe Life of Saint Severin (Washington, 
D.C., 1985). 

uT. M. Pellegrino, “H Commemoratorium Vitae Sancti 
Severini,” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Halia 12 (1958) 1- 
26. H. Baldermann, “Die Vita Severini des Eugippius.” WS 
74 (1981) 142-55. -B.B. 


EUKTERION §$ (evxrnpiov), or eukterios oikos 
(EÙKTNPLOS otxos), lit. “a house of prayer” and 
therefore, in theory, any church building. Gen- 
erally, however, the term was used of private 
CHURCHES oratories and CHAPELS—distinet from, 
or appended to, the main places of pubhe wor- 
ship. Secular and ecclesiastical authorities were 
anxious to ensure that privately founded eukteria 
did not subvert or overburden the church's epis- 
copal structure, Justinian I ordered that construc- 
tion was not to begin until the local bishop had 
consecrated the site, approved the priest, and 
received from the would-be founder (KTETOR) 
sufficient funds for staffing and maintenance; do- 
nors who could not afford this were encouraged 
to contribute to the restoration of unused or ru- 
ined churches (noys. 57.1-23 67; 128.185 131.7). 
He also prohibited the celebration of the liturgy 
in the oratories of private houses (novs. 131.93 
58), a prohibition that the Council in Trullo re- 
peated and extended to baptism (canons 31 and 
5y). Insofar as the prohibition was designed to 
prevent the dissemination of heresy, it had lost 
much of its urgency by the end of the gth C., 
when Leo VI repealed it as being unnecessarily 
restrictive now that Orthodoxy was secure “and 
by divine grace eukferiot oikoi have been erected to 
God in almost every house, not only of the illus- 
trious, but also of the cominon people” (nov.4: 
see also nov.i5). 

This policy ignored, however, the now more 
serious threat that eukteria posed to the sacramen- 
tal raison d'être of the public churches and that 
Patr. ALEXIOS STouprres later (1028) attempted 
to remove by forbidding the use of eukteria for 
any service apart from the liturgy (RegPatr, fasc. 
2, no.835). According to Balsamon, an eukterios 
oikos was a church that lacked consecration through 
chrismation, deposition of martyr relics, and en- 
thronement of the officiating prelate (Rhalles- 
Potles, Syntagma 4:458t, 479.0—-9). 


urr. Beck, Kirche 83-86. -P.M. 


EULALIOS (EvAdAtos), painter who seems to have 
flourished as a mosaicist and icon-painter under 
Manuel I; he is alluded to in several texts of the 
tath—1qgth ©. Nicholas MESARITES attributes to 
him the images of the Pantokrator and the Myr- 
ROPHOROL in the Church of the Hoty APOSTLES, 
Constantinople, and suggests that Eulalios in- 


EUNAPIOS OF SARDIS | 745 


serted his own image into the latter scene. This 
statement was questioned by Demus (infra) but is 
still consistent with the ethos of rath-C. MONU- 

MENTAL PAINTING. 
url. N. Bees. “Kunsigeschichdiche Untersuchungen tber 
die Fulahios-Frage und den Mosaikschmuck der Apostel- 
kirche zu Konstantinopel,” RepKunstw 39 (1g16) 97-117, 
231=51; 40 (1917) 59777. O. Demus, “ “Phe Sleepless 
Watcher: Ein Erklärungsversuch.“ JOB 28 (1979) 241-453- 
AC. 


EULOGIA (eùàoyia, “blessing” or “benedicton”), 
the term applied to consecrated gifts as well as 
to the bread offered optionally at the eucharist or 
blessed separately and distributed in church or 
sent as a gift. The term was extended to the 
“blessing” at departure and that received by a 
pilgrim through contact with a holy place, person, 
or object. It could be received cither directly and 
immaterially, for example, through kissing the 
wood of the True Cross, or conveyed indirectly 
through a substance of neutral origin (e.g.. oil, 
water, earth) that itself had been blessed by such 
contact. In the latter case, the material itself, as 
in Symeon tokens (see PILGRIM TOKENS) or its 
container (e.g, MENAS FLASKS, pilgrimage AMPUL- 
LAE) might bear a representation of the sanctify- 
ing agent or event. The richest account of Byz. 
pilgrimage eulogiaz is that recorded ca.570 by the 
PIACENZA PILGRIM, who, for example, reclined on 
a couch in the Garden of Gethsemane “to gain a 
blessing” (ch.17). At the Holy Sepulchre he de- 
scribes the blessing of little flasks of oil through 
contact with the True Cross and the blessing of 
earth brought into the tomb. Pilgrim eulogiat were 
valued for their amuletic and medicinal powers; 
CYRIL OF SkyYTHOPOLIS (ed. E. Schwartz, 110.10— 
11, 164.14-18, 218.6—7, 228.13-14), for ex- 
ample, writes that St. SaBAs (among others) used 
the oil of the ‘True Cross to exorcise evil spirits; 
a flash ai Duuuie (Giana , Ampuutes, Duvuuiy nu. 1) 
is inscribed “Oil of the Wood of Life, that guides 
us by land and sea.” 

LIT. A. Stuiber, RAC 6 (1966) goo-28. B. Kötting, Pere- 
grinalio religiosa (Regensberg 1950) 398—43. Vikan, Pilgrim- 
age Art 10-14. “GY. 


EUNAPIOS OF SARDIS, pagan writer and his- 
torian; born Sardis 345/6 (PLRE 1:296) or 349 
(R. Goulet, JHS 100 [1980] 67), died after 414. 
Eunapios (Evvameos) lived mainly in Sardis, apart 


746 | EUNOMIOS 


from five student years at Athens whence his 
parents recalled him, thus aborting a visit to Egypt. 
His combination of sophistry and medicine (typi- 
cal for the age) helped him achieve a friendship 


with Oripasios, famous doctor and confidant of 


Julian. So did his rancid paGANisM, the central 
emotional and intellectual impulse of his writings, 
albeit he did admire his Christian mentors Chry- 
santhios and Prohaeresios. His Lives of the Sophists, 
written in or after 399 (T.M. Banchich, GRBS 25 
[1984] 183-92), celebrates various Neoplatonists, 
iatrosophists, and rhetoricians in different de- 
grees of fervor and coolness. 

His History, surviving only in fragments, for- 
mally continued that of Dexippos, and encom- 
passed in 14 books the period 270-414. Its pre- 
cise structure and date of composition are endlessly 
debated, as is whether he used Ammianus MAR- 
CELLINUS as a source or vice versa. Photios (Bibl., 
cod.77) knew two versions or EKDOSEIS: the orig- 
inal being too anti-Christian for pious stomachs, 
Eunapios produced a toned-down “New Edition,” 
clumsily done with subsequent obscurities in the 
text. His History is wildly biased toward paganism 
and Julian, ostentatiously neglectful of precise 
chronology, and crammed with rhetorical digres- 
sions and descriptions of individuals and events; 
ZosimMos exploited it to the point of plagiarism. 
Photios is relatively kind to his stvle; modern taste 
generally prefers C.G. Cobet's label “most stink- 
ing” (Mnemosyne? 6 [1878] 318). 

ED. Vlae sophistarum, ed. G. Grangrande (Rome 1956). 
Index in Eunapti Vitas sophistarum, ed. I. and M.M. Avotins 
(Hildesheim 1983). Philostratus and Eunapius, ed. W.C. Wright 
(Cambridge, Mass.-London 1952), 317-496, with Eng. tr. 
History—Blockley, Historians 121-26, 211-150, with Eng. tr. 

ur. A. Baldini, Ricerche sulla Storia di Eunapio di Sardi 
(Bologna 1984). A.B. Breebaart, “Eunapius of Sardes and 
the Writing of History.” Mnemosyne! 32 (1979) 360-75. 
D.F. Buck, “Eunapius of Sardis and Theodosius the Great,” 
Byzantion 58 (1988) 36-53. -B.B. 


EUNOMIOS (Evivómos), leader of Neo-Arians 
(Anomoians); born ca.335 in Cappadocia (in Ol- 
liseris or more probably Dakora), died Dakora 
ca.3g4. Son of a cultured peasant, Eunonnos 
learned the skill of TacHYGRAPHY and served as a 
teacher in Constantmople. In Antioch he met 
AETIos, whose secretary aud disciple he became 
and whose fate he shared, being exiled by Con- 
stantius I, recalled by Julian who gave him prop- 
erues in Chalcedon, and subsequently becoming 


involved in the revolt of Prokopios. In 360 (ac- 
cording to Philostorgios) or ca.366 (according to 
Sokrates), he was appointed bishop of Kyzikos. 
After the death of Aetios, Eunomios headed the 
radical group of Arians and was ordered by Thco- 
dosios 1 to produce their exposition of faith; 
Theodosios, however, rejected their Anomoian 
views and banished Eunomios to the lower Dan- 
ube and then to Cappadocia, where he died. 

Like Aetios, Eunomios taught that God the Cre- 
ator was ingencrate, whereas the Son was created 
and possessed a different essence and different 
energy; the Father, the Son, and the Spirit formed 
a hierarchy of nonconsubstantial beings. Natu- 
rally, Eunomtos avoided the concept of the Trin- 
ity. The Logos-Christ was a created deity and 
never assumed the human nature—a view that 
Eunomios shared with the ‘Vheopaschites. He in- 
troduced a particular form of baptism—a single 
immersion in the name of the death of Christ 
(and not in the name of the Trinity). Eunomios 
professed the power of reason, and coutemporar- 
ies testify to the clarity of his argumentation. He 
rejected the idea that God was unknowable: So- 
krates ascribes to hin the assertion that God does 
not know more of his essence than we do. Euno- 
mios’s works are lost but some of them (the Apol- 
ogy, the Apology of Apology, and the Exposition of 
Faith) are known in fragments from refutations 
produced by his opponents (Basil the Great, Greg- 
ory of Nyssa). 





ED. The Extant Works, ed. R.P. Vaggione (Oxford 1987). 
PG 30:835—-68, 67:587-go. 

ur. T.A. Kopeck, A History of Neo-Arianism, vol. 2 (Phil- 
adelphia 1979). B. Sesboüé, L'Apologie @Eunome de Cyzique 
et le ‘Contre Eunome’ (1;1—3) de Basile de Césarée (Rome 1980). 
F. Dickamp. “Literargeschichliches zu der cunomian- 
ischen Kontroversie,” BZ 18 (1g0g) 1-13. L. Abramowski, 
RAC 6:936—-47. [TEG ARK. 


EUNUCHS (sing. éxropias) played an important 
role in the church, the army, and the civil admin- 
istration. Several patriarchs were eunuchs: Gek- 
MANOS I, Mernonios, [GNATIOS, and others, the 
last of them being Eustratios Garidas (1081-84); 
among gencrals Narses was especially famous; 
among civil officials were Evrropios, SAMONAS, 


Joseph Brincas, Basi] LEKAPENOS, and JOHN THE 


ORPHANOTROPHOS. High palace dignities such as 
PRAEPOSITUS SACRI CUBICULE and PARAKOIMOME- 
nos were until the iith C. held mainly by cu- 
nuchs. Eunuchs also served in the houses of aris- 


tocrats. Legislation prohibited castration, although 
Leo VI (nov.60) mitigated the punishment im- 
posed for performing this surgery. Despite this 
legislation the operation was often performed on 
both children and adults, including members of 
the aristocracy. Some eunuchs were imported from 
the Caucasus, the caliphate, and Slavic countries. 
Rare at the time of Constantine I, eunuchs ac- 
quired importance during the reign of Constan- 
tius II in conjunction with the growth of the 
bureaucratic system; Julian’s attempt to restrict 
the role of eunuchs failed. They retained impor- 
tant positions through the 11th C., but were pushed 
out of the highest posts under the Komnenian 
dynasty, as aristocratic ideology with its veneration 
of manliness became dominant (A. Kazhdan, 
ADSV 10 [1973] 184-97); they were rare in the 
igth-15th C. Because of their fear of HOMOSEXU- 
Liry, monastic leaders tried to exclude the 
“beardless” from certain monasteries (e.g., on Mt. 
Athos). 

It is usually thought that eunuchs, who had no 
children of their own nor were allowed to ascend 
the throne, preserved greater loyalty to their mas- 
ters. G. Walter (La vie quotidienne à Byzance au siècle 
des Comneénes [Paris 1966] g5) questioned this the- 
sis, arguing that in reality eunuchs participated in 
diverse plots and schemes against the emperors. 
Theophylaktos of Ohrid (Discours, Traités, Poésies, 
ed, P. Gautier [Thessalonike 1980] 287-331) wrote 
a defense of the status of eunuchs, demonstrating 
that they had always played an important role in 
the palace, in the church, and esp. in the creation 
of ecclesiastical music. Theophylaktos provided 
his reader with a list of cunuch-martyrs and named 
a worthy contemporary, a certain Symeon, who 
organized a synoikia (community) of eanuch-monks. 
The monastery of St. Lazaros in Constantinople 
was reserved for eunuchs by Leo VI (Janin, Églises 
CP 299). 

ur. Guilland, dastitutions 1:165-97. M.D. Spadaro, “Un 


inedito di Teofilato di Achrida sulleunuchia.” RSBS 1 
(1981) 3-38. -A.K. 


EUPHEMIA, CHURCH OF SAINT, built in the 
4th C. at the place of her burial, about 1.5 kin 
from CHALCEDON, It consisted of a basilica with 
an attached circular martyrion in which the body 
of EupHemia was kept in a silver sarcophagus. 
Once a vear the body reportedly exuded an efflu- 


EUPHEMIA OF CHALCEDON 747 


vium of blood that was distributed in glass am- 
pullae. A painted cycle of Euphemia’s martyrdom 
(in a “roofed passage”) is described by AsTERIOS 
or AMASEIA. The Council of Chalcedon was held 
in the church in 451. The Persian invasions of 
the early 7th C. caused its destruction and the 
transfer to Constantinople of the “uncorrupted 
body,” which was housed in the converted great 
hall of the palace of Antiochos next to the Hır- 
PODROME. During the Jconoclastic period the new 
church was secularized and the relics were thrown 
in the sea by Constantine V; they were miracu- 
lously saved and returned in 796 to the refur- 
bished church, which survived until the end of 
the Byz. Empire. Excavations in 1942 and 1950— 
52 revealed part of the palace of Antiochos, in- 
cluding the hexagonal! building that housed the 
church, opening on to a semicircular portico. A 
late 13th-C. cycle of wall paintings illustrates the 
saint’s martyrdom. 

LT. Janin, Églises CP 120-24. Janin, Églises centres 31— 
33. R. Naumann, H. Beluüng, Die Fuphemia-Kirche am Hip- 
podrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken (Berlin 1966). -C.M. 


EUPHEMIA OF CHALCEDON, saint; died 16 
Sept. 303, according to the Fasti Consulares Vin- 
dobonenses (MGH AuctAnt. 9:290). EGERIA men- 
tions the cult of Euphemia (Ev@npia) in Chalce- 
don, and ASTERIOS OF AMASEIA describes her 
annual feast and the pictorial representation of 
her trial and death by fire. The Church of St. 
Euphemia housed the Council of Chalcedon in 
451 (see EUPHEMIA, CHURCH OF Saint). Halkin 
(infra, xvii) dates the earliest passio (preserved in 
rith- and 12th-C. MSS) soon after this council. It 
provides little information, but the details of the 
trial and execution differ from Asterios’s descrip- 
tion; for example, Euphemia was supposedly 
thrown to wild beasts and died in the arena. The 
Synaxarwon of Constantinople (Synax.CP p.811-13) 
assigns to Euphemia the miracle of determining 
the decision of the Council of 451: two tomoi, one 
orthodox and another heterodox (Monophysite), 
were placed in Euphemia’s coffin; after several 
days the council members reopened the coffin 
and found the heretical creed under Euphemia’s 
feet and the orthodox one in her hands. Euphem- 
ia’s cult was popular in Byz. Constantine of Tios 
(ca.800) related that Leo IH ordered her relics 
thrown into the sea, but two pious brothers saved 


748 EUPHRATAS 


them and brought them to Lemnos. In the 15th 
C. Makarios Makres reworked this legend. Latin 
versions also survive (H. Boese, AB 97 [1979] 
360-62). 

Representation in Art. Portraits of the saint 
show a virgin martyr clad in a maphorion and long 
tunic. In the THEODORE Psacrer (fol.163¥) and 
in some MSS of Symeon Metaphrastes she is shown 
flanked by beasts from the arena (in accordance 
with the text), while in others she stands nude in 
a pyre (as in the description by Asterios) or is 
beheaded. A fresco cycle of 14 scenes illustrating 
her martyrdom adorns her church in Constanti- 
nople (R. Naumann, H. Belting, Die Euphemia- 
Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken 
[Berlin 1966] 113-17). 

source. F. Halkin, Euphémie de Chalrédoine (Brussels 1965). 

Lir. BHG §1g—62q4n. J. Wortley, “Iconoclasm and Leip- 
sanoclasm: Leo HHI, Constantine V and the Relics,” ByzF 8 
(1g82) 274-77. O. Schrier, “A propos d'une donnée nég- 
ligée sur Ja mort de Ste. Euphémic.” AB 102 (1984) 329- 
53. J. Boberg, LCI 6:182—-85. ~A.K. NPS. 


EUPHRATAS (Evd¢paras). legendary architect of 
Constantinople during the reign of Constantine 
I. He is described as a eunuch, paraketmomenos, 
and eponym of a church or gerokomeion in the 
district of Leomakellion in Constantinople. He is 
mentioned in the Patria, in pseudo-Symeon Ma- 
gistros, and in some legends about Constantine. 
According to one of the legends, Euphratas built 
the city ramparts, developed the sewage system, 
excavated cisterns, and erected Hagia Sophia. An- 
other legend relates that he came to Constantine 
on the eve of the battle at the Milvian Bridge and 
advised the emperor to abandon polytheism and 
trust in the true God and his son Christ. Euphra- 
tas also reportedly invited inhabitants of various 
cities to move to Constantinople and furnished 
them with annonae and dwellings. He supposedly 
provided “the archontes of Rome” with new houses, 
fountains, and gardens identical to those they had 
possessed in Rome. Euphratas is not mentioned 
in any source before the gth C. 

uit. F. Halkin, “L'empereur Constantin converti par 
Euphratas,” AB 78 (1960) 4-17. A. Kazhdan, “Constantin 
imaginaire,” Byzantion 57 (1987) 237-39. -A.K. 


EUPHRATENSIS, properly Augusta Euphraten- 
sis (AùyovorToevoparnoia, also Augusta eupatensis 
[stc}}, province created between 330 and 350 


(probably ca.341) from that territory of Cocle- 
Svria that lay along the west bank of the Eu- 
phrates. [tis identified by Ammianus Marcellinus 
and Prokopios as former Kommagene. Part of 
what had earlier been the region of Palmyrene 
(e.g., SERGIOPOLIS) Was incorporated in the prov- 
ince, but it is doubtful, despite Malalas and Pro- 
kopios, that Euphratensis included some parts 
of Osrnorne. The province contained at least 
20 cities, including HteRaponis (the capital), 
Cyrruus-Hagioupolis, Doliche (TELOUCH), SAMO- 
sata, and Evropos. The early 7th-C. geographer 
GEORGE OF Cyprus calls the region “the eparchy 
of Euphratensis and Hagioupolis,” stressing the 
special place occupied by Cyrrhus. In the 5th C. 
southern Euphratensis was carved out, including 
Zenowia and the capital Sergiopolis. After the 
Arab conquest Fuphratensis formed part of the 


jund (military district) of Qinnasrin (CHALKIS). The 


name al-Furatiyah survives in Arabic sources until 
the igth C. 

uy. E. Honigmann, RE 12 (1925) 1983—98, 2.R. 4 (1932) 
1698. Idem, Evêques et évêchés monophysites d'Asie antérieure 
au VIe siècle (Louvain 1952) 102f. —M.M.M. 


EUPHRATES (Evdparys), longest (2,760 km) river 
of western Asia. The Euphrates was navigable 
from north of Edessa; it was a principal waterway 
for transportation, but vulnerable politically and 
militarily. Heavily fortified since Roman times, the 
river provided the principal means for Persian 
expeditions against Byz. Much defensive con- 
struction took place in the reigns of Anastasios I 
and Justinian I. Important cities along the Eu- 
phrates included MELITENE, SAMOSATA, HIER- 
APOLIS, Zenobia, and Kirkesion. Stretches of the 
Euphrates were part of the Sasanian-Byz. border. 
The river continued to be a principal invasion 
route for Muslims against Byz. in the 7th—gth C. 
Control of its upper reaches, incłuding such 
strongpoints as KAMACHA, occasioned much Byz.- 
Muslim warfare. The Euphrates floods from No- 
vember to the end of March, and, esp. in April 
and May, carries heavy silt to the Mesopotamian 
plain. Its water allowed the agriculture that flour- 
ished along its banks, in contrast to the often 
parched lands beyond the reach of irrigation. 
uT. J.G. Crow, D.H. French in Roman Frontier Studies 
1979, eds. W.S. Hanson, L.J.F. Keppie (Oxford 1980) go3— 


12. G. Frézouls in Le Moyen-Euphrate: Zone de contacts et 
d'échanges, ed. J. Margueron (Leiden 1980) 355-86. M.G. 


Jonides, The Regime of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris (Lon- 
don 1987). -W.E.K. 


EUPHROSYNE DOUKAINA KAMATERA, cm- 
press (1195-1209); fl. ca.1 169—1210. She married 
the future ALEXIOS IIT ANGELOs ca.116g and bore 
him three daughters: Irene (born ca.1170), Anna 
(born ca.1171 or 1173), and Eudokia (born ca.1172 
or 1174). Stronger-willed and more intelligent 
than Alexios, she had great influence over him; 
she occupied the palace when word of his coup 
reached Constantinople. Her support for Con- 
stantine MESOPOTAMITES created opposition from 
her son-in-law Andronikos Kontostephanos and 
her brother Basil KaMATEROS, who informed 
Alexios of her affair with a certain Vatatzes. The 
latter was executed and Euphrosyne was shut in 
a convent for six months (1196—97). Upon her 
return she regained dominance over her hus- 
band, although she could not prevent Mesopo- 
tamites’ fall (1197). Abandoned by Alexios in 
Constantinople when he fled, she was arrested, 
but Arexios V Doukas took Euphrosyne and 
Eudokta with him when he left Constantinople. 
After Alexios V and Alexios IH met at Mosyno- 
polis, Euphrosyne joined her husband in his wan- 
derings. Carried off to Montferrat with him, she 
was ransomed by MICHAEL 1 KOMNENOS DOUKAS 
of Epiros and passed the rest of her life near 
Arta. 


LiT. Polemis, Doukai 131. -C.M.B. 


EURIPIDES (Eùpiriðns), Greek tragic poet; born 
Salamis 480 B.c., died Macedonia 406. Following 
the tradition of late antiquity, Byz. scholars fa- 
vored the ten so-called select plays of Euripides. 
Knowledge of the nine other tragedies was rare 
but evident in PsELLos, John Tzerzes, and Ev- 
STATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE (cf. Wilson, infra 177, 
204). Lhe earliest extant MS ot Euripides (jeru- 
salem, Gr. Patr., Taphou 36) dates from the 10th 
or uith C., and his life is included in the Souda. 
In the early 14th C. the triad of Hecuba, Orestes, 
and Phoenician Women, which had become stan- 
dard in the school syllabus, received philological 
study in the form of scholia and/or recensions by 
Maximos Pranoupes, Manuel MoscHopouLos, 
Tuomas Macisrros, and Demetrios TRIKLINIOS. 


Of particular significance is the latter's edition of 


all 1g plays. 


EUROPA 749 


The only attempt at literary criticism of Furi- 
pides—Psellos’s comparison of Euripides and 
GEORGE OF Pistpia (ed. A. Colonna, SBN 7 [1953] 
16-21)—survives in a damaged MS that. because 
of its poor condition, prevents any conclusions as 
to Psellos’s verdict. Clearly, however, he admires 
Euripides for his ability to arouse pity and for his 
versatility of style. Judging from the number of 
surviving MSS, Euripides was the most popular 
of the great tragedians. He influenced the lan- 
guage of the Verses on Adam by IGNATIOS THE 
Deacon, the Katomyomachia by Theodore PRO- 
DROMOS, and esp. CHRISTOS PASCHON. 

While scenes from Euripides are represented 
in the foor mosaics of ANTIOCH, no illuminated 
Byz. MSS of the plays survive. Nevertheless, K. 
Weitzmann (Hesperia 18 [1949] 159-210) hypoth- 
esized their existence and impact on the Venice 
Kynegetika (see Opptan). In his view several Cas- 
KETS AND BOXES depict episodes from the trage- 
dies, notably the sacrifice of IpHIGENETA on the 
VEROLI CASKET and Hrppo._yros crowned on other 
ivories. Other scholars, however, connect the Ver- 
oli casket with NONNOS OF PANOPOLIS. 

ED. Scholia metrica anonyma in Euripidis Hecubam, Orestem, 
Phoenissas, ed. O.L. Smith (Copenhagen 1977). A. Meschini, 
“Sugli gnomologi bizantini di Euripide.” Helikon 139-14 
(1973-74) 349-62. Michael Psellus, The Essays on Eurt{ndes 
and George of Pisidia and on Heliodorus, ed. A.R. Dyck (Vi- 
enna 1986). 

uit. G. Zunz, An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays 
of Euripides (Cambridge 1965). A. Tuilier, Etude comparée 
du texte et des schohes d'Euripide (Paris 1972). Wilson, Scholars 
1775 204, 246, 254f. B. Donovan, Euripides Papyri (New 
Haven 1968). A. Turyn, The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition 
of the Tragedies of Euripides (Urbana 1957). -A.C.H.. A.C. 


EUROPA, in Greek mythology daughter of Phoe- 
nix or of Agenor (king of Tyre), who was ab- 
ducted by Zeus disguised as a handsome bull. This 
episode was known to Byz. authors: for example, 
Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 142.16-22) com- 
pares her with Theodora Komnene, who was se- 
duced by the future emperor Andronikos |. A 
schohast to Tzerzes (Hist. 7:363) transfers Europa 
from Phoenicia to Egypt and makes her the 
daughter of Nilus. The church fathers rational- 
ized the myth of Europa in the same manner as 
the myth of Danaë but did not attempt to alle- 
gorize it in a Christian sense, prevented prohably 
by the connotations of BesTiaLiry. The rape of 
Europa is represented twice on the VEROLI GASKET 


750 | EUROPE 


in London (Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, Elfenbein- 
skulpt. 1, no.23) and on other ivories. 


uit. W. Bühler, RAC 6:g82-8}. Weitzmann. Gr. Myth. 
183-86. -AK AC. 


EUROPE (Evpo7n). The Byz. retained the an- 
cient concept of three continents—Europe, Libya 
(Africa), and Asia. Since only narrow straits di- 
vided Europe from Libya, Theophanes (Theoph. 
g5-1-2, 426.3-4) considered Spain “the first 
country of Europe from the West Ocean.” ‘The 
border between Europe and Asia was more dif- 
ficult to define. The Bosporos-Hellespont was a 
natural dividing line; to the north, the Tanais 
(Don) River was considered a border—Laonikos 
Chalkokondyles (Chalk. 1:123.6—8) assumed that 
“the land beyond the Tanais” was larger and 
wider than Europe. Prokopios (Wars 8:6.13—15). 
however, rejected such a view and—referring to 
Aeschylus—established the borderline at Colchi- 
dian Phasis. Eustathios of ‘Fhessalonike, in his 
commentary on Dionysios Periegetes (GGM 
2:222.5-12, 264.44—-46), acknowledged the exis- 
tence of isthmuses that formed buffers between 
the continents—Arabia between Libya and Asia, 
and the Caucasus, a “large and broad isthmus 
between the Caspian Sea and the Euxeinos (Black 
Sea).” The semilegendary land of Thoule was 
viewed as the farthest part of northern Europe. 

Europe was considered a geographic unity: ac- 
cording to Eustathios (2:264.44—45), it was the 
most varied in form among the continents, sur- 
passing Asia and Libya in wealth, its production 
of fruit, and the virtue of its population, but had 
fewer animals. The idea of Europe as a political, 
cultural, and emotional concept was not devel- 
oped in Byz., even though it emerged in the West 
in the 13th and 14th C. at the expense of the 
concept of Christendom; Byz. was left outside 
Europe, which contributed to the relative indif- 
ference of the West to the fall of Constantinople. 

The name Europe was also applied by Greek 
authors to a part of Thrace, as both an adminis- 
trative and ecclesiastical division. 

uit. D. Hay, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea” (Edin- 
burgh 1968). D.M. Nicol, “The Byzantine View of Western 
Europe,” GRBS 8 (1967) 315-39. P. Grattarola, “H concetto 
di Europa alla fine del mondo antico,” L'Europa nel mondo 
antico (Milan 1986) 174-91. J. Koder, “Ho horos ‘Europe’ 


hos ennoia chorou ste Byzantine historiographta,” in By- 
zantto kai Europe (Athens 1987) 63-74. —R.B.H.. A.K. 


EUROPOS (Eùpwros. Ar. Jarabulus, Cerablus on 
the Purkish-Syrian border), city of EUPHRATENSIS 
built on the site of ancient Carchemish at a stra- 
tegic crossing of the Euphrates River. Its walls 
were built by KELER, magister militum of Anastasios 
L (JoshStyl, ch.g1) and again by Justinian [ (Pro- 
kopios, Buildings 2.9.10). In 542 Europos was made 
the military headquarters of Belisarios (Proko- 
pios, Wars 2.20.24-7). Circa 525 Monophysite 
monks, expelled under Justin I from SELEUKETA 
Pirria, established the monastery of Qenneshre 
(“eagle’s nest”) on a height opposite Europos. 
After the Arab conquest (639) it became famous 
for the preservation of Greek studies until 815, 
when the monastery was burned by local people; 
it was restored by Dionysios OF TELL-MAnrE (died 
845). 

uit. F. Nau, “Histoire de Jean bar Aphthoniya.” ROC 7 
(1992) 108-10. -M.M.M. 


EURYTANEIA, modern provinee in central 
Greece. Fhe ancient Eurytanes were a tribe in 
Arroa. The rugged mountainous terrain of the 
region has led to its relative isolation; it contains 
a number of churches and monasteries, but most 
are post-Byz. (J.T.A. Koumoulides, GOrThR 30 
[1985] 61-83). One of the most important Byz. 
monuments was the large gth-C. domed church 
at Episkopi, 40 km west of Karpenision, dedicated 
to the Dormition (P.L. Vokotopoulos, He ekkle- 
stastike architektonike eis ten dytiken sterean Hellada 
kai ten Epeiron [Thessalonike 1975] 69—74). It 
received three distinct programs of wall painting; 
the first contemporary with its construction, the 
second in the late 10th or early 11th C., and the 
third in the first half of the 13th C. Before the 
church was submerged beneath the modern res- 
ervoir of Kremasta, the frescoes from all three 
stages were removed to the Byzantine Museum in 
Athens (M. Chatzidakis in Holy Image, nos. 2—6). 

uit. A. Orlandos, “Byzantina mnemcia tes Aitoloakar- 


nanias,” ABME g (1961) 3-20. A. Paliouras, Byzantine Ai- 
toloakarnania (Athens 1985). -A.C. 


EUSEBIOS (Eva éBios), personal name (meaning 
“pious”). The name first appeared in the qth C. 
and immediately spread widely in the Christian 
and the pagan milieus: we know several pupils of 
Libanios who are called Eusebios as well as many 
officials whose religious beliefs cannot be deter- 


mined. PLRE 1:301—0g lists 43 Eusebioi of the 
4th C., to whom several clergymen should be 
added—bishops of Caesarea, Nikomedeia, Emesa, 
and others (A. Jülicher, RE 6 [1gog] 1439-44). 
PLRE 2:428-3% contains fewer men of this naine 
in the 5th C.—only 29. Sozomenos is aware of 14 
Eusebioi—more than JOHN (11), Pati. (9), and 
‘THEODORE (7). Probably by the 6th C. the name 
went out of fashion; Prokopios lists only two. 
Theophanes the Confessor mentions 11 Eusebioi: 
nine were active in the qth C. and only two were 
contemporaries of Anastasios and Justinian I, re- 
spectively. Thereafter, the name disappeared al- 
most completely: throughout published acts of the 
archives of Athos only two monks named Eusebios 
are found (in Lavra of the iath C.); PLP (nos. 
6328-29) registers two Eusebtoi (a bishop after 
1439, probably identical with Eusebio da Cre- 
mona, and a metropolitan of Sougdaia in the mid- 
14th C.). Seals give the same impression: in the 
Laurent Corpus 5.1-3, only one clergyman, Eu- 
sebios of Gaza (no.2027), is included; the editor 
dates his seal to the 6th C. In Zacos, Seals, vol. 1, 
five Eusebioi are present: their seals are of the 
6th-8th C. Laurent’s Corpus 2 contains only one 
Eusebios (no.715), koubikoularios and primikerios of 
the vestiarion of the gth—1oth C. It should be 
noted that the first editor, G. Schlumberger, read 
the name differently, as Eugenios. -A.K. 





EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA, churchman and 
scholar; born ca.260, died 339 or 340; according 
to a Syriac list of saints he was buried on 30 May. 
He was educated by Pamphilos, a priest in Cae- 
sarea, who developed Origen’s traditions and en- 
larged Origen’s library; his high esteem for Pam- 


philos led Eusebios to accept the surname “of 


Pamphilos.” Pamphilos was arrested in 307 dur- 
ing the anti-Christian persecutions, but he kept 
working in prison with Eusebios’s assistance; he 
was beheaded in 309. After the execution of Pam- 
philos and some of his students, Eusebios fled to 
Tyre and then to the Uhebaid. 

In 313, however, as soon as the edict of toler- 
ance was issued by Galerius, he was elected bishop 
of Caesarea. He became Constantine I the Great’s 
favorite and a historiographer and participated 
in many theological discussions of the period. He 
perceived the threat represented by MONARCHI- 
ANISM and was tolerant, even supportive, of the 


EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA 751 


Arians; allied with Eusrsios OF NIKOMEDEIA he 
acuvely contributed to the deposition of the or- 
thodox EusTATHIOS OF ANTIOCH in 330 and 
ATHANASIOS of Alexandria in 335. He also partic- 
ipated in the Council of Constantinople in 336 
that attacked the views of MARKELLOS OF ANKYRA. 

As a scholar Eusebios was an outstanding sys- 
tematizer who assembled copious data. His works 
are devoted primarily to the problems of apolo- 
getics and church history. His major apologetic 
treatises are the voluminous Preparation and Dem- 
onstration of the Gospels, both dedicated to the Arian 
bishop of Syrian Laodikeia, Theodotos. In the 
Preparation he endeavors to show that “the philos- 
ophy and religion of the Hebrews” is more ancient 
and richer in content than Greco-Roman pagan- 
ism and exercises a more powerful influence on 
human life. In the Demonstration, on the other 
hand, he asserts that Judaism is limited and 
ephemeral, only a fragile shell, whereas Christian- 
ity forms a permanent kernel. 

The most important historical works of Euse- 
bios are the Chronicle, the Church History, and the 
Vira CONSTANTIN}. In the Chronicle, Eusebios, fol- 
lowing in the steps of Sextus Julius AFRICANUS 
but using other sources as well, gave the lists of 
ruling dynasties of Chaldeans, Assyrians, He- 
brews, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, and in 
brief form events of biblical and nonbiblical his- 
tory, with special attention (in the last section) to 
the growth of Christianity. Thus Eusebios empha- 
sized the same apologetic principle that permeates 
his Preparation: Christianity 1s not a sheer novelty 
but a religion properly rooted in the past. Euse- 
bios produced several revisions of the Church His- 
tory that are reflected in the two families of manu- 
scripts, as well as in the 5th-C. Syriac version: he 
reworked his text in connection with the drastic 
changes in the political situation. Nevertheless the 
main principles of his approach remained consis- 
tent: first of all, his ten-book History presents an 
enormous amount of information, citing earlier 
works and documents; these citations may not 
always be dependable, but Eusebios believes that 
story-telling must be factual in order to be con- 
vincing. Second, history is a field in which the 
Savior is actively leading mankind to a teleologi- 
cally foreseen future; accordingly, those who fol- 
low the Lord’s path become victorious and, vice 
versa, those who emerge victorious are men fol- 
lowing in the way of the Lord. In other words, 


752 EUSEBIOS OF EMESA 


the emperor ts successful because he fulfills the 
plan destined by God; he is the representative of 
God on earth. Constantine is praised precisely 
because he was victorious, and Eusebios makes 
him more Christian than he really was. Third, 
only the major patterns of development are sa- 
lient while certain facts deviating from or contra- 
dicting them can be omitted or transformed or 
replaced by myth (as Crispus’s murder is omitted; 
Constantine’s conversion to Christianity is pro- 
vided with a supernatural setting; and Galerius, 
the author of the first edict of tolerance, is pre- 
sented as a diehard persecutor of Christians)—all 
with the noble aim of emphasizing the teleology 
of human salvation. 

The Byz. often criticized Eusebios. Sokrates called 
him “double-tongued.” The Second Council of 
Nicaea of 787 prohibited quoting Eusebios as a 
witness of correct belicf. Two events account for 
such a negative attitude: Fusebios’s pro-Arian 
stance and his rejection of the cult of icons. De- 
spite these “shortcomings,” Eusebios obtained great 
authority and for the Byz. remained the major 
source for the early centuries of Christianity and 
a textbook for antipagan and anti-Jewish polem- 
ics. 

ED. PG ig—24. Eusebius Werke, g vols., ed. LA. Heikel et 
al. (Leipzig-Berlin 1902-56). Eusebius: The History of the 
Church, ir. G.A. Williamson (Harmondsworth 1965). 

uT. T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, 
Mass., 1981). R.M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Ox- 
ford 1980). A.A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius 
and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, Pa., 1979). 
M. Gédecke, Geschichte als Mythos: Eusebs ‘Kirchengeschichte’ 
(Frankfurt—New York 1987). H.A. Drake, In Praise of Con- 
stantine (Berkeley—Los Angeles 1976). ~A.K., B.B. 


EUSEBIOS OF EMESA, bishop of Emesa (from 
ca.340) and biblical exegete; born Edessa ca.300, 
died Antioch or Emesa 359. A native speaker of 
Syriac, Eusebios learned Greek at school prior to 
exegetical and philosophical training at Antioch 
and Alexandria; the latter city introduced him to 
the friendship and Arianism of George, bishop of 
Laodikeia, though he refused to succeed ATHANA- 
sios of Alexandria to its see in 33g. His advent at 
EMESA was greeted by riots against his supposedly 
“too scholarly” personality; intervention by George 
and the patriarch of Antioch secured his position. 
Apparently semi-Arian in views, Eusebios was 


praised for his rhetorical skills and prolific pop- 
ular writing by JEROME, who singled out his hom- 
ilies on the Gospels and pamphlets against the 


Jews, Gentiles, and Novatians. THEODORET OF 


CyRRHUS mentions treatises against Manichaeans 
and Marcionites. Greek fragments of his com- 
mentaries on Genesis and Galatians show him to 
follow the ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL of exegesis. About 
60 homilies survive in whole or part in Armenian 
(H.J. Lehmann, Per piscatores [Århus 1975]), Greck, 
Latin, Slavic (M. Mateji¢ in Literaturoznante i folk- 
loristika v čest Akademiku Sbornik Petiir Dinekov [Sofia 
1983] 145-55), and Syriac. The pseudo-Eusebian 
Gallican sermons belong mainly to Faustus of Riez 
(Eusebius “Gallicanus” Collectio homiliarum, ed. J. 
Leroy, F. Glorie, 3 vols. [Turnhout 1970—71)). 
ED. PG 86.1:509-G62, 31:1476-88. Eusébe d'Emèse: Dis- 
cours conservés en latin, ed. E-M. Buytaert, 2 vols. (Louvain 


1953~57)- l 
urr. E.M. Buytaert, L’hérilage littéraire d'Eusèbe d'Emèse 
(Louvain 1949)- -B.B. 


EUSEBIOS OF NIKOMEDEIA, Arian bishop of 
Nikomedeia (from ca.318); bishop of Constanti- 
nople (from 338/9); died ca.342, probably at Con- 
stantinople. Eusebios was a fellow pupil of Arius 
under Lucian oF ANTIOCH. After Arius’s condem- 
nation ca.320, Eusebios, who had just become 
bishop of Nikomedeia, organized an epistolary 
campaign in support of Arius. Although Eusebios 
subscribed to the decisions of the Council of Ni- 
caea in 325, he was soon exiled to Gaul by Con- 
stantine I on charges of supporting the Meletians 
(see MELETIAN ScHisM). After his recall in 328, he 
became a leader of the extreme Arian party, who 
came to be known as “Eusebians.” He gained the 
favor of Constantine I and in 337 baptized the 
emperor during his last illness. The triumph of 
the Arian party was evident when Eusebios be- 
came bishop of Constantinople in 338 or 339. His 
brief tenure in Constantinople was marked pri- 
marily by hostile maneuvering against ATHANA- 
sios of Alexandria. 

Virtually none of Eusebios’s writings survive, 
with the exception of a few letters preserved by 
the ecclesiastical historians Sokrates (Sokr. HE 
1.14), Sozomenos (Sozom. HE 2.16), and THEO- 
DORET OF CyRRHUS (HE 1.5). 

ui. A. Lichtenstein, Eusebres von Nikomedien (Halle 1903). 
C. Kannengiesser, DPAC 1:1296-99. C. Luibheid, "The 


Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia,” Irish Theological Quar- 
terly 43 (1970) 3-23. -B.B.. A.M.T. 


EUSTATHIANS. See EUSTATHIOS OF ANTIOCH. 


EUSTATHIOS (Evoardé6tos), martyr executed un- 
der Hadrian and saint; feastday 20 Sept; prebap- 
usmal name Placidas. His legend is preserved in 
two Greek passions, one ascribed to SYMEON ME- 
TAPHRASTES (a Nuremberg MS presents slight var- 
iations—J.-M. Olivier, AB 93 [1975] 109f); in a 
panegyric of Nikeras Davip PAPHLAGON; in a 
Latin translauion known already in the gth/1oth 
C. (O. Engels, HistJb 76 [1957] 119f); and in a 
Coptic version. When the legend was created is 
unclear. It has sometimes been viewed as a reflec- 
tion of Indian motifs that reached Byz. via Syria; 
traces of the supposed migration have yet to be 
shown. In its core the legend is a Chrisuan verston 
of the Jos story: under Trajan, the rich Roman 
general Placidas, “stratelates in the language of the 
Romans,” saw a huge stag with a cross between 
its antlers and heard a heavenly voice summoning 
him to baptism. He became Christian with his 
whole family, assumed a new name (Eustathios or 
Eustachios), suffered numerous disasters (plague, 
death of cattle and slaves), left home for Egypt, 
and was separated from his wife and two sons en 
route. Unlike the biblical Job but like the heroes 
of Greek romances (T. Hägg, Symholae Osloenses 
59 [1984] 61-63), Eustathios suffered only tem- 
porartily, later recovering both family and fame. 
A new blow struck after Trajan’s death, when 
Hadrian ordered Eustathios and his family burned 
in a bronze bull. 

Representation in Art. Eustathios is depicted 
in military costume from at least the roth C. 
onward, The two most frequently illustrated scenes 
of his legend are (1) his vision, which appears in 
Cappadocian and Georgian churches and in the 
marginal PSALTERS (where, rather than a cross, 
the image of Christ in the form of an icon appears 
between the antlers of the stag, and Christ asks, 
“Why are you pursuing me?”); and (2) the mar- 
tvrdom of Eustathios and his family consumed by 
flames inside the brazen bull. Further episodes 
accompany certain MSS of Metaphrastes. 

sources. G. van Hooff, “Acta Graeca s. Eustathii mar- 
tyris et sociorum cjus” AB 3 (1884) 63-112. PG 105:375- 
418. Russ. tr. Poljakova, Viz. leg. 208-24. 


EUSTATHIOS OF EPIPHANEIA | 753 


ur. BHG 641~43. HL Delehave. Mélanges d'hagiographie 
grecque et latine (Brussels 1966) 212-39. T. Velmans, 
“Léglise de Zenobani et le thème de la Vision de saint 

Eustache en Géorgie.” CakhArch 33 09853) 36-49- 
-A.K., NPŠ. 


EUSTATHIOS OF ANTIOCH, theologian; bishop 
of Berroia (Aleppo) and from 323/4 to 326 (H. 
Chadwick, JTASt 49 [1948] 27-35) or more prob- 
ably to 328/9 (Hanson, infra) bishop of Antioch; 
born Side, died Traianopolis? in Thrace before 
337. At the First Council of Nicaea in 325 Eus- 
tathios was one of the ardent opponents of ARIUS; 
subsequently an Arian synod in Antioch deposed 
him and in 330 Constantine I exiled him to 
Traianopolis. In 362 his parusans, called Eusta- 
thians, consecrated Paulinos as bishop of Antioch 
in Opposition to Meletios, thus precipitating the 
(second) MELETIAN SCHISM. 

Little of Eustathios’s writings has survived; some 
of his work is preserved in Syriac or Georgian 
translations (¢e.g., M. van Esbroeck, OrChr 66 [1982] 
189—214), and attribution is sometimes question- 
able. Eustathios attacked ancient philosophers, such 
as PLOTINOS (fragment in Syriac—R. Lorenz, 
ZNTW 71 [1980] 109-28). He also criticized the 
allegorical exegesis of ORIGEN (in On the Witch of 
Endor, the only completely extant work of Eusta- 
thios). Fragments of his work On Metchisedek, di- 
rected against the Melchisedekians, who thought 
the Priest-King of Salem greater than Christ, are 
dated in their present form to 420-50 by B. 
Altaner (BZ 40 [1940] 30-47). The major target 
of Eustathios was Arianism. His concern was to 
show that the Logos assumed, in the act of incar- 
nation, the entire man and not the body (sarx) 
only. He strongly emphasized the existence of the 
two natures of Christ; this later allowed his ene- 
mies to accuse him of Nestorianism. 

ED. E. Klostermann, Origenes, Eustathius von Antiochien 
und Gregor von NYA uber die Hexe von tendor {bonn 1912) 
16-62, with corr. by A. Brinkmann, RAM 74 (1925) 308— 
13. CPG, nos. 3350-98. 

Lur. R.V. Sellers, Eustathios of Antioch (Cambridge 1928). 
M. Spanneut, Recherches sur les écrits CEustathe d'Antioche 
(Lille 1948). Quasten, Patrology 3:302—-06. R.C.P. Hanson, 
“The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch,” ZKirch g5 (1984) t71- 
79- —A.K.. B.B.. T.E.G. 


EUSTATHIOS OF EPIPHANEIA (in Syria), his- 
torian; died ca.505. His major work, entitled Brief 


754 EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE 


Chronicle according to the Souda, is now lost, but 
both Malalas and Evagrios Scholastikos drew upon 
it. It is plausible that this chronicle began with the 
destruction of Troy and reached the Roman wars 
against Persia in 502~05. If we can believe Eva- 
grios, Eustathios epitomized pagan (Zosimos, Pris- 
kos, etc.) and ecclesiastical (Eusebios of Caesarea, 
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, etc.) historians. Eusta- 
thios’s Historikon of the Judaean Archaeology by “To- 
sepos” is included in the catalog of the library in 
Patmos of 1200 (P. Maas, BZ 38 [1938] 350). 


Probably the same text is preserved in a MS of 


the 13th/1q4th C., Paris B.N. gr. 1555A, where it 
bears the title Epitome of the Archaeology by Tosepas 
[written] by Eustathios of Epiphaneia in Syria; the 
short fragment based on JosEepHus FLavius begins 
with Adam and Eve and ends with Vespasian and 
Titus. 

ED. FHG 4:188—42. 

uT. C. Benjamin, RE 6 (1907) 1450f. P. Allen, “An 
Early Epitomator of Josephus: Eustathius of Epiphancia,” 
BZ 8: (1988) 1-11. Hunger, Lit. 1:323. —A.K. 


EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE, church 
official, scholar, and writer; born ca.1115, died 
Thessalonike? 1195/6. The hypothesis of Kyria- 
kides (infra, xxxv—xxxvi) that he belonged to the 
KATAPHLORON family is not valid. Educated in 
Constantinople, Eustathios served as a scribe un- 
der the future Patr. Micuagv III; he became 
deacon, after 1166 magistros ton rhetoron, and 
ca.1178 (the traditional date of 1174 is wrong) 
archbishop of Thessalonike. Eustathios wrote a 
commentary on HoMER, sometimes using the epic 
for allusions to contemporary events. He also 
commented on PINDAR, ARISTOPHANES, Dionysios 
Periegetes, and JOHN oF Damascus. Although he 
is studied primarily as an interpreter of ancient 
texts and collector of lost antique commentaries, 
Eustathios was an original thinker and a great 
writer. Politically he supported Manuex I, but 
dared sometimes to criticize the emperor, esp. for 
his attempts at accommodation with Islamic doc- 
trine. Eustathios praised military prowess, but 
censured both venal bureaucrats and greedy and 
illiterate monks; he defended CHARISTIKIA. In 
contrast to contemporary views, he set secular 
ideals above those of hermits in his vita of Puro- 
THEOS OF OPSIKION. Eustathios poeticized manual 
(esp. agrarian) labor and developed the concept 
of historical progress from a primitive way of life 


to civilization. He rejected SLAVERY as an evil and 
unnatural institution. As a writer, he endeavored 
to shift from conventional abstraction to the pre- 
sentation of great events by means of little details 
and frequent recourse to sarcasm and irony. He 
enjoyed life, considered human relations more 
important than ritual, and loved the richness of 
language; his plays on words are much more 
complex than the usual hints at the significance 
of a name. His sermons and official panegyrics 
are more conventional than his best works, such 
as On the Capture of Thessalonike (in 1185) or On 
the Improvement of Monastic Life, which expressed 
his individual attitudes in a series of portraits and 
vivid scenes. 

ED. G.L.F. Tafel, Eustathii Opuscula (Frankfurt am Main 
1832; rp. Amsterdam 1964). Regel, Fontes 1-191. La espug- 
nazione di Tessalonica, ed. S. Kyriakides (Palermo 1961). 
Germ. tr. H. Hunger, Die Normannen in Thessalonike (Graz- 
Vienna-Cologne 1955; rp. 1967). Commentarii ad Homeri 
{liadem pertinentes, ed. M. van der Valk (Leiden 1971-87). 
Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam (Leipzig 1825—26). Eng. tr. 
of intro. by C.J. Herington, Arion 8 (1969) 432-34. See list 
in Tusculum-Lexikon 244f. 

urr. P. Wirth, fustathiana (Amsterdam 1980). Kazhdan- 
Franklin, Studies 115-95. L. Coletta, “Eustazio neo-omer- 
ista,” AntG! 52 (1983) 260-67. N. Serikov, “K voprosu o 
‘čužoj rect’ v proizvedenii Evstahja Solunskogo ‘O zachvate 
Solun.” VizVrem 43 (1982) 225-28. D. Reinsch, “Uber 
einige Aristoteles-Zitate bei Eustathios von Thessalonike,” 
in Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, ed. F. Paschke 
(Berlin 1981) 479-88. -A.K. 


EUSTRATIOS (Eùorpários), hagiographer; died 
after 602. A priest of Hagia Sophia, Eustratios 
was a pupil of Eurycuios, patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, whom he accompanied into exile and 
whose life he commemorated in a panegyric. He 
also wrote a biography of the Persian saint Gol- 
induch, based on Stephen of Hierapolis (G. Gar- 
itte, AB 74 [1956] 422). In his treatise on souls, 
which survives in fragments and is also mentioned 
by PHotios (Bib/., cod.171), Eustratios defended 
three points: souls are active immediately after 
their separation from the [dead] body; they act 
on their own initiative and not as vehicles of God’s 
powers; they are in need of church services that 
bring about their “freedom and liberation from 
vices.” 

ED. Vita Eutych.—PG 86:2273-2390. Vita Golind.—Pa- 
padopoulos-Kerameus, Analekta 4:149-74. Treatise on 
souls—ed. L. Allattus in De purgatorio (Rome 1655) 336- 
580. 


tii. Beck. Kerche giof. A. Jülicher, RE 6 (1gog) 1486f. 
P. Peeters. “Sainte Golindouche, Martvre Perse,” AB 62 
(1g 44) So-ge. -B.B. 


EUSTRATIOS (martyr). See Five Martyrs OF 
SEBASTELA. 


EUSTRATIOS OF NICAEA, philosopher and 
theologian, pupil of JOHN Fraos; fl. ca.1100. Eu- 
stratios was not condemned in 1082 with his teacher 
but was promoted by Alexios I. He supported the 
emperor in his confrontation with LEO oF CHAL- 
CEDON, became otkoumenikos didaskalos ¢a.1115/16 
(Darrouzés, Ecclés. 306, {r.2) and metropolitan of 
Nicaea. With John PHournes Eustratios partici- 
pated in the dispute against Peter GROSSOLANO. 
In 1114 he polemicized in Phihppopolis against 
the Armenians. Eustratios commented on ARIS- 
TOTLE and proclaimed the importance of logic for 
theology: even Christ, he wrote, argued with the 
help of Aristotelian svllogisms (P. Joannou, REB 
10 [1952] 34.22-23). Eustratios developed the 
concept of the universalia as pure “names,” whereas 
he regarded only the individual as existing. Ac- 
cordingly Eustratios stressed the limitations of 
art, asserting that the artist could not present 
the substance, but only the appearance of men 
and animals (Demetrakopulos, infra, p.132.9-24); 
heavenly beings, such as angels, could be painted 
only symbolically. In his polemic against the FIL10- 
QUE, Eustratios, like Phournes, considered the Lo- 
gos and the Holy Spirit as the hands of God the 
Father (Demetrakopulos, pp. 68.29g—69.1, 95.5— 
6), and in his polemics against the Armenians he 
emphasized the human nature of the incarnated 
Logos. In 1117 he was accused of heresy: the 
major charge alleged was his sharp distinction 
between the divine Logos and Christ incarnated 
as a slave. Although Alexios I and Patr. John IX 
(1111-34) Wied w rescue Eustratios, he was con- 
demned and forced to abdicate, despite his asser- 
tion that the accusation was based on unfinished 
drafts stolen from him. Rehabilitated after his 
death, Eustratios was cited as an authority at the 
council of 1157. 

ED. A. Demetrakopulos, Ekklestastike bibliotheke, vol. 1 
(Leipzig 1866; rp. Hildesheim 1965) 47—198. P. Joannou, 
“Die Definition des Seins bei Eustratios von Nikaia,” BZ 47 
(1954) 365-68. See list in Tuscudaum-Lexikon 246. 

LIT. P. Joannou, “Der Nominalismus und die mensch- 
liche Psychologie Christi,” BZ 47 (1954) 369-78. Idem, “Le 


EUTHYMIOS 755 


sort des évêques hérétiques réconciliés,” Byzantion 28 (1958) 
1—30. K. Giocarinis,“Eustratios of Nicaca’s Defense of the 
Doctrine of Ideas.” Franciscan Studies 24 (1984) 15g-204. 
A. Aleksidze, “Un traité polémique anu-Latin en version 
géorgienne,” Trudy Thilisskogo Universiteta 162 (1975) 111- 
23. S. Gukova, “Kosmografi¢eski traktat Evstratija Nikej- 
skogo.” VizVrem 47 (1986) 145-56. —ALK. 


EUTHERIOS (Ev@éptos), bishop of Tyana and 
theologian; died ‘Fyre after 434. At the Council 
of Ephesus in 431 Eutherios supported his friend 
Nesrorios and by 433 wrote a treatise conven- 
tionally named Antlogia, or Refutations of Various 
Propositions—a sharp pamphlet against CYRIL of 
Alexandria and his followers. This survived in 
two versions—a shorter and a longer; the M5 
tradition identified the author as ATHANASIOS of 
Alexandria. By the time Photios read the text in 
the gth C., it was attributed to “PHEODORET OF 
CYRRHUS, but Severus of Antioch in the 6th C. 
knew it as a work of Eutherios. Eutherios attacked 
those who [ollowed the opinion of the multitude 
and were satisfied with their faith without analyz- 
ing Scripture; he defended the concept of two 
natures, stressing the existence of humanity in 
Christ and the reality of his suffering; he argued 
that those who deny the human nature of the 
Saviour do harm to mankind (par.17). 

Five of Eutherios’s letters (to John of Antioch, 
Alexander of Hierapolis, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 
etc.) are preserved in a Latin translation. Euthe- 
rios mentions his Refutation of Cyril in his letter to 
John. 

ep. and tir. CPG 3, nos. 6147—53. M. Tetz, Fine Antilogie 
des Eutherios von Tyana (Berlin 1964). G. Ficker, Eutherios 
von Tyana (Leipzig 1go8). -T.E.G. 


EUTHYMIOS, patriarch of Constantinople (Feb.? 
g07—May? 912); born Seleukeia in Isauria ca.834, 
died proasteion Agathou, on the Bosporos, 4/5 
Aug. 917. A monk trom his youth, Luthymios 
sympathized with Prince Leo (the future Leo VI) 
in his conflict with Basil I; after Basil's death Leo 
appointed him hegoumenos of a monastery in the 
PSAMATHIA quarter of Constantinople, member 
of the senate and synkellos, and made Euthymios 
his spiritual director. Euthymios opposed Leo’s 
“foreign” advisers (the Armenian  Stylianos 
ZAOUTZES, the Arab Samonas, and Italian NicHo- 
Las I Mystikos), and defended the interests of 
the traditional court aristocracy. During the crisis 


756 EUTHYMIOS OF AKMONIA 


over the TErRAGAMY OF Leo VI, when Patr. Ni- 
cholas sided with the Doukas family against Leo. 
Euthymios conunued to support the emperor; 
after Leo banished Nicholas, he appointed Euthy- 
mios as his successor. The patriarchate of Euthy- 
mios brought no peace, and Nicholas was recalled 
from exile—either by Leo or, immediately after 
Leo’s death, by Alexander, who banished Euthy- 
mios to Agathou. 

The writings of Euthymios are insignificant: 
sermons on the conception of St. Anna and a 
festal homily on the Virgin. Attribution of certain 
works ascribed to Euthymios in some MSS is not 
yet proved (C. van de Vorst, AB 33 [1914] 452f, 
A. Ehrhard, BZ 24 (1924] 186f). The anonymous 
vita of Euthymios, composed by a monk of Psa- 
mathia after g32 (D. Sophianos, FEBS 38 [1971] 
289—g6), is one of the richest sources for the 
period from the death of Basil I to the early years 
of Constantine VII; unfortunately some sections 
of the MS are lost. A new fragment has been 
discovered by B. Flusin (TM g [i985] t1g~31). 
On the other hand, the panegyric of Euthymios 
by ARETHAS is conventional and provides only 
limited data. 

Ep. Homilies on St. Anna and the Virgin—M. Jugic, PO 
16 (1922) 463-514, 19 (1926) 441-55. 

SOURCE, Vila Euthymii patriarchae CP, ed. P. Karlin-Hayter 
(Brussels 1970). Russ. tr. A. Kazhdan in Dve vizantijskie 
chrontht (Moscow 1959) 9-137. 

Lis. BHG 651~52. M. Jugie, “La vie ct les oeuvres 
d@Euthyme patriarche de Constantinople,” KO 16 (1913) 
2385—95, 481-92. RegPatr, fasc. 2, nos. 625-29. J. Dar- 
rouzés, DHGE 16 (1967) 58F. -A.K. 


EUTHYMIOS OF AKMONIA (in theme of Op- 
sikion), theologian of first half of 11th C., who 
used to be confused with Euthymios ZIGABENOS. 
His biography is litte known. Euthyimios states 
that as a boy, during the reign of Basil II, he 
visited Akmonia with his mother because of a 
lawsuit. Later he became a monk in the PERIBLEP- 
TOS MONASTERY in Constantinople. He mentions 
the death of Romanos HI in 1034. Circa 1050 
Euthymios sent a letter from Peribleptos to Ak- 
monia to warn his fellow citizens against the men- 
ace of the heretics who were called BOGOMILS in 
the West (this is the first mention of the term in 
Byz. literature), but PHOUNDAGIAGITES in the Ak- 
monia region; Euthymios was worried that the 
extreme asceticism of the Bogomils made their 
teaching attractive to monks. It is quite possible 
that Euthymios also wrote the so-called first in- 


vective against the Armenians, which was for- 
merly attributed to the katholikos Isaac or a certain 
John of Nicaea. 

ep. Ficker. Phundag. 3-86. PG 132:1155-1217. 

urr. Beck, Kirche 5326. M. Loos, Dualit Heresy in the 
Middle Ages (Prague 1974) 67-77. M. Jugic, “Phoundagi- 
agites et Bogomiles.” EO 12 (1909) 257-62. V. Grumel, 
“Les invectives contre les Arméniens du ‘Catholicos Isaac. © 
REB 14 (1958) 174794- -A.K. 


EUTHYMIOS OF SARDIS, metropolitan of Sar- 
dis (ca.785-803); saint; born Ouzara (on the fron- 
ter of Lykaonia?) 754, died on island of St. An- 
drew, near Cape Akritas, 26 Dec. 831 (not 824 as 
previously believed). A leader of the ICONOPHILES, 
Euthymios played an important role during the 
Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Some years 
later, he was accused by Emp. Nikephoros I of 
participation in the revolt of BARDANES TOURKOS 
and was deprived of his sce and exiled to the 
island of Pantelleria near Sicily. Recalled) from 
exile, he defended the veneration of icons during 
the reigns of the Iconoclast emperors Leo V and 
Theophilos and was twice banished. Several let- 
ters of Theodore of Stoudios to Euthymios sur- 
vive. His vita was written by Patr. MErHODIOS I; 
a rhetorical panegyric by a certain Metrophanes 
is also preserved. Methodios relates that Futhym- 
ios foreed the young woman whom the future 
emperor Nikephoros I wanted to marry into a 
nunnery, thus kindling Nikephoros’s animosity. 

sources. J. Gouillard, “La vie d’Euthyme de Sardes (+ 
831)” TM 10 (1987) 1-105, with Fr. tr. A. Papadakis, “The 
Unpublished Life of Euthymius of Sardis: Bodleianus Lau- 
dianus Graecus 69,” Traditio 26 (1970) 63-89. 

uT. BHG 2145-46. J. Pargoire, “Saint Futhyme et Jean 
de Sardes,” FO 5 (1g01-02) 157-61. -A.K. 


EUTHYMIOS THE GREAT, a founder of cen- 
ohbitie monasticism in Palestine; saint; born in 
Melitene 376/7, died in his lavra near Jerusalem 
20 Jan. 473. Nobly born and dedicated to God 
from infancy, Euthymios became a priest ca.396 
in Melitene. Around 406 he went to Palestine, 
where he met Theoktistos from Cappadocia (died 
406), who became Euthymios’s closest associate. 
Circa 411 they settled in a cave, which served as 
chureh for the cenobitic monastery they founded 
after some hesitation (vita, ed. Schwartz, p.17.3); 
here the Arab pHyLaRcH Aspebetos converted to 
Christianity. Leaving Vheoktistos as head of the 
monastery, Euthymios wandered through Pales- 


tine and organized monasteries in Marda and 
Aristoboulias; then he built his lavra 5 km from 
‘Theoktistos’s monastery; the church was dedi- 
cated in 428/9. The lavra had 15 cells, where the 
monks stayed during the week; on Saturday and 
Sunday they gathered to cat in the refectory and 
sleep in the dormitory. Euthymios remained neu- 
tral during the first phase of the Nestorian dis- 
pute; after the Council of Chalcedon of 451 he 
sided with JUVENAL of Jerusalem, denounced his 
rival Theodosios, and helped to win the support 
of the empress Eudokia, CYRIL OF SKYTHOPOLIS 
wrote Euthymios’s Life. 

Representation in Art. Generally depicted as a 
balding old monk with a particularly long white 
heard (sometimes tucked under his belt), portraits 
of Euthymios occur as early as the frescoes of 
BawtTr and Saggara and wherever groups of des- 
ert monks are included. ‘The illustration of nine 
events in the saint’s life adorns a parekklesion 
(renovated in 1303) adjacent to the Church of St. 
DEMETRIOS in Thessalonike; the fresco cycle be- 
gins before the saint’s conception and ends with 
his death, emphasizing his role as a ministrant of 
the church and his activity in baptizing Aspebetos 
(F. Gouma-Peterson, ArtB 58 [1976] 168-83). 

SOURCE. E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (Leipzig 1939) 
3-85. Fr. tr. A.-J. Festugi¢re, Les moines de Palestine (Paris 
1g62) 55-144. 

uir. BHG 647-650d. S. Vailhé, Saint Futhyme le Grand 
moine de Palestine (376—473) (Paris 1999). Mourtki, Nea Moni 
1:166L J. Boberg, LCT 6:201-03. J. Noret, “A propos des 
Vies de saint Euthyme, abbé,” AB 104 (1986) 453-55- : 

-A.K.. N.P.S. 


EUTHYMIOS THE IBERIAN, saint, also known 
as Euthymios Mtacmindeli (“of the Holy Moun- 
tain”); born Georgia between 955 and gbo, died 
Constantinople, 13 May 1028. Son of John the 
Iberian and cofounder of the monastery of IVERON 
on Athos, Euthymios served as superior Doni 
1005 to 101g. He contributed much to the trans- 
lation of Greek theological and hagiographical 
works into Georgian (lists of these translations are 
found in his Life and in the Vestament of his 
father); some sources also ascribe to him transla- 
tons from Georgian into Greek, including Bar- 
LAAM AND ToasAPH—the latter is, however, ques- 
uonable. The /ypikon written by Euthymios for his 
monastery is lost, but it is cited in bis Life. The 
Life of Euthymios and his father was written in 
Georgian by GEORGE M1 acMINDELI Ca. 1045 and 


EUTOKIOS 757 


includes valuable information about the revolt of 
Bardas SKLEROS. 

source. I. Abuladze, Dzveli k'arťuli agiograpiuli: litera- 
turis dzeglebi, vol. 2 (Tbilisi 1967) 38-100. Lat. tr. P. Peeters, 
“THstoires monastiques géorgiennes,” AB 36--47 (1917—19 
Jige2]) 5-68. 

ur. Varchnisvih, Georg Lit, 196-54. J. Lefort in Zur. 
1339-42. ALR, 


EUTHYMIOS THE YOUNGER, also called Eu- 
thymios of Thessalonike, saint; baptismal name 
Niketas; born village of Opso, Galatia 823/4, died 
island of Hiera 14/15 Oct. 898. Euthymios was 
born to a well-to-do family (eupatrides) obliged to 
give military service (strateia). He married Eu- 
phrosyne, also of prosperous background, and 
fathered a daughter, Anastaso. In 841/2 he left 
his family and fled to Bithynian Olympos to be- 
come a monk, He traveled much: twice to Athos, 
to Thessalonike, to the island of Neoi, and else- 
where. He ascended a column (stylos) at least twice 
and ended his life as a hermit in a cave; never- 
theless, the cenobitic monastery was his ideal, and 
he tried to establish order among dispersed mo- 
nastic settlers on Athos. Circa 864 Euthymios be- 
came a deacon (I). Papachryssanthou suggests that 
he was a priest) in order to arrange liturgical 
services for Athonite hermits; ca.870 he converted 
the ruinous Church of St. Andrew at Peristerai, 
east of Thessalonike, into a monastery. In a sense, 
his activity foretold and prepared the way for 
ATHANASIOS OF ATHOS. 

Euthymios’s Life was written by his disciple Basil, 
tonsured ca.875 (erroneously identified by Porfirij 
Uspenski with an archbishop of Thessalonike). 
His eyewitness account has many chronological 
indications (not always accurate). Basil persistently 
stresses the importance of manual labor for monks. 
He mentions Arab raids on Athos and surround- 
ing areas but is quite uninterested in events in 
Constanunopie. 

ED. L. Petit, “Vie et office de St. Euthyme le Jeune.” 
ROC 8 (1903) 55-205, also in BHO 5 (1904) 14-51. 

ur. BHG 655. D. Papachryssanthou, “La Vie de saint 
Futhyme le jeune et la métropole de Thessalonique à la 
fin du IXS et au début du X“ siecle.” REB 32 (1974) 225- 
45- ALK. 


EUTOKIOS (Ev76xkv0s), commentator on mathe- 
matical works: born Ascalon ca.480. A contem- 
porary of AMMONIOS and ANTHEMIOS OF TRALLES, 
Futokios was active in Alexandria and perhaps 


758 | EUTROPIOS 


Constantinople in the early 6th C. He is also 
known to have lectured on philosophy. Eutokios 
wrote commentaries on three works of AR- 
CHIMEDES—On the Measurement of a Circle, On the 
Sphere and the Cylinder, and On Plane Equilibria. 
‘The first two of these commentaries were used by 
ISIDORE OF MILETUS, the last two were translated 
into Latin by WILLIAM OF MOERBEKE at Viterbo in 
late 1269. Eutokios also wrote a commentary on 
books 1—4 of the Conies of Apollonios of Perge 
that is dedicated to Anthemios. Finally it has been 
persuasively argued by J. Mogenet (L'introduction 
âà UAlmageste [Brussels 1956] 22-34) that Eutokios 
was also the author of the Introduction to Ptolemy's 
Great Composition, which was originally the scholia 
to book 1 of the Almagest to which he refers in his 
commentary on the On the Sphere and the Cylinder. 
The /niroduction seems to have been used by 
GEORGE TRAPEZOUNTIOS for his /ntroduction of 1451 
(J. Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana {Bing- 
hamton, N.Y., 1984] 674, 687f). 

Eutokios was not a mathematician of any orig- 
inality but did understand almost all of the tech- 
nical material that he commented on. He also 
preserves a number of solutions by earlier math- 
ematicians whose works are no longer available to 
us. 

ED. Commentaries—Archimedis opera omnia, ed. J.L. Hei- 
berg, E. Stamatis, vol. 3 (Leipzig 1972). Archimède, ed. C. 
Mugler, vol. 4 (Paris 1972), with Fr. tr. Apolloni Pergaet 
quae Graece exstant, ed. J.L. Heiberg, vol. 2 (Leipzig 1893) 
168-361. 

uit. HL Bulmer-Thomas, DSB 4:488—g91. Wilson, Scholars 
45f, 86. —D.P. 


EUTROPIOS (Eùrpórios), favorite of Arkadios; 
born near the Persian frontier, died Chalcedon 
Aug.? 399. An emancipated slave and eunuch, he 
entered the service of Theodosios I and became 
the guardian of the young Arkadios. With the 
support of STILICHO, Eutropios removed RUFINUS 
and replaced him as the most powerful figure in 
the empire, first as praepositus sacri cubiculi (from 
395), then as patrikios (398) and consul (399)— 
both titles never previously awarded to eunuchs. 
He granted privileges to the Jews (esp. merchants) 
and secured the support of the church by appoint- 
ing JOHN CHRYSOSTOM as bishop of Constantino- 
ple and by issuing ordinances against hereties and 
pagans. Eutropios successfully commanded an 
army against the Huns who invaded Armenia in 


397/8. He nevertheless excited hatred by hts ava- 
rice, by demoting and condemning respected of- 
ficials, by abolishing the church’s right of asylum, 
by disrupting the alliance with Sulicho when he 
supported the revolt of Gitpo, and by showing 
contempt toward Gothic mercenaries (esp. TRI- 
BIGILD and then Garnas). In 399 Eutropios finally 
managed to offend the empress Eupoxia, who 
dismissed him. Fearing for his life, the eunuch 
Hed to Hagia Sophia. Chrysostom, in a brilliant 
speech, requested imperial mercy for the former 
consul. Eutropios was nevertheless exiled to Cy- 
prus, then recalled and executed. His acts and 
honors were nullified by an edict of 17 Aug. 399. 
The sources (Eunapios, Zosimos, Claudian, ctc.) 
describe Eutropios in extremely negative terms. 
tir, PLRE 2:440-44. Demougeot, Unité 162-234. S. 
Dopp, Zeitgeschichte in Dichtungen Claudians (Wiesbaden 1980) 
159-74. A.S. Kozlov, “Borba mezdu politiceskoj oppozicie] 
i pravitel’stvom Vizanul v 395-399 gg.” ADSV 13 (1976) 
74779- -T. E.G. 


EUTROPIUS, Latin historian and, according to 
the Souda, a sophist; born Bordeaux? 4th C. Al- 
though there is some discussion about his 
identity and career, Eutropius apparently held 
a string of high offices under various emperors: 
magister epistularum (before 361), magisler memoriae 
(369), proconsul of Asia (371-72), praetorian pre- 
fect (Illyricuin, 380-81), and consul (in 387). Both 
SYMMACHUS and Lisanios addressed letters to 
him in the period 387-go. In 363 he was one of 
several historians to accompany the emperor Ju- 
LIAN on his ill-fated Persian expedition. Eutropius 
composed a breviary of Roman history in ten 
books from 753 B.C. to Valens’ accession in 464. 
It is conventional in opinions, sober in subject 
matter, and clear in language. His silence on 
Christianity does not prove him a pagan, as some 
believe, as such reticence is a stylistic affectation 
of many late Roman historians. Eutropius’s book 
became accessible to the Byz. through the Greek 
translations of Palomos, a pupil of Libantos (L. 
Baffetti, BNJbb 3 [1922] 15-36), and of Capito 
Lycius in Justinian [’s time. 

ED. Eutropi Breviarium ab urhe condita, ed. C. Santini 
(Leipzig 1979). 

ur H.W. Bird. “Eutropius: His Life and Career,” Echos 
du Monde Classique/Classical Views 32 nas. 7 (1988) 51-60. 
D. Tribolis, Eutropius historicus kai hoi Hellenes metaphrastai 
tou Brewiariion ab urbe condita (Athens 1941). -B.B. 


EUTYCHES (Eùrúyns), monk and archimandrite 
of a suburban Constantinopolitan monastery (from 
410); born ca.370, died after 451 or even 454 (D. 
Stiernon, DPAC 1:1307). An ardent opponent of 
NesTorios, Eutyches was a staunch supporter of 
Cyrit of Alexandria; he defended the interests 
of Alexandria at the court of Theodosios II, ex- 
ercising influence there due to his connections 
with the eunuch Chrysaphios, his godson. Devel- 
oping Cyril's ideas, Eutyches launched the con- 
cept of MONOPHYSITISM. THEODORET OF CYRRHUS 
attacked him anonymously in the Eranistes, and 
Eusebios, bishop of Dorylaion, accused him of 
heresy in 448. At his trial later that year, Eutyches 
denied that Christ had two natures after the In- 
carnation; he refused to acknowledge even the 
hypostatical union of two natures in Christ and 
to accept that Christ was consubstantial (homoou- 
sios) with mankind. Patr. FLavran condemned him 
on 22 Nov. 448, a condemnation subsequently 
supported by Pope Leo I. Eutyches, however, won 
the day at the “Robber” Council of EpHrEsus in 
449 when Flavian was deposed. The death of 
Theodosios II was a heavy blow for Eutyches: he 
was deposed and exiled to a site not far from 
Constantinople. Pope Leo, in a letter of g June 
451, insisted on Eutyches’ banishment to a more 
remote place. His subsequent fate is unknown. 

ED. CPG 3, nos. 6937—40. P. Anannian, “L’opuscolo di 
Eutichio, patriarca di Costantinopoli, sulla “Distinzione della 
natura e della persona,” in Armeniaca. Mélanges d'études 
arméniennes (Venice 196g) 316-82, with Ital. tr. 

tir. A. van Roey, DHGE 16 (1967) 87—91. E. Schwartz, 
Der Prozess des Eutyches (Munich 1929). R. Draguet, “La 


christologie d’Eutychés d’aprés les Actes du synode de 
Flavien,” Byzantion 6 (1931) 441-57. -A.K. 


EUTYCHIOS, patriarch of Constantinople (Aug. 
552—between 22 and 31 Jan. 565; 2 Oct. 577-6 
Apr. 582) and saint; born Phrygian village of 
Theios/Theion 512, died Constantinopie; feast- 
day 6 Apr. His father was a lieutenant of BELI- 
sarios (PG 86:2281BC). Educated in Constanti- 
nople, Eutychios became a monk and then katholikos 
(i.e., superior of all the monks) in the metropolis 
of Amaseia (col. 2296AB). Justinian I selected him 
to succeed MENAS as patriarch, since Eutychios 
supported the emperor’s position in the dispute 
about the THREE CHAPTERS. Eutychios presided 
over the Council of Constantinople in 553 and 
dedicated Hagia Sophia after its restoration. Prob- 


EUTYCHIOS | 759 


ably by 558 relations between Eutychios and Jus- 
tinian had begun to deteriorate; the emperor urged 
both him and Belisarios to attend a silentium that 
investigated the case of some subordinates of Be- 
lisarios who were involved in a plot (Theoph. 
238.11-15). The patriarch’s opposition to 
APHTHARTODOCETISM aroused Justinian’s anger, 
and the emperor exiled him to Amaseia, replacing 
him with Jonn II ScHoastixkos; after the latter’s 
death Eutychios was restored by Justin II. Euty- 
chios had a theological discussion with the future 
pope Grecory I on the question of the resurrec- 
tion of the flesh. 

Of his works (on Origenism, against the Mon- 
ophysite interpretation of the Trisagion, etc.) little 
has survived excepting titles. His pupil Eustratios 
wrote the vita of Eutychios, full of biblical and 
patristic allusions; it contains some data on Chos- 
roes ls invasion, and some miracles worked by 
Eutychios are of interest for cultural history. Thus 
the patriarch healed a young mosaicist who had 
been injured by a demon after he was forced to 
destroy a mosaic in a private house in Amaseia 
on which the story of Aphrodite was depicted (PG 
86:2333D-2340B). Eustratios called his hero “the 
archiereus of the vikoumene” (col.2281A), an early 
case of the use of this title. 

source. Vita by Eustratios—PG 86:2273-2390. 

Lit. RegPatr, fasc. 1, nos. 244-49, 260—63. Beck, Kirche 


380. Laurent, Corpus 5.1, no.1. R. Janin, DHGE 16 (1967) 
94f. -A.K. 


EUTYCHIOS, exarch of Ravenna (ca.728—ca.751). 
A eunuch of patrician rank, Eutychios was sent 
by Leo III to Italy after the murder of the exarch 
Paul, probably to remove Pope Grecory II for 
opposing the emperor’s Iconoclasm (Anastos, “Leo 
IIs Edict” 26-31; D. Miller, MedSt 36 [1974] 
102-05). Eutychios went first to Naples and un- 
successfully attempted to have Gregory and the 
Roman nobies murdered. He then approached 
the LomBarps and agreed to help King Liutprand 
gain Spoleto and Benevento in exchange for aid 
against Gregory. When they arrived in Rome 
(729?), however, the pope won over Liutprand, 
who reconciled Eutychios and Gregory. Eutychios 
apparently stayed in Rome, for shortly thereafter 
(7302) Gregory gave him troops against Tiberius 
Petasius. The sources do not mention Eutychios 
further by name, but he is assumed to have been 
exarch until the Lombards’ capture of Ravenna 


760 | EUTYCHIOS 


ca.751. If so, he was the exarch who sought refuge 
and help in Venice in the late 730s, when the 
Lombards first took Ravenna; entreated by Pope 
GREGORY Il, the Venetians recaptured the city 
and returned it to Byz. control. So, too, Eutychios 
would have been the exarch who petitioned Pope 
ZACHARIAS in the early 740s to dissuade Liutprand 
from attacking Ravenna. 
ur. C. Diehl, Etudes sur l'administration byzantine dans 
Vexarchat de Ravenne (Paris 1888). T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her 
Invaders (600-744), vol. 6 (Oxford 1916) 487-98. J.T. 
Hallenbeck, “The Roman-Byzantine Reconciliation of 728: 
Genesis and Significances,” BZ 74 (1981) 29-41. 
—P.A.H. 


EUTYCHIOS (painter). See MICHAEL (ASTRAPAS) 
AND EUTYCHIOS. 


EUTYCHIOS OF ALEXANDRIA, known in Ar- 
abic as Sa‘id ibn Batriq (.e., “patriarch”); Melkite 
patriarch of Alexandria (from 22 Jan. 935); born 
17 Aug. 877, died Fustat 11 May 940. A learned 
physician, Eutychios is best known for the Annals 
that go under his name, a chronography on the 
Byz. model written in Arabic and extending from 
the age of Adam to the year 938. The form in 
which the Annals of Eutychios has been published 
in modern times is the result of numerous edito- 
rial expansions by later Melkite writers. A notable 
feature of the Annals, in the accounts of the years 
after the rise of Islam, is the coordination of the 
reigns of the caliphs and of the Oriental patri- 
archs with the reigns of the patriarchs and em- 
perors of Byz. The Annals report important events 
in the history of Byz., such as the so-called Mor- 
CHIAN CONTROVERSY in the time of Constantine 
VI, and they propose an eccentric account of 
ICONOCLASM by representing it solely as an over- 
reaction to the abuses of certain iconophiles on 
the part of Emp. Theophilos (Griffith, “Apolo- 
getics in Arabic” 154~go). 

A number of other Christian Arabic works are 
assigned to Eutychios, most importantly a long 
apologetic treatise, The Book of the Demonstration. 
It is now clear, however, that this and other texts 
attributed to him were not written by Eutychios. 

ED. Annales, ed. L. Cheikho, 2 vols. (Beirut-Paris 1go6— 
og). Lat. tr. PG 111:907-1156. Excerpts—Das Annalenwerk, 
ed. M. Breydy, 2 vols. (Louvain 1985), with Germ. tr. The 


Book of the Demonstration, ed. P. Cachia, 4 vols. (Louvain 
1960-61), with Eng. tr. by W.M. Watt. 


tir. M. Breydy, Etudes sur SaGd ibn Batriq et ses sources 
(Louvain 1983). L.V. Isakova, “K voprosu o chronike Ev- 

tichija i ee rukopisjach,” VizVrem 44 (1983) 112-16. 
-S.H.G. 


EVAGRIOS PONTIKOS (Evaypios Ilovrikós), 
monastic writer; born Ibora, Pontos, ca.345, died 
Egypt 399. He was ordained anagnostes by Basil 
the Great and deacon by GREGORY OF NAZIANZOS, 
who was also his teacher. In 380 he accompanied 
Gregory to Constantinople, where he attained fame 
as a preacher; a scandalous love affair, however, 
soon forced his departure. Having been received 
by Melania the Elder at Jerusalem, in 383 Eva- 
grios embraced the monastic life in Egypt, living 
in Nitria and Kellia. He associated with MAKARIOS 
THE Great and Makarios of Alexandria (G. Bunge, 
Trénikon 56 [1983] 215-27, 323-60) and sup- 
ported himself as a calligrapher. Evagrios also 
composed his works on the monastic life during 
his sojourn in the Egyptian desert. 

Evagrios followed ORIGEN, accepting his idea of 
the preexistence of souls as pure intellectual beings 
that assumed flesh and became sinful but are to 
be reconstituted in angelic shape (apokatastasis) 
and unified with God. Jesus Christ was the single 
spiritual being who did not fall away from the 
Logos, although he remained united to the flesh. 
Asceticism was for Evagrios the main path to 
salvation. He developed the concept of “practical” 
behavior, which he interpreted not as the “active” 
but the anachoretic life; its major purpose was 
the struggle against eight wicked logismoi, or sinful 
desires, namely gluttony, fornication, avarice, grief, 
wrath, torpor, vainglory, and arrogance. Cleansed 
of these logismoz the pious man would be able to 
contemplate the created world and divine wis- 
dom. 

After Evagrios was condemned for Origenism 
in 553, many of his works were lost; some are 
preserved under the name of NEILOS OF ANKYRA, 
some in Syriac, Armenian, Latin, and other trans- 
lations. Nevertheless his concept of practical be- 
havior, his list of eight logismoi, and his aphoristic 
style as well as the literary genre of spiritual cen- 
turia (short eatechetical units) or CHAPTERS influ- 
enced subsequent monastic literature, for ex- 
ample, Cassian, PALLADIOS, and later SYMEON THE 
‘THEOLOGIAN. 


ED. Trailé pratique ou le moine, ed. A. & C. Guillaumont, 
2 vols. (Paris 1971), with Fr. ur. The Praktikos: Chapters on 


Prayer, ir. J.E. Bamberger (Spencer, Mass., 1970). Syriac 
version—ed. A. Guillaumont, Les six centuries des “Kephalaia 
gnostica” (Paris 1958), with Fr. tr. 

tir. W. Frankenberg, Euagrius Ponticus (Berlin 1912). 
A. Guilaumont, “Un philosophe au désert: Evagre le Pon- 
tique,” RHR 181 (1972) 29—56. Idem, Les “Kephalaia gnos- 
tea’ d’Evagre le Pontique (Paris 1962). —B.B.. A.K. 


EVAGRIOS SCHOLASTIKOS, ecclesiastical his- 
torian; born Epiphaneia in Coele Syria ca.536, 
died after 594. Evagrios was a lawyer (SCHOLAS- 
tikos) at Antioch, also holding some probably 
honorary administrative offices. His Church History 
covers in six books the years 431-594, using both 
secular and ecclesiastical sources. Photios (Bibl., 
cod.29) thought him an undistinguished stylist, 
but soundly orthodox and commendably inter- 
ested in the history of images. A Chalcedonian in 
theology, he treats the Council of 451 at length, 
but ts compromising toward MonopuysiTisM. His 
secular narrative emphasizes the virtues and 
achievements of Marcian, Tiberios I, and Maur- 
ice. A certain parochialism, however, results in 
more space being given to the affairs of ANTIOCH 
(esp. the career of Patr. Gregory [570-93]) than 
to Constantinople. His style is conventionally rhe- 
torical, but not excesstvely poetic, and he eclecti- 
cally uses pagan and Christian models (V. Caires, 
ByzF 8 [1982] 29-50). Overall estimates vary widely, 
often criticizing him for credulity, but his eyewit- 
ness accounts, sifting of sources, citation of doc- 
uments from the archives of the Antiochene pa- 
triarchate, and inclusion of bibliography make his 
history invaluable. 

ED. Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier 
(London 1898; rp. Amsterdam 1964); Fr. tr. A.J. Festu- 
gitre, Byzantion 45 (1975) 187—488. 

uit. P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian 
(Louvain 1981). —B.B. 


EVANGELION (cvayyéXov), evangcliary, the Byz. 
Gospel LecTronary, used chiefly at Eucharist. The 
evangelion contains only those Gospel passages that 
are actually read. The first part has the Gospel 
LECTIONS for the mobile cycle, in liturgical order 
John, Matthew, Luke, Mark. It must not be con- 
fused with the tetraevangelion (see GOSPEL Book), 
which contains the complete text of the four Gos- 
pels, arranged exactly as they are in the New 
Testament, but with the beginning and end of 
each passage to be read indicated in the margin 


EVANGELIST PORTRAITS | 761 


and numbered. The second part, known as the 
SYNAXARION (wrongly as the menologion), lists the 
LECTIONS for each day of the year from 1 Sept., 
providing the full Gospel passage unless it already 
appears earlier in the volume. The Gospel lections 
for feasts that fall on a fixed date in the church 
CALENDAR are select; those of the movable, tem- 
poral cycle, which varies depending on the date 
of Easter, are semicontinuous, i.e., read more or 
less in the order in which they occur in the Bible 
text. In the latter cycle, each Gospel is associated 
with a particular period of the year: John, the 
period from Easter to Pentecost; Matthew, from 
Pentecost to the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 
Sept.); Luke, from then until the beginning of 
Lent; Mark, throughout Lent. 

Usually included in MSS of the evangelion are 
the Twelve Passion Gospels read at Good Friday 
orthros. These are a composite series of harmo- 
nized readings from the four Gospels, of Palestin- 
ian origin, arranged to recount in chronological 
sequence the events of Jesus’ passion and death. 

Lectionary Illustration. Evangelia are fre- 
quently adorned with EVANGELIST PORTRAITS; fur- 
ther figural illustration, which is relatively rare, 
may comprise headpieces, smaller framed or un- 
framed pictures near the appropriate lection, 
marginal illustrations, and inhabited initials. In 
the most sumptuously illustrated evangelia the syn- 
axarion section is also illustrated; these MSS date 
primarily between the 10th and 12th C. 

Lit, E.C. Colwell, D.W. Riddle, Prolegomena to the Study 
of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels (Chicago 1933). Y. Burns, 
“The Greek Manuscripts connected by their Lection System 
with the Palestinian Syriac Gospel Lectionaries,” Studia 
Biblica 2 [= Journal for the Study of the New Testament”, supp.] 
(1980) 13-28. W.C. Braithwaite, “The Lection-System of 


the Codex Macedonianus,” JTASt 5 (1904) 265-74. S. Tsuji 
in Hluminated Greek MSS 34-39. K. Weitzmann, Byzantine 
Liturgical Psalters and Gospels (London 1980), pts. VII, X, 
XI, XII, XIV. -RAVT.. A.C. 


EVANGELIST PORTRAITS, found throughout 
Byz. art, are prominently represented in the PEN- 
DENTIVES below the domes of churches, on the 
TEMPLON, on the EPITAPHIOS, and esp. in MSS, 
where they are the most commonly illustrated 
subject. In physical type, the older, gray-haired 
MATTHEW and Jonn contrast with the younger, 
dark-haired Mark and Luke. In MSS, they are 
rarely represented standing; they are usually 
seated, and depicted as writing, meditating, reach- 


762 | EVANGELIST SYMBOLS 





EVANGELIST Portraits. Portrait of St. John the Evan- 
gelist in a Gospel book (Athens, gr. 57, fol.265v); 11th 
C. National Library, Athens. 


ing forward to a lectern, dipping their pens in an 
inkwell, or occasionally erasing a text or sharp- 
ening their quills. The evangelists write on a codex 
or roll, usually in Greek, but, in the 13th C., 
sometimes in Latin. Often shown before architec- 
tural backgrounds, they are surrounded by lec- 
terns and desks with writing paraphernalia. They 
may be framed by arches and accompanied by 
illustrations of the liturgical feast at which the 
beginning of each Gospet was read. From ca.1000, 
John is depicted dictating to his assistant Procho- 
ros, and, less frequently, Peter and Paul instruct 
Mark and Luke, respectively. The inclusion of 
EVANGELIST SYMBOLS is rarer than in the Latin 
West. The importance and ubiquity of evangelist 
portraits was such that other authors (e.g., DaviD, 
the church fathers, hymnographers) were com- 
monly represented in the same manner. 

Lit. H. Hunger, K. Wessel, RBK 2 (1968) 452-507. 
Nelson, Preface & Miniature 75—91. 1. Spatharakis, The Left- 


Handed Evangelist: A Contribution to Palaeologan Iconography 
(London 1988). -R.S.N. 


EVANGELIST SYMBOLS. The four beasts (Zo- 
DIA) of Ezekiel 1:10—man, lion, ox, eagle—were 
associated from the 2nd C. onward with the four 
Evangelists of the New Testament. In Byz. art, 
they most often surround Christ in Majesty. Thus 
they first appear projecting from the MANDORLA 
of the youthful Christ in the apse mosaic at Ho- 
sios Davip in Thessalonike. In several 1oth- 
through itth-C. Cappadocian apses showing the 
Prophetic Vision, the symbols accompany a ma- 
ture Christ; labeled with the words intoned in the 
liturgy before the TRISAGION, the symbols link the 
Christ of the image with the revealed Christ of 
the liturgy. In various Gospel trontispieces, they 
surround the Majestas Domini, echoing certain 
Gospel prefaces that explain the existence of four 
Gospels by referring to the four beasts crying the 
glory of “him who sits upon the Cherubim.” In 
some Gospel books, each Evangelist is paired with 
a symbol. The pairing of symbols and Evangelists 
varies from book to book throughout the 11th- 
12th C. Only with a late 12th-C. set of verses 
found in eight DECORATIVE STYLE Gospels does 
the pairing standard in the West and in Armenian 
art appear: man/Matthew, lion/Mark, ox/Luke, ea- 
gle/John. Possibly through Western influence, this 
pairing becomes customary in Palaiologan art. 
LIT. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, “Théophanies-Visions aux- 
quelles participent les prophètes dans l'art byzantin après 


la restauration des images,” in Synthronon 1935—43. Nelson, 
Preface & Miniature 15-53, 109-18. -A.W.C. 


EVARISTOS, mid-1oth-C. deacon and librarian 
(bibliophylax), author of a letter addressed to Con- 
STANTINE VII PORPHYROGENNETOS, “born in the 
purple silk.” The letter is preserved only in Ara- 
bic. The emperor had commanded Evaristos to 
produce a history of the saints “in easy language.” 
In his letter Evaristos informs the ruler that he 
has sketched biographies of the saints, established 
their dates, and verified the records. Evaristos’s 
compilation, now lost, was probably a step toward 
the comprehensive work by Symeon META- 
PHRASTES. 

Ep. A.S. Lewis, M.D. Gibson, Forty-one Facsimiles of Dated 


Christian Arabic MSS (Cambridge 1907) 27f (with Eng. tr.). 
ut. Ehrhard, Uberlieferung, 1.1:24, n.1. -A.K. 


EVE. See ADAM AND EVE. 


EVERYDAY LIFE, in the broad sense, en- 
compasses the entirety of Byz. culture: thus, T. 
Talbot Rice’s book (infra) includes sections on the 
imperial court, church, administration, army, etc. 
In the narrow sense, everyday life is ordinary 
human activity and comprises diet and costume, 
BEHAVIOR and superstitions, ENTERTAINMENT, 
housing, and FURNITURE. The subject is poorly 
studied and sources are limited: historiography, 
rhetoric, and liturgical texts are not very helpful, 
although they are the best known writings; ar- 
chaeology provides some scattered data; hagiog- 
raphy, documents, and letters offer only small 
nuggets of information (P. Magdalino, BS 48 [1987] 
28—38). The content of mural and book illustra- 
tion is of mixed evidential value: the costumes, 
gestures, and attitudes of protagonists in sacred 
iconography appear to be conventional and often 
antique, yet peripheral details in both urban and 
rural scenes may well reflect current circum- 
stances. 

While daily life in late antiquity was municipally 
oriented and situated primarily in open spaces, 
Byz. funneled its energy inside closed buildings. 
A comparison of two great vitae, those of SYMEON 
oF Emesa (6th C.) and BASIL THE YOUNGER (10th 
C.), reveals the change: Symeon is depicted in the 
streets and squares, Basil within the houses of his 
supporters. Public life did not totally disappear— 
some processions and feasts continued to be held 
in public-—but it was significantly contracted: the 
THEATER ceased to exist, religious services dis- 
pensed with many outdoor liturgical ceremonies, 
even races and circus games tended to be replaced 
by carnivats and by sports and competitions, 
such as polo and tournaments, which were on a 
reduced scale and socially restricted. The shift 
from reading aloud to silent reading, the adoption 
of silent prayer, the abandonment of public re- 
pentance, the playing of quiet board cames like 
CHess—all these belong to the same phenomenon 
of “privatization” of everyday life. 

With the exception of churches, there was no 
new construction of public buildings in Byz. towns, 
and the regular city planning of antiquity, with 
Squares, porticoes, and wide avenues, was re- 
placed by a chaotic maze of narrow streets and 
individual habitats. The Houses of the nobility 
(villas or mansions) also lost their orderly arrange- 
ment, which was replaced by a group of irregu- 
larly shaped rooms, bedchambers, terraces, and 


EVERYDAY LIFE 763 


workshops; also abandoned was their openness to 
nature in the form of the aTRIUM—with its implu- 
vium, inner garden, and fountain—or naturalistic 
floor mosaics. Houses became darker, and the 
shift in LIGHTING from lamps to candles after the 
7th C. contributed as well to this change. 

The increased use of TABLES and of the WRITING 
DESK influenced various habits—from reading and 
writing (including the format of the Book) to 
dining and games. The BED as the symbol of the 
most private aspect of daily life became consis- 
tently distinct from CHAIRS or stools, which were 
used for more social occasions. Pottery (see CE- 
RAMICS) grew more uniform and less decorated 
than in antiquity; it served primarily the private 
needs of the family, whereas imperial BANQUETS 
used gold and silver ware. 

A respect for the human body determined the 
form of ancient CostuME: the body was covered 
only minimally and there was no fear of naked- 
ness. Byz. costume, however, which began to adopt 
the use of TROUSERS and sleeves, was a reaction 
against the openness of antiquity, and heavy cloaks 
provided people with additional means of con- 
cealment. 

Patterns of food consumption evidently changed 
as well: in the ordinary pier, the role of BREAD 
decreased, whereas MEAT, FISH, and CHEESE be- 
came more important. Dining habits changed, 
too, from a relaxed reclining to the more formal 
sitting on chairs. While we can surmise that the 
actual diet was not spare by medieval standards, 
the predominantly monastic ideology of the Byz. 
condemned heavy meals and praised ascetic ab- 
stemiousness. 

Bathing habits also changed: the public BATHS, 
which had served virtually as a club for well-to- 
do Romans, almost disappeared and ancient bath- 
houses were often transformed into churches. 
Provincial baths were few, located in log huts full 
of smoke coming from an open hearth. 

The nuclear FAMILY was the crucial social unit 
responsible for the production of goods, so that 
hired workers (MISTHIOI) and even slaves (see 
SLAVERY) were considered an extension of the 
family; the education of children was also the 
family’s responsibility. The family was limited to 
a certain extent by the neighborhood, guild, or 
village community; it was these MICROSTRUCTURES 
that took charge of organizing FEASTS. WOMEN, 
who indisputably played a decisive role in the 


764 | EVIL 


household, were compelled to remain in a special 
part of the house and to wear “decent” dress, 
which served clearly to distinguish a matron from 
the PROSTITUTE, whose more revealing costume 
suggested immoral conduct. The unity of the family 
was emphasized by the custom of common meals 
and by the father’s right to indoctrinate (some- 
umes with physical force) all the members of his 
small household. 

Depictions of everyday life are rare as primary 
subjects in art, although many indications can be 
gleaned from biblical images in MSS such as the 
OcTATEUCcHs where, for example, scenes of birth, 
legal penalties, and activities such as threshing 
and various modes of transportation reflect Byz. 
practice. A market scene appears in a {resco at 
the Blachernai monastery in ARTA which depicts 
a procession of the Virgin Hodegetria. It shows 
merchants displaying their merchandise in bas- 
kets and on benches, fruit and beverage vendors, 
and their customers. By contrast, ceramic house- 
hold vEsseLs made for everyday use, when they 
do contain figural decoration of any sort, show 
scenes from mythology, fable, or epic. 

LIT. Ph. Koukoules, Byzantinon bios kai politismos, 6 vols. 
(Athens 1952-57). T. Talbot Rice, £ vervday Life in Byzan- 
um (London—New York 1967). C- Mango, “Daily Life in 
Byzantium,” JOB 31.1 (1981) 337-533 32.1 (1982) 252-57. 
G. Litavrin, Kak ali vizantijey? (Moscow 1974). M.A. Polja- 
kovskaja, A.A. Cekalova, Vizantija: byt i nravy (Sverdlovsk 
198g). He kathemerine zoe sto By2zantino (Athens 1989). 
Kazhdan-Epstein, Change 74-83. Veyne, Private Life 235- 
409, 551-641. G. Walter, La vie quotidienne à Byzance au 
siècle des Comnénes (Paris 1966). -A.K.. AC. 


EVIL (kakia). The core of the problem of evil is 
how far responsibility for it can be attributed to 
God. Late antiquity presented two diametrically 


opposed concepts of evil. The dualistic systems of 


Gnosticism and MANICHAEANISM considered evil 
as a “substance” warring with the good, symboli- 
cally treated as a battle of darkness against light. 
The material world ts the realm of evil, created 
by the inferior deity and contrasted to the divine 
and heavenly world. In contrast, PROKLOS as- 
sumed that evil had only a dependent existence 
(parhypostasts) and was caused by manifold factors 


such as weakness, lack of knowledge, or lack of 


goodness; he criticized PLorinos, for whom evil 
was an inherent quality of matter. 

Christianity overcame the contradiction after 
painful vacillations; ORIGEN, for example, viewed 


the cosmos as consisting of an opposition of light 
and darkness. The core of the Christian solution 
is Augustine’s view that Adam’s original sin was 
perpetrated contrary to nature (divine nature has 
no evil in itself); original sin was committed not 
due to human FREF WILL (as was the view of 
PELAGIANISM), but by the mysterious dispensation 
of God, who knows how to transform evil into 
good. John of Damascus, on the other hand, em- 
phasized that any creation of God was good, but 
that both angels and mortals were autexousioi, that 
is, granted freedom of choice to follow God’s law 
or deviate from it; we are responsible for our 
wrongdoing, just as the criminal, not the judge, 
is responsible for a felony and deserves punish- 
ment. John also drew a distinction between evil 
“by nature” (deviation from God’s law) and “ap- 
parent” (subjectively perceived) evil, that is, the 
hardships and trials of life (including fasting, vig- 
ils, etc.) that in fact contribute to our salvation. 
Redemption from Adam’s sin was achieved by 
Christ’s sacrifice and is continued in BAPTISM and 
other sacraments. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM consistently 
explains Christ’s sacrifice as propitiating the Fa- 
ther and reconciling mankind with an angry God. 
In Christian belief, the Devit and his DEMONS are 
the embodiment of evil; the mission of saints is 
the battle against demons. Despite the symbolism 
of light and darkness this struggle is not conceived 
dualistically, since it evolves under God’s paternal 
care and aims at the improvement of corrupted 
human nature. 

uit. F. Young, “Insight or Incoherence? The Greek 
Fathers on God and Evil,” JEH 24 (1973) 113-26. M. Erler 
in Proklos Diadochos: Uber die Existenz des Bösen (Meisenheim 


am Glan 1978) v-ix. H.G. Beck, Vorsehung und Vorherbestim- 
mung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzantiner (Rome 


1937). -A.K. 


EVIL EYE, a popular amuletic image of the 4th- 
8th C. characterized by an eye surrounded by a 
variety of threatening beasts and instruments: lions, 
snakes, scorpions, daggers, etc. Most often it is 
found on a bronze pendant AMULET whose other 
side bears the HoLy Riper. Amuletic inscriptions 
against the evil eye, without a representation, are 
also common (e.g., “the seal of Solomon holds the 
evil eye"—Russell, infra 540). Both would combat 
the envious glance that was popularly believed to 
facilitate the access of demons to a coveted thing 
or person. The antidote was to display the inevi- 


table suffering of the covetous individual or, more 


specifically, of his “evil eye.” In The Testament of 


Solomon (ed. C.C. McCown [Leipzig 1922] 18.39) 
one demon reports: “My power is annulled by the 
engraved image of the much-suffering eye.” 

ur. J. Russell. “Phe Evil Eve in Early Byzantine Soci- 
ctv.” JOB 42.3 (1982) 539-48. -G.V. 


EVLIYA CELEBI, Ottoman scholar, sipdhi, and 
traveler; born Istanbul 25 Mar. 1611, died Istan- 
bul? 1684. Evliya was the author of the ten-volume 
Seyahatname (Book of Travels), professedly a de- 
scription with considerable elaborations of Evliya’s 
extensive journeys and various sojourns through- 
out the Ottoman Empire and beyond, primarily 
for ca.1630—76. Evliya wrote to entertain and his 
language is a mixture of learned and vernacular 
Ottoman. His sources include his personal obser- 
vations, hearsay, cited and uncited literary works, 
and his own lively imagination. Assuredly, some 
of what Evliya wrote is fictitious. Nonetheless, he 
conveys a plethora of credible data regarding the 
geography, cites, monuments, Institutions, peo- 
ples, and cultures of the Ottoman Empire of his 
ume. For Byz. studies, Evliya’s work is replete 
with information concerning the status and de- 
velopment of previously Byz. peoples under Ot- 
toman rule. Book 1 is esp. important for its ma- 
terial on the topography, ethnography, and folklore 
of Istanbul. No critical edition of this work yet 
exists. 

ED. AND TR. Evliyd Celebi seyéhdtnamesi, 10 vols. (Istanbul 
1896-1938), in Ottoman. Evliyd Celebi seyéhdtnamesi, 15 vols. 
(Istanbul 1971), in Turkish. Eng. tr. Books 1-2—J. von 
Hammer-Purgstall, Narrative of Travels in Europe, Asia, and 
Africa in the Seventeenth Century (by Evliya Efendi), 2 vols. in 
1 (London 1834; rp. New York 1968). He Kentrike kai Dytike 
Makedonia kata ton Ebligia Tseleb, ed. B. Demetriades (Thes- 
salonike 1973). 

ur. J. Mordtmann-H. Duda, El? 2:717-20. B. Lewis, 


The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York—London 1982). 
—S.W.R. 


EVRENOS (EGpevét and similar forms), Otto- 
man general; died Yenice-1 Vardar 1417. Origi- 
nally a beg of Karası, Evrenos joined the Otto- 
mans after they conquered that beylik. Evrenos 
had served from 1359 as general under Siiteyman 
Pasha, Murad I, Bayezid I, Süleyman Celebi, and 
Mehmed I. Evrenos participated in virtually all 
the critical campaigns and battles fought by the 


EVTIMIJ OF TURNOVO 765 


Ottomans in Europe during his lifetime. During 
the 1360s-80s, he led many of the Turkish con- 
guests in Byz. Thrace and Macedonia and cap- 
tured Corinth in 1397. Evrenos himself acquired 
vast estates, centered at Yenice-1 Vardar (mod. 
Yiannitsa in northern Greece), the site of his fam- 
ily tombs. 

Byz. views of Evrenos were typically negative. 
Manuel II, writing ca.1409, attributed to him an 
“unrivaled” hatred of Christians and extreme cru- 
elty. Among Muslims, Evrenos was renowned for 
his heroism, piety, and gencrosity. 


tir. 1. Melikoff, BP 2:720. I. Uzunçarşılı, ÍA 4:414-18. 
—S.W.R. 


EVTIMIJ OF TURNOVO, patriarch of Bulgaria, 
teacher, and writer; born Tărnovo between about 
1320 and 1330, died Backovo ca.1400. As a young 
monk in a monastery in Tărnovo he was attracted 
by Hesycuasm, of which he became a lifelong 
defender. He was the protégé of Patr. TEODOSIJE, 
with whom he went to Constantinople in 1363. 
He then spent some years in the Lavra and Zo- 
graphou monasteries on Athos. Returning to Bul- 
garia in 1371 he founded the monastery of Holy 
Trinity near Tărnovo, which became a center of 
scholarship and literature. Elected patriarch in 
1375, he helped in the struggle to preserve Bul- 
garian independence and to maintain the reli- 
gious unity of the Bulgarian people. After the 
Turkish capture of Ttrnovo in 1393, he was 
expelled and imprisoned in the PETRITZOs mon- 
astery at Backovo. 

Evumy revised and corrected earlier CHURCH 
SLavoNic translations from Greek and sought to 
standardize Slavonic orthography and grammar 
in the face of linguistic change. His original writ- 
ings comprise Lives of Bulgarian saints (for ex- 
ample, St. Jonn or Rita), panegyrics of saints, 
theological treatises, and liturgical texts. He ex- 
tended the flexibility and expressiveness of Old 
Slavonic and introduced to Slavonic literature 
something of the culture of mid-14th-C. Byz. His 
works enjoyed great influence in Serbia, Rumania, 
and Russia as well as in Bulgaria. 

ED. Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymios, ed. E. 
Katuzniacki (Vienna 1901; rp. London 1971). 

ur. I. Bogdanov, Patriarh Evtimy (Sotia 1970). KI Iya- 
nova, Patriarh Evtimij (Sofia 19886). P.A. Syrku, K istorii 
ispravleniia knig v Bolgari v XIV veke, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg 
1890-98). N.C. Kočev in Kulturno razvitie na Biilgarskata 


766 EWER 


dtirtava: krajat na XII-XIV vek (Sofia 1985) 278-84. G. 
Danéev, “Otnogenie Evfimija Tyrnovskogo k eretiteskim 
uéenijam, rasprostranjavsimsja v Bolgarskich zemljach,” 
BBulg 6 (1980) 95-104. - R.B. 


EWER. See CHERNIBOXESTON. 
EX VOTO. See Vorives. 


EXAGION (é€crytov, Lat. exagium), a unit of weight 
equal to 1/72 of the heavy Roman libra or Byz. 
logarike LITRA [= 4.44 g]. Synonymous terms are 
stagion, saggio (It.), and mitgal (Ar.). Since the 
SOLIDUS weighed exactly one exagzon, the term was 
also used to refer to the coin. Exagion can also 
identify the wEIGHTS used to control gold coins. 
After 1204 exagia of different weight are re- 
ported, that is, they are 1/72 of “pounds” that 
differed from the logarike litra. 


LIT. Schilbach, Metrologie 183, 204. K. Wessel, RBK 2:795-~ 
800. -E. Sch. 


EXAKTOR (éé&a&xrwp), fiscal official in the late 
Roman Empire whose main function was to exact 
arrears of taxation; exaktores had under their com- 
mand a staff of subaltern officials, including PRAK- 
TORES. Usually attached to a particular city, the 
exaktor was first appointed by the emperor, later 
by the curia. After the 6th C. the exaktor disap- 
pears temporarily. 

The gth-C. raktika do not mention exaktores, 
but the 1oth-C. Taktikon of Escurial places them 
between the protasekretis and mystikos. They seem 
to have retained certain fiscal functions. An act 
of the 11th C. is signed by John, megas chartoularios 
of the genikon and exaktor (N. Wilson, J. Darrouzés, 
REB 26 [1968] 18.18). Tzerzes (Hist. 5.60g—-11) 
boasts that his grandfather George was a re- 
nowned exaktor who fulfilled the duty of praktor 
in various themes. At the same time, the exaktor 
became a high-ranking judge of the imperial tri- 
bunal. After 1204 the post is unknown. 


LIT. Oikonomides, Listes 325f. Délger, Beiträge 68. Lau- 
rent, Corpus 2:480—83. O. Seeck, RE 6 (1909) 1542-47. 
—-A.K. 


EXALEIMMA (éécAetupa,, from exaleipho, “to wipe 
out, erase” [from the tax roll]), a fiscal term ap- 
plied to immovable property. The term appears, 
almost exclusively in documents, from 1259 to 


1361, although the adjective exaleimmatikos, as in 
exaleimmatike stasis, is firmly attested from 1300 
until 1420. Exaleimmata were bought, sold, do- 
nated, granted in PRONOIA, reassigned to other 
paroikoi, broken up and parceled between paroikoi 
and their lord, and given fiscal assessments com- 
parable to other properties. While V. Vasil’evskij 
(ZMNP 210 [1880] 158) first identified exaleimma 
as escheat, later scholars (Délger, Sechs Praktika 
122; Zakythinos, Despotat 2:240; Solovjev-Mo8in, 
Grčke povelje 432) frequently interpret exalezmmata 
as ruined properties. A few documents, however 
(Zogr., no.18.11-14; M. Goudas, EEBS 3 [1926] 
133f, no.7.6—10; Docheiar., no.40.13-14), dem- 
onstrate that exaleimmata could be cultivated prop- 
erties producing income. 

The use of the participle exalipheis in the Treatise 
on Taxation (Dolger, Beiträge 116.2—6) and later 
documents through the 12th C. and the use of 
the adjective exelemmenos in mid-11th- to mid- 
1g3th-C. documents suggest that an exaleimma was 
an escheated property, which reverted to the own- 
er’s lord (a private landlord or the state in its role 
as a landlord) as a result of the death or flight of 
its owner (usually a parotkos) without leaving a 
proper heir. The use of these terms also suggests 
that in the late Byz. agrarian system, based on the 
paroikia, exaleimma played a role analogous to that 
held by xLasma in the earlier Byz. agrarian system 
based on the village community. 


tit. M. Bartusis, “Exaleimma: Escheat in Byzantium,” 
DOP 40 (1986) 55-81. —M.B. 


EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. See Cross, 
CULT OF THE. 


EXAMPLE (zapaéetyua) was considered by an- 
cient rhetoricians as a TROPE (Martin, Rhetorik 
262), based on the juxtaposition of objects and 
aimed at exhortation or dissuasion; unlike the 
PARABLE, examples dealt with actual phenomena 
and not with possible ones (RhetGr, ed. Spengel, 
3:200.21—201.2). The church fathers frequently 
used examples to clarify subtle theological con- 
cepts, such as illustrating the Trinity by means of 
the sun and its rays, or demonstrating the exis- 
tence of two natures in Christ by the example of 
the human soul and body. Leontios of Byzantium 
(PG 86:1453A~C) asserted that theological truth 
could not be proven by “natural reason” and 


ridiculed the philosophers who rely on examples. 
The prototype, he said, always lacks likeness; even 
though Ethiopians and ravens are both black, they 
are totally dissimilar. Jonn oF Damascus explicitly 
emphasized that examples must not be completely 
identical (Schriften, ed. Kotter, 2:169.19—24, 4:128, 
ch.54.6—7). -A.K. 


EXARCH (ééapyxos), the name of several officials 
in both secular and ecclesiastical administration. 
Secular Exarchs. At the time of Justinian I 
exarch was identified with a poux (C. Benjamin, 
RE 6 [1909] 1552f); eventually the term became 
the designation of the governor of an EXARCHATE, 
holding both civil and military power. Later, in 
the 10th-C. Book OF THE EPARCH, the term was 
applied to the heads of several guilds, the PRAN- 
DIOPRATAI and METAXOPRATAI; it is found, without 
any definition, in charters of 982 and 1008 (vir. 
1, nos. 4, 15)—Délger (Schatz. 297f) had hypoth- 
esized that they were heads of guilds. Clearer is 
a purchase deed of 1320 that testifies to the ex- 
istence of an exarch of myrepsoi in Thessalonike 
who was personally involved in the production of 
perfumes (A. Kazhdan, VizVrem 13 [1958] 307). 
There is no evidence concerning the exarchs of 
guilds in Constantinople after the 10th C. 
Ecclesiastical Exarchs. The chief bishop of a 
civil DIOCESE was also called exarch. In ecclesias- 
tical usage therefore the title meant “primate” and 
was given to both METROPOLITANS and PATRIARCHS 
exercising authority over a wide area (CHALCE- 
DON, canon g). Thus ZONARAS comments that this 
canon designates the patriarchs themselves as ex- 
archs of their dioceses (PG 137:420C). Although 
the title was abandoned by the 6th C. in favor of 
the familiar “patriarch,” in later centuries it was 
frequently given to metropolitans as a purely hon- 
orary designation. At the same time, however, it 
was also used to denote a patriarchal funciiviasy 
or representative of a territory directly dependent 
on the patriarch (Laurent, Corpus, 5.1, nos. 241— 
45; 5-3, nos. 1681—83). Indeed, by 1350 priests 
in Constantinople were even appointed exarchs 
in charge of the clergy in their Gerrontal (neigh- 
borhoods). Finally, the title could denote a “su- 
Pervisor” (cf. ARCHIMANDRITE) of monastic foun- 
dations subject to the patriarch. The superiors of 
the DatmaTou Monastery in Constantinople were 
already using the title in this sense in the 5th C. 


EXCERPTA | 767 


LIT. Stéckle, Ziinfte 78—86. Oikonomides, Hommes d'af- 
faires 109-11. -A.K., A.P. 


EXARCHATE, a new type of territorial and ad- 
ministrative unit created at the end of the 6th C. 
in CARTHAGE and Ravenna; these existed until 
the end of the 7th and the middle of the 8th C., 
respectively. The external feature of the exar- 
chate was the unification of military and civil 
power in the hands of the ExaRcu, a reform that 
had been prepared by partial changes of pro- 
vincial administration under Justinian I. Structur- 
ally considered, both exarchates were territories 
threatened by constant hostile pressure, popu- 
lated by people with a language and cultural tra- 
ditions different from those of Constantinople, 
strongly rural, with an aristocracy that tended to 
emigrate to Constantinople and a local church 
that acquired political power. All this formed a 
certain antinomy between the strong administra- 
tion of an exarchate and its tendency toward 
economic and social separation from the empire. 


LIT. A. Guillou, Régionalisme et indépendance dans l’Empire 
byzantin au VITe siècle (Rome 1969). -A.K. 


EXCERPTA (Exdoyai), conventional title of an 
“encyclopedia” produced by ConsTanTINE VII and 
his collaborators. According to the preface, the 
emperor gave orders for necessary books to be 
collected from the whole oikoumene, excerpted and 
arranged in 53 sections (hypotheseis) dedicated to 
specific topics. The purpose was to use the expe- 
rience of the past for moral and political educa- 
tion. One of these Aypotheseis, De legationibus, is 
preserved in full, and significant parts of De vir- 
tutibus et vitiis, De insidiis, and De sententiis also 
survive. Only the titles are known of several other 
sections. The compilers used both ancient and 
Byz. writers; the latest is GEORGE HAMARTOLOS. 
Some of these sources are now last Only from 
the Excerpta do we know Priskos, PETER PATRI- 
KIOS, MENANDER PROTECTOR, EuNAPIOS, and JOHN 
oF ANTIOCH. The excerpts were slightly edited 
and supplied with commentaries. The compiler 
of the Soupa used the Excerpta (C. de Boor, BZ 
21 [1912] 381—424; 23 [1914/19] 1-127). 


ED. Excerpta de legationibus, ed. C. de Boor, 2 parts (Ber- 
lin 1903). Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis, eds. T. Büttner- 
Wobst, A. Roos, 2 pts. (Berlin 1906—10). Excerpta de insidiis, 
ed. C. de Boor (Berlin 1905). Excerpta de sententis, ed. U. 
Boissevain (Berlin 1906). 


768 EXCERPTA LATINA BARBARA 


LIT, Lemerle, Humanism 323-32. Moravesik, Byzantino- 
lurcica 12359-61. O. Musso. “Sulla struttura del cod. Pal. 
gr. 398 e deduzioni storico-letterarie.” Prometheus 2 (1976) 
1-10. P. Schreiner, “Die Historikerhandschrift Vaticanus 
Graecus 977: ein Handexemplar zur Vorbereitung des 
Konstantinischen Exzerptenwerkes?,” JOB 37 (1987) 1-29. 

-A.K. 


EXCERPTA LATINA BARBARA. Sec BARBA- 
RUS SCALIGERI. 


EXCERPTA VALESIANA (or Anonymus Valesti), 
so called after their first publication in 1636 from 
a single gth-C. MS by Henri de Valois (Valesius), 
comprise two very different works. The first, ap- 
parently composed ca.3g0, is a biography of Con- 
STANTINE | THE GREAT, entitled Origo Constantini 
imperatoris. This piece has won much modern praise 
for its clarity, accuracy, and impartiality; here and 
there the text corresponds with passages in ORo- 
sius. The second excerpt, seemingly written ¢a.550, 
deals with Italy under the Ostrogoths ODOACER 
and THEODORIC THE GREAT in the period 474- 
526, under the title [lem ex libris chronicorum inter 
cetera. This extract, demonstrably using such 
sources as the Life of St. Severinus by Euciprrus 
and the Chronicle of Maximianus, bishop of Rav- 
enna (died 556), is equally notable for its anti- 
Arian bias and unelassical Latin. 

ED. Excerpta Valestana, ed. J. Moreau, revised V. Velkov 
(Leipzig 1968). Eng. tr. in Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. J.C. 
Rolfe, vol. 3 (London—Cambridge, Mass., 1939) 506-69. 

LIT. R. Browning in Cambridge History of Classical Litera- 
ture, vol. 2 (Cambridge 1982) 743. J.N. Adams, The Text 
and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesi- 
anus H) (London 1976). -B.B. 


EXCOMMUNICATION (ddopicpuos, “casting 
out”) entailed the exclusion of the transgressor 
from the community or fellowship of the church 
and its sacraments, esp. the Eucharist. Offending 
members included emperors, for example, LEO 
VI and MicHagt VIII. The separation from the 
church’s sacramental life was either absolute or 
partial, that is, it could be either temporary or for 
the lifetime of the individual. Thus excommuni- 
cation could be either “greater” or “less.” (Like 
the ANATHEMA, the greater meant full removal 
from Christian society.) Once excommunication 
was imposed, the offender was obliged to express 
METANOIA and to avail himself of the church’s 


PENITENTIAL procedure by which he was gradually 
reconciled to the church. ‘Thus, ultimately neither 
partial nor total isolation from the church’s sphere 
deprived the wrongdoer of membership in the 
Christian community. 

Liv. A. Catoire, “Nature, auteur et formule des peines 
ecclésiastiques d'après les Grecs et les Latins.” EO 12 (1909) 
265-71. E. Herman, “Hatte die byzantinische Kirche von 
selbst eintretende Strafen (poenae latac sententiae) gekannt?” 
BZ 44 (1951) 258-64. -A.P. 


EXECUTION, or capital punishment, the most 
severe of PENALTIES. The EcLoca lists crimes pun- 
ished by execution: intentional MURDER, RAPE, in- 
cest and pederasty, robbery and arson, and esp. 
crimes against the state—MUTINY or lèse majesté, 
TREASON or cspionage. The death sentence was 
also to be imposed on apostates from Christianity 
and those who robbed churches at night, magi- 
cians and sorcerers, and heretics (MANICHAEANS 
and MonTANISTS are specifically named). As the 
means of execution, the Ecloga mentions primarily 
the sword, and rarely burning at the stake or 
hanging on the pAourka, the fork-shaped gallows 
that replaced the cross, which as the Christian 
symbol was prohibited as a means of execution 
from the time of Constantine I. Historical texts 
seldom mention execution. Phourkai were em- 
ployed for the mass execution of rebels or traitors 
(e.g., Theoph. 184.4—6; TheophCont 303.17, 877.4); 
burning at the stake was the fate of Basi. THE 
Copper Hann and Bası THE Bogom. as well as 
the slaves who murdered Asylaion, Basil !’s brother. 

Hagiographical legends abound with stories of 
execution, but it is difficult to distinguish truth 
from pious invention. There was always a hesi- 
tancy to resort to execution; in the case of political 
crime, BLINDING, EXILE, or confinement in a mon- 
astery often substituted for execution. In the 
14th-C. Balkans there was a tendency to replace 
the death penalty with a fine (B. Kreki¢, BS/EB 5 
[1978] 171-78); the spread of the PHONIKON re- 
flects the same tendency in Byz. On the other 
hand, the government always strove to prevent 
private persons from carrying out execution, par- 
ticularly in the form of religious or BLOOD VEN- 
GEANCE (A. Mirambel, Byzantion 16 [1944] 381- 
92). 

uit. B. Sinogowitz, “Die Tötungsdelikte im Rechte der 
Ekloge Leons 111. des Isauriers.” ZSavRom 74 (1957) 319- 
36. A.K. 


EXEDRA (é€é6pa), any room, semicircular or 
rectangular in plan, that opens full-width directly 
onto an adjacent larger space or room, covered 
or uncovered. Widely used in antiquity to flank 
streets, porticoes, and forums, exedrae figured 
prominently in the interiors of imperial Roman 
baths, palaces, and villas. Eusebios of Caesarea 
noted their presence at the basilica in Tyre, the 
Octagon at ANTIOCH, and the Constantinian Mar- 
tyrion in JERUSALEM. Christian Latin authors (e.g., 
Paulinus, PL 14:37) apply the term to the apse of 
a basilica. Exedrae like these, open only to the 
central room, flanked the Octagon in the Palace 
of Galerius, Thessalonike, and several Constantin- 
opolitan palaces. Much later they are found at the 
Nea Mong, Chios, and elsewhere. Concomitant 
with their role as adjacent rooms, other exedrae 
were designed as essential parts of centralized 
churches. Carried on arches that link the major 
piers, these allow free passage from the central 
space to the aisles or ambulatory spaces, expand- 
ing the breadth while articulating the elevation of 
the space covered by the central dome (S. Vitale, 
Ravenna; Sts. Sergios and Bakchos, Constantino- 
ple; Hagia Sophia, Constantinople). Exedrae en- 
abled the Late Antique and Byz. architect to trans- 
form a square, rectangular, or polygonal plan Into 
a single volume of space unified around a central, 
vertical axis. Hence their pervasive use in Byz. 
architecture. 

ur. F. Deichmann, RAC 6:1171-74. Krautheimer, 
ECBArch 215-48. D. Mallardo, “L’exedra nella basilica cris- 
tana,” RACr 22 (1946) 191—211. D.I. Pallas. “Hai par’ 
Eusebio exedrai ton ekklesion tes Palaistines,” Theologia 25 
(1954) 470783. -W.L 


EXEGESIS (éńynoss, lit. “leading out”), herme- 
neutics, explanation or interpretation of the Bi- 
BLE. The foundations of exegesis were laid by the 
ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL, esp. ORIGEN, who sug- 
gested that the sacred text had several layers ot 
meaning. He recommended threefold exegesis on 
the model of a tripartite human nature, consisting 
of body, soul, and spirit. This approach supposes 
literal, allegorical, and spiritual senses of the text, 
or—o put it differently—references to the past, 
present, and future. Against this, the ANTIOCHENE 
SCHOOL emphasized the need to grasp the real 
(historical) sense of the text and saw the basis for 
this in the contemplation of words, including study 
of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint. The 


EXEMPTION 769 


main direction of Byz. exegesis was to find in the 
Old Testament testimonies concerning Christ, 
which were then exploited in the theological dis- 
putes of the gth-5th C. Among the greatest ex- 
cgetes were ATHANASIOS of Alexandria, EPHREM 
THE SYRIAN, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, JOHN 
CHRYSOSTOM, GREGORY OF Nyssa, CYRIL of Al- 
exandria, and ‘THEODORET OF CYRRHUS. In the 
6th C. original exegesis came to an end, to be 
replaced by study of the exegesis of church fa- 
thers and by the assembly of authoritative cita- 
tions in CATENAE. The Council in TRULLO (692) 
restricted creative hermeneutics; this plus the loss 
of the knowledge of Hebrew contributed to the 
decline of exegesis. 

tir. B. de Margerie, Introduction à Uhistoire de exégese, 
vol. ı (Paris 1980). M. Simoneti, Profilo storico dell’esegesi 
patristica (Rome 1981). H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, vol. 
1 (Paris 1959). P. Gorday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis (New 
York 1983). -J.1, A.K. 


EXEMPTION, the term commonly used by mod- 
ern historians to denote a form of IMMUNITY— 
any of several means whereby persons or property 
were released from some or all of their state 
obligations for the benefit of a person or institu- 
tion, reflecting the basic principle that all property 
and persons bore fiscal burdens. Some exemp- 
tions were temporary (SYMPATHEIA, KLASMA, KOU- 
PHISMOS) and were granted and revoked by an 
APOGRAPHEUS with each fiscal survey (exisosis); oth- 
ers were (usually) permanent privileges (EXKOUS- 
seta, aleleia) that could only be granted by the 
emperor: they exempted MERCHANTS from taxes 
on commerce and owners from the taxes due on 
their property (land, ships, ete.) or from the taxes 
(TELOS, KANON) or supplementary charges (EPE- 
REIAI, CORVÉES) owed by their dependent peas- 
ants. Yet another category of exemption (asirateia) 
exempted persons from the service connected with 
STRATEIA. Permanent exemption trom taxation, 
granted to certain properties of a few privileged 
monasteries and individuals in the 10th and 11th 
C., seems to have become almost the rule in re- 
gard to large landowners by the 14th C. Scholars 
view this devolution of fiscal authority to private 
individuals and religious corporations as either a 
symptom or cause of the gradual weakening and 
collapse of state authority in the 12th-15th C. 


LIT. Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 122. 168-70, 173f. 208, 244. 
—M.B. 


770 | EXILE 


EXILE, a form of punishment. Byz. law distin- 
guished two types of exile: exoria, banishment or 
deportation, which could be temporary or per- 
manent, and periorismos, confinement within pre- 
scribed boundaries (Basil. 60.51.4). In defining 
exoria the author of the SyNopsis MINOR (Zepos, 
Jus 6:398f, par. 70) stressed the prohibition against 
being in the city in which the emperor resided or 
was passing through. The QuarstTor had the right 
to banish illegal aliens from Constantinople. The 
major difference between exoria and _ periorismos 
concerned the disposition of the property of 
the criminal: those under periorismos had their 
property confiscated; those under exoria retained 
it (Zepos, Jus 6:501, par. 80). The BOOK OF THE 
EPARCH several times mentions exoria as a PENALTY 
for economic crimes; normally, however, exile was 
reserved for political criminals and suspects, esp. 
church leaders (JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Pope MARTIN 
I, THEODORE OF STOUDIOS, PHOTIOS, etc.). The 
place of banishment could be to the border of the 
empire, an island, or some less remote location; 
some suspects or criminals were relegated to mon- 
asteries or placed under house arrest on their 
own estates. Experiences of exile varied widely; a 
special genre of letters from exile presents a broad 
range of feelings, from nostalgic longing for the 
capital to complaints about lack of books, starva- 
tion, and torture. 


Lit. H. Evert-Kappesowa, “Formy zesłania w państwie 
bizantyńskim,” in Okeanos 166-73. -A.K. 


EXISOTES (éftowrns), a fiscal official whose 
functions were similar to those of the EPOPTES. 
The term exzsosis designated the fiscal survey that 
in the 13th C. was carried out by high-ranking 
functionaries. The distinction between exisosis and 
apographe (see APOGRAPHEUS) is not clear. In 1254 
Constantine Diogenes, who was apographeus and 
exisotes of the islands of Leros (Lerne) and Kalym- 
nos, conducted apographe and exisosis (Patmou En- 
grapha 2, no.65.1); the forged document allegedly 
signed by Joseph Pankalas in 1261 speaks of the 
anatheoresis and exisosis of the island of Kos (Patmou 
Engrapha 2, Il.29); an act of 1407 mentions the 
apographike exisotes [sic] of the island of Lemnos 
(Pantel., no.17.9), a praktikon of 1430 the apogra- 
phike exisosis of the same island (Dionys., no.25.1). 
The term exzsosis was employed for surveys of the 


theme of Thessalonike (Xénoph., no.12.1) and else- 
where. 


LIT. Angold, Byz. Government 210-12. -A.K. 


EXKOUBITOI. See DOMESTIKOS TON EXKOUBI- 
TON. 


EXKOUSSATOS (¿ċxkovooĝros, from Lat. excu- 
satus, “excused,” cf. EXKOUSSEIA), an uncommon 
term of unclear meaning, applied to people, o1- 
Kol, and ships (plota). In the 10th C. some people 
called exkoussatoi were engaged in crafts for the 
imperial household (De cer. 488.18; R. Cantarella, 
BZ 26 [1926] 31.2). A chrysobull of 1060 distin- 
guishes exkoussatoi tou dromou from STRATIOTAI 
and DEMOSIARIOI (Lavra i, n0.33.32—34); osten- 
sibly, these exkoussatoi served the imperial DROMOS. 
In an early example of the devolution of state 
revenues to private landowners, documents from 
the second half of the 10th C. refer to exkoussatoi 
or exkouseuomenoi households granted to the mon- 
astery of Iveron, which received their telos (Ivir. 
1, NOS. 2.21—22, 6.23,33); in the 13th C., exkous- 
sateutoi households are known (MM 5:15.6—7). 

Apparently, the designation exkoussatos did not 
necessarily imply that the individual, household, 
or ship served the state or that the exkoussatos was 
excused from paying the telos. It meant, rather, 
that the state no longer received some or all of 
the fiscal obligations owed by the exkoussatos 
(whether telos and/or EPEREIA is disputed), either 
because of service to the state (in which case the 
exkoussatos, if a peasant, paid less or no taxes) or 
because some or all of the exkoussatos’s state obli- 
gations were granted to a private individual or 
corporation. In later texts, the terms exkousatot 
(MM 5:260.20, a.1342), enkousatoi (the Chronicle of 
Morea), and the Latin incosati (derived therefrom) 
designated privileged individuals, probably ex- 
empt from taxes and military service. 

LIT. A. Kazhdan, “Ekskussija i ekskussaty v Vizantii X— 


XII vv.,” VizOe (1961) 187-g1. Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 175f. 
Longnon-Topping, Documents 264f. -M.B. 


EXKOUSSEIA (é&€xovoaeia, from Lat. excusatio, 
“release”), a type of EXEMPTION from certain ob- 
ligations toward the state and from introitus (the 
entrance of officials into an estate). As a fiscal 
term, exkousseia appears in documents and literary 


texts from the 10th C. through the end of the 
empire. Exkousseiai were granted to the owners or 
holders of a variety of economic instruments that 
bore fiscal obligations, including land, PAROIKOI, 
ships, buildings, and animals. The two interpre- 
tations of the nature of an exkousseia conflict. The 
most common opinion is that exkousseia is essen- 
tially synonymous with Western IMMUNITY and 
implied complete tax exemption (ateleia) and, in 
the 14th C., specific judicial privileges over a 
property owner’s DEMESNE. A. Kazhdan (Viz0é 
[1961] 186—216), however, argues that, at least in 
the 10th-12th C., exkousseia was unrelated to im- 
munity; it was rather an exemption, not from the 
TELOS, but from EPEREIAI. In the 14th~15th C., 
exkoussela seems to refer to any kind of tax ex- 
emption. 

LIT. P. Jakovenko, K istorii immuniteta v Vizanti (Juriev 
1908). G. Ostrogorsky, “Pour lhistoire de Pimmunité a 
Byzance,” Byzantion 28 (1958) 165-254. M. Frejdenberg, 
“Ekskussija v Vizantii XI-XII wv.,” Uéenye zapiski Velikoluk- 
skogo pedinstituta 3 (1958) 339-65. H. Melovski, “Einige 
Probleme der Exkusseia,” JOB 32.2 (1982) 361-68. -M.B. 


EXOKATAKOILOI (€€wxarakotdor), term known 
from the 11th C. onward to designate five (a 
pentad) or six principal officials of the patriarch 
or a bishop: megas O1KONOMOS, megas SAKELLARIOS, 
megas SKEUOPHYLAX, CHARTOPHYLAX, the head of 
the SAKELLION, and later the PROTEKDIKOS. 


LIT. Darrouzés, Offikia 59f, 101-03. Beck, Kirche 119. 
—A.K. 


EXORCISM (é£opxioy.6s), an imprecation against 
the Devi, and DEMONS, to drive them away, or 
out of a possessed person or area; also a liturgical 
rite for that purpose. Exorcism occurs often in 
the New Testament. Tertullian considered it an 
act that any Christian was able to perform, but by 
the ard C. professional exorcists appear. Particu- 
lar importance was ascribed to the exorcism pre- 
ceding BAPTISM. Other exorcistic rituals, blessings, 
and prayers contained in the EUCHOLOGION are 
the euchelaion (see UNcTIoN), the “Exorcism of St. 
Tryphon” recited on Holy Thursday and Easter; 
the blessing of a field, garden, vineyard, or house; 
prayers against the evil eye and against evil spirits 
dwelling in people or in houses. 

Hagiographical texts present abundant cases of 
exorcism—healing of the possessed, the expulsion 


‘EZANA | 771 


of demons (in the form of wild beasts, dragons, 
scorpions, etc.) from the places they had occupied, 
and the elimination of evil forces preventing a 
good harvest or catch. Exorcism was performed 
by imposition of hands, anointing with oil, the 
sign of the cross, by prayers, and by application 
of pieces of a saint’s clothing. 

LIT. F.J. Délger, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufri- 
tual (Paderborn 1909). P. de Meester, Ritwale-benedizionale 
bizantino (Rome 1930) 255—68. L. Delatte, Un office byzantin 


d’exorcisme (Brussels 1957). K. Thraede, RAC 7:58-117. J. 
Daniélou, DictSpir 4 (1961) 1997—2004. -R.F.T., A.K. 


EXPOSITIO TOTIUS MUNDI, an anonymous 
treatise preserved in two Latin versions and prob- 
ably translated from a Greek original; the latter 
was compiled in the mid-4th C., perhaps ca.360. 
The treatise begins with a description of Eden, 
which is populated by makarenoi (the Blessed; ca- 
marini in one Latin version); discussions of India 
and Persia then follow. This introductory part has 
parallels (probably originating in the same source) 
in Greek hodoporeiai, or guides, to Eden. After 
Persia comes the description of “our land,” that 
is, the Roman Empire: Syria, Egypt (essentially 
limited to Alexandria), Asia Minor from Cilicia to 
Bithynia, Thrace (where its “two splendid cities” 
of Constantinople and Herakleia are treated as 
equals), Macedonia, Greece, Italy, Gaul, Spain, 
Africa, and the islands—Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, and 
Britannia. This part is free of the legendary cast 
that characterizes the introductory section; in ad- 
dition to a list of districts and cities, it contains 
observations on climate, commerce, political 
structure, and behavior. The treatise shows little 
trace of a Christian worldview. Its author may 
have been a widely traveled merchant. 

ED. Expositio totius mundi et gentium, ed. J. Rougé (Paris 
1966). Russ. tr. S. Poljakova, I. Felenkovskaja, “Anonimnyj 
geograhceski traktat,” VizVrem 8 (1956) 277-305. Germ. 
u. Tj. Dicahage in Münseroiee Deurage rur anuken Hun- 
delsgeschichte 2.1 (1983) 3—41- 

LIT. A. Vasiliev, “Expositio totius mundi,” SemKond 8 
(1936) 1—39. F. Martelli, /ntroduzione alla “Expositio totius 
mundi” (Bologna 1982). M. Philonenko, “Camarines et 
Makarinoi,” in Perennitas: Studi in onore di Angelo Brelich 
(Rome 1980) 371-77. —A.K. 


‘EZANA (‘Acifavé), “tyrant” of AxuM (ca.323 to 
340/1 or 347/8) and identical to “Abreha” (Dom- 
browski, infra 162-64); known primarily from 


772 EZERITAI 


undated, mostly bilingual inscriptions and from a 


letter of Constantius II cited by Athanasios of 


Alexandria. F. Altheim and R. Stiehl (Klio 39 
[1961] 234-48) denied, however, that the ‘Ezana 
of the inscriptions was the Aeizana of the letter, 
and dated ‘Ezānā to the 5th C. The ‘Ezana of the 
inscriptions claimed authority over Himyar and 
other lands. In the first half of the 4th C. Fru- 
mentius, a captive in Axum, started to organize 
Christian communities, but Christianity was not 
yet the state religion in Axum. Frumentius trav- 
eled to Alexandria, where Athanasios ordained 
him bishop of “India” (i.¢., Eruiopia). In the 
letter to ‘Ezana and his brother She’azana, Con- 
stantius required Frumentius to return to Alex- 
andria ca.328 and receive ordination from a new 
Arian patriarch, George. Another attempt to in- 
clude Axum within the orbit of Byz. influence is 
reported by Philostorgios, who recounts that 
THEOPHILOS THE INDIAN visited both Himyar and 
Axum on his way to the East; since the embassy 
was sent by Constantius, it is reasonable to sup- 
pose that Theophilos negotiated with ‘Ezana. 


trr. B. & F. Dombrowski, “Frumentius/Abba Salama: 
Zu den Nachrichten uber die Anfange des Christentums 


Janin, DHGE 16 (1967) 292. 


in Äthiopien,” OrChr 68 (1984) 1 14-69. Yu. Kobishchanov, 
Axum (University Park, Pa.-London 1979) 64-73. A. Dihle, 
Umstrittene Daten. Untersuchungen zum Auftreten der Griechen 
am Roten Meer (Cologne-Opladen 1965) 36-64.  —W.E.K. 


EZERITAI (Elepirac), one of two groups of 
SKLAVENOI attested in the Peloponnesos. An ety- 
mology from the Slavic ezero (lake) is evident; D. 
Georgacas (BZ 43 [1950] 327-30) hypothesized 
that ezero was a translation of the toponym Helos 
(lit. “marsh meadow”) near ‘laygetos, where the 
Ezeritai settled. In Constantine VII Porphyrogen- 
netos (De adm. imp. 50) the Ezeritai are mentioned, 
along with the MELINGOI, as paying tribute of 300 
nomismata; they revolted in the reign of Romanos 
I, were defeated, and ordered to pay 600 nomis- 
mata. Unlike the Melingoi, Ezeritai do not appear 
in later Byz. sources, but the bishopric of Ezera, 
in the Peloponnesos, is attested in 1340 (MM 
1:218.31). 


ur. Bon, Péloponnèse 63, n.2. Vasmer, Slaven 167. R. 
-0.P. 


EZRA‘. See ZORAVA. 





FABLE (060s) was considered by rhetoricians as 
a type Of PROGYMNASMA; it had, however, a broader 
function of communicating a moral message in 
the form of a short essay with a gnomic conclu- 
sion. Classical authors, such as Demosthenes or 
Aristotle, did not consider fable as a noble genre; 
it evidently acquired more popularity in the Ro- 
inan Empire. While Hermogenes treated fable 
briefly, the rhetorician NicHOLAS OF Myra (ed. 
Felten 6—11) devoted an extended paragraph to 
it. Nicholas defined fable as a fictitious story hav- 
ing no verisimilitude, but illustrating a truth; it 
dealt either with human beings or animals. Some 
people also included among fables myths about 
the gods, but Nicholas considered the latter as a 
separate genre, mythika diegemata. He stressed the 
fable’s simplicity of language and the inclusion of 
an epimythion or moral. 

The earliest fable collection to survive, the so- 
called Collectio Augustana, cannot be precisely dated; 
the 4th—5th C. is a possible date. Later collections 
are known throughout the Byz. period (F. Rod- 
riguez Adrados in La fable [Geneva 1984] 182). 
The Byz. imitated ancient fables, esp. those as- 
cribed to ArEsop and Babrios (ca.znd C.), some- 
times paraphrasing and revising them. Some fa- 
bles are included in the progymnasmata of Theon. 
Libanios, Aphthonios, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 
Nikephoros Basilakes, and Nikephoros Chryso- 
berges; some fables exist as chapters in progymnas- 
mata, others appear as episodes in lengthier genres. 
Oriental fables are broadly used in Barlaam and 
Toasaph and esp. Stephanites and Ichnelates of Sym- 
cou Stik. In the Palaiologan period the ANIMAL 
eric was developed out of animal fables. 

Liv. F. Rodriguez Adrados. Historia de la fabula greco- 
latina, 2 (Madrid 1985). M. Ngjgaard, La fable antique, 2 
vols. (Copenhagen 1464-67). Hunger, Lit. 1:94-96. J. Vaio, 


“Babrius and the Byzantine Fable,” in La fable (Geneva 
1984) 197-224. ~A.K. 


FACADE (zpocowis, lit. “appearance”), the front 
or any side of a building designed with the inten- 
uon of being seen. Initially, the Byz. concept of 


773 


the facade was based on classical prototypes: hence 
its use was restricted to a relatively few public 
building types such as PALACES (e.g., the facade 
of the 5th-C. Palace of Theodoric in Ravenna as 
represented on a mosaic in S. Apollinare Nuovo, 
Ravenna) and, even less commonly, churches (e.g., 
the 5th-C. façade of the Theodosian rebuilding 
of Hacia Sopra, Constantinople). As the classical 
tradition in Byz. waned, so did interest in monu- 
mental facades. They returned to importance in 
the gth-1oth C. The façades of such Constantin- 
opolitan churches as the 1oth-C. MYRELAION and 
the 11th-C. Panrepopres display a classicizing 
structural logic. The latter example also exhibits 
a tripling of recessed arches and pilaster strips, a 
mannerism characteristic of Komnenian architec- 
ture in the capital (e.g., PANTOKRATOR MONASTERY, 
Kilise Camii, and Gul Camii). At the same time, 
in various parts of Greece, a very different, un- 
classical attitude toward facade articulation emerges 
(e.g., Panagia Gorgoepekoos in Athens, Merbaka 
near Nauplion, and Hagia Theodora in Arta). 
Here we find flat walls decorated by continuous 
horizontal bands and surface textures, in com- 
plete disregard of the building’s interior struc- 
ture. This attitude toward facade decoration be- 
comes even more widespread in the 14th C., with 
isolated areas of resistance, as at MISTRa, to the 
general unclassical current. 

UT. K.M. Swoboda, “The Problem of the Iconography 
of Late Antique and Early Mediaeval Palaces,” JSAH 20 
(1961) 78-84. S. Curéié, “Articulation of Church Façades 
during the First Half of the Fourteenth Century,” in L'art 


byzantin au début du XIV° siècle (Belgrade 1078) 17- 
KETA 


FACTIONS (from Lat. factio, Gr. wépos, ĝuos 
or ĝuo, ðnuórTa;, sometimes used as technical 
term), associations that staged circus games; as- 
sociations of partisans of any one of the four 
colors inherited from Rome that competed 

CHARIOT RACES. Blues (Venetoi) and Greens (Pra- 


sinoi) were the chief rivals and seem to have co- 


operated with Whites (Leukoi) and Reds (Roustoi), 


774 FACTORIES, IMPERIAL 


respectively. The theory that factions or DEMO! 
resembled political parties is now largely aban- 
doned. 

Numerous inscriptions and narrative sources 
show that the factions’ importance grew as circus 
racing spread over the Roman East and factional 
identities were extended to the theater and its 
professionals in the late 5th C. Factions sat in 
special sections, raised monuments to their CHAR- 
IOTEERS, and became deeply involved in perform- 
ing ACCLAMATIONS, as the HippopROME and its 
vast audiences attracted a developing imperial 
ceremonial, The circus’s enhanced political signif- 
icance—perhaps in tandem with undiagnosed so- 
cial and economic pressures—aggravated the ten- 
dency of excited fans to explode in the insufficiently 
explained riots that wracked the cities of the late 
5th to early 7th C. (e.g., Nika REVOLT), which 
contemporaries connected with factional rivalry. 
Certain neighborhoods seem to have been partic- 
ularly associated with one or another faction (Gas- 
cou, infra); the factions could be mobilized to man 
the walls of their city in crises and they certainly 
played a role in the civil war between Phokas and 
Herakleios. Faction members were a small minor- 
ity of racing fans in 602, when Constantinople 
counted goo Blues and 1,500 Greens. Partisans 
may have been young and come from comfortable 
backgrounds. By the 8th C. they were headed by 
DEMARCHOI. Some members’ titles reveal special- 
ized functions; those of melistai and poietai under- 
score the link with ceremonial acclamations that 
would typify the factions in the goth and 10th C. 

Factional circus strife vanished after the 7th C.; 
chariot-racing and factions now became restricted 
to Constantinople and its environs. De ceremoniis 
details their ceremonial and circus duties; it some- 
times distinguishes peratikoi factions—headed by 
demokratai (the DOMESTIKOS TON SCHOLON for the 
Blues and DomEstIKos TON ExkouBITON for the 
Greens)—from politikoi factions, headed by the 
traditional demarchoi (e.g., De cer., bk.1, ch.2, ed. 
Vogt, 1:29.6—31.17), a distinction which perhaps 
reflects the suburban or urban origin of their 
members. These organizations were integrated 
into the imperial administration: the TAKTIKA place 
their officers in the imperial hierarchy (see De 
cer., bk.2, ch.55, ed. Reiske, 798.20—799.16, for 
the longest list of personnel) and, in the 1oth C., 
the factions were subordinate to and salaried by 
the pratpositos. The medieval factions kept their 


special Hippodrome seats; they had their own 
ORGANS, stables and, for their performances, were 
assigned phialai in the Great Palace as well as 
stations on the routes of imperial PROCESSIONS. 
Blues were particularly associated with the Virgin 
of Diakonissa church. Each faction certainly 
counted more than 50 members (De cer., bk.2, 
ch.21, ed. Reiske, 617.10-13). They might wear 
wreaths or crowns (stephania) and hold handker- 
chiefs (encheiria) while performing (e.g., De cer., 
bk.2, ch.15, ed. Reiske, 577.10-12). Ceremonial 
poems by Theodore PRopromos suggest that fac- 
tionlike groups (demoi) were still performing in 
imperial ceremonies of the 12th C. 

uit. Al. Cameron, Circus Factions (Oxford 1976). G. 
Prinzing, “Zu den Wohnvierteln der Griinen und Blauen 
in Konstantinopel,” in Studien zur Frühgeschichte Konstantt- 
nopels (Munich 1973) 27-48. J. Gascou, “Les institutions 
de l'hippodrome en Egypte byzantine,” BIFAO 76 (1976) 
185-212. S. Borkowski, Inscriptions des factions à Alexandrie 
(Warsaw 1981). McCormick, Eternal Victory 220-27. G. Ves- 
pignani, “Il Circo el e fazioni del Circo nella storiografia 
bizantinistica recente,” RSBS 5 (1985) 61—101. -M.McC. 


FACTORIES, IMPERIAL (épyaornpia Baocr- 
Aká). Although production of goods was concen- 
trated in small ERGASTERIA, significant numbers 
of laborers from certain fields of craftsmanship 
came under the supervision of state officials. Pro- 
duction of weapons, for example, was largely 
under state control, as were major construction 
projects: according to a gth-C. chronicler (Theoph. 
440.19—23), Constantine V assembled 6,goo tech- 
nitai (ARTISANS) from various provinces in order 
to repair the aqueduct in Constantinople and 
placed them under the supervision of archontes 
ergodioktai with a patrikios at their head. In addition 
to the production of weapons, imperial factories 
were involved in minting coins (see MINTS), weav- 
ing (GYNAIKEIA), dyeing silk, and making jewelry. 

Seals list various ARCHONTES TON ERGODOSION; 
in Laurent’s Corpus (vol. 2) are listed 11 archontes 
of the BLATTION, one archon of the chrysoklabon 
(luxurious garment), and one of the jewelry fac- 
tory. In other sources the state production of SILK 
is most frequently attested: Theophanes (Theoph. 
469.3—4) mentions the fire in an imperial work- 
shop (ergodosion) of chrysoklaboriot; the vita of An- 
tony H Kauleas (ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 
Sbornik greéeskich 1 latinskich pamjatnikov, vol. 1 [St. 
Petersburg 1899] 18.25) refers to the head of the 
imperial silk factory; Leo the Deacon (Leo Diac. 


146.24-147.2) mentions another head of the im- 
perial histourgia under whom a systema of weavers 
labored. Next in frequency are imperial jewelry 
workshops—in the 1oth C. a high-ranking official, 
the sakellarios Anastasios, was archon of the chry- 
sochoewon (TheophCont 8g2.14—15). Anna Komnene 
(An.Komn. 2:10.10) speaks of an imperial 
“foundry” (choneia) where gold and silver were 
worked. Finally, Nicholas Mesarites describes the 
ragged crowd of workers at the mint who toiled 
day and night under the merciless gaze of their 
overseers. 

We do not know how the work in these work- 
shops was organized. It is plausible that some 
private craftsmen (e.g., LOROTOMOI) were coerced 
into working in imperial factories; some contin- 
gents of imperial craftsmen consisted of people 
sent there as punishment for a crime: thus, Theo- 
dore of Stoudios (PG gg:1249D) writes about a 
man condemned for icon veneration who was 
forced to work with the weavers as an imperial 
slave. Eusebios of Caesarea also considered the 
workers in imperial GYNAIKEIA as State slaves. Ac- 
cording to the Book of the Eparch, private artisans’ 
slaves who broke rules could be made into state 
slaves. 

uit. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 336-42. L.C. Ruggini, 
“Le associazioni professionali nel mondo Romano-Bizan- 
tino,” SettStu 18 (1971) 147f. A.W. Persson, Staat und Ma- 


nufaktur im Römischen Reiche (Lund 1923). Smetanin, 
Viz. obséestvo 77—81. -A.K. 


FACUNDUS, bishop of Hermiane in Byzacena; 
died after 571. He was an opponent of Justinian 
ls religious policies. A leading supporter of the 
THREE CHAPTERS, Facundus represents the disil- 
lusionment of the African hierarchy after Justi- 
nian’s reconquest. He attended synods in Con- 
stantinople in 546 and 547-48; there he wrote a 
defense of the Three Chapters, maintaining that 
the condemnation of Theuduie of Mupsuesuia, 
Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus meant 
the abandonment of the faith of CHALcEDoN. In 
550 he participated in a council in Africa that 
condemned Pope Viciuius. After the Council of 
Constantinople in 553 he continued to write and 
was, at least briefly, excommunicated. 


ED. Opera omnia, ed. J-M. Clément, R. Vanden Plaetse 
(Turnhout 1974). PL 67:527-878. 

tit. R.A. Marcus, “Reflections on Religious Dissent in 
North Africa in the Byzantine Period,” SChH 3 (Leiden 


FAIR 775 


1966) 140-50. A. Dobroklonskij, Sočinenija Kakunda, rpi- 
kopa Germianskogo, v zaščitu trech glav (Moscow 1880). 
—TLELG. 


FAIR (zavnyupts), an occasional or periodic MAR- 
KET, that is, one that is not permanent either in 
terms of time or in terms of structures such as 
market stalls and, in this way, is distinguished 
from regular market days. The Greek term pan- 
egyris has different meanings, even within the 
same period and author. Its original meaning 
being a general gathering, it could refer to a 
religious FEAST, a public celebration, a commercial 
fair connected with a religious celebration, or a 
purely episodic market, as in the promise of Al- 
exios I to the Crusaders to provide them with 
“abundant fairs.” The local fair, attested in many 
parts of the empire, served the exchange needs 
of the local population. Libanios provides a classic 
description of the function of a fair in the 4th C., 
which was the exchange of products among the 
inhabitants of various villages of the same locality; 
the network of exchange thus being formed ob- 
viated the need of exchange with the city. In the 
late 10th and 11th C., there is mention of local 
fairs where the merchants came both from the 
vicinity and from other areas, and where there- 
fore the exchange involved more than the locality 
itself. The periodicity seems to be imstitutional- 
ized. 

Large international fairs are also attested, one 
such being the fair of Chonai durmg the feast of 
the Archangel Michael, and the fair of Piressa- 
LONIKE, connected with the feast of St. Demetrios, 
for which the ‘Timarion provides a description, 
The fairs of the Peloponnesos in the 14th C. seem 
to fal] into an intermediate category. 

A tax (KOMMERKION) was levied upon commer- 
cial activity at fairs and could be remitted by the 
emperor or given as a grant. Phe kommerkion of 
the fair of CTHESUS, iitaticd a pari uy Conolan- 
tine VE in 795, was 100 pounds of gold. In the 
late 10th C. and after, there is evidence that the 
powerful, or the communities, or the monasteries 
of a locality where a fair was constituted, received 
revenues from the fair. A novel of Basil H (Zepos, 


Jus 1:271f) suggests that the merchants who par- 


ticipated in a fair could act together and choose 
its locality, their interests taking precedence over 
those of the person who had rights over the place 
(cf. also Peira 57). 


776 | FALCONRY 


tre. Koukoules, Bios 3:270-83. S. Vrvonis. Jr.. “Tbe 
Panëgyris of the Byzantine Saint,” in Byz. Saint 198—227. C. 
Asdracha, “Les foires en Epire médiévale.” JOB 32.3 (1982) 
437746. -AL 


FALCONRY. Sce HAWKING. 


FALIERI, MARINOS (Mapivos Padtépos), poet; 
born ¢a.1395, died 1474. One of the most prom- 
inent feudal landlords of Crete, Falieri played a 
major role in the island’s affairs. As a young man 
(ca.1425~30), he (rather than his grandson of the 
same name, ¢a.1470—1527) wrote several short 
works in rhymed POLITICAL VERSE. Though the 
Didactic Discourses (advice to his son) and the His- 
tory and Dream (a dream encounter in dialogue 
form between the author and his beloved) owe 
something to Byz. demotic literature (esp. the 
SPANEAS poem and the romances BELTHANDROS 
AND CHRYSANTZA and LiBisTROS AND RHODAMNE), 
they are also influenced by western European 
literary currents, in particular those of contem- 
porary Venice. This is even more the case with 
the consolatio (Rhima Paregoretike) addressed to his 
friend Benedetto da Molino. The Lamentation on 
the Passion and the Crucifixion is a dramatic depic- 
tion, perhaps based on an icon. The Erotic Dream, 
closely modeled on the History and Dream and 
normally attributed to Falieri, is possibly not by 
him at all. A man of practical experience rather 
than wide education (he was familiar with legal 
Latin and at home in vernacular Greek, while his 
first language was the Venetian dialect), he—like 
his predecessors SACHLIKES and Leonardo DELLA 
PoRTA—Is a witness to the cultural life of Venetian 
Crete in the early 15th C. 

ED. W.F. Bakker, A.F. van Gemeri. eds., “The Rhima 
Paregoretike of Marinos Phalieros,” Studia Byzantina et Neo- 
hellenica Neerlandica (Leiden 1972) 74-195. The Logoi Di- 
tlaktikoi of Marinos Phalieros, ed. idem (Leiden 1977). Mari- 
nou Phalierou Erotika Oneira, ed. A.F. van Gemert 
(Thessalonike 1980). 

ur. Beck, Volksliteratur 197-99. A.F. van Gemert, “The 


Cretan Poet Marinos Falieros,” Thesaurismata 14 (1977) 7- 
70. -E.M_]. 


FAMILY. Although the family was the funda- 
mental unit (MICROSTRUCTURE) of Byz. society, 
there was no specific word for it in Byz. Greek: 
the most common term ovyyéveca (syngencia) des- 
ignated both the nuclear family and kinship in 


general; relationship through marriage is defined 
or rather described as “connection and joining” 
(Basil. 28:4.1). The term phamilia/phamelia (from 
the Lat. familia) is found in some acts of the late 
1gth—15th C. (Lavra 3, nos. 140.15, 161.15; Doch- 
eiar., DO.53.16), where it denotes a family house- 
hold in contrast to one run by a widow. 

‘The Byz. family was primarily a nuclear family, 
although extended famihes of 20-30 members 
are occasionally mentioned in hagiographical and 
documentary sources. The frequency of occur- 
rence of extended families varied over time and 
space. According to A. Latou (Peasant Society 80), 
in the 14th-C. theme of Strymon families were on 
the average larger than those in Thessalonike. 
Ecloga 2.2, when prohibiting marriages between 
members of a syngeneia, lists the following cate- 
gories of relatives: parents, children, brothers, 
sisters, and exadelphoi, that is, nephews and nieces; 
then follow relations by affinity—stepfather/step- 
mother, father/mother-in-law, brother/sister-in-law, 
etc. Relations between uncle and nephew were 
often very close (J. Bremmer, ZPapEpig 50 [1983] 
173-86). A family could also include adoptive 
children (see ADOPTION) and such members of 
the household as MisTHIOI—as potential husbands 
of a master’s daughter. 

‘The nuclear family formed the household and 
was the main economic unit in both town and 
countryside. The husband and wife worked side 
by side in the fields or in the workshop, and 
children (see CriLDHOOD) were involved in house- 
hold activities from an early age, esp. in the coun- 
try where they herded their parents’ swine or 
sheep; in cities, the boy might leave the family at 
an early age to become an apprentice. The Byz. 
family was a much more cohesive unit than the 
late Roman family: MARRIAGE was concluded by a 
solemn MARRIAGE RITE and not mere consensus 
(A. Laiou, RJ 4 [1985] 189—201); CONCUBINAGE 
was, at least in theory, abolished; DIVORCE was 
restricted; BETROTHAL was equated to marriage; 
the property of the husband and wife was admin- 
istered as common effects with overlapping rights 
to both portions. 

Although the nuclear family was the corner- 
stone of Byz. social organization, it was neverthe- 
less limited by several factors. It was viewed as a 
concession to the frailty of human nature and as 
taking second place to eremitism (see HERMIT) 
and ceLipacy, which occupied a higher rung on 


the ladder of values. In some instances the state 
controlled the family. Not only were princely mar- 
rages often concluded on the basis of political 
considerauons—resulting sometimes in personal 
tragedics—but on occasion the state imposed mar- 
riages (some nuns were compelled to marry monks 
during the period of Iconoclasm, widows and 
maidens were someumes forced to marry foreign 
mercenaries) or made a couple divorce if the 
union was considered socially improper. The state 
also exercised the right to ABIOTIKION, appropria- 
tion of a certain part of the inheritance left by 
the deceased head of the family (if he died mtes- 
tate) to the detriment of his relatives. Although 
kinship and LINEAGE were underdeveloped in 
comparison with countries of western and north- 
ern Europe, they still played a certain role and 
influenced the functioning of the nuclear family. 
Some distant relatives were entitled to certain 
rights, such as PROTIMESIS in the sale of land. ‘The 
rights of the individual within the family were 
emphasized: there was no right of primogeniture 
in Byz. law, and the family property had to be 


divided, at least in theory, among the children of 


the pater familias (often in equal parts between 
brothers and sisters) and in this way dispersed, 


unless the relatives agreed to retain the unity of 


their properties. For example. in 13th-C. Trebi- 
zond, five relatives (syngonikarchioi) possessed land 
collectively (Vazelon, nos. 43, 44). 

As in the West, monks did not marry and pro- 
duce new families, and monastic propaganda urged 
children to leave the family and sever their links 
with their parents. On the other hand, some monks 
and uuns maintained connections with their close 
relatives, entered the same (or a neighboring) 
community, or created artificial, familylike small 
units. Moreover, unlike the West, Byz. priests and 
deacons (but not bishops) were allowed to be 
married. In addition to monks and nuns, there 
were other groups of people who did not marry 
but maintained familial relationships: eunuchs who 
could not procreate children nonetheless pre- 


served close ties with their nephews; teachers of 


ecclesiastical/state schools who frequently re- 
mained single (in expectation of an episcopal see) 
and favored their nephews; men who kept con- 
cubines. Slaves were not permitted to have a le- 
giimate family (at least until the 1ith C.), al- 
though they did have monogamous unions. 
Along with strengthening of family links over 


FAMINE 777 


ume, there was increasing prestige of the WOMAN 
as wife and mother whose role in the household 
was decisive. The warmth of relations between 
parents and children is often stressed in Byz. 
literature—in evident disregard for the demands 
of some rigorists (e.g., the author of the vita of 
St. ALEXIOS HOMO DEI) who praised the dissolution 
of family ties. Some heretical dogmas, for ex- 
ample those of extreme Dualist sects, went so far 
as to advocate the total abolition of the family and 
rejected sexuality and procreation. As a pivotal 
institution of social lite, the family served as a 
model for structuring other types of social rela- 
tions. The emperor was proclaimed to be the 
father of his subjects, and family terminology was 
used to describe both his relations to neighboring 
rulers and some hierarchical ranks (e.g., GAMBROS, 
son-in-law); family terminology characterized the 
relationship of the teacher to his disciples (his 
“sons” or “nephews”), esp. within the sphere of 
spiritual influence; the concept that in the mon- 
astery the spiritual father replaced the biological 
parents was widespread in Byz. 

urr. J. Irmscher, “Frau, Ehe, Familie in Byzanz,” Jahr- 
buch für Geschichte des Feudalismus g (1985) g~18. E. Patla- 
gean, “Christianisation et parents rituelles; le domain de 
Byzance,” Annales ESC 33 (1978) 625-36. W.C. Thompson, 
Legal Reforms of the Iconoclastic Era: The Changing Economic 
Structure of the Family (Madison 1976). D. Simon, “Zur 
Ehegesetzgebung der Isaurier, Forse hungen zur byzantin- 
ischen Rechtsgeschichte,” FM ı (1976) 16—43. A. Laiou, 
“Contribution à étude de linsutution familiale en Epire 
au XIIFe siècle.” FM 6 (1984) 2753-323. A. Kazhdan, “Ha- 
giographical Notes,” Byzantion 4 (1984) 188-92. -A.K. 


FAMILY 2400. See DECORATIVE STYLE. 


FAMINE (Acuos). In a marginally subsistent ag- 
ricultural economy such as that of Byz., famine 
followed any climatic irregularity that interfered 
with agricultural, esp. grain, production. Byz. 
chronicles and saints’ lives regularly record the 
harsh winters, droughts, floods, and plagues of 
locusts that jeopardized the annual harvest. Be- 
cause God provided for mankind, any disruption 
to that provision was interpreted as a sign of 
divine displeasure with a particular situation or 
event, as in the case of the famine that followed 
the deposition of Elias as patriarch of Jerusalem 
in 516 (CYRIL OF SKYTHOPOLIS, Vila Sabae, ch.58, 
ed. Schwartz 159.7—14). Since BREAD was a staple 
dietary requirement for the Byz. population, a 


778 | FAN, LITURGICAL 


failed harvest could lead to high mortality. Fam- 
ines were usually localized, affecting first the 
countryside, then the nearby cites. Larger urban 
centers. esp. Constantinople, could sometimes de- 
lav the impact of famine by controlling the storage 
and distribution of grain, but shortages could still 
lead to riots as in the capital in 409 and 602. 

Major famines occurred in 383-85 (Antioch), 
443 (Constantinople), 499-502 (Edessa), 516-21 
(Palesunie), early 540s, early 5808, 600-03 (Syria), 
under Basil I (Skyl. 277f), g27/8 (“the great fam- 
ine”), 1032 (Cappadocia and neighboring areas), 
and 1637 (Thrace and Macedonia). From the sec- 
ond half of the 11th C. and the 12th C. data on 
famines are rare (Kazhdan-Epstein, Change 27, n. 
41). Turkish invasions of the 14th—15th C. often 
resulted in famines, as did the “scorched earth” 
policy of Andronikos H when combatting the 
Catalan Grand Company in 1306 (A. Laiou, By- 
zantion 37 [1967-868] 91—113). The results of fam- 
ine were esp. severe in spring when stored grain 
had been exhausted: women evidently had a higher 
mortality rate during famines than men. Famine 
and the miraculous help of a saint is a frequent 
theme of hagiographical literature. 

iy. Patlagean, Pauvreté 74—92. Svoronos, Etudes, pt. 
(1466). ref. B.C. 


FAN, LITURGICAL. See RHIPIDION. 


FANTINUS THE YOUNGER. See PHANTINOS 
THE YOUNGER. 


FARMER’S LAW (Noyos Cewpytkos), a legal text 
preserved in dozens of MSS from the end of the 
roth C. onward. It regulates relations within a 
village (theft, trespassing of boundaries, damage 
caused by or to livestock, ete.) or, rarely, between 
two villages; a tax (extraordina) is mentioned only 
once; two kinds of land lease are regulated, but 
not land purchase. There has been considerable 
discussion of the date, provenance, and character 
of this law code. It has been dated to the 7th C. 
(particularly to the reign of Justinian H) and to 
the 8th C. (as contemporaneous with the EcLoca). 
Its origin has been placed in Italy and in Con- 
stantinople—the absence of any reference to olive 
groves and horses in the Farmer's Law suggests, 


however, an origin in hilly, inland terrain. It has 
been variously viewed as a record of Slavic cus- 
tomary law (even though not a single Slavic term 
is to be found there); as a selection of Justinianic 
norms (the name of Justinian—I or I[?—is in- 
cluded in some MSS); as pre-Justinianic rules; as 
biblical, eastern, or Hellenic precepts; as imperial 
legislation; and as a private collection. 

Whatever its provenance, the Farmer’s Law re- 
ects conditions in the countryside (limited to 
certain territories), between the crisis of the mid- 
7th C. and the gth-C. revival. Its context is a 
milieu in which the free peasantry dominates, 
slaves appear only as shepherds, and ownership 
of large landed estates is practically unknown. Of 
85 articles of the Farmer's Law, 40 deal with cattle 
breeding, livestock damaging crops, etc., whereas 
only 16 are devoted to land cultivation and related 
questions, nine to vineyards and gardens, two to 
agrarian implements, and four to houses and barns. 
Like Western medieval leges, the Farmer’s Law 
protected the animal from the neighbor (pars. 38, 
50, 51, 53, 54, 85) rather than the neighbor’s crop 
from an animal that caused damage (pars. 78- 
79). The peasants described in this law own their 
individual allotments, while some portion of the 
village land is in common ownership. The rela- 
tions are similar to those described in the Western 
leges barbarorum, but it is unnecessary to seek for 
explanation in a direct borrowing (e.g., from the 
Italian Lombards)—a similar situation could cre- 
ate similar regulations. The Farmer’s Law was 
revised by HaRMENOPOULOS and translated into 
Rumanian and Slavic languages. 

ED. and T. I. Medvedev, E. Piotrovskaja, E. Lipšic, 
Vizantijski) zemledeľ'českij zakon (Leningrad 1984). Eng. tr. 
W. Ashburner, “The Farmers Law,” JHS 32 (1912) 68- 
95. J. Karayannopulos, “Entstehung und Bedeutung des 
Nomos Georgikos, BZ 51 (1958) 357-73. J. Malafosse, 
“Les lois agraires a l'époque byzantine,” Recueil de l'Académie 
de législation 19 (1949) 1-75. N. Pantazopoulos, “Peculiar 
Institutions of Byzantine Law in the Georgikos Nomos,” RE- 
SEF 9 (197!) 541-47. -A.K. 


FARM. Usually designated as srasers in fiscal 
documents, farms varied with regard to their size 
and location. A regular farm consisted of a house 
with its enclosure and well; within the enclosure 
were also sheds for hay and straw, pits (goubai) 
for grain, pitharia (large, partially buried vessels 
for wine and other products), and sometimes wine 


resses, animal-driven mills, and stalls. The most 
valuable parts of the farm were called AUTOURGIA. 
The farm encompassed arable land, GARDENS, ol- 
ive groves, and VINEYARDS as well as the right to 
use common pastures (usually located in wooded 
hills), but products varied according to terrain 
and climate: some villages had practically no ar- 
able land, others did not cultivate olives or grapes; 
some farms were oriented toward FISHING or the 
breeding of LIVESTOCK. 

The nucleus of the farm usually formed a part 
of the viLLAGE, whereas the land consisted of 
small scattered parcels (up to 25—33 pieces) planted 
in such a way that vineyards could border CHORA- 
PHIA, etc. There were no “open fields” or system- 
atic redistributions of allotments, but parcels 
formed stable units normally surrounded by fences 
and ditches. Besides the principal homestead, a 
stasis could include hamlets (agridia) located far 
from the nucleus. Large landowners had farms 
called PROASTEIA and (as monastic property) ME- 
TOcH1A, which were sometimes separated from 
the center of the estate by significant distances. 

uit. M. Kaplan, “L’économie paysanne dans }Empire 
byzantin du Vème au Xéme siècle,” Klio 68 (1986) 198- 
232. Laiou, Peasant Society 142-222. A. Kazhdan, “Vizan- 


tijskoe sel’skoe poselenie,” VizVrem 2 (1949) 215-44. 
-J.W.N., A.K. 


FASTING (vyorteia), freely chosen total or partial 
self-deprivation of, or abstinence from, certain 
kinds of food and drink, usually for a predeter- 
mined period, as a means of penance and asceti- 
cism. Fasting was practiced either in common, 
before major feasts of the church, or individually, 
under the discretion of a spiritual elder. In early 
Christianity, fasting meant total abstinence from 
food and drink at least until evening. Later the 
notion of fasting was extended to include reduc- 
tion in the quantity of, or abstinence from only 
certain kinds of, victuals. 

On the symbolic or liturgical level, Christian 
fasting was related to expectation of the PAROUSIA, 
and thus partook of the nature of a viciL; first 
seen in this way in Asia Minor in the 2nd C. in 
conjunction with the vigil on the eve of Easter, 
this fast was later extended to the two days, then 
to the entire week, preceding Easter (whence Hoty 
Ween), finally to 40 days (whence Tessarakoste, or 
LENT), to which was prefixed later, in the 6th- 


FASTING 779 


7th C., a pre-Lenten “Cheesefare Week.” Other 
lents of the church year, and fasting on the vigils 
of Nativity and Epiphany, and on two feasts—the 
Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 Sept.) and the 
Beheading of John the Baptist (29 Aug.)—were 
also added. The Byz. system of fasts was com- 
pletely in place by the 11th C. 

The daily eucharistic fast from midnight until 
COMMUNION, in general use from the 5th C. on- 
ward, is also to be understood as a vigil for the 
coming of the Lord. This symbolism is the basis 
for forbidding fasting on Saturdays and Sundays 
and during the 50-day season of PENTECOST, since 
these times signified the presence of the Risen 
Lord, the fulfillment of the Messianic age, sym- 
bolized in the Bible by banqueting. 

From the 4th C. onward, tradition distinguishes 
various degrees of fasting, from the total Easter 
fast of one or more days, to giving up meat 
(apokreas) or cheese (tyrine). Xerophagia (“dry nour- 
ishment”) was a fast that lasted until evening, 
followed by a meal of only bread, salt, and water. 
Even the Eucharist was thought to break this fast; 
hence Byz. fast days were “aliturgical,” that is, on 
these days the Eucharist, being a morning service, 
was either not celebrated at all, or was replaced 
by the PresancTiFieD. In addition to lents, Mon- 
day (in monasteries), Wednesday, and Friday were 
traditional fast days except during the 50 days of 
Pentecost. Fasting included abstinence from mar- 
ital relations. Monks practiced more severe and 
frequent fasting than the laity and never ate meat 
(E. Jeanselme, 2° Congrés d’histoire de la médecine 
[Evreux 1922] 1—10). 

Church fathers preached on fasting, and it oc- 
cupies a prominent place in monastic literature 
(H.-J. Sieben, DictSpir 8 [1974] 1175-79) and in 
hagiographical texts. Saints might refuse even 
bread for certain periods and feed instead on 
wild berries, acorns, or dried locusts; the infant 
NicHo tas refused to nurse on fast days, a sure 
sign of future sanctity. Yet excessive fasting was 
criticized by some intellectuals as hypocrisy: if we 
leave our poor brother to fast and die of hunger, 
says Eustathios of Thessalonike (Escorial Y II 10, 
fol.ggv), this is not nesteia but lestera, robbery. 


LIT. J. Schiimmer, Die altchristliche Fastenpraxis (Munster 
1933). H. Musurillo, “The Problem of Ascetical Fasting in 
the Greek Patristic Writers,” Traditio 12 (1956) 1—64. J. 
Herbut, De ieiunio et abstinentia in ecclesia Byzantina ab initiis 


780 | FATE 


uaque ad saec. XI (Rome 1968). P. de Meester, “Reégle- 
ment des bienheureux et saints péres Sabas-le-Grand et 
Théodose-le-Cénobiarque pour la vie des moines cénobites 
et kelliotes,” Bulletin des Oblates Séculiéres de Sainte Françoise 
Romaine et de (Union Spirituelle des Veuves de France (Lille 
1937) 6-13. -R.F T., A.K. 


FATE. See DETERMINISM; FYCHE. 


FATIMIDS, Shiite Muslim dynasty (909-1171). 
lis first four caliphs lived in North Africa until 
Fatimid armies captured Egypt in 973. The Fā- 
timids first clashed with Byz. in g11 at Demona 
(Sicily). Between giq and g18 the Byz. governor 
of Sicily agreed to pay an annual tribute of 22,000 
gold pieces, which Romanos I succeeded in re- 
ducing to 11,000. Byz. diplomatic contacts with 
the Fatimids included embassies in 946, 953 (truce), 
and g57/8 (five-year truce), and treaties in 967 
and 975. The Byz. unsuccessfully attempted to 
prevent Fatimid expansion in northern Syria, which 
was partitioned de facto in g6g. Caliph al-Mu‘izz 
failed to prevent the Byz. reconquest of Crete. 
Caliph al-‘Aziz persuaded Byz. in 987/8 to lift the 
prohibition against commercial contacts and to 
allow prayers in his name to be recited in the 
mosque of Constantinople. He died preparing a 
major expedition against Byz. as protector of the 
HampaAnips. A Fatimid fleet defeated Byz. in 998, 
resulting in a ten-year truce in 1001. After Caliph 
al-Hakim destroyed the Church of the Holy Sep- 
ulchre in Jerusalem, commercial relations were 
severed from 1015/16 until 1032. A ten-year treaty, 
which included permission for Byz. rebuilding of 
this church, was signed in 1038 and renewed in 
1048. Relations cooled after Constantine IX died 
but briefly improved under Isaac [ because of 
common fear of the Seljuks. Seljuk and Crusader 
invasions separated Byz. and Fatimid territories, 
but diplomatic and cominercial contacts contin- 

ued until the end of the Fatimid dynasty. 
ur. A. Hamdani, “Byzantine-Fatimid Relations Before 
the Battle of Mantzikert,” BS/EB 1 (1974) 169-79. M. 
Canard, EP 2:853. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.1:221f, 225-28. 
—W.ELK. 


FAYYUM (from Coptic Phiom or Piom, the sea), 
area of Middle Egypt where agriculture was highly 
developed in Ptolemaic and early imperial times; 
its capital was Arsinoé (Crocodilopolis). By the 
early 4th C. the prosperity of the Fayvtim had 


declined and several settlements were abandoned, 
but papyrus finds attest to the continuity of the 
chief city through the 7th C. Churches have been 
excavated at Tebtynis, Madinat Madi, and Ha- 
wara. They are generally of basilican plan, with a 
tripartite sanctuary, but are provincial in charac- 
ter, the nave being often no wider than the aisles. 
Nearly all the columns are spolia. Medieval sources 
(al-Nablisi, Description du Fayoum au VH“ siècle de 
l'Hégire (Cairo 1899; rp. Beirut 1974]; see the 
excerpts of G. Salmon, B/FAD 1 [1901] 29-77) 
refer to numerous monasteries, of which only a 
few have left traces. Some sites still called “Dayr” 
(monastery) have early churches: Dayr al-Naqlin 
(also Dayr al-Malak Ghabriyal) has parts of a 7th- 
C. basilica; and Dayr al-Banat, near Dayr al-Naqliin, 
is a ruined monastic site with remains of a church 
and refectory. The region is particularly known 
for its FayYUM PORTRAITS. 

ur. E. Bresciani, “Medinet Madi nel Fayum: Le chiese,” 
Egitto e Vicino Oriente 7 (1984) 1-15. S. Adli, “Several 


Churches in Upper Egypt.” MDAI K 36 (1980) 1-14. 
-P.G. 


FAYYUM PORTRAITS, funerary portraits that 
survive in large numbers from the Fayytm. The 
practice of covering the faces of mummies with 
images painted on wooden panels began during 
the Roman occupation of Egypt, when the native 
population could no longer afford the traditional, 
elaborate SARCOPHAGL. At first naturalistic, such 
portraiture had become increasingly abstract by 
the time it went out of fashion in the 4th C. The 
importance of Fayyūm portraits for Byz. art is 
twofold: on the one hand, their realistic detail 
offers parallels for contemporary jewelry and 
clothing, and on the other, their shape, encaustic 
technique, and abstract, hieratic style contributed 
instrumentally to the development of 5th—7th-C. 
ICON painting. 

wr G. Grimm, Die römischen Mumienmasken aus Ägypten 
(Wiesbaden 1974). A.F. Shore, Portrait Painting from Roman 
Egypt (London 1972). K. Parlasca, Mumienporträls und ver- 
wandle Denkmäler (Wiesbaden 1966). K. Weizmann, The 
Icon (New York 1978) 9- -G.V. 


FEAR (@08os) was divided by Nemesios (PG 
40:688B—68gA) and John of Damascus (De fid. 
orth, par.eg, ed. Kotter, Schriften 2:81) into six 
categories: onos, hesitation or fear of future ac- 


tions; ados, awe or fear of blame; aischyne, shame 
or fear of having acted dishonestly: kataplexis, 
consternation at the sight of a great imaginary 
apparition; ekplexis, terror caused by an unusual 
apparition; and agonza, anguish or fear of failure. 
John of Damascus (De fid. orth. 64.10, ed. Kotter, 
Schriften 2:162) considered cowardice and anguish 
to be physical EMOTIONS, expressed in ways such 
as sweating and “clots of blood” (Lk 22:44). 

Church fathers interpreted fear mostly as a 
spiritual emotion. Basil the Great (PG 29:36gC) 
distinguished between a good fear, which brings 
salvation, and a base fear caused by lack of faith. 
The good fear was fear of God (often in the 
formula “fear and trembling [éromos]”), which was 
contrasted with fear of punishment (and with the 
fear the Hebrews felt before God). In Symeon 
the Theologian phobos tou Theou is a complete and 
voluntary subjugation to God, self-abnegation and 
transformation of oneself into a slave of God. 

A secular parallel to Symeon’s fear is Kekau- 
menos’s fear of the ever-present dangers that 
threaten man in every aspect of his life, such as 
perils of nature (poisonous mushrooms, falling 
rocks) or of human relationships (traps laid by 
friends or subordinates) or of the imperial court 
with its danger of disfavor. The Byz. felt them- 
selves surrounded by dangerous NATURAL PHE- 
NOMENA (earthquakes, storms, drought, locusts, 
etc.), political turmoil (enemy invasions, rebel- 
lions), and social instability; it required enormous 
faith to overcome fears and maintain optimism. 
The usage of metaphors implying fear (ship- 
wreck, fire, disease, death) was esp. typical of 
Niketas Choniates, distinguishing him from Psel- 
los and Gregoras, who stressed the possibility of 
a happy end after severe trials. -A.K. 


FEAST (é0ptn, mavýyvpis). Byz. daily life was 
dominated by a succession of testivals, whether 
these were the recurring ones of the liturgical 
YEAR, Or sporadic ones on the occasions of impe- 
rial WEDDINGS, TRIUMPHS, or other CEREMONIES. 
Manuel I's list of feasts (1166) counts 66 full 
panegyreis (without Sundays) and 27 half-feasts (R. 
Macrides, FM 6 [1984] 140-55). 

The liturgical feasts, both “mobile” and “fixed, 
are recorded in church CALENDARS. Feasts can be 
“dominical” (despotikai, of Christ), “Marian” (Theo- 
metortkai, of the Virgin Mary), “sanctoral” (of the 


” 


FEAST 781 


saints), or “occasional” (commemorating the 
founding of a city, the consecration of a church, 
a council, a miracle, a transfer of relics, a natural 
calamity, etc.). They may even celebrate a dogma 
or its triumph, e.g., “Trinity Sunday” or the 
TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY. There is a cycle of fixed 
commemorations for every weekday, while Sun- 
bay always commemorates the Resurrection. Cer- 
emonial for the various feasts is described in the 
liturgical TYPIKON. 

In the Typikon of the Great Church, more impor- 
tant feasts were preceded by a vicu. (paramone), 
but Nativiry, EpipHany, and Exaltation of the 
Cross (see Cross, CULT OF THE) were the only 
fixed feasts with a fore- and afterfeast (Mateos, 
Typicon 2:294, 311). Later, SABAITLG TYPIKA distin- 
guished five different ranks of festive solemnity: 
two classes of Grear Feast (dominical and Mar- 
ian), Middle Feasts, Lesser Feasts, and days of 
simple commemoration. Only Great Feasts and a 
few important Middle Feasts merited an all-night 
vigil, or agrypnia; they may be preceded by a 
period of FASTING. Apart from that, these cate- 
gories affected chiefly the celebration of ORTHROS 
and vesPERs. Only on Great Feasts did the festal 
KANON replace at orthros the kanon of the movable 
cycle found in the OKTOECHOS, TRIODION, Or PEN- 
TEKOSTARION. Middle Feasts had Great Vespers 
and the Great Doxococy at orthros, but no vigil. 
Lesser Feasts had the Great Doxology at orthros, 
but only simple vespers. These categories were 
not rigid, however, and sometimes elements that 
(ideally) pertain to feasts of one class were as- 
signed to a feast of a different rank. 

Many feasts in Constantinople involved the par- 
ucipation of the emperor. On dominical feasts, 
he attended services in Hacia Sopuia, on the 
Marian feasts he proceeded to the CHALKOPRA- 
TEIA or BLaCHERNAI churches, while on the 
Thursday of Hoty Week he performed the cer- 
emonial WASHING OF THE Feer mandated by Jesus 
in John 13:14. Numerous saints’ days also in- 
cluded solemn processions around the city (see 
LITE). A certain number of guests were usually 
invited to dine at the palace after the feast and 
could be entertained by Mimes. The main sources 
for the empcror’s activities on these days are the 
Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS, DE CEREMONIIS, and 
pseudo-KODINOS. 

Food and wine were usually distributed to the 
population in the city squares, or to the poor 


782 | FEAST OF ORTHODOXY 


before monastery gates. Feasts were also accom- 
panied by games in various forms, from horse 
races to semitheatrical performances. Christopher 
of Mytilene describes a masquerade, a procession 
of notaries in costume, one dressed as the em- 
peror, on the feast of their patrons Sts. Markianos 
and Martyrios (25 Oct.). In the 14th C. the church 
assumed the staging of biblical stories on feast- 
days, esp. that of the THREE HEBReEws. (For the 
fairs that accompanied feastdays, see PANEGYRIS.) 

LIT. A. Stoelen, “L'année liturgique byzantine,” Irénikon 
4-10 (1928) 1—32. M. Arranz, “Les ‘fêtes théologiques’ du 
calendrier byzantin,” in La liturgie, expression de la foi, ed. 
A.M. Triacca, A. Pistoia (Rome 1979) 29-55. A. Kazhdan, 
LMA 4:405-07. McCormick, Eternal Victory 131-259. A. 
Laiou, “The Festival of ‘Agathe,’ ” in Festschrift Stratos 1:111— 
22. ~R.F.T. 


FEAST OF ORTHODOXY. See TRIUMPH oF OR- 
THODOXY. 


FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE. Christ's mi- 
raculous multiplication of five loaves and two fishes 
to feed 5,000 people occurs in all four Gospels; a 
similar episode with 4,000 people (Mt 15:32-39, 
Mk 8:1—10) was amalgamated with it in both 
exegesis and art. Suggesting the bread of the 
EUCHARIST and its ability to sustain all who come, 
the scene occurs repeatedly in art of the 4th—6th 
C., often in conjunction with the miracle at CANA. 
Initially, it is shown schematically, with only bas- 
kets and fishes; 6th-C. versions use figures, but 
formally, with a frontal Christ blessing food pre- 
sented by symmetrically placed disciples. The 6th- 
C. Sinope Gospels (A. Grabar, Les peintures de 
VEvangeliaire de Sinope [Paris 1948], pl.I11) show 
bread baskets and people picnicking beside this 
symmetrical group; this version recurs in gth-C. 
monuments. The Feeding is infrequent in later 
art, appearing only in extensive cycles, but it does 
develop, becoming more narrative in form. Its 
eucharistic significance is acted out rather than 
symbolized, as the symmetrical composition is dis- 
placed by scenes of the breaking and distribution 
of the bread (Monreale-Demus, Norman Sicily, 
pl.87A—B). This development culminates in richly 
discursive Palaiologan representations, esp. that 
at the CHORA. 


Lit. Grabar, Martyrium 2:247-54. Underwood, Kariye 
Djam: 4:285—88. -A.W.C. 


FELIX III, pope (13 Mar. 483-1 Mar. 492). Born 
to an aristocratic Roman family, Felix was elected 
with the support of Opoacer and tried, at the 
beginning, to maintain correct relations with Emp. 
Zeno despite Rome’s opposition to the HENOTI- 
KON. Pressure from the Chalcedonian Alexan- 
drian clergy hardened Felix’s anti-Monophysite 
position, although his legates—willingly or not— 
entered into communion with Patr. AKAKIOS; Fe- 
lix demanded deposition of the Monophysite Al- 
exandrian patriarch PETER MONGos and excom- 
municated the legates and Akakios, thus leading 
to the AKAKIAN SCHISM (484). He found support 
among certain circles in Constantinople, esp. the 
Axormetot. The three failed attempts to resolve 
the schism in Felix’s lifetime fit into the broader 
context of Byz. policies toward Odoacer and 
THEODORIC THE GREAT. One of Felix’s collabora- 
tors was the future pope Ge.asius. The two men 
contributed much to the increasing papal inde- 
pendence from Constantinople in the realm of 
dogma. 

uit. Richards, Popes 59—62. P. Nautin, “La lettre de Félix 
III à André de Thessalonique et sa doctrine sur l'Eglise et 
l'Empire,” RHE 77 (1982) 5-34. Idem, “La lettre ‘Diaboli- 
cae Artis’ de Félix III aux moines de Constantinople et de 
Bithynie,” REAug 30 (1984) 263-68. —-A.K. 


FENARI ISA CAMII. See Lips MONASTERY. 


FEODOSIJ OF PECERA, superior of the Kievan 
Caves monastery, or Kievo-pecerskij monastyr’ 
(ca.1060—74); saint; born Vasilev, died Kiev 3 
May 1074; feastday 3 May. Feodosij (Theodosios) 
is regarded as the founder of cenobitic monasti- 
cism in Rus’ for having introduced into the Caves 
Monastery the Rule of Stoupios, which he ob- 
tained either from a Kievan monk residing in a 
Constantinopolitan monastery (according to Feo- 
dosij’s vita by the monk NeEsTor) or from Michael, 
a Stoudite monk who had accompanied Metr. 
George (ca.1065—76) to Kiev from Constantino- 
ple (according to the POVEST’ VREMNNYCH LET sub 
anno 1051). The monastery’s PATERIK (13th C.) 
also credits Feodosij with hiring Byz. architects 
from Constantinople to build the monastery’s stone 
Church of the Dormition (founded in 1073). Some 
20 written works are attributed to him with vary- 
ing degrees of certainty. His brief Lenten homi- 
hes, which have the best claim to authenticity, 


chiefly concern monastic discipline and repeatedly 
stress the authority of THEODORE oF STOUDIOS. A 
virulent anti-Latin tract and a letter on fasting 
attributed to Feodosij are more likely the works 
of another Feodosij (“the Greek,” fl. mid-12th C.), 
who also translated into Slavonic the letter of Pope 
Leo I to Patr. Flavian of Constantinople. 

ep. l.P. Eremin, “Literaturnoe nasledie Feodosija Peter- 
skogo,” TODRL 5 (1947) 159-84. 

source. Nestor’s vita—Uspenskij sbornik, ed. S.I. Kotkov 
(Moscow 1971) 71-135. A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, 
ed. G.P. Fedotov (New York 1952). 

tit. R. Casey, “Early Russian Monasticism,” OrChrP 19 
(1953) 372—423. Podskalsky, Rus’ 89-93, 177-84. Fedotov, 
Mind 1:110—36. —S.C.F., P.A.H. 


FEOFAN GREK. See THEOPHANES “THE GREEK.” 


FERRARA (®%¢p(p)apia), city in Emilia, in north- 
ern Italy. The city was evidently founded in the 
early 7th C., at which time a fortress was built on 
the left bank of the Po; by the 12th C., however, 
the Po had changed its course, and by 1438, when 
Emp. John VIII Palaiologos came to Ferrara, the 
closest point of disembarkation seems to have 
been Francolino, about 10 km from Ferrara (Syr- 
opoulos, Mémoires 226.23-24). The fortress be- 
longed to the exarchate of Ravenna, was captured 
by the Lombards, and in 757 transferred to Pope 
Stephen II by the Lombard king Desiderius. Un- 
der the rule of its Countess Mathilda (1063-1115) 
the city supported the popes (esp. GRecory VII) 
against Henry IV of Germany. For several cen- 
turies Ferrara struggled against the ecclesiastical 
supremacy of Ravenna and the political claims of 
Venice. At the initiative of Pope Eugenius IV, 
Ferrara housed the Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE 
during its first phase in 1438 until an outbreak of 
plague forced the participants to move to Flor- 
ence. The city seems to have had a small Greek 
colony concentrated around the Church of St. 
Julian, near which Dionysios, metropolitan of Sar- 
dis, was buried in Apr. 1438 (V. Laurent in Syro- 
poulos, Mémoires 257, n.5). -A.K. 


FERRARA-FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF. The 
council opened at Ferrara (1438-39). It was, how- 
ever, transferred to Florence on account of the 
plague. Viewed by Rome as ecumenical, the coun- 
cil aimed at the UNION OF THE CHURCHES. Its 


FESTUS | 783 


convocation was a concession to the Byz., since 
Rome had previously refused to accept their de- 
mands for a free and open council in which both 
parties would be treated as equals. All the same, 
East-West antagonism remained. The papacy 
looked with contempt on the ruined Byz. Empire 
and strove for the political subordination of the 
Greek church, while traditional Byz. distrust of 
and frustration and disillusion with the West were 
still very much alive. Besides, the atmosphere was 
politically conditioned from the beginning. The 
large Byz. delegation, which included the patri- 
arch of Constantinople, JosepH II, and Emp. JOHN 
VIII PaLaro.ocos, was also seeking military aid 
against the Turks. 

Despite the council’s prolonged deliberations on 
the controversial issues—papal PRIMACY, FILI- 
OQUE, PURGATORY, AZYMES—genuine unity was not 
achieved. Indeed, the basic issues were not fully 
resolved. Both papal primacy and the filzoque were 
defined in Latin terms. A crucial argument for 
union, moreover, lost its persuasiveness soon after 
the council, when the military crusade promised 
by Pope EuGentus IV was destroyed at the battle 
of VaRNA (1444). Not surprisingly, the union de- 
cree (6 July 1439) of this council proved just as 
ephemeral as the union of Lyons (1274). The 
Byz. church officially repudiated it shortly after 
the collapse of the empire. Both the Memoirs of 
Sylvester SyRopouLos and the acts of the council 
itself are unofficial compilations, reflecting their 
authors’ individual views and perspectives. 

SOURCES, Quae Supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Flo- 
rentini, ed. J. Gill (Rome 1953). G. Hofmann, Concilium 
Florentinum, OrChr 16.3 (1929); 17-2 (1930); 22.1 (1931). 
Idem, Documenta Concilii Florentini de unione orientalium, 3 
vols. (Rome 1935—36). 

LiT. D.J. Geanakoplos, “The Council of Florence (1438— 
39) and the Problem of Union between the Greek and 
Latin Churches,” ChHist 24 (1955) 324—468. J. Gill, The 
Council of Florence (Cambridge 1959). - A.P. 


FESTUS, Latin historian; died Ephesus 3 Jan. 
380. The old identification with Rufius Festus 
Avienius or his son is not valid. Festus is plausibly, 
though unprovably, equated with Festus of Tri- 
dentum in Raetia, governor of Syria and then 
proconsul of Asia (372-78), a character con- 
demned for his many vices by AMMIANUS MAR- 
CELLINUS, Eunapios, and Lisanros. After several 
vicissitudes of fortune, he met the poetic fate of 
dropping dead on the steps of the temple of 


784 | FETHIYE CAMII 


Nemesis at Ephesus. Festus’s Breviarnan is a jejune 
précis of Roman history from the city’s founda- 
tion to 369, basically a propaganda piece for the 
intended Persian campaign of VALENS, who may 
have requested the work as an aide-mémoire, or to 


whom it may have been addressed in hopes of 


imperial favor. Several MS headings have it ad- 
dressed to Valentinian instead, perhaps an error, 
although some speculate that Festus sent the work 
to both emperors with different dedications. Highly 
derivative for the most part, his work has some 
value for the administrative and military history 
of the Roman east from the late 3rd—qth C. 

ED. The Breviarium of Festus, ed. J.W. Eadie (London 
1967). 

ur. B. Baldwin, “Festus the Historian,” Historia 27 (1978) 
197-217. Den Boer, Historians 173-223. M. Peachin, “Fhe 
Purpose of Festus’ Breviarium,” Mnemosyne 38 (1985) 158- 
61. -B.B. 


FETHIYE CAMII. See PAMMAKARISTOS, CHURCH 
OF Hacia MARIA. 


FEUDALISM, a term often used in modern Byz. 
scholarship to characterize a variety of Byz. social, 
economic, and political institutions and relation- 
ships. As in other helds of history, scholars dis- 
agree on the term’s definition and therefore on 
whether/when Byz. became a “feudal society,” what 
parts of it were “feudal,” and whether the term 
should be applied to Byz. at all. Some academics, 
esp. Marxists, maintain that Byz. society can be 
understood only in a feudal context. These schol- 
ars variously consider Byz. to have become “feu- 
dal” in the grd, 7th, or ioth C., depending on 
such issues as whether the late Roman COLON! 


were already serfs and whether the inhabitants of 


the 1oth-C. VILLAGE COMMUNITY were free small- 
holding peasants or dependents of the state (see 
Demosrarios). On the other hand, those who con- 
sider feudalism to be the devolution of public 
(state) power into private hands debate when and 
to what extent privileges—fiscal (see EXEMPTION), 
administrative, and judicial—were granted to large 
landowners and even to towns, while agreeing 
that the process of devolution reached its fullest 
extent in the 14th—15th C. 


Others sce feudalism as primarily a system of 


hierarchical relationships among members of the 
ruling class, and, while the Western feudal con- 


cepts of fealty, homage, the benefice, and vassa- 
lage had little expression in Byz., these scholars 
debate whether the Byz. ARISTOCRACY ever be- 
came a hereditary, “feudal” nobility. Still others 
consider it misleading to apply the term feudal- 
ism, sO laden with its autochthonous western Eu- 
ropean connotations, to Byz. Even these scholars, 
however, find it difficult to ignore the parallels 
between Western medieval and Byz. institutions 
(whether borrowed or indigenous to Byz.; see 
IMMUNITY, Lizios, APPANAGE, PRONOIA) and often 
find it useful to speak, if not of feudalism, then 
of “feudalizing tendencies” or the “feudalization” 
of Byz. 

tir. K. Watanabe, “Problèmes de la ‘féodalité byzan- 
une,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences 5 (1965) 32- 
40; 6 (1965) 8—24. Patlagean, Structures, pt IH (1975). 1371— 
g8. Kazhdan-Constable, Byzantium 61, 118-21. H. Anton- 
iadis-Bibikou, “Problemata tes pheoudarchias sto Byzan- 
to,” Epistemonihe skepse 1 (1981) 31—41. D. Jacoby, HC 
8:190—93- -M.B. 


FIBULA (vepovy), a fastener for a cloak, shawl, 
or overgarment, usually placed on the shoulder 
of the wearer. Made of bronze, gilt bronze, gold, 
or silver, it is essentially a securing device, as 
distinct from a brooch, which is primarily deco- 
rative and consists of a hinged pin fastened to a 
front plate. The fibula was made of a single length 
of wire coiled on itself to produce a spring, while 
the back was bowed to allow for the bulk of the 
fabric it held. Its back portion was generally 
diamond- or lozenge-shaped, or cruciform, but 
circular fibulae appear by the 6th C. Initially they 
were plain, then repoussé; later versions are of 
openwork with gilt, gold wire, pendant gems and 
pearls, and glass paste; eventually they were dec- 
orated with cloisonné ENAMEL. Gold fibulae with 
inscriptions were given by rulers as gifts on state 
occasions down to the late 4th C. Conversely, plain 
bronze wire fibulae, resembling large safety pins, 
have been found in simple burials. The Byz. ver- 
sion of this fastener is generally the 6th-C. type, 
with rounded back, varying amounts of gold and 
gems, and sometimes a pendant cross or Christian 
inscription. The jeweled fibula that Justinian I 
wears on the right shoulder in the mosaics of S. 
Vitale, RAVENNA, identifies his imperial status. 
Plain hbulae of bronze have been found during 
archaeological excavations in various centers of 
Greece and Macedonia (e.g., Nea Anchialos, Edessa 


[Vodena]). They are dated predominantly to the 
6th-8th C. and were often discovered together 
with BELT FITTINGS. The provenance of these ob- 
jects is under discussion: while some scholars (¢.g., 
J. Werner, BZ 4g [1956] 141f) consider them 
Bulgarian, Avar, or Slavic and interpret their 
presence in the Balkans as evidence of barbarian 
invasions, others insist on their local production. 
ur. J. Heurgon, RAC 7:7g1-800. C. Parkhurst, “The 
Melvin Guunan Collection of Ancient and Medieval Gold,” 
AMAM B 18.2/3 (1961) 40-286. Age of Spirit, no.275. D. 
Pallas, “Données nouvelles sur quelques boucles et Abules 
considérées comme avares ct slaves et sur Corinthe entre 
le VIe et le IXe s,” BRulg 7 (1981) 2905-318. N.M. Beljaev, 

“Fibula v Vizantii,” SemKond 3 (1929) 49-114. 
-S.D.C., ALK. 


FIDEICOMMISSUM (diédcixouptccor, ta mis- 
Tet KaTa uTavópevæ). Originally the fideicommis- 
sum consisted of an informal request of the tes- 
tator addressed to the HEIRS or other beneficiaries 
of the deceased’s estate. Since no one could bring 
suit against it, the fulfillment of the fideicommissum 
was dependent upon the honesty of the person 
of whom the request was made. After the fidercom- 
missum became actionable (at the beginning of the 
Roman imperial period), it was gradually equated 
with the LEGATON, a process that ended with the 
full equation of the two under Justinian I (Cod. 
Just. VI 43.2, a.531). 

Fideicommissum in the Post-Justinianic Period. 
The practice, if not the term, is common in Byz. 
Thus, for example, Kale-Maria, widow of Sym- 
batios Pakourianos, bequeathed in 1098-1113 a 
part of her property to the monastery of Iveron 
while imposing on the monks certain pious obli- 
gations; a special clause (FGHBulg 7 [1967] 72-24- 
31) instructs the executors of her will to sue the 
monks if they fail to carry out her wishes. Another 
type of Byz. fideicommissum appears in the will of 
Theodore Kerameas of 1284 (Lavra 2, no.75), 
who commissioned Emp. Michael VIII and his 
own brother to carry out the construction of the 
monastery of Christ Pantodynamos in Thessalo- 
nike; instead of receiving a bequest of property, 
his brother was promised spiritual wealth, the 
“riches of God’s compassion.” 


Liv. Kaser, Privatrecht 2:549—-67 ($82gG7-300). —ALK. 


FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. See Con- 
STANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF: Constantinople II. 


FILIOQUE | 785 


FILELFO, FRANCESCO, Italian humanist, 
teacher, and translator; born ‘Tolentino, Italy 25 
July 1398, died Florence 91 July 1481. Filelfo 
(Piàéàgpos) spent the years 1420-27 in Constan- 
unople as secretary to a Venetian official. He took 
advantage of this sojourn to study Greek with 
George CHRYSOKOKKES and with a member of the 
Chrysoloras family, whose daughter he married. 
As a result of his studies, he became an ardent 
philhellene, brought back to Italy MSS of 49 Greek 
authors, and named one of his sons Xenophon. 
He taught both Greek and Latin literature in 
Bologna, Florence, and Milan. 

After his return to Italy, Filelfo was active as a 
translator of ancient Greek authors such as Xen- 
ophon (the Cyropaedia) and Plutarch. He main- 
tained close relations with both the Italian and 
Greek émigré scholars of his day, conducting cor- 
respondence in Greek and Latin. Of his Greek 
letters 110 survive, many on literary topics (re- 
guests for books, criticism of literary works, dis- 
cussion of Aristotelian philosophy). His most fre- 
quent addressees were Theodore Gazes (18 letters), 
Bessarion (16), and John ARGYROPOULOS (10). His 
letters contain many allusions to classical Greek 
literature and mythology. He was appalled by the 
Turkish conquest of Constantinople and recog- 
nized the consequent threat to Italy. Gazes ad- 
dressed to Filelfo his treatise on the origins of the 
Turks. Filelfo also wrote three books of poems in 
Greek, of which only a few have been published. 

ED. E. Legrand, Cent-dix lettres grecques de François Filelfe 
(Paris 1892), with Fr. tr. 

ut. A. Calderini, “Ricerche intorno alla biblioteca e alla 
cultura greca di Francesco Filelfo.” SttalFC1 20 (1913) 204- 
424. -AM.T. 


FILIOQUE, Latin word meaning “and from the 
Son,” which in the West was added to the creed 
of Nicaea-Constantinople at a Spanish council in 
Toledo in 50g. it was meant wo alirin that une 
Holy Spirit proceeded not only “from the Father” 
but also “from the Son.” When Frankish mission- 
aries used the interpolated creed in gth-C. Bul- 
garia, direct polemics on the issue began between 
Latins and Greeks. Patr. PHoTios, in an Encyclical 
addressed to the other patriarchs (866), attacked 
both the interpolation and the doctrine of the 
“double procession.” Eventually, legates of Pope 
Jous VIII accepted the decrees of the Photian 
council of 879-80 in Constantinople (see under 


786 FIRE 


CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF), which stated that 
“the Creed cannot be subtracted from, added to, 
altered or distorted in any way .. .” (Mansi 
17:516C). Photios composed a lengthy refutation 
of the “double procession” following his retire- 
ment in 886. It is generally believed that the 
interpolated creed was accepted in Rome in 1014. 
The interpolation was affirmed as legitimate 
by the councils of Lyons (1274) and FERRARA- 
FLORENCE (1438-39), but was rejected in the East. 

LIT. M. Jugie, De processione Spiritus Sancti ex fontibus 
revelationis et secundum orientales dissidentes (Rome 1938). R. 
Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Contro- 
versy (Belmont, Mass., 1975). B. Schultze, “Zum Ursprung 
des Filioque,” OrChrP 48 (1982) 5-18. G.C. Berthold, 
“Maximus the Confessor and the Filioque,” StP 18.1 (Kala- 
mazoo, Mich., 1985) 1193—17- —J.M. 


FIRE (éuzpnoyos, mop). Fire was an ever-present 
hazard in the large, densely populated cities of 
the Byz. world; consequently a metropolis like 
Constantinople had a squadron of fire fighters 
(collegiati) under the jurisdiction of the eparch of 
the city in each of its regions. Nevertheless, great 
conflagrations, begun accidentally or deliberately, 
still engulfed whole sections of large cities as they 
spread rapidly along the porticoes and major 
thoroughfares. Like EARTHQUAKES, fires were in- 
terpreted by the Byz. as signs of divine anger; for 
example, the fire of 1 Sept. 465 was thereafter 
the object of an annual liturgical commemoration 
(Synax.CP 6.3-9). Major fires in Constantinople 
occurred in summer 388; 12 July 400; 20 June 
404; 25 Oct. 406; 15 Apr. 428; 17 Aug. 433; 448; 
1—2 Sept. 465; 475; 498; 509; 510; 6 Nov. 512; 
15-17 Jan. 532 (during the Nika Revolt); July 
548; 13 May 559; Dec. 560; 12 Oct. 561; Dec. 
563; Apr. 583; 603; 10 Aug. 626; Dec. 790; 
886/7; spring 912; summer 931; 6 Aug. 1040; 
after Sept. 1069; before 1194 destroying the 
northern region of Constantinople (Nik.Chon. 
445-29); 25 July 1197; 17 July 1203 (set by the 
Crusaders); 19—21 Aug. 1203; 12 Apr. 1204; 25 
July 1261 (the Greeks burned the Latin quarters); 
Nov. 1291; 1303; 1308; Aug. 1351; 29 Jan. 1434 
(this list compiled after Schneider with slight cor- 
rections). Fires outside Constantinople are little 
known or studied, though the sources mention 
attacks by enemies who set fire to strongholds, 
threshing floors, and crops in fields. 

The image of fire or flame occupied a signifi- 


cant place in theological concepts and in litera- 
ture: fire was the major means of punishment in 
hell, and a final conflagration was expected at the 
end of the world. Metaphorically, the Byz. would 
speak of the fire of wrath, passion, heresy, per- 
secution, etc. The pagan concept of the divine 
nature of fire (e.g., the Persian worship of fire) 
was refuted and ridiculed, but the image of God 
as fire was retained, as well as the concept of 
miraculous fire related to angels and saints. The 
Byz. themselves stressed the ambiguous nature of 
fire, contrasting material and immaterial (spiri- 
tual) fire, divine fire and fire of sin, illuminating 
and burning fire. 


tir. A.M. Schneider, “Brande in Konstanunopel,” BZ 
41 (1941) 382-89. Lampe, Lexikon 1208-11. -B.C. 


FIREARMS. Portable firearms were unknown in 
Byz. Cannons were developed in western Europe 
during the 14th C. and were first used against the 
Byz., to little effect, by the Turks in their siege of 
Constantinople in 1422. G. Skrivani¢ (Kosovska 
bitka [Cetinje 1956] 28—30) asserts that Dubrovnik 
obtained cannons by the mid-14th C. and that 
during the battle at Kosovo Polje in 1389 both 
the Serbs and the Turks used firearms. But while 
the Turks continued to invest in improved siege 
guns, the Byz. had neither the materials nor the 
money to develop their own cannons. Doukas 
(Douk. 307.20-309.27) and other historians re- 
counting the fall of the city in 1453 (see Con- 
STANTINOPLE, SIEGE AND FALL OF) tell of the Hun- 
garian gunsmith Urban who first offered his skills 
to the impecunious Constantine XI Palaiologos 
before entering the far more remunerative service 
of the Turks. The cannons he built for Mehmed 
II the Conqueror, esp. one huge gun capable of 
firing a stone weighing over 1,000 pounds, were 
instrumental in demolishing parts of the city walls 
and blocking the Golden Horn to the ships of 
Byz. allies, while the few small Byz. guns were 
badly outweighed and outranged. 

LIT. J.R. Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder 
(Cambridge 1960) 124-28. Dj. Petrovic, “Firearms in the 
Balkans on the Eve and After the Ottoman Conquest of 
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” in War, Technol- 


ogy and Society in the Middle East, ed. V.J. Parry, M.E. Yapp 
(London 1975) 164-94. -E.M. 


FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. See NICAEA, 
CouncIcs oF: NICAEA I. 


FISCAL SYSTEM. Continuing the Roman prac- 
tice, the state maintained a BUDGET based mainly 
on agricultural revenues. Indirect taxation, esp. 
from customs (the octTava, then the KOMMER- 
KION), always burdened the circulation and sale 
of merchandise. On the contrary, crry TAXES dis- 
appeared after the 7th C. 

Payment of taxes has always been seen as a 
main and inevitable obligation of the population, 
but devolution of fiscal revenue was also practiced 
to varying degrees: tax exemptions allowed land- 
owners to keep for their own profit at least part 
of the fiscal revenues; and fiscal revenues could 
be the object of outright grants to individuals 
(logistma), often as a compensation for services 
provided to the state (esp. in the PRONOIA system). 
Such practices had important social consequences. 

First Period (4th to 7th C.). The grd-C. crisis 
and Diocletian’s reforms resulted in a fiscal system 
based mainly on contributions in kind, first of all 
on the aNNona, the burden of which was distrib- 


uted to taxpayers following the system of 


CAPITATIO-JUGATIO. Fiscal revenue from land was 
stabilized for periods of time according to the 
INDICTION and was eventually increased (or re- 
stored in case of abandoned lands) by the EPIBOLE. 


Following the establishment by Constantine I of 


a stable monetary system based on gold, the fiscal 
services, eager to collect precious metal, applied 
increasingly the principle of COMMUTATION, in 
spite of the injustices that this might entail, and 
ended by officially transforming the land tax into 
a contribution in gold (CHRYSOTELEIA). In 518, 
public finances were healthy, with attested re- 
serves of 320,000 pounds of gold. Fiscal income 
was complemented by various SECONDARY TAXES 
and services. 

Until the 7th C. at least, the eimpire’s fiscal 
services were attached to the PRAETORIAN PREFECT 
(and, secondarily, to the COMES SACRARUM LARGI- 
TIONUM) and functioned through provincial gov- 
ernors and various local authorities (or the Iati- 
fundiary landowners). SYNETHEIAI were the main 
remuneration of TAX COLLECTORS. 

Second Period (8th to 12th C.). The new fiscal 
System is essentially known from the gth C. on- 
ward, thanks esp. to some treatises on TAXATION. 
It was based on the idea that each fiscal unit, be 
it an individual (prosopon, owning one or more 
PROASTEIA), Or a village (CHORION, a community 
of small landowners with some cominunal prop- 


FISCAL SYSTEM | 787 


crues), was expected to produce a stable fiscal 
revenue each year, following the principle of fiscal 
solidarity among its members. Unul a TAX A1 LE- 
VIATION was granted, neighbors were responsible 
for the tax of abandoned lots; and if, after alle- 
viation, they agreed to take over such a lot, they 
were required to pay deferred taxes (OPISTHOTE- 
Lela) as If they had already been exploiung it. 
Solidarity in payment of taxes was brought be- 
yond the limits of the fiscal unit by Basil 11 with 
the ALLELENGYON. 

The main tax, the KANON, was paid on kan: 
(4.166 percent ad valorem; but this “fiscal” vai : 
could differ from the real one—Schilbach, i0. 
Quellen 59f) and its amount was established 
cording to the epibole for each fiscal unit describ. 
in the CADASTER; it was increased by the PARAKO- 
LOUTHEMATA and had to be paid mostly in gold 
coins (CHARAGMA). To these were added the 
HEARTH TAX and many secondary taxes, CORVEES, 
and services (in kind or in money). Some catego- 
ries of land (those submitted to the STRATEIA or 
the DROMOS) were in principle exempt from sec- 
ondary taxes, as were those of lay or ecclesiastic 
landowners that had received a privilege from the 
emperor (very seldom was the denon included in 
such exemptions). Various TITHES were collected 
from state-owned lands. 

Fiscal services were under the authority of the 
logothetes of the GENTKON, whose representatives 
operated in the provinces under the supervision 
of the STRATEGOL: ANAGRAPHEIS conducted the 
census, EPOPTAL revised the cadaster, EXISOTAI 
verified and redistributed the fiscal burden of the 
contributors, and piorkerat collected the taxes. 
Military obligations related to the strateia were 
controlled by the LOGOTHETES TOU STRATIOTIKOU, 
postal obligations by the LOGOTHETES TOU DROMOU. 
The protonotakios of the theme was in charge 
of provincial finances and levying most of the 
secondary taxes and corvées. In the 1roth—11th C. 
provincial judges also collected taxes. 

Third Period (12th to 15th C.). The fiscal sys- 
tem, although retaining its main characteristics, 
changed considerably by adapting to new realities: 
the developinent of large landed property, social 
changes in the countryside (peasants were now 
increasingly PAROIKOI, often of the state), en- 
hanced by the development of the pronoia system. 
The tax collector was now the PRAKTOR of a given 
province, most often a tax farmer. The census, 


788 FISH BOOK 


carried out by the APOGRAPHEUS (whose PRAKTIKA 
replaced the systematic cadaster), served as a basis 
for calculating the fiscal revenues that would be 
collected by the state (or by Jandowners who were 
granted tax exemptions) or would be distributed 
to pronoia holders. Land was taxed at a flat rate 
(50 modioi: 1 hyperpyron) and this TELOS was 
distinguished from the tax on the paroikoi (O1KOU- 
MENON), which was calculated according to prin- 
ciples that are not yet clear. The secondary taxes, 
smaller in number but not necessarily lighter, 
presented substantial regional variations (Lefort, 
“Fiscalité” 315-54). 

Between 1404 and 1420, the Byz. administra- 
tion, established in the Chalkidike after 20 years 
of Ottoman domination, perpetuated the pre- 
existing fiscal system with some Islamic taxes 
the harac (land tax), the uşr (tithe), the kephalatikion 
(capttation)—and with very few secondary taxes 
and services (N. Oikonomides, SiidostF 45 [1986] 
1—24). (See also TAXATION.) 





LIT. Jones, LRE 411--69. Karavannopulos, Finanzwesen. 
Dolger, Beiträge. Svoronos, Cadastre. Schilbach, Metrologie 
248-57. Litavrin, VizObscestve 196-236. Lavra 4:153-73- 
N. Oikonomides, “De l'impôt de distribution a Pimpét de 
quotité. A propos du premier cadastre byzantin (7°—-9g* 
siecle).” ZRVI 26 (1987) 9-19. K. Chvostova, “Sud'by par- 
ikii i osobennosti nalogooblozenija parikov v Vizantii XIV 
va” VizVrem 39 (1978) 54-75. ~N.O. 


FISH BOOK. See OPSAROLOGOS. 


FISHING (eia). Peasants living in villages along 
the seacoast, or near a river, marsh, or pond, 
engaged in fishing to secure an important source 
of protein in their pier. The Great Lavra on Mt. 
Athos possessed, among its AUTOURGIA, two canals 
for fishing, a fishing boat (karabion), and 60 fish- 
ponds (vivaria), while in the list of its parotkot 56 
boats and 374 vivaria are mentioned (Svoronos in 
Lavra 4:163); the peasants paid a rent (Aaleza) for 
the right to fish. Another rent for fishing was 
called halieuttke tritomoiria or tetramoiria (third or 
fourth part). In cities located on the coast there 
were teams of fishermen, each with a headman 
(proteuon), like the group of fishermen in Chalce- 
don whose catch was disappointing until Loukas 
the Stylite blessed their nets and made them 
promise to give him a tthe, that is, every tenth 
fish; the other fish were to be sold (Delehaye, 


Saints stylites 212). Smoked fish and caviar were 
brought to Constantinople from the Azov Sea. 
Commercial fishing from a small fleet of boats in 
a sea inhabited by a variety of species illustrates 
the homily of John of Damascus on the Nativity 
in the 11th-C. Menologion from Athos, Esphig- 
menou 14 (Treasures 2, fig.348). 

The images of fish and angler had an honorific 
place in the Byz. system of metaphors. Fish was 
the symbol of Christ himself (IXOYX = "Incods 
Xpwores Oeod ‘Yids LwryHp), and it was common 
to send fish to friends as a valuable present; “fish- 
ers of men” was an epithet of the apostles. 

tir. Koukoules, Bios 5:331-43. C.C. Giurescu, Istoria 
pescuitului şi a pis&cullurii în Romania, vol. i (Bucharest 
1964) 59-86. E. Trapp, “Die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen 
über die Errichtung einer Epoche,” ByzF 1 (1966) 329-33. 
F. ‘Tinneheld, “Zur kulinarischen Qualität byzantinischer 
Speisefische,” in Studies in the Mediterranean World Past and 
Present, vol. 11 (Tokyo 1988) 155-76. 

-J.WN. AK. AC. 


FISHMONGER (ixévomparyns). The term ichthy- 
oprates (or ichthyopoles) existed in Roman Egypt 
(Preisigke, Wörterbuch 1:705) where the profession 
seems to have been distinct from that of fisherman 
or halieus (ibid. 1:56) and that of the vendor of 
salted and smoked fish or taricheutes (the feminine 
form tarichopratissa is attested in a 6th-C. papyrus; 
ibid. 2:578f). Fishermen in Constantinople could 
sell their catch themselves, like the man described 
in the vita of Andrew en Kriset (AASS, Oct. 8:141B) 
who operated in the Forum Tauri and was armed 
with an ax “that is used by the men of his profes- 
sion.” “Fhe Book of the Eparch, however, strictly 
distinguished between fishermen and ichthyopra- 
tai; the latter would buy the catch at the seashore 
and on the sKacal and sell it in special kamarai, 
vaulted shops, in the fish market, under the con- 
trol of prostatai—either the eparch’s officials or 
the guild’s elders. Fishmongers were prohibited 
from dealing in salted and smoked fish (the priv- 
ilege of the saldamarioi or GROCERS); their profit 
was set at one milaresion per nomisma (about 8 
percent) or 2 folleis per nomisma—about 1.5 per- 
cent (Bk, of Eparch 17:1 and 3)—a contradiction 
that is hard to explain. John ‘T'zerzes (ep.81.16— 
82.2) relates that fishmongers were buying 12 fish 
for a copper coin on the seashore and selling 10 
fish tor the same coin on the market, thus making 


16.6 percent profit. The annual income of the fisc 
from the trade in fish was calculated in the 14th 

C. at 10,000 hyperpers (Greg. 1:428.19—20). 
urr. Stéckle, Zünfte 45-47. Bk. of Eparch 231-36. Lita- 
vrin, W2Obséestvo 144f. L. Balletto, “I commercio del pesce 
nel Mar Nero sulla fine del Duecento,” Critica storica 13 
(1976) 390-407. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires gg, n.178. 
-A.K. 


FIVE MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA, Eustratios and 
his companions, Auxentios, Eugenios, Mardarios, 
and Orestes, legendary martyrs under Diocletian, 
executed in Sebasteia, Armenia; feastday 13 Dec. 
According to the legend, Eustratios Kyriskes, an 
officer (skriniarios) in the army of the doux Lysias, 
proclaimed himself a Christian and was con- 
demned together with the priest Auxentios. Their 
courage inspired many others to accept martyr- 
dom. Before death they were severely tortured: 
Eustratios had to wear shoes with sharp nails 
inside; Mardarios was hanged upside down; Eu- 
genios’s tongue and hands were cut off. When 
Auxentios was beheaded, a niracle occurred: his 
head disappeared, later to be found at the top of 
a tree. The collection of SYMEON METAPHRASTES 
includes the passio, poor in information; it men- 
tons many ancient mythological personages and 
authors such as Hesiod, Aeschylus, Plato, aud 
Aristotle. According to the LIBER PONTIFICALIS, 
the martyrs’ relics were transferred to Rome un- 
der Pope Hadrian I (772-95), but Arauraka in 
Armenia, where they were buried, remained a 
cult center until the 11th C. Niketas David PAPH- 
LAGON and Michael of Stoudios wrote Greek eu- 
logies of the martyrs. Armenian, Latin, and Span- 
ish versions of the passio also exist. 
Representation in Art. The Five Martyrs of 
Sebasteta, the “Holy Five,” as they were often 
called, were an extremely popular group, in- 
cluded in many monumental church programs, 
on icons, and in MSS (e.g., the | HEODORE PSAL- 
TER, fol.158r). Their portraits are well established 
by the 11th C.: Eustratios as a dark-bearded of- 
ficial wearing a special chlamys fastened at the 
front with several clasps and a white loros or scarf 
around his neck; Auxentios as an old man in court 
costume; Eugenios, a younger man also in court 
costume; Mardarios, wearing a red felt hat; and 
Orestes, a young beardless soldier wearing a cross 
around his neck. The MENOLOGION or Basil II 


FLAVIAN 789 


(p.241) illustrates their diverse martyrdoms as do 
some MSS of the menologion of Symeon Meta- 
phrastes; one MS in Turin, which contains noth- 
ing but the metaphrastic vita of these saints, is 
illustrated with a considerable number of minia- 
tures scattered through the text. A painted TEM- 
PLON beam depicting 11 posthumous miracles of 
Eustratios has been preserved at the monastery 
of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; no textual source 
for the miracles has been found (Soteriou, Eikones, 
nO.113). 

SOURCE. PG 1186:468-505. 

ur. BHG 646-6480. K. Weitzmann, “Llustrations to the 
Lives of the Five Martyrs of Sebaste.” DOP 33 (1979) 95- 
112. Mouriki, Nea Moni 1:143-48. Th. Chatzidakis-Bach- 
aras, Les peintures murales de Honos Loukas (Athens 1982) 
74-81. F. Halkin, “L’éptlogue d’Eus¢be de Sebastie a la 
Passion de S. Eustrate et de ses compagnons,” AB 88 (1970) 
279-83. J. Boberg, LCI 6:200f. -A K.. N.P.S. 


FLABELLUM. See RHIPIDION. 


FLAG. See BATTLE STANDARD AND FLAG. 


FLAVIAN (Pàaßiavós), bishop of Constantino- 
ple (July 446-between 8 and 11 Aug. 449); died 
Lydian Hypaepa Aug. 449 or Feb. 450. Elected 
as successor of PROKLOS, Flavian immediately en- 
tered into a conflict with the court: the eunuch 
Chrysaphios, favorite of Theodosios II, repri- 
manded Flavian for not sending presents of gold 
to the emperor on the occasion of his election, 
but the bishop refused to yield (Theoph. 98.11— 
19). Then, in 448, with Pope Lero I’s support, 
Flavian dismissed Bassianos, the popular bishop 
of Ephesus, whose election had been approved by 
Theocdosios II and Proklos. A crisis erupted when 
in 448 Flavian condemned and deposed the Mon- 
ophysite archimandrite EUTYCHES, a protége of 
Chrysaphios. Following an appeal by Eutyches, 
Theodosios II convoked the “Robber” Council of 
EPHESUS (449), which deposed Flavian. The mood 
in Ephesus was evidently hostile to Flavian; even 
its bishop Stephen voted for Flavian’s condem- 
nation. Flavian was banished and probably died 
en route to exile, even though shortly afterward 
the legend arose that he had been murdered by 
his enemies. Emp. Marcian ordered that Flavian's 
remains be brought to Constantinople and buried 


790 FLAVIANUS 


in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Emp. Leo I 
and the Council of Chalcedon praised Flavian in 
4521 as a victim of the Monophysites. 

ED. PL 5 4:724-88, 731-36. 

SOURCE. 9. Leonis Magni tomus ad Flavianum episc. Con- 
Ēxantinopolitanum, ed. C. Silva~Farouca (Rome 1932). 

uir. RegPatr, fase. i, nos. 947110. H. Chadwick, “Phe 
Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople,” JFAStE n.s. 
6 (1955) 17-34. P. Batffol, “L'affaire de Bassianos d'Ephèse 
(444-448)," EO 23 (1924) 385-94. J. Liébaert, DGHE 17 
(1971) 3909—96. -A.K. 


FLAVIANUS, a Roman senatorial family closely 
related to and ideologically connected with that 
of SymMacHus. Two Flaviani played a signal role 
under Theodosios I. Virius Nicomachus Flavianus 


(ca.334—94) belonged to the intellectual elite of 


Rome and was known as a translator, a character 
in Macrobius’s Saturnalia, and a historian: his An- 
nales, which extended to 366, served as the main 
source for AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS. He owned 
estates in Apulia and Sicily. A dogged supporter 
of paganisin, he favored the Donatists in 377, 
while serving as vicartus of Africa, and was dis- 
missed by Gratian; Theodosios, however, restored 
him to favor, appointing him quaestor in 389 and 
then praetorian prefect for Illyricum and Italy. 
His son, Nicomachus Flavianus junior, obtained 
Theodosios’s favor even earlier, and served in 
382/3 as proconsul of Asia. Dismissed for flogging 
a decurion, he fled home, escaping the cmperor’s 
wrath. Both father and son joined the insurrec- 
tion of Eucenius; after their defeat, the father 
committed suicide and the son found asylum in a 
church. He obtained Theodosios’s pardon by ac- 
cepting Christianity and promising to return the 
salary he and his father were paid during Eugen- 
ius’s usurpation. He served in Italy and Africa 
(until 432) and was three times urban prefect. 
Their relation to other Flaviani is not specified in 
the sources. 

ur. O. Seeck, RE 6 (1909) 2505--13. PLRE 1:343-49. 
J-P. Calu, “Les préfectures de Nicomaque Flavien,” in 
Mélanges d'histoire ancienne offeris a William Seston (Paris 
1974) 73-80. Matthews, Aristocracies 231-47. -A.K. 


FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. The Holy Family's flight 
to escape Herod’s massacre of the young children 
(Mt 2:13-15) belongs to the cycle of Christ's IN- 
FANCY. It appears often in 4th- through 6th-C. 
art, where, cast as an imperial ADVENTUS. it as- 


sumes triumphal significance: Mary and Christ 
ride a donkey led by a youth or angel toward a 
city and the personification of Egypt; Joseph fol- 
lows. Some versions depict palms, recalling Christ’s 
similarly triumphal ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM (see 
also Pam Sunpay) and a domed city, perhaps 
Heliopolis, where—according to pseudo-Matthew 
and The Arabian Gospel of the Childhood of Christ— 
the idols fell when Christ arrived. The adventus 
composition recurs in the 10th C. at GÖREME, with 
the youth labeled James. Generally, however, the 
triumphal element dwindles, and later versions 
emphasize Christ’s humanity. The personification 
appears only sporadically, Joseph takes the lead 
(see Frieze GOSPELS), and, in certain 12th-C. com- 
positions, he carries Christ on his back (Cappella 
Palatina at PALERMO). Palaiologan painters re- 
lished this detail, but also depicted the triumphal 
scene of the falling idols (CHORA). 

LIT. G. Schiller, leonography of Christan Art, vol. 1 (Lon- 
don 1971-72) 117-20. -A.W.C. 


FLOOD, THE (xataxdAvoyos). According to the 
CHRONICON PASCHALE (42.12—16), the inundation 
of the world (Gen 6—8) completed the period of 
“barbarism” that encompassed the ten genera- 
tions from Apam to Noan when men had no ruler 
and everyone lived in accordance with his own 
law. GEORGE THE SYNKELLOS states (15.24—27) that 
before the food men occupied a small area be- 
tween Paradise and the ocean, but thereafter they 
started settling all over the earth. Thus the flood 
was the starting point for the development of 
individual “nations.” 

The flood posed a serious problem for exe- 
getes: how to reconcile the extermination of all 
mankind (except for Noah and his family) with 
the idea of divine mercy. As John Chrysostom 
put it (PG 45:448.14—15), the flood allows us to 
contemplate the balance between God’s mercy 
and God’s justice. The flood was caused by men’s 
sins that needed to be punished, but, on the other 
hand, those who were destroyed have been given 
time to repent; the mercy of God was symbolized 
by the olive branch. Previously Origen had re- 


jected other explanations of the flood, such as it 


being an element of the cosmic cycle or repre- 
senting a change in the divine plan. The flood 
was also construed as the PREFIGURATION (typos) of 
baptism. 


The vivid narrative of the Flood and Noan’s 
ARK (Gen 7:17-8:14) was widely illustrated in the 
great repositories of GENESIS iconography, such 
as the Cotton Genesis and Vienna Genesis (Weitz- 
mann, Late Ant. H, pl.23) but was rare m monu- 
mental art. 

wir. H. Hohl LCP 4:161-3. V. Fiocchi Nicolai, DPAC 
1957- R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Archeologia ¢ cultura? (Rome 
1979) 328-43. J-P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of 


Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Laden 
1968). -A.K JHL. 


FLOOR MOSAIC ({indodetn Ua. MÂórTtTpwrTov), 
Hoor covering composed of tesserae, cube-shaped 
pieces of stone or glass, set into mortar in geo- 
metric and/or figural designs. The craft was wide- 
spread in the Roman Empire and continued un- 
interrupted mto late antiquity; it flourished from 
the 4th to the 6th C. but was apparently not 
practiced in Byz. after the 7th. Late Antique floor 
mosaics are almost exclusively opus tessellatum, i.€., 
composed of uniform tesserae of variously col- 
ored stonc—primarily marble and limestone— 
sometimes supplemented with terra-cotta and/or 
glass tesserae. Their substructures comprise three 
layers of progressively finer and thinner lime 
mortar with ground brick or pozzuolana: the rudus 
(a layer of coarse mortar poured over packed 
stones), the nucleus, and the setting bed. 

Floor mosaic was used widely in public buildings 
and luxurious residences where it provided a dec- 
orative, durable, and waterproof surface; it was 
apparently less prestigious than OPUS SECTILE. Fig- 
ures and ornament of floor mosaics generally 
follow the style of MONUMENTAL PAINTING. Schol- 
ars have identified criteria of composition and 
style unique to floor mosaics, but the inherently 
conservative nature of the craft and variations 
according to region and quality make dating by 
style uncertain. Not only ORNAMENT, but subject 
matter and style varied according to region; until 
the early qth C., eastern Mediterranean mosaics 
displayed illusionistic mythological scenes in 
prominent frames placed in the center of the 
floor, in contrast to the polychrome depictions of 
hunts and other subjects from the amphitheater 
on North African mosaics (sec NORTH AFRICA, 
MONUMENTS OF) or the black-and-white style typ- 
ical of Rome and Ostia. 

In some regions these practices continued dur- 
ing the early 4th C.; elsewhere style and/or subject 


FLOOR MOSAIC 791 


matter changed significantly. The eastern Medi- 
terranean was particularly conservative. Ilusion- 
istic mythological scenes sull dominated pave- 
ments at ANTIOCH and Shahba-Philippopolis. In 
the Balkans, some mosaics (e.g., at SIRMIUM) show 
influence from western Europe, others from the 
East. Polychrome hunting and marine mosaics 
with two-dimenstonal figures distributed across 
the entire floor, as in Roman North Africa, then 
became popular in other regions, including Italy. 
‘The largest ensemble of early 4th-C. mosaics, at 
Piazza ARMERINA, included subjects—hunts, ma- 
rine scenes, pulti harvesting grapes—close to con- 
temporary floors in CARTHAGE. At GAMZIGRAD iN 
eastern Serbia, Emp. Galerius decorated his pal- 
ace with hunting mosaics. Such subjects were rare 
in the 4th-C. eastern Mediterranean; those in the 
“Constantinian Villa” at Antioch are exceptional. 
After the edicts of toleration issued in ea.311-13 
(see Eprcr oF MILAN) monumental Christian 
buildings, as at AQUILEIA, provided new settings 
for floor mosaics. Christian subjects were com- 
bined with preexisting decorative and figural ele- 
ments. SYNAGOGUES were also decorated with floor 
mosaic, sometimes figural, e.g., the zodiac at 
Hammath Tiberias. 

By the end of the 4th C., most floor mosaics 
were ecclesiastical. At this time a vogue for strictly 
geometric floor mosaics—in churches and secular 
buildings alike—dominated the eastern Mediter- 
ranean, e.g., at Antioch (Kausive Church), Apa- 
MEIA, Epidauros, Sarona. They extended as far 
west as northern Italy, while figural mosaics re- 
mained popular in North Africa and Italy. 

Most 5th-C. floor mosaics in the eastern Medi- 
terranean, particularly in Syria and Palestine, had 
figures executed in a two-dimensional style, con- 
tained in a geometric framework or regularly 
distributed across a white ground. The same 
themes dominated in secular and religious con- 
texts. Depictions of ammals alone or m rustic 
scenes and hunts, rare in the East earlier, now 
became extremely popular. Usually the subject 
matter remains secular, e.g., at Huarte (Basilica 
of Photios), Antioch (Martyrion of Seleukcia), 
‘Fabgha (Nilotic scenes in HEprapEGoN). Some- 
umes biblical content was introduced: Adam ap- 
peared among the animals at Huarte (Michae- 
lion), Noan’s Ark was depicted at Mopsuestia, the 
“Peaceable Kingdom” was a popular theme in 
Cinicia, ¢.g., Karlik. Biblical narrative scenes like 


792 FLOORS 


the Samson cycle at Mopsuestia are rare in floor 
mosaics, evidently deemed inappropriate for them. 
In an edict of 427. Theodosios H forbade placing 
the sign of Christ on pavements (Cod.Just. 1. 8). 

In the Balkans, geometric mosaics remained the 
norm well into the 5th C. When figures re- 
appeared, they were less varied than in Syria. 
Figure carpets with birds and vessels and the 
FOUNTAIN OF Lire flanked by deer or peacocks 
were popular. Geometric floors with donor in- 
scriptions remained common into the 6th C. in 
Dalmatia and northern Italy. Christian mosaics of 
North Africa were restrained, tomb mosaics with 
symbolic motifs being typical. 

{n the 6th C. floor mosaics continued to flourish 
in Phoenicia and Palestine, but fewer were laid in 
Syria than in the 5th. Elements of the natural 
world, including personifications of SEASONS and 
MONTHS, remained the most common subjects. 
Frequently these subjects were incorporated into 
ORNAMENT. The medallion style, characterized by 
a decorative framework of repeated circles some- 
times outlined by stylized vine RINCEAUX, was par- 
ticularly prominent, as at Kabr Hiram. Mosaics of 
the period of Justinian I reflect the concept of 
the church building as microcosm, with the ter- 
restrial world depicted on the floor, e.g., GERASA, 
Church of St. John, MapaBa Mosaic mar. At Mt. 
Neso, compositions symbolic of paradise were 
placed in sanctuaries. Many synagogues received 
floor inosaics representing ceremonial utensils and 
images of the zodiac (Beth Alpha) or animals in 
vine scrolls (as at Nirim). Depictions of the natural 
world penetrated into the Balkans by the late 5th— 
6th C. Personifications of the months appear at 
Tegea and again at Argos. Elaborate representa- 
tions of terrestrial creation are seen at Herakleia 
Lynkestts and the Dometius Basilica at NIKOPOLIS. 

In the peristyle of the Great PaLace in Con- 
stantinople, illusionistic depictions of animals, cir- 
cus scenes, and vignettes from nature were scat- 
tered across a white ground. Although this mosaic 
somewhat resembles the 5th-C. mosaics of north- 
ern Syria, available archaeological evidence sug- 
gests a 6th- or 7th-C. date. Seventh-century floor 
mosaics are rare in the provinces. Only a few 
crude examples, such as the scenes of everyday 
life from Deir el-Adas in Syria, can be dated so 
late. The craft declined together with the pro- 
vincial cities, although it was briefly revived out- 
side Byz., in Umayyad mosques and desert palaces 
in Syria and Palestine in the 8th C. 


ur. E. Kitzinger, “Stylistic Developments in Pavement 
Mosaics in the Greek East from the Age of Constantine to 
the Age of Justinian,” La mosaïque gréco-romaine, vol. 1 (Paris 
1965) 341-51. D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Princeton 
1947). K. Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa 
(Oxford 1978). J. Balty, Mosuiques antiques de Syrie (Brussels 
1977). Maguire, Earth and Ocean. J.-P. Caillet, “Les dédi- 
caces privées de pavements de mosaïque a la fin de 
lAnuquité,” AAPA 2 (1987) 15-38. —R.E.K, 


FLOORS. The Greek word patos (mros) desig- 
nated both a story of a building (“second patos” — 
Lavra 3, no.154.5-6; “fourth patos”’—Koutloum., 
no.15.93) and “Hoor” in the usual sense (Patmou 
Engrapha 2, no.52.170). Ordinary houses had floors 
made of pounded earth (they were called “without 
floors,” apatotos—Patmou Engrapha 2, no.52.165), 
wooden boards (xylopatos—MM 3:56.18, or sani- 
dopatos—Patmou Engrapha 2, no.52.168), or might 
even be paved with marble (marmaropatos—Patmou 
Engrapha 2, no.50.103, or patos dia marmaron— 
MM 3:55.28—29). Palaces, mansions, and churches 
often had opus SECTILE or mosaic floors (see FLOOR 
Mosaic). Archaeological data testify to the pres- 
ervation of ancient techniques of flooring (A.G. 
McKay, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman 
World [Southampton 1975] 198f); furthermore, 
ancient materials were frequently reused for floor 
renovation (Ch. Bouras, DChAE* 11 [1982-83] 
10f). Mosaic floors were laid on a layer of mortar, 
which in turn was set on a bed of sand or of 
crushed marble and small pebbles (A.L. Jakobson, 
Rannesrednevekovyy Chersones [Moscow-Leningrad 
1959] 222). 

A law of 427 (Cod.Just. I 8.1) and canon 73 of 
the Council in Trullo prohibited depicting signs 
of the cross on the floor lest they be stepped on; 
the law of 427 was included in the Basilika (Basil. 
1.1.6). Balsamon, commenting on these decisions, 
distinguished between those who depicted the cross 
on the floor due to their simplicity and excessive 
piety and those who did it consciously to show 
their disrespect for the cross (Rhalles-Potles, Syn- 
tagma 2:475.28-33). 


ut. Koukoules, Bios 4:278f, 299. T.K. Kirova, “Il prob- 
lema della casa bizantina,” FelRav 102 (1971) 299. -A.K. 


FLORENCE (Powpervria), city in Tuscany. In the 
late Roman period the city’s territory decreased 
significantly, though the legend that Florence was 
destroyed by Totila and rebuilt by Charlemagne 
strongly exaggerates the events. S. Reparata (over 


60 m long) is one of the larger churches built in 
Italian urban centers in late antiquity, and as such 
is good evidence for local patronage of ecclesias- 
tical construction. The site of the Roman forum 
continued to be used in medieval times as a mar- 
ket. Local tradition links the establishment of 
Christianity in Florence with Eastern influence; 
A. Amore (in Bibl. Sanct. 9 [1967] 494) believes 
that in 6th-C. Florence a chapel of St. MENas, 
housing his relics, spurred the development of 
the local cult of St. Miniatus. 

In 1094 Pope Urban II visited Florence, Pisa, 
and Pistoia calling for participation in the First 
Crusade, but Florence remained aloof. Later some 
of the city’s high-ranking clergymen participated 
in the Crusades: Guido of Florence, the cardinal- 
priest of San Chrysogono, was the pope’s legate 
to the Second Crusade and contributed to the 
reconciliation between the Byz. and the Western- 
ers; at the beginning of the 13th C. Walter of 
Florence was bishop of Acre. In the 14th C. the 
Florentines became more active in the East even 
though Florence’s role was less sophisticated than 
that of Venice, Genoa, or Pisa: bankers from 
Florence established themselves at CHLEMOUTSI; 
the Florentine family of AcciayuoLi became ma- 
jor landowners in the Peloponnesos but retained 
ties with Florence (they were involved in con- 
structing a monastery in Certosa near Florence); 
the 14th-C. Florentine merchant Francesco PE- 
GOLoTTi demonstrated interest in and knowledge 
of trade with Constantinople; and the names of 
Florentines trading with “Turkey” are recorded 
in Genoese archives (e.g., M. Balard, Génes et 
!'Outre-Mer, vol. 1 [Paris—The Hague 1973] no.257, 
a.128g). In the 15th C. Florentines tried to receive 
trade privileges in Constantinople; they were 
granted a chrysobull in 1439. The despotes of Mis- 
tra sent envoys to Florence in 1446 and 1450. 

The Florentines participated in preparations 
for the Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE in the mid- 
15th C.; they sent a ship to Constantinople to 
bring some Greeks to Italy (Syropoulos, Mémoires 
198.5) and were active in persuading the delegates 
to leave Ferrara, which was ravaged by plague, 
and to move to Pisa or another city in Florentine 
territory; finally the council was transferred to 
Florence at the beginning of 1439. In the 15th C. 
Florentine humanists had contacts with Byz. 
scholars such as PLETHON. After the fall of Con- 
Stantinople Florence provided refuge for some 
Greek intellectuals: thus Demetrios Chalkokon- 


FLORILEGIUM | 793 


dyles (a relative of Laonikos Chalkokondyles) be- 
came a professor of Greek language in Florence 
in 1475; a large collection of Greek manuscripts 
was assembled in the city. 

uit. R. Davidsohn, Geschichte von Florenz, vols. 1—4 (Ber- 
lin 18g6—1927). A. Pancha, Storia di Firenze (Florence 1984). 
W. Heyd, Geschichte des Levantehandels tm Mittelalter, vol. 2 
(Stuttgart 1879; rp. Hildesheim 1984) 298—302. G. Morozzi 
et al, S. Reparata, l'antica cattedrale fiorentina (Florence 
1974). ~A.K., R.B.H. 


FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF. See FERRARA- 
FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF. 


FLORILEGIUM (Lat., lit. “collection of flowers”), 
a Western medieval term conventionally applied 
to a Byz. genre of excerpts from earlier authors 
collected with an explicit purpose. The term is 
used esp. for theological anthologies, in contrast 
to predominantly secular collections of GNoMal or 
gnomologia. A florilegtum of quotations from com- 
mentators on the Bible, strung together and at- 
tached to a biblical text, is called a CATENA; one 
consisting of secular verse is termed an ANTHOL- 
ocy: short florilegia, composed of groups of ap- 
proximately 100 sentences on either religious or 
secular matters, are known as “centuries.” 
Richard (infra) distinguishes between dogmatic 
and spiritual florilegia. Up to the end of the 4th 
C., the former were rare, an exception being the 
PuiLoKaALia compiled by Basil the Great and 
Gregory of Nazianzos from Origen’s writings. They 
became more common during the 5th-C. Chris- 
tological disputes and during the Monothelete 
and Iconoclast controversies. A later example is 
the Panoplia Dogmatike of Euthymios ZIGABENOS. 
Spiritual florilegia with a moral and ascetic em- 
phasis appear from the 8th C. onward. Richard 
divides them into three categories. The first in- 
cludes those based on the Sacra PARALLELA (at- 
tributed to John of Damascus) and related texts. 
The second includes a group of sacro-profane 
florilegia beginning with the Loci Communes (or 
Capita Theologica), attributed to MAXIMOS THE 
ConreEssor, but compiled in the 10th C. They 
flourished during the period of so-called ENcy- 
CLOPEDISM (end of gth to 10th C.) and in the 11th 
C. (MELIssa). Based on the Sacra Parallela and, in 
their profane part, on STosaros, they were di- 
rected toward an educated public of both clergy 
and laity. The third category includes monastic 


794 | FLORIS AND BLANCHEFLOR 


florilegia, of which the first example is attributed 
to ANASTASIOS OF SINAI (the £rotapokriseis). They 
flourished in the 11th C. and later; their authors 
included Nikon OF THE BLACK Mountain and 
Jonn IV Oxerres of Antioch. Although florilegia 
usually contained sen/entiae of various church fa- 
thers, collections from a single author (¢.g., Basil 
the Great) are known (J.F. Kindstrand, Eranos 83 
[1985] 113-24). 
tir. Richard, Opera minora, vol. 1, pts. 1-5. P. Odorico, 
“H ‘Corpus Parisinum’ e la fase costitutiva dei florilegi 
sacro-profani,” SBNG 417-29. J. Sonderkamp, “Zur 
Textgeschichte des ‘Maximos -Florilegs,” JOB 26 (1977) 
231-45. H. Chadwick, RAC 7 (1969) 1131-60. 
-E.M.J., A.K. 


FLORIS AND BLANCHEFLOR. See PHLORIOS 
AND PLATZIA-PHLORA. 


FOEDERATI (dovdeparot, from Lat. foedus, 
“treaty”), in Roman law a term for the barbarian 
tribes who were allies of the empire. In the 4th 
C. the term was applied to those barbarian groups 
that—like the Visigoths in 332—were settled on 
the territory of the Roman Empire on the con- 
dition of providing military service (E. Chrysos, 
Dacoromania 1 [1973] 52—64}. The term was trans- 
ferred to elite (mainly mounted) troops recruited 
primarily from various barbarian tribes. There 
has been some confusion over the date of this 
change. C. Benjamin (infra), referring to Malal. 
364.12-13, spoke of a certain Areobindus, comes 
of foederati in the reign of Theodosios I, although 
he questioned the veracity of this evidence and 


himself placed the beginning of the institution of 


the “new foederati” in the reign of Honorius; Ma- 
lalas, however, made Areobindus a contemporary 
of Theodosios IL, not Theodosios 1. 

The 5th-C. historian Olympiodoros of Thebes 
(fr.7—FHG 4:9.6-10) states that the terms BoU- 
KELLARIOL and foederati appeared under Honorius, 
but his evidence may be anachronistic. They are 
better known from the sources of the 6th C. 
Prokopios (Wars 3:11.3) stresses the further change 
in the status of the foederati: while previously only 
barbarians were enlisted as foederati, in his day 
anyone could join their ranks. 

LT. G. Wirth, “Zur Frage der foederierten Staaten in 
der späteren Rémischen Kaiserzeit” Historia 16 (1967) 231- 
al. M. Cesa, “Uberlegungen cur Foderatenfrage,” Miltei- 


lungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung ge 
(1984) 307-16. J. Maspero, “Phoideratoi ev Stratiotai dans 
armée byzantine au VIS siècle,” BZ 21 (1gt2} 977109. C. 
Benjamin, De lustiniani imperatoris aetate quaestiones militares 
(Berlin 1892) 4-18. J-L. Teal, “rhe Barbarians in Justi- 
nian’s Armies.” Speculum go (19853) 294-9322. ~À.K, 


FOLIO (from Lat. folium, Gr. púMov., “leaf”), leaf 
of a QUIRE, consisting of one half of a folded sheet 
(bifolium or unio) of parchment or paper, In Byz. 
MSS only the front of the leaf (i.c., the right-hand 
page, or recto, as opposed to the reverse side, or 
verso) is numbered, if there is any numeration at 
all (most numeration of folios has been added 
later by owners or librarians). Thus, in modern 
citations of MSS, folio numbers are qualified by 
the addition of “recto” or “verso” (abbreviated r 
and v), eg., fol.gir or giv. Normally cight folios 
(folia), or four sheets, constitute a quire. 

-A.M.T., R.B. 


FOLLIS (@o0dAts), a Latin word originally mean- 
ing a purse and applied to bags of corns of any 
metal of determined value. This remained its 
meaning until the end of the 4th C. The bishop- 
metrologist EprpHantos of Salamis defines it as a 
bag of 125 silver pieces. The description of the 
largest bronze coin of the Tetrarchy as a follis is 
an anachronism. (It was called a nummus.) With 
the remtroduction of heavy copper denomina- 
tions at the end of the 5th C. the term was applied 
to the heaviest of these, the go-nunimus piece 
bearing the mark of value M (= 40). This re- 
mained the normal meaning of the word until the 
end of the 11th C., the notional value of folles 
being 1/24th of a MILIARFSION and 1/288th of a 
soLibus, though it is not likely that these ratios 
can have been sustained in the 7th—8th C., when 
the follis’s weight fell from the approximately 16 
g of the early 6th C. to not much over 4 g. The 
follis was sometimes called an obol, mainly in 
literary sources but also in, for example, the Book 
of the Eparch. After Alexios I’s coinage reform of 
1092, the follis was replaced as a coin by the 
smaller TETARTERON and as a unit of account 
displaced by the KERATION, so the word gradually 
disappeared from use. Its Italian equivalent follaro 
(from follis aeris “copper follis”), used at Dubrov- 
nik and elsewhere for locally minted copper coms, 
was applied by BADOER and other foreign mer- 
chants to the smallest copper coin of 15th-C. Con- 


stantinople, but the Greek name for these is un- 
known. 


tiv. DOC 2:9, 22-32, 3:14f. 68-72. —Ph.G. 


FONDACO. Sce PHOUNDAX. 


FONT, BAPTISMAL (kodupBnbpa. Bantorhpi- 
ov. dwtiaTyptov), a built or stone-carved basin in 
a special annex of the narthex or atrium of a 
church or an autonomous BAPTISTERY. Until about 
the 7th C., a large font, set deep into the baptis- 
tery floor, was mainly intended for the BAPTISM 
of adults; this could be square, rectangular, cir- 
cular, hexagonal, octagonal, cross-shaped, four- 
lobed, or multi-lobed in plan. Later, however, 
smaller fonts, carved in marble or cast in bronze 
and usually chalice-shaped, were used for the 
baptism of children only. At Hosios Loukas the 
font is decorated with lion masks (R.W. Schultz, 
S.H. Barnsley, The Monastery of Saint Luke [London 
1g01] 32). Other important examples are the 
roughly octagonal font at the monastery of Hosios 
Meletios (ABME 5 [1939—40] 103, fig.51) and a 
round one from the Church of the Holy Apostles 
in the Athenian Agora (A. Xyngopoulos in Eure- 
terion ton mesaionikon mnemeion tes Hellados, vol. 1.1, 
no.2 [Athens 1929], fig.74). 

ur. C. Delvoye, RBK 1:460-g6. A. Khatchatrian, Ori- 
gine et typologie des baptistères paléochrétiens (Paris 1982) 43, 
69-82. S. Curčić, “The Original Baptismal Font of Gračan- 
ica and its Iconographic Setting,” Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja 
(Belgrade) 9—10 (1979) 313-23. -L.Ph.B. 


FOOD. Sce Drer. 


FOOLS, HOLY (caoi), a group of SAINTS gifted 
with extreme foresight who, in their humility, 
pretended to be half-witted (“fools for Christ's 
sake”). The series of holy fools begins with Sy- 
MEON OF Emesa who embodied—in an extreme 
form—protest against the traditional values of 
urban civilization; the Life of ANDREW THE FOOL 
is less extreme. The author of the Life of Basi. 
THE YOUNGER says that this saint claimed to be 
“foolish” (although he remained wise and learned) 
in order to escape the traps of the Devil (ed. 
Veselovskij, 1,50.33—4). The unpredictable and 
enigmatic actions and words of these saints man- 
ifest their freedom from earthly bondage and 


FOOTWEAR 795 


their attachment to the heavenly world. A secu- 
larized version of the holy fool is found in the 
Life of PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL, whose extraor- 
dinary generosity was viewed as “foolish” by his 
family and who was rewarded on earth with worldly 
well-being. Byzantine saloi found continuators and 
imitators in the Russian jurodieye. 

uir. A. Svrkin, “On the Behavior of the ‘Foo! for Christ's 
Sake." History of Religions 22 (1982) 150-71. L. Rydén, 
“The Holy Fool,” in Byz. Saint 106-13. ~A.K, 


FOOTSTOOL (izomoéiov. coumméédiov), a nor- 
mal concomitant of the THRONE and a symbol of 
relative superiority within sacred or social hier- 
archies. Following Isaiah 66:1 and Psalm 109:1, 
Christ is sometimes represented seated in heaven 
with his feet on a footstool connoting the world. 
At ceremonies, the EMPEROR stood or sat with his 
feet on a podium, a purple cushion, or porphyry 
disc (rola); in his portraits a more or less elaborate 
footstool is customary. When the figure of the 
emperor was centrally placed, even between an 
archangel and a church father (Spatharakis, Por- 
trail, fig.72), the emperor's footstool implies that 
he outranked them. When a ruler or other mortal 
flanks a sacred figure, he is rarely elevated in this 
fashion. Ecclesiastics are almost never shown raised 
on a footstool. Some wooden footstools included 
a heating device (Koukoules, Bios 2.2:80f). 


Lit. Treitinger, Kaiseridee 58t. -A.C., L.Ph.B. 


FOOTWEAR (izr0dyj ara). In antiquity there were 
three kinds of footgear: open sandals fastened 
with leather straps, shoes covering the foot, and 
high boots. All three types were used in Byz., but 
boots seem to have become most common: the 
term TZANGION shifted from the sandal to the 
boot; Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 922.26—-27) 
considered white boots, krepides, reaching up to 
the knees, as the typical footgear of a laborer; in 
artistic representations, the emperor and mem- 
bers of his family are always depicted wearing the 
same type of high red boots, adorned with little 
rows of pearls, esp. at the tps and ankles. The 
Virgin Mary is shown wearing this kind of foot- 
gear, although without pearls; their bright color 
contrasts with her dark robes. Angels too wear 
such boots when clad in the imperial Loros. 
Courtiers are depicted as shod in black, though 


796 FOREIGNERS 


little can be seen of the form of their shoes under 
the long tunics. Active figures in shorter tunics 
are shown wearing high boots to the mid-calf, 
composed either of what looks like soft white 
leather above a hard black sole or of strap-work 
like a high sandal; in many of these cases it is 
hard to determine what is legging and what is 
shoe. Shepherds, such as those in scenes of the 
Nativity, occasionally wear fleece leggings above 
bare feet; bare feet are otherwise rare, reserved 
for peripheral figures such as demoniacs. John 
Chrysostom considered it shameful to appear in 
the agora without hypodemata, but going barefoot 
was a common form of penance and mortification 
of the flesh. 

In art, monks and the clergy are depicted as 
wearing low black slippers, surely the kaligia men- 
tioned in typika; for example, at the Pantokrator 
monastery in Constantinople a monk was issued 
two pairs of kaligia annually (P. Gautier, REB 32 
[1974] 65.60g-10), at the Kosmosoteira at Bera 
one pair (L. Petit, FRAIK 13 [1908] 49.17). In the 
late Roman period one form of sandals was called 
kampagia. JOHN Lypos (De mag. 30.22—32.5) de- 
scribed them as black footgear protecting the sole 
and toes and bound with leather straps to the 
ankle. They formed a part of the patrician cos- 
tume. There were also military kampagia (Lat. 
campagi militares), mentioned in Diocletian’s Price 
Edict; according to Malalas (Malal. 322.10-11), 
soldiers wore kampagia and chlamydes at festivities. 
In the Kletorologion of Philotheos and De ceremoniis, 
kampagia are the footgear of officials. 

Footgear was produced by SHOEMAKERS from 
leather and cloth, esp. silk. Shoes were usually 
black or white, though bright colors (purple, green, 
blue) had social significance and were worn by 
the emperor and officials of highest ranks. Infor- 
mation on the price of shoes is scarce: in Diocle- 
tian’s Price Edict it ranges between 50 and 120 
denarii, in a Vazelon document of 1272 kaligia 
cost two asproi. 


Lit. Koukoules, Bios 4:395—-418. K. Wessel, RBK 3:445- 
48. ~A.K., N.P.S. 


FOREIGNERS (ێvot, also ethniko1) were equated 
in the late Roman Empire with BARBARIANS since 
it was assumed that the empire encompassed the 
entire civilized world, the OIKOUMENE. Foreigners 
were either direct enemies Or MERCENARIES and 


FOEDERATI. In the late 4th and 5th C. they domi- 
nated the Roman army, providing such high- 
ranking generals as GAINAS, STILICHO, and ASPAR; 
this provoked a xenophobic reaction sometimes 
expressed in demands for the restoration of a 
native army (SYNESIOS), sometimes in massacres 
of Germanic garrisons (whose soldiers were also 
unpopular as Arian heretics), and sometimes in 
attempts to replace foreigners by local tribes such 
as the Isaurians. After the 7th C. the mass re- 
cruitment of foreigners as mercenaries ceased, 
even though some foreign contingents (e.g., the 
“Persian tagma” of THEOPHOBOS) served in Byz. 
armies. The late gth-C. Kletorologion of Philotheos 
(Oikonomides, Listes 177.29—30) lists as ethnikoi 
the Khazars, Hagarenes, Franks, and the enig- 
matic Pharganoi. The recruitment of foreigners 
(Rus’, Franks-Normans, Englishmen, etc.) in- 
creased after the end of the 10th C. They formed 
a special corps of ethnikoi (e.g., Lavra 1, n0.33.82) 
under the command of an ethnarches (Oikono- 
mides, Listes 271.24) or primikerios of the ethnikei 
(Zacos, Seals 2, no.732). 

In the 12th C. the role of Turkish mercenaries 
became probably more important than that of 
Westerners. At the same time the character of 
Western infiltration began to change: from the 
12th C. onward, Western residents tended to be 
diplomats and advisers rather than military com- 
manders; an esp. significant group among them 
were MERCHANTS, primarily Italians (Venetians, 
Genoese, etc.), who settled in special colonies in 
both Constantinople and the provinces. 

The government tried to make foreigners ad- 
just to Byz. conditions: they were given lands and 
sometimes tax privileges, and marriage with Greeks 
was encouraged: the vita of Athanasia of Aegina 
refers to an edict that required all single women 
and widows to marry ethnikoi (F. Halkin, Six inédits 
d’hagiologie byzantine [Brussels 1987] 181.7—g). The 
attitude toward foreigners outside the empire was 
also shifting: the system of foederati gradually dis- 
appeared, and the concept of equilateral alliances 
with western, northern, and eastern powers 
(Frankish and later German empire, Caliphate, 
Khazar Khaganate, etc.) was introduced; the re- 
lations with allies were regulated by political and 
commercial TREATIES. Nevertheless the percep- 
tion of foreigners as barbarians, heterodox, and 
schismatics prevailed; Kekaumenos argued against 
raising foreigners to high rank, Constantine VII 


Porphyrogennetos discouraged imperial mar- 
riages with foreigners, and the number of such 
matches remained limited in the 10th and 11th 
C. In the 12th C. this attitude began to change, 
and the number of marriages with foreign princes 
increased dramatically. Niketas Choniates empha- 
sized that there were bad and good foreigners 
and dared to create an idealized portrait of FRED- 
ERICK I BARBAROSSA. Commercial competition and 
the increasing political dominance of Italians in 
Byz. cities as well as the narrow-minded policy of 
the Catholic church and the Frankish princes on 
territories occupied by the Crusaders contributed 
to growing animosity against Westerners, while 
economic collaboration, mixed marriages, and the 
need for joint resistance to the Turks created a 
basis for better mutual understanding. This am- 
bivalent situation is reflected in the unsuccessful 
attempt at UNION OF THE CHURCHES. 

LIT. Kazhdan-Epstein, Change 167—9686. M. Bibikov, “Das 
‘Ausland’ in der byzantinischen Literatur des 12. und der 


ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts,” BBA 52 (1985) 61— 
72- -A.K. 


FORGERY, LITERARY, a work whose actual 
author differs from the author whose name ap- 
pears in the title. One should distinguish between 
medieval and modern forgeries. The latter were 
the creation of scholars (primarily from the 16th 
to early igth C.) and were either ascribed to 
famous church fathers (e.g., A. Harnack, Die 
Pfaff schen Irenäus-fragmente als Falschungen Pfaffs 
nachgewiesen [Leipzig 1g00]) or were anonymous 
like the fragments of ToparcHa GoTHicus. Me- 
dieval forgeries include both legal (laws and doc- 
uments) and literary texts. Byz. forgeries were 
prompted primarily by religious zeal, the need to 
refute heretical views and corroborate those of 
the author by apostolic or patristic authority, or 
to promote the veneration of a local saint or 
martyr whose biography remained obscure. Polit- 
ical interests of the state, of an institution (like 
the papacy), or noble family could play an impor- 
tant role, and economic claims were involved in 
issuing bogus monastic charters. 

The forms of forgery varied: modest alterations 
and interpolations, fake translations (W. Speyer, 
JbAChr 11-12 [1968-69] 26—41), fake quotations 
In FLORILEGIA, false provimia to genuine works, 
APOCRYPHA, Lives of saints of Apostolic times pur- 
portedly written by their disciples (e.g., PANKRA- 


FORMULARIES 797 


TIOS OF TAORMINA), pseudonyma, and false min- 
utes of authoritative assemblies. The author of a 
fictitious text might even imitate archaic hand- 
writing (L. Rydén, DOP 32 [1978] 132-34). Among 
the most notorious ancient and medieval forgeries 
are the HISTORIA AUGUSTA, pseudo-DIONYS10S THE 
AREOPAGITE, the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS, and 
the DONATION OF CONSTANTINE. Many works were 
ascribed to famous writers (some to several dif- 
ferent ones); others appear under unknown names, 
but the events described are chronologically mis- 
placed. 

tir. W. Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen 
und christlichen Altertum (Munich 1971). G. Bardy, “Faux et 
fraudes littéraires dans l'antiquité chrétienne,” RHE 32 
(1936) 5—23, 275-302. O. Kresten, “Phantomgestalten in 
der byzantinischen Literaturgeschichte,” JOB 25 (1976) 207— 
22. Dölger, Diplomatik 384-402. E. Vranoussi, “Note sur 
quelques actes suspects ou faux de l'époque byzantine,” in 
PGEB 505-10. A. Tuilier, “Remarques sur les fraudes des 
Apollinaristes et des Monophysites,” in Texte und Textkritik 
(Berlin 1987) 581-90. P. Gray, “Forgery as an Instrument 
of Progress: Reconstructing the Theological Tradition in 
the Sixth Century,” BZ 81 (1988) 284-89. -A.K. 


FORMOSUS, pope (from 6 Oct. 891); born Rome? 
ca.815/16, died 4 Apr. 896. Bishop of Porto from 
864, Formosus served as legate of Popes NicHo- 
Las I and Hanprian II. In 866/7 he led a mission 
to Bulgaria to bring the country under Roman 
jurisdiction (Dujéev, Medioevo 1:183—g2). He also 
played an important role at the Council in Rome 
(July 869) that anathematized Photios. A candi- 
date for the papacy in 872, Formosus was de- 
feated by JOHN VIII and soon thereafter deposed 
from his bishopric and banished. He was restored 
to his see, however, in 883 by Pope Marinus [ 
and was elected pope after the death of Stephen 
V, despite already being bishop of another see. 
After he ascended the papal throne Formosus 
sought the support of Arnulf, king of the eastern 
Franks, who entered Rome and was crowned by 
Formosus. In his relations with Constantinople 
Formosus maintained neutrality between the par- 
ties of Photios and Ignatios. 

LIT. A. Lapôtre, Études sur la papauté au IX" siècle, vol. 1 
(Turin 1978) 1~120. Dvornik, Photian Schism 251-62. G. 
Arnaldi, “Papa Formoso e gli imperatori della casa di 


Spoleto,” Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia. Universilà di 
Napoli 1 (1951) 85-104. -A.K. 


FORMULARIES, mode! books for drafting doc- 
uments; used by major CHANCERIES and, more 


798 FORTIFICATIONS 


often, by less educated and less pretentious NO- 
TARIES. They reflect the reality that prevailed at 


a certain moment and in one particular part of 


the empire (the hypothesis of regronal formular- 
ies has been suggested on the basis of the pre- 
served notarial acts). Such collections of formulas, 
mostly from the 13th C. onward, are preserved 
in literary and legal MSS. ‘Phe chancery formulas 
were classified either by possible addressee in or- 
der to guarantee the respect of etiquette (as shown 
in the EkrHrsis Nea), or by subject in order to 
provide the proper rhetorico-philosophical pre- 
faces for solemn documents (e.g., PROOTMIA). 

Eb, Sathas, MB 6:607-40. S. Lampros, NE 14 (1917) 
20-23; 15 (1921) 152f, 164f. 337i. G. Ferrari, “Formulari 
notarili inedit dell’ età bizantina,” Buletino dell Istituto 
Storico Italiano 33 (1913) 41-126. A. Dain, “Formules de 
‘Commission’ pour un ‘nomikos’ et un “eparchos,’ ” REB 
16 (1958) 166-68; 22 (1964) 238-40. D. Simon, “Ein spät- 
byzantinisches Kaufformular,” in Flores Legum: Festschrift J. 
Scheltema (Groningen 1971) 155-81. J. Darrouzés, “Deux 
formules d'actes patriarchaux,” TM 8 (1981) 105711. 

-N.0O. 


FORTIFICATIONS. Fortification was a necessity 
that has left traces throughout the Byz. Empire, 


providing the most abundant and massive class of 


remains. Principles and techniques were inherited 
from the Romans; Byz. added little but consis- 
tently maintained a tradition of massive stone 
fortification. In the Roman defensive system, the 
main fortification was along the frontier (LIMES) 
where the bulk of the army was stationed, forming 
a network of fortresses strengthened by a deep 
militarized defensive zone. Within the empire, 
fortification was rare. 

The invasions of the 3rd C. brought significant 
changes: thereafter, crries were regularly sur- 
rounded by walls, a response to the constant dan- 
ger of attack. Major Byz. settlements were forti- 
hed and typically situated on a defensible hilltop. 
‘Phe fortress (kKASTRON), which contained the gar- 
rison and civil and ecclesiastical officials, often 
became the core of a settlement that extended 
outside the walls (EMpoRION). Characteristic Byz. 
fortifications consisted of fortified commercial cit- 
ies (e.g., CONSTANTINOPLE, THESSALONIKE, ATTA- 
LEIA); thematic capitals (NICAEA, ANKYRA) that 
were important military bases; subordinate mili- 
tary outposts (Koryaion); and forts that com- 
manded routes by land (Matacina) and sea (H1- 
ERON). For the rural population, refuge sites were 


extremely important, usually consisting of large 
and remote hilltops where the population of a 
district could Hee at the time of attack. Monks 
also felt the need for defense, so monasteries in 
the countryside were commonly fortified (N.C. 
Moutsopoulos in Pyrgot kai Kastra [Vhessalonike 
1980] 8—43). 

Byz. fortified sites were defended by man and 
by nature. Byz. defenses typically consisted of a 
curtain wall with projecting towers of varying 
shape and heavily fortified gates. Fhey were mas- 
sively built, with a core of mortared rubble and a 
facing whose nature varied with time and place. 
Elaborate fortifications had a lower outer wall 
(proteichisma). A moat (laphros) was common at sites 
on flat terrain. Defense was from platforms on 
the towers, where catapults and ballistas were 
employed, and from the parapets of the walls, 
manned by archers. Often a city had, besides the 
outer line of fortification, an inner citadel (koula 
in Kekaumenos). Larger fortifications had addi- 
tional defensive levels in chambers within walls 
and in towers. Fortifications were generally de- 
signed to take advantage of a natural situation, 
usually a steep hilltop, a river, or other obstacle. 
Many were located for strategic reasons at road 


junctions, mountain passes, river crossings, or 


Narrow straits. 

While large structures like the walls of Constan- 
unople, Nicaea, or Attaleia and barrier walls such 
as the HEXAMILION were imperial foundations, 
most Byz. fortifications are anonymous, and 
building inscriptions are very rare. Ht is likely that 
the majority were built and maintained by the 
government through imposition of the KASTRO- 
KTISIA, though the numerous refuge sites were 
probably the results of individual initiative. In the 
uith C. and later, concessions allowed individuals 
to build fortifications on their estates, lay and 
monastic alike. The walls of Constantinople were 
manned by troops of low ranks, nowmera, and 
teichistai, supplemented by the citizen militia; pro- 
vincial fortifications were defended by the the- 
matic troops, and minor fortifications by local 
landowners and citizens. 

Byz. fortifications show a distinct historical de- 
velopment, with constant change until the end of 
the empire. The greatest Byz. fortification, which 
served as the model for many others, though 
never equalled, was the “land wall” of Constanti- 
nople (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS 


or). Which had a triple rampart of moat, outer 
wall, and inner wall, and was carefully faced with 
ashlar masonry. At some distance from the “land 
wall” was the Long Wax of ‘Thrace. Justinian I 
built a great range of fortifications, with much 
variation according to circumstances (G. Rave- 
gnani, Castelli e città fortificate nel VI secolo [Ravenna 
1983]). In Africa, fortifications were usually small, 
of rectangular plan with corner towers, to protect 
a reduced population from revolt or attack, while 
in the Balkans networks of sinall forts centered 
on walled towns, or long fixed barriers such as 
the Hexamilion, ensured control of territory or 
blocked the passage of an enemy. These featured 
attached forts where the garrison could make a 
stand if the main line were overwhelmed. On the 
eastern fronuer, subject to the assault of a sophts- 
ticated enemy skilled in the use of siege machinery 
(see ARTILLERY AND SIEGE MACHINERY), ramparts 
were raised, towers, outer walls, and moats were 
added, and citadels which could be held indepen- 
dently of the rest were frequently created (e.g., 
DARA). 

‘The insecurity of the 7th C. produced an out- 
burst of fortification in Asia Minor, where massive 
walls were constructed for cities which often with- 
drew to an ancient acropolis, and for the bases of 
the new theme system. Many of these are faced 
with a careful arrangement of reused architec- 
tural fragments and reflect a variety of defensive 
techniques: closely set pentagonal towers and 
elaborate gateways at ANKYRA, indented traces 
with few towers at SARDIS and Epuesus. This 
period saw considerable construction of refuge 
forts, usually simply built of plain mortared rub- 
ble. Advances against the Arabs in the oth C. 
involved a major program of fortification, mani- 
festing stronger defensive techniques and a ma- 
sonry of broken spoils and bands of brick: at 
Ankyra, the circuit received a massive outer wall 
and citadel while the inner wall was raised and a 
continuous covered gallery with loopholes was 
added to increase firepower; at Nicaea the num- 
ber of towers was virtually doubled, and Kotyaion 
was built with a complete double circuit. 

The Turkish invasions provoked the next sig- 
nificant period of fortification. Alexios | built sim- 
ple coastal forts to provide bases for advance, 
while John H defended river crossings and roads 
by fortresses with towers of varied shape and a 
masonry of rubble and decorative brickwork. Un- 


FORTY MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA | 799 


der Manuel I there was a defensive system, the 
NEOKASTRA, Which included the massive walls of 
PERGAMON and several smaller forts set back in 
the hills. By his time, the idea of regular or dec- 
orauve facing was m decline, and the strong con- 
crete core was simply faced with rubble, covered 
by plaster for protection against the elements or 
the hooks of an enemy; walls were normally rein- 
forced with an internal network of wooden beams 
which also attached the facing to the core. Ad- 
aptauon to technological change is visible at Con- 
stantinople and Kotyaion, where Manuel I built 
towers suitable for the installation of the new 
heavier catapult, the trebuchet, and for use of the 
crossbow. ‘The Laskarids were also great fortifi- 
cation builders, with notable results at Nicaca. 
Under the Palaiologoi, Western techniques, such 
as tall keeps and machicolation, played an increas- 
ing role. The last advance appears in the walls of 


John VIH at Constantinople, with round ports 


for firearms, which were fundamentally to trans- 
form fortification. 

Until the 12th C., the art of fortification was 
far more developed in Byz. than the West. The 
great stone fortifications of the 7th C. have no 
counterpart in Europe. The CRUSADER CASTLES 
built in Syria, the Peloponnesos, and elsewhere, 
however, had innovative designs; and after the 
Crusades the West surpassed Byz., which has 
nothing to compare with the sophistication of 
French and English fortifications of the 13th C. 
Nevertheless, the walls of Byz. cities, which were 
usually far longer than those in Europe, proved 
adequate untl the advent of cannon. 

ur. C. Foss, D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications, an In- 
troduction (Pretoria 1986). A.W. Lawrence, “A Skeletal His- 
tory of Byzantine Fortification,” BSA 78 (1983) 171—227. 
T. Gregory, “The Fortified Cities of Byzantine Greece,” 
Archacology 35 (1982) 14-21. D. Ovéarov, Vizantijski i bůl- 
garski kreposti V-X vek (Sotia 1982). -C.F. 


FORTY MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA, saints; 
feastday g March. According to the homily of 
BASIL THE GREAT (PG 31:508—40), they were sol- 
diers condemned for their Christian beliefs; forced 
to stand naked all night in an icy lake, they froze 
to death. Their corpses were burned and the 
ashes thrown into the water. GREGORY OF NYSSA 
and esp. EPHREM THE SYRIAN developed the theme. 
Ephrem (or his Greek editor) provided a date and 
location for the martyrdom, near Pontc Sebasteia, 


800 





Forty MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA. Icon of the Forty Mar- 
tyrs; mosaic, ca.1300. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, 
D.C. 


during the reign of Licinius (P. Franchi de’- 
Cavalieri, infra 160). The author of an anonymous 
passio, SYMEON METAPHRASTES, and several other 
writers praised the martyrs; the story influenced 
both the legend of the Five MARTYRS OF SEBAS- 
TEIA (AB 17 [1898] 468f) and that of the Forty- 
TWO MARTYRS OF AMORION. In the Testament of the 
Forty Martyrs (preserved separately from the pas- 
sio) the martyrs (all carefully listed) request that 
their relics be deposited “in the place called Sarein 
near [or under the jurisdiction of] the polis of 
Zela.” Bonwetsch (infra), emphasizing the authen- 
ticity of the Testament, tried to discover in it traces 
of the original document. The cult of the martyrs 
spread broadly in the West and East; a Coptic MS 
of the 10th-11th C. presents a version very close 
to that of Basil (D.P. Buckle, BullJ/RylandsLib 6 
[1921-22] 355-57). 

Representation in Art. Portraits of the Forty 
Martyrs as busts adorn monuments from Cappa- 
docia to Rome, and the iconography of their mar- 


FORTY-TWO MARTYRS OF AMORION 


tyrdom was almost as widespread and established 
as any biblical feast scene: forty half-naked men 
of varying ages standing huddled together in shal- 
low water, some intrepidly supporting the faint, 
others praying or cowering with apprehension 
while Christ above witnesses their plight. Forty 
crowns sometimes hover in the sky over their 
heads. This composition, an almost “academic” 
study in male physique, was reused for the rep- 
resentation of a group of the damned in the Last 
Judgment frescoes in the parekklesion at CHORa, 
The basic composition, which appears first on 
1oth-C. ivories, was occasionally expanded to in- 
clude an image of the bathhouse and the guard 
who substituted at the last moment for the single 
member of the group who lost heart and fled to 
the warmth of the bathhouse (e.g., at ASINOU). 
Other episodes of the legend were also illustrated: 
the attempted stoning of the saints, the beheading 
of the survivors of the frozen lake, and the burn- 
ing, dispersal, and gathering of the relics (in the 
marginal PSALTERS, Der Nersessian, L’illustration 
II gaf, and in the prothesis of the Church of St. 
Sophia in Onr1p). These scenes may reflect a lost 
cycle in Constantinople or in the martyr’s church 
in Caesarea. 

SOURCES. O. von Gebhardt, Acta martyrum selecta: Ausge- 
wählte Martyreracten (Berlin 1go2) 166-81. D. Bonwetsch, 
“Das Testament der vierzig Märtyrer,” StGTAK 1.1 (Leipzig 


1897) 75—80. D. Hagedorn, “PUG I 41 und die Namen 
der vierzig Märtyrer von Sebaste,” ZPapEpig 55 (1984) 


146-53. 

trr. BHG 1201—1208n. P. Franchi de’Cavalieri, “I santi 
quaranta martiri di Sebasteia,” ST 49 (1928) 155-84. K.G. 
Kaster, LCI 8:550—-53. O. Demus, “Two Palaeologan Mo- 
saic Icons in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection,” DOP 14 
(1960) 96-109. Z. Gavrilović, “The Forty in Art,” in Byz. 
Saint 190-94. Maguire, Art & Eloquence 36—42. A. Chatzi- 
nikolaou, RBK 2:1059-61. ~A.K., N.P.S. 


FORTY-TWO MARTYRS OF AMORION, leg- 
endary saints executed in 845 by the Arabs in 
Samarra; feastday 6 Mar. The monk Euodios wrote 
the martyrs’ legend, probably soon after the event 
described. In a verbose preamble, he theorized 
that the adoption of heretical opinions by em- 
perors caused all Byz. defeats; the capture of 
Amorion in 838 was the last link in the chain. 
Evidently confusing the caliph al-Mu‘tasim (833- 
42) with his son al-Wathiq (842-47), during whose 
reign the martyrs were executed, Euodios credits 
“Abesak,” the protosymboulos of the Ishmaelites, 


with seizing Amorion after a 13-day siege, slaugh- 
tering all the inhabitants and soldiers, and 
leading the commanders of seven themes into 
captivity. Theological discussions between the 
martyrs and various people dispatched to the jail 
by the protosymboulos (gymnosophists, officials, 
Greek traitors) make up the core of the legend. 
The martyrs remained steadfast during their seven- 
year ordeal, rejecting Islam and defending Chris- 
tian values. Ethiopian executioners murdered them 
on the bank of the Euphrates. Apparently the last 
example of the genre of collective martyrdom 
(which did not survive the gth C.), Euodios’s leg- 
end was important to later literature: V. Vasil’ev- 
skij (infra, 101f) suggested that THEOPHANES Con- 
TINUATUS Was aware of Euodios; several versions 
of the legend appeared, including one ascribed 
to MICHAEL SYNKELLOS, 

Representation in Art. Unlike their counter- 
parts, the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia, these mar- 
tyrs were rarely represented; they appear merely 
as a group Of courtiers in chlamyses and tunics in 
a MS of the menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes 
in Messina (Univ. Bibl., San Salvatore 27, fol.172Vv). 

ED, Skazanya o 42 amorijskich mučenikach, ed. V. Vasil'ev- 
skij, P. Nikitin (St. Petersburg 1905). 


LIT. BHG 1209-1214c. A. Kazhdan, “Hagiographical 
Notes,” Byzantion 56 (1986) 150-60. —A.K., N.P.S. 


FORUM. See Acora. For forums of Constanti- 
nople, see CONSTANTINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF. 


FOUCHER OF CHARTRES. See FuLcHER OF 
CHARTRES. 


FOUNDER. See KTETOR. 


FOUNTAIN OF LIFE. The fountain of life 
(Gen 2:10) and its water were pervasive images 
of Christian salvation. Baptistery decoration 
throughout early Christendom showed the drink- 
ing harts of Psalm 42:1 (see DEER) or birds flank- 
ing vases. A 5th-C. floor mosaic at lunca in Tu- 
nisia shows the four rivers of PARADISE flowing 
from a circular fountain that recalls the Holy 
Sepulchre in JERUSALEM; from the 7th C. onward 
the Holy Sepulchre itself was called “the fountain 
of our resurrection.” Hymns call Christ a fountain 
of life and the source of the life-giving water that 


FOWL, DOMESTIC 801 


flows through the Gospels to nourish the Church 
and link the water that flowed from his side at 
the Crucifixion with baptism. Art reflects this lit- 
erary image only in the frontispiece to a 12th-C. 
Gospel book (E. Akurgal et al., Treasures of Turkey 
[Geneva 1966] 119); there, to illustrate a verse 
calling the Evangelists rivers of the Word, the 
Evangelists are depicted with John pointing to 
Christ as their source. A fountain came to signify 
the harmony of the Gospels—fourfold but issuing 
from one source—and the ornamental vases with 
birds or beasts found in illuminated MSS may 
refer to this. The Virgin Mary was known as the 
Zoodochos Pece, or “life-giving fountain.” 

uT. P.A. Underwood, “The Fountain of Life in Manu- 
scripts of the Gospels,” DOP 5 (1950) 41-138. T. Velmans, 
“Quelques versions rares du theme de la Fontaine de Vie 
dans lart paléochrétien,” CahArch 19 (1969) 29-43. R.S. 
Nelson, “Text and Image in a Byzantine Gospel Book in 


Istanbul (Ecumenical Patriarchate, cod. 3)” (Ph.D. diss., 
New York University, 1978) 187-97. -A.W.C, 


FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. See 
CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF. 


FOWL, DOMESTIC. The Geopontka (bk.14) 
preserves excerpts from ancient agronomists on 
domestic fowl, describing pigeons and hens as well 
as peacocks, pheasants, geese, and ducks; the Pou- 
LOLOGOS has almost exactly the same assortment 
of fowl—hens, pigeons, geese, pheasants, and 
peacocks. Chickens provided the Byz. with the 
best meat: the hen (vrnztha) in the Poulologos (wv. 
260—65) boasts that her chicks (poulia) have been 
eaten by bishops, exarchs, priests, Vardariotes, 
ambassadors, emperors, and senators, while a 1 2th- 
C. author (Eust. Thess., Opuscula 311.42-—54) de- 
scribes a fat, white ornis marinated in wine and 
stuffed with dumplings. Chickens formed a part 
of the KANISKION (e.g., /vir. 1, n0.20.97), and hens’ 
eggs were common even in the houses of the poor 
(S. Papadimitriu, Feodor Prodrom [Odessa 1905] 
165, n.107). John II] Vatatzes encouraged the 
development of the poultry “industry” in western 
Asia Minor and presented his wife with a beautiful 
crown acquired with money earned from the sale 
of eggs. Domestic BIRDS other than chickens were 
rare; the martyr Tryphon is said to have fed geese 
in his boyhood (Rudakov, Kultura 281, n.g6). 
PEACOCKS were popular on the estates of great 


802 FRACTION 


landlords such as Digenes Akritas, primarily to 
adorn the gardens. The Geoponika also recom- 
mends pigeon manure as fertilizer. 


ui. Koukoules, Bios 5:66—75. AR. WN. 


FRACTION (7 KAaous Tov àprov; peio pos, from 
medttw, “to dissect”), ritual breaking of the con- 
secrated bread before COMMUNION. First men- 
tioned in the New Testament, the ritual soon 
became a synonym for Eucnarisr (Acts 2:42). By 
the end of the 4th C. it was divided into a “sym- 
bolic” fraction and the “comminution” or actual 
breaking up of the bread for communion. Frac- 
tion first symbolized the participation of all in the 
one loaf as a sign of unity in one communion. By 
the 6th C. emphasis shifted to passion symbolism, 
with the bread seen as Christ’s “broken” body 
(Eutychios of Constantinople—PG 86.2:2396A; cf. 
Apophthegmata Patrum, PG 65:156C-160A); from 
the 12th C. “Lamb of God” (amnos) formulas 
accompany the “symbolic” fraction; and from the 
13th C. the term melismos prevails, frst appearing 
as a caption for images (e.g., the apse of Soro- 
éan!) that show, with the stark eucharistic realism 
of medieval East and West, the Christ Child lying 
on the paten awaiting dismemberment (M. Gari- 
dis, JOB 32.5 [1982] 495-502). 
uit. R. Taft, “Melismos and Comminution: The Frac- 
von and its Symbolism in the Byzantine Tradition,” in 
Traditio et progressio: Studi liturgici in onore del Prof. Adrien 
Nocent, OSB, ed. G. Farnedi (Rome 1988) 531-52. 
=R.F. T. 


FRANCE (®payyia, also Teppavia—Ditten, 
Russland-Exkurs 124) emerged as a successor to 
the western Frankish empire after the consolida- 
tion of the territory around Paris during the 1oth— 
12th C. Southern France (Provence, esp. Mont- 
PELLIER) was involved in trade with the Levant. 
and the penetration of the CarHars in this area 
shows the existence of cultural and religious ties 
with Byz. In 988 Hugh Capet planned to ask for 
a Byz. princess for his son Robert, but his letter 
probably was not sent (A. Vasiliev, DOP 6 [1951] 
229-34). Manuel I, in his conflict with FREDERICK 
I Barsarossa, sought an alliance with Provence 
and France and married his son Alexios IL to 
AGNES OF FRANCE. The French played a major 
role in the Crusades—first in the troops of inde- 
pendent nobles (Goprrey OF BoulLLon. Hugh of 


Vermandois, RAYMOND OF “FOULOUSE, etc.), then 
in the army of Louis VIE. The French contingents 
of the Fourth Crusade were significant; Thibaut 
of Champagne was its first leader, replaced, after 
his sudden death, by BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT, 
After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 BALDWIN 
OF FLANDERS became the first Latin emperor, 
Boniface received the kingdom of ‘Thessalonike, 
and many French knights won various fiefs. From 
1261 until 1453, Byz. emperors made frequent 
appeals to France for assistance against the Turks, 
The emperor Manter IP PaLaioLoGos went so 
far as to travel to Paris (1490—01) to plead his 
case to Charles VI (1380—1422), but apart from 
a small contingent of troops received very little 
help. 
tir. V.K. Ronin, “Vizantija v sisteme vnesnepoliticeskich 
predstavlenij rannekarolingskich pisatelej,” VizVrem 47 (1986) 
85-94. M. Dabrowska, Bizancjum, Franca i Stolika apostolska 
w drugiej polowine XIT wieku (Lodz 1986). Eadem, “L'atti- 
tude pro-byzantine de St. Louis.” BS 50 (1989) 11-23. R.A. 
Jackson, “De l'influence du cérémonial byzantin sur le sacre 
des rois de France,” Byzantion 51 (1981) 201-10, 
-A.K., R.B.H. 


FRANCISCANS, the Order of Friars Minor or 
Minorites {called ġpépior by the Byz.). Founded 
by Francis of Assisi in 1209, the order expanded 
rapidly, numbering approximately 3,000 friars by 
1221. It soon planned missionary expeditions to 
the East to convert the Muslims. Francis himself 
made a trip to the Holy Land in 1219 and then 
preached at the court of the sultan in Egypt. 
Other Franciscans soon became involved in mis- 
sionary activities in the East, including Constan- 
tinople and Kaffa. By 1220 the Franciscans were 
influential at the court of the Latin Empire of 
Constantinople. In the 13th C. the Franciscan 
province of Romania expanded to roughly 20 
convents. A number of Franciscan theologians, 
many of whom spoke Greek, served as papal 
legates to the Byz. court in Nicaea to discuss 
controversial points of theology, thus preparing 
the way for the Union of Lyons in 1274. The 
earliest of these was the English Franciscan, Haymo 
of Faversham, a master of theology at the Uni- 
versity of Paris, whom Pope GREGORY IX sent to 
Emp. John HI Vatatzes in 1234 to discuss the 
UNION OF THE CHURCHES. The practice continued 
until the decisive missions of the Greek-born 
Franciscan, John Parastron, who accepted Mr 


chac! VILT's profession of faith prior to the Coun- 

cil of Lyons and also acted as interpreter there. 
The most visible mark of the order’s presence 

in the capital during the Latin occupation of 1204- 


61 is a cycle of frescoes devoted to the life of 


St. Francis In KALENDERHANE Cami. When the 
Byz. recaptured Constantinople in 1261. the last 
Latin patriarch of the city left a member of the 
order there as his vicar, although the Franciscan 
convent was evidently abandoned. lIn ca.12g6, 
however, the Franciscans returned and kept a 
convent in Constantinople until they were again 
expelled in 1307. Thereafter they maintained their 
house in PERA, continuing to serve as imperial 
emissarics to the pope as well as papal envoys to 
the inperial court throughout the 14th C. Some 
Franciscan churches built in the Greek provinces 
sull survive, esp. on Crete. 

ur. RAL. Wolff, “Phe Latin Empire of Constantinople 
and the Franciscans,” Traditio 2 (1944) 213-37. M. Ron- 
caplia, Les Frères Mineurs et Eglise grecque orthodoxe au XH 1e 
siecle (1231—1274) (Cairo 1954). B. Altaner, “Die Kenntnis 
des Griechischen in den Missionsorden während des 19. 
und aq. Jahrhunderts,” ZKirch 53 (1934) 436-93. B.K. 
Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Me- 
dieval Greece (Chicago 1979) g3f. 1902—11. -=F.K., AC. 


FRANKOI (Ppáyyor, Ppayxor), ethnic term de- 
rived from the Latin term Franci. Prokopios, Aga- 
thias, Theophanes, and even Constantine VII 
equated the Frankoi with the GERMANOI in gen- 
eral, and at the same time used the term specifi- 
cally to describe the Franks; thus Theophanes 
(Fheoph. 455-20) spoke of CHARLEMAGNE as a 
“king of the Frankoi.” In the ioth C. the term 
was transferred to the Germans, and Orro F THE 
Great was addressed as the king or even basileus 
of the Frankoi. In the 11th C., the term lost any 
precise significance: Frankot or Phrangopouloi 
primarily designated Normans from Italy, but 
Niketas Choniates contrasted “the tribe of the 
Frankoi” (Nik.Chon. 66.12), meaning the French, 
with the Alamanoi (ALEMANNI) or Germans. Fran- 
koi are listed in some chrysobulls of Alexios l, 
sometimes between the Inglinot or English, and 
Nemitzoi or Germans (c.g. Lavra 1, 0.48.28, 
4.1086), but itis hard to decide whether Normans 
or French were meant. 

‘The tern: was ultimately expanded to include 
the whole Catholic population of Europe; for 
example, Sphrantzes (Sphr. 58.21—23) defined 


FRANKS 803 


Franko as “Western Christians.” The word came 
to have a pejorative and negative connotation, 
and in 1274 a mob in Constantinople taunted and 
accused George Metochites—envoy of Michael 
VHI, who had agreed to ecclesiastical union at 
Lyons—of becoming a Frank. 

tn. W. Ohnsorge, Abendland und Byzanz (Darmstadt 1979) 


Moles, “Nationalism and Byzantine Greece,” 
-R.B.H.. A.R. 


227254 L 


GRBS 10 (1909) G5= 108. 
FRANKOPOULOS. Sce PHRANGOPOULOS. 


FRANKS, a Germanic people, probably formed 
during the grd C. from a regrouping of several 
different tribes that inhabited the eastern bank of 
the lower Rhine. Subdued by Constantius Chlorus 
and Constantine 1, the Franks were heavily re- 
cruited into the Roman army and a segment known 
as the Salans was settled in what is now the 
Netherlands. In the early 6th C., the Franks were 
united politically by Clovis (Chlodovechus, 481/2- 
511), who extended Frankish rule over the whole 
of Roman Gaul with the exception of Septimania 
and Provence. Clovis also converted to Orthodox 
Christianity, the first barbarian king to do so. This 
conversion and his victory over the VISIGOTHS 
(508) contributed to a Byz. perception of the 
Franks as potential allies against the Arian Gothic 
kingdoms and later the Lombards in Italy. Mer- 
ovingian kings from Clovis onward were fre- 
quently honored by Constantinople with the titles 
consul and patrikios. 

Relations between the Franks and Byz. were 
often strained over conflicting interests in Italy, a 
situation exploited by the papacy in its struggle 
to extricate itself from Byz. control. The papal 
coronation of CHARLEMAGNE In 800 brought the 
Franks into political, religious, and ideological 
competition with Byz., while Charlemagne’s vic- 
tory over the AvARS was a threat to Byz. influence 
on the Lower Danube. The decline of the Frank- 
ish empire in the gth C. and its division into three 
parts by the Treaty of Verdun in 843 decreased 
the rivalry; Arab attacks on Italy even contributed 
to an alliance between Lours [I and Basil 1. In 
the roth C. the role of the Western Empire was 
assumed by GERMANY, and creation of the king- 
dom of France began. 


ure. L. Musset, The Barbarian Invasions (Loudon 1975) 
68-80. P.]. Geary, Before France and Germany (Oxford 1988). 


804 | FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA 


E. James, The Origins of France (Hong Kong 1982). A. 
Gasquet, L'Empire byzantin el la monarchie franque (Paris 
1888; rp. New York 1972). P. Goubert, Byzance avant [Islam 
2.1 (Paris 1956). ~R.B.H. 


FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA (lt., lit. “Red- 
Beard”), king of Germany (1152—90) and West- 
ern emperor (crowned Rome 18 June 1155); born 
ca.1125, died near SELEUKEIA in Isauria 10 June 
1190. When he succeeded Conran III, Frederick 
(Ppedepixos) considered marrying a Byz. prin- 
cess. He deemed the invasion of southern Italy 
(1155-57) by Manuta I a threat to his own claims 
there. When Manuel allied himself with William I 
of Sicily (1158), Frederick became his major West- 
ern Opponent. Against Byz. pressure Frederick 
sought to maintain German ascendancy over 
Hungary; with the installation of BéLa IHI, Man- 
uel triumphed there. From 1165 Manuel subsi- 
dized the League of Lombard towns in northern 
Italy, which in 1176 defeated Frederick (P. Clas- 
sen, Ausgewählte Aufsätze [Sigmaringen 1983] 155- 
70). Pope ALEXANDER III also opposed Frederick 
and ca.1166-67 considered recognizing Manuel 
as sole emperor (ibid., 176-83; R.-J. Lilie, ByzF 9 
[1985] 237-43). When in 118g Frederick led the 
German portion of the Third Crusade through 
Byz. territory, Isaac H (to fulfill his agreement 
with Saladin) attempted to trap him in Thrace. 
German devastation compelled Isaac to yield 
(Treaty of Adrianople, 14 Feb. 1190). Frederick 
passed through Byz. Anatolia with little friction. 
Niketas CHONIATES admired Frederick’s devotion 
to the Crusade’s goal. 

LIT. Ohnsorge, Abend. & Byz. 411-91. G. Cankova- 
Petkova, “Friedrich I. Barbarossa und die sozial-politischen 
Verhältnisse auf dem Balkan zur Zeit des HI. Kreuzzuges,” 
Palaevbulgarica 6.2 (1982) 69—74. E. Eickhoff, Friedrich Bar- 
barossa im Orient: Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs 1. [JstMitt, supp. 
17] (Tübingen 1977). K. Zeillinger, “Friedrich I. Barba- 
rossa, Manuel EL Komnenos und Süditalien in den Jahren 
1155/56,” RömHistMitt 27 (1985) 53-83. -C.M.B. 


FREDERICK II HOHENSTAUFEN, king of Sic- 
ily (1198—1250), German emperor (1212—50); born 
Jesi 26 Dec. 1194, died Fiorentino 13 Dec. 1250. 
In his long struggle with the papacy, Frederick 
found it useful to build up contacts in Byz., esp. 
with JOHN III Varatzes (E. Merendino, Byzantino- 
Sicula 2 [1974] 371-83). By the late 1230s rumors 
were circulating in the West that Vatatzes had 
promised to do homage to Frederick if he helped 


him recover Constantinople. The Nicaean em- 
peror contributed troops to Frederick’s forces at 
the siege of Brescia in 1238. In return, Frederick 
barred passage through southern Italy to forces 
going to the rescue of Latin Constantinople. If 
never technically a vassal, the Nicaean emperor 
allowed himself to be bound very closely to Fred- 
erick by marrying Frederick’s illegitimate daugh- 
ter, Constance Lancia (“Anna”), ca.1244 (Reg 3, 
no.177g). Vatatzes gained little from this alliance. 

When papal forces defeated Frederick at Parma 
in 1248, Vatatzes decided that more might be 
gained from the papacy. In 1249 the Nicaean 
emperor reached an understanding with papal 
envoys over the question of the UNION OF THE 
CuurcHes. The Hohenstaufen connection seems 
to have polarized the Nicaean court between those 
who wanted rapprochement with the papacy and 
those, like THEODORE II Laskaris, who favored a 
continuing understanding with the Hohenstau- 
fen. Theodore was much impressed by this up- 
holder of the ideal of imperial authority in the 
face of the challenge from the papacy. 

Frederick’s chancery was able to conduct its 
diplomacy with Byz. in Greek. Frederick’s patron- 
age of Greek men of letters contributed to the 
last flowering of Greek literature in southern Italy, 
centered on the monastery of S. Nicola di Casole 
(M. Gigante, Poeti bizantini di Terra d'Otranto del 
secolo XIL[* [Galatina 1986]). 

LIT. D. Jacoby, “The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the 
Collapse of the Hohenstaufen Power in the Levant,” DOP 
40 (1986) 83—101. E.H. Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 


Eng. tr. (New York 1957). P. Zavoronkov, “Nikejskaja im- 
perija i Zapad,” VizVrem 36 (1974) 110-14. —M.J.A. 


FREEDOM (é\evéepia), a concept developed in 
antiquity as the opposite of sLavery and potential 
enslavement by the barbaric world. Freedom was 
conceived of as the possibility of free actions lim- 
ited by virtue and responsibility, that is, by inner 
and social factors. Stoicism introduced the con- 
cept Of DETERMINISM (as Opposed to FREE WILL) 
and saw freedom as the acceptance of fate. Chris- 
tianity made the problem even more complex by 
replacing blind fate with God’s providence (PRo- 
nota) and by emphasizing the ethical and soter- 
iological aspect of freedom. The problem became 
evident in discussion incited by Pelagius (see PE- 
LAGLANISM) and in Christian refutations of Mani- 
chaean puaALism. John of Damascus, using NE- 


MESIOS and some other predecessors, formulated 
that man is autexvusios, possessing tree will, and 
responsible for evil-doing since God cannot be the 
cause of bad behavior; neither necessity (ananke 
or heimarmene, for eternal phenomena), nor na- 
ture (for plants and animals), nor Tycue (for 
chance events), nor automaton (sheer coincidence) 
determines events (Exp. fidei 39.23—39, ed. Kotter, 
Schriften 2:97). Man is free to choose his actions, 
even though sometimes providence prevents his 
plans from achieving fulfillment (Exp. fidei 40.17~ 
18, p.g8). Freedom can be the source of wrong- 
doing: the ideal of behavior is the renunciation 
of desires and full subordination to God, whereas 
demons and evildoers are free. 

Parallel to this transformation of ancient free- 
dom into Byz. subordination was a shift in the 
perception of slavery: the saint became the slave 
(doulos) of God, the courtier the slave of the em- 
peror. Political eleutheria acquired a new meaning 
not connected to the idea of a free and civilized 
society: eleutheria began to designate tax exemp- 
tion, and ELEUTHEROI were those people free from 
state taxes. 

uit. D. Nestle, Eleutheria: Studien zum Wesen der Freiheit 
bei den Griechen und im Neuen Testament, 1. Die Griechen 
(Tubingen 1967). S. Lyonnet, Liberté chrétienne et loi de 
l'Esprit selon Saint Paul (Paris 1954). H. Beck, Vorsehung und 


Vorherbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzantiner 
(Rome 1937). -A.K. 


FREE WILL (6éAnpa yvwpiKkórv, “will of choice”), 
a concept that stands at the center of the contro- 
versy over MONOTHELETISM. Patr. SERGIOS | ar- 
gued in his letter to Pope Honorius that two 
contradictory wills in Christ, the divine and hu- 
man, cannot be accepted because such an idea 
would establish in him two “subjects” or “per- 
sons,” thereby falling into the heresy of NESTO- 
RIANISM. It is the hypostasis of the Logos who is 
freely obedient to God, experiencing no conflict 
and moving the human reality of Christ. 

For MaxiMos THE Conressor the doctrine of 
“one hypostatic will of the Logos” leads to the 
negation of a free human will in Christ, and 
consequently to the abrogation of the nature of 
the soul. On the other hand, he agrees with the 
Monothelites that any opposition to the will of 
God, even in Gethsemane, must be excluded in 
Christ, and that a unity that consists only in a 
common goal possessed by two wills is not suff- 


FRESCO TECHNIQUE | 805 


cient to protect against this. Further, he agrees 
that such a view ultimately implies Nestorianism. 
The human will of Christ, so he argues, must be 
understood as a capacity of self-determination 
belonging to human nature, but not as a will of 
choice. Such a gnomic will is found only in a 
“person” or hypostasis “enabled” to make deci- 
sions, or better, condemned, because this freedom 
of choice is merely a deficient mode of freedom, 
rooted not in man’s true nature, but in his exis- 
tential condition after the sin of Adam. For Maxi- 
mos, Adam possessed no gnomic will before his 
sin, and yet he sinned. 

John of Damascus took up the doctrine that 
Christ possessed no human gnomic will on ac- 
count of the hypostatic union; yet one can speak 
of one gnomic will of Christ precisely because of 
the hypostatic union and the unity of the willed 
objective (meaning that “in both his natures he 
wills and acts for our salvation”). “For the natural 
human will” in Christ willed the same as God 
(Exp. fidei 36.104, 120~23, ed. Kotter, Schriften 
2:g1f). PHoTtios, who quotes this text in his Am- 
philochia (80.60—86, ed. L.G. Westerink, 5:113f), 
concludes that neither God nor Christ has a gnomic 
will (80.184—225, p.117f). 

uit. Balthasar, Kosmische Lit. 2562—69. K.-H. Uthemann, 


“Das anthropologische Modell der hypostatischen Union,” 
Kleronomia 14 (1982) 285—293. —K.-H.U. 


FRESCO TECHNIQUE. A modified buon fresco, 
involving the application of lime-binding pig- 
ments directly to a layer of fine wet plaster added 
over an initial plaster coat, was used throughout 
Byz. times as an alternative to Mosaic for wall 
decoration. No Byz. term corresponds exclusively 
to this technique. Because of its relative cheapness 
or its inherent modeling potential, fresco became 
increasingly popular in the 13th—14th C. 
Examination of frescoes as well as literary allu- 
sions to painting indicate that pigments were ap- 
plied in layers, even though the mixing of pig- 
ments in the modeling of flesh is found occasionally. 
Final flesh pigments, black or dark ochre outlines, 
and white highlights as well as inscriptions were 
normally added only after the initial layers of the 
painting had dried, a practice that has contributed 
to their loss. The range of COLOR was limited to 
natural pigments that remained stable in conjunc- 
tion with the lime of the plaster, for example, 


806 FRIENDSHIP 


lime white and lime putty, ochres varying from 
bright red and yellow to dark brown, carth green, 
and carbon black. A black wash was commonly 
used under blue (azurite) or green to produce a 
dark ground. The appearance of more expensive 
pigments such as ultramarine blue (from lapis 
lazuli) and gold and silver foil distinguish lavish 
works. Vermilion is also not unusual, although it 
tends to turn black. The rich coloristic impression 
given by many surviving fresco programs is a 
testament to the ingenuity with which masters 
manipulated their limited palette. 

uit. D.V. 
Medieval Painting (New York 1956). Winfield, “Painting 
Methods.” The ‘Painters Manual’ of Dionysius of Fourna, tr. 
P. Hetherington (London 1974) 4-16. -A.J W. 


FRIENDSHIP (¢tAta) was an important category 
of ancient ETHICS, praised in both myth and phi- 
losophy. The church fathers, although not reject- 
ing philia, contrasted it with true spiritual LOVE or 
agape. According to BASIL THE GREAT (ep.133, ed. 
Y. Courtonne, 2:47.1—2), “corporeal” friendship 
is a condition fostered by long association. Byz. 
epistolography preserved a stereotypical attitude 
toward friendship, with pertinent complaints about 
the friend’s silence. In the 11th C. the question 
of friendship was much discussed; Symeon the 
Theologian and Kekaumenos denied that friend- 
ship was a virtue, the latter opposing to it the 
nuclear family and the tormer the individual path 
of salvation. In contrast, Michael Psellos highly 
approved of friendship in theory and acted en- 
ergetically on behalf of his friends in practice. In 
Niketas Choniates, the notion of philia acquires a 
broad range of meanings: alliance between states, 
semifeudal allegiance, political support, respect, 
although “pure friendship” appears infrequently. 
While antiquity emphasized primarily male 
friendship, the church fathers introduced the 
concept of heterosexual friendship between two 
celibate persons; equal “in Christ,” the partners 
in this relationship appear often as the male in- 
structor and female apprentice. 

uir. L. Vischer, “Das Problem der Freundschaft bei den 
Kirchenvatern,” Theologische Zeitschrift q (1953) 1737-200. 
K. Treu, “Philia und agape,” Studi clasici 3 (1961) 421-27. 
F. ‘Vinnefeld, “ ‘Freundschaft in den Briefen des Michael 
Psellos,” JOB 22 (1973) 151-68. Kazhdan-Constable. By- 
zanlium 28f. -A.K. 


Thompson, The Materials and Techniques of 


Expo a barbara up Sou: P ak aes 24 
bb paadasulis Navetrmepy rieo Ager aoc t sgm 


yor ou ble pdrar roy ġo oy 





oné u o Nart Soo ae sided in Gaal 
k; fue pisos lak iraroy fas {Ab wears 95 ay ` 
zp ww Auo nonépuh hth bp: O A 
Frieze GospFLs. Miniature from a frieze Gospel page 
{Paris gr. 74, fol.4v); IIth C. Bibliothèque Nationale, 
Paris. The miniature depicts the Flight into Egypt. 


FRIEZE GOSPELS, conventional term for illus- 
trated MSS in which successive scenes, in the 
narrative order of cach Gospel, are arranged in 
strips across the page and within the body of the 
text block. Iustrations of these MSS also include 
headpiece miniatures (S. Tsuji, DOP 29 [1975] 
165-203) and Evangelist portraits. Only two such 
books (Florence, Laur. 6.26 and Paris, B.N. gr. 
74), of the 11th or early 12th C., survive. 

ur. T. Velmans, La Fétraévangile de la Laurentienne (Paris 
1971). H. Omont, Leangiles avee peintures byzantines du XIe 
siècle, 2 vols. (Paris m.d.). -AC. 


FRONTALITY, the arrangement of figures in a 
work of art so that the beholder engages them 
face to face. Like the related principle of SYMME- 
TRY, it is fundamental in Byz. composition. Fol- 
lowing the decline of three-dimensional scuLp- 
TURE, which allowed a virtually infinite variety of 
axes and poses, frontality became pronounced on 
aulic reliefs such as the base of the OBELISK OF 
THEODOSIOS in the Hippodrome and generally in 
PORTRAITS AND PORTRAITURE. Almost invariably 
the most important figure in an image is shown 
in this manner, although in compositions such as 
the Anasrasis the effect may be mitigated by the 
protagonist’s attitude toward other participants. 
Established in icon painting by the 6th C., fron- 
tality became a dominant formal characteristic, 
allowing immediate recognition of a holy figure, 
his or her accessibility and, above all, the intensity 


of private communication, Fhat the Byz. were 
conscious of this unmediated experience even in 
monumental decoration is demonstrated by the 
ekphrasis of the Pantokrator in the Church of the 
Hoty AposTLes (Constantinople) writen by 
Nicholas Mresarrres (ed. Downey, 870, 901). 

ur. Demus, Byz Movwuc 7f 27-29. M. Schapiro, Words 
and Pictures (The Wague—Paris 1973) 38—49. 59-63. K-M. 
Swoboda, “Die Frontalfigur zwischen Spaétantike und 
Frühgouk,” in Arte in Europa. Serati di storia dell'arte in onore 
di Edoardo Arslan, vol. 1 (Mikan 1966) 271-77. -A.C 


FRONTIER (ôpıov). In antiquity the fronter was 
considered as a demarcation line between the 
civilized OIKOUMENE and the “savage” world of the 
BARBARIAN; its significance was more cultural than 
political and therefore fluctuated. Regular rela- 
tions with the Persian Empire, and later with the 


Arab caliphate, contributed to a elarificauon of 


the legal concept of a frontier, while necessities 
of defense produced a concrete, physical notion 
of a border. Prokopios, who paid serious attention 
to the problem of frontiers, recognized them as 
following natural barriers—RIVERS, mountains, 
deserts, seas; the LIMES was a manmade fortified 
fronuer, The idea of frontier, however, was not 
consistently applied: for a long period Cyprus was 
shared between the Arabs and the Byz., while 
certain independent regions and cities were con- 
sidered (theoretically) as parts of Byz. territory 
under the command of Byz. officials (or local 
rulers adorned with Byz. titles). Intermediary zones 
populated by bilingual settlers, subject to regular 
raids from both sides and owing uncertain alle- 
giance, commonly existed along Byz. frontiers 
(such was the milieu of DIGENES Akriras). This 
legal disequilibrium resulted in the application to 
state frontiers of terms such as horotheston or syno- 
ron, Which were normally used fur rurai bounda y 
marks. The existence of foreign enclaves made 
the system of fronuers even more confused. 
Border areas, despite their dangerous military 
situation, contributed much to cultural and ethnic 
exchange (by means of mixed marriages) and 
often served as cradles for new development: thus 
the new nobility of the rith—1eth C. came pri- 
marily from the borderlands of eastern Asia Mi- 
nor and Macedonia, and innovative military tac- 


FRUIT 807 


tics were developed in frontier KLEISOURAI (Z. 
Udalcova, A. Kazhdan, Hr. Bartikjan, 14 CEB, 
vol. 1 [Bucharest 1974] 231-36). 

Lib. Koder, Lebensraton 62-102. The Defence of the Roman 
and Byzantine Fast, ed. P. Freeman, D. Kennedy. 2 vols. 
(Oxford 1986). W. Kacgi, “The Frontier: Barrier or Bridges” 
17 CEB Major Papers (Washington, D.C., 1g86) 279-3038. 
Ahrweiler, Byzance: Les pays. peHI (197-4). gog—go. Ja. 
Ferluga, “I confini dell'impero Romano d'Oriente.” in Po- 
poli ¢ spazio Romano tra diritto e profezia (Naples 1980) 365- 
400. J. Duneau, J. Arrignon, “Ponjatie granic u Prokopija 
Kesarijskogo i Konstantina Bagrjanorodnogo.” VEVrem 43 
uge) 64-73. J. Haldon, H. Kennedy. “Phe Arab-Byzanune 
Frontier in the Eighth and Ninth ¢..° ZRVI 19 0980) 79- 
100. = AK, 


FRUIT (kaproi) was an important component of 
the Byz. pier. Vhe Gropontka (bk.10.74) pre- 
serves an ancient categorization of frun into opora 
(soft) and akrodrya (hard-shelled); to the latter 
group, besides the walnut, chestnut, and pista- 
chio, belonged the pomegranate. The PORIKOLO- 
Gos gives a long Hst of fruit: quince, citron, pear, 
apple, cherry, plum, fig, etc., whereas the walnut, 
almond, and chestnut form a separate category 
characterized as “Varangians.” The peach (*Per- 
sian apple”) was also known. Fruit trees were 
planted in GARDENS, while nuts and chestnuts usu- 
ally grew in groves. A poor peasant might possess 
only a single tree. as did an agroikos in the vita of 
Michael Malemos (L. Pett, ROC 7 [1902] 563.12- 
1g) whose only asset was a pear tree. The praktika 
of the 14th C. mention pear, fig. walnut, cherry, 
almond, and mulberry trees: according to Laiou 
(Peasant Society 29f), the peasants of the Iveron 
estates in the village of Gonatou owned, on the 
average, 20 trees each in 1320. Calculations by N. 
Kondov (infra) show that in the northern Balkans 
the pear tree was more common than the apple 
and the cherry tree more common than the plum. 
Wild berries were also gathered: some saints are 
descr iped As pie hing vnu stranwuen t RES (nvumuriy. 

Some fruits were grown for market, but the 
Byz. preferred produce from their own gardens: 
the fruit imported by Bulgaria, stated Gregory 
Antiochos (J. Darrouzés, BS 23 [1962] 279.39- 
48), was spoiled—the apples wrinkled, the pears 
bruised, the figs dried up, having lost their sweet- 
ness during their lengthy transport. 

As in the Roman tradition, artists continued to 
use frun and folage as symbols of abundance, 


808 FRUIT BOOK 


attached to WREATHS and other forms of orna- 
ment. 
Liv. N. Kondov, Ovosčarstvoto v biilgarskite zemi prez sred- 


novekovieto (Soha 1989). Dölger, Schatz. 188. 
TAK, PWN A 


FRUIT BOOK. See PorIKOLOGOS. 


FULCHER OF CHARTRES, priest; participant 
in and chronicler of the First Crusade; chaplain 
of Baldwin 1; born ca.1058, died 1127/8. At Je- 
rusalem in late 1101 Fulcher began a Jerusalem 
History (Historia Hierosolymitana), whose lost first 
version apparently narrated events to 1105 and 
was known, for example, to GUIBERT OF NOGENT. 
Fulcher later pursued his account down to 1124; 
ca.1127 he revised and continued the whole to 
constitute its present form. WILLIAM OF TYRE ex- 
ploited his work, and in the 13th C. it was short- 
ened and translated into French. Fulcher’s first 
sections (pp. 171-214) record the Crusaders’ trav- 
els across the Balkans, his wonderment at the 
wealth, beauty, merchants, and “20,000 eunuchs” 
of Constantinople, relations with Emp. Alexios I, 
and the siege of Nicaea. He documents the return 
of some of the Crusaders to Europe via Constan- 
tinople (pp. 318-21), Bohemund’s war with Byz. 
in 1107—08 (pp. 518-25), and deplores Venetian 
raids on the Byz. Aegean in 1125 (pp. 758-61). 

ED. Historia Hierosolymitana (1095—1127), ed. H. Ha- 
genmeyer (Heidelberg 1913). A History of the Expedition to 
Jerusalem rog5—1127, tr. F.R. Ryan, ed. H.S. Fink (Knox- 
ville, Tenn., 1969). 

uit. J. Richard, DHGE 17 (1971) 1257. RepFontHist 
4:601. ~M.McC. 


FUNERAL («néeia). This rite had a double pur- 
pose: to say farewell to the deceased and to assist 
the soul in its ascent to heaven. The ritual had 
three major stages: preparation of the body and 
soul at the home of the deceased, the funerary 
procession, and the graveside service and BURIAL. 
Preparations began immediately after a person's 
death with the washing and clothing of his body. 
Normally, relatives washed the body with warm 
water mixed with wine and spices, anointed it 
with perfume, wrapped it in appropriate gar- 
ments, and closed the eyes and mouth. All these 
stages are subsumed in representations of Christ's 
Passion (K. Weitzmann in De artibus opuscula XL, 
ed. M. Meiss [New York 1961] 476—go). 


Typical burial garb consisted of a swaddling 
linen cloth and the shroud. White linen garments 
were customary among the majority; for example, 
Constantine I the Great was buried in his white 
linen baptismal robe. Monks and clergy, however, 
were clad in clerical vestments according to their 
rank. Luxurious garments often distinguished im- 
perial or wealthy personages. Exceptions were 
made to meet the last wishes of individuals: thus, 
the vita of the gth-C. saint EUpoKIMOs reports 
that he asked his colleagues to place him in a 
coffin dressed in military garb with an attached 
sword and to give him honors of a strategos, the 
position he occupied in his lifetime (ed. Loparev, 
pp. 209:8.30-35; 210:8.5). Those devoted to him 
even covered his coffin with the blanket under 
which he died (ibid., 211:9.20). On the other 
hand, MELANIA THE YOUNGER was buried in gar- 
ments associated with saints (vita, ed. Gorce 
268.13—270.3). 

After burial preparations, the corpse of a lay 
person was displayed on a small couch in a room 
or vestibule of a house for mourning and lam- 
entation by family and friends. The body was 
oriented so that it faced east, with hands crossed 
on the chest and holding an icon; candles and 
incense burned alongside the corpse. Sometimes 
holy bread was put into the corpse’s hands, but 
the church prohibited offering communion to the 
dead. The singing of psalms over the body served 
to protect the soul against demons. The coffin of 
a monk or cleric was placed in the narthex of a 
church. When Lazaros OF MT. GALesios died, his 
body was brought into the church, laid on the 
floor, and his leather chiton and fetters removed; 
then, probably after washing him, the monks re- 
placed his chiton, laid him on a couch in the 
narthex, and prepared a coffin of cypresswood 
(AASS Nov. 3:587E—588A). 

Following the visitation period, the funeral 
procession set off for the burial with lamps and 
burning incense, the cortéges of saints or em- 
perors attracting large crowds. If the corpse had 
to be transported some distance to its final resting 
place (e.g., Alexios, the older son of John II), it 
was embalmed or simply placed in a closed coffin. 

Mourners typically engaged in lamentations and 
tragic GESTURES (tears, beating the chest, pulling 
out the hair). Chrysostom, however, urged the 
replacement of wailing with the singing of psalms. 
Some rigorously ascetic saints also protested against 


exaggerated expression of EMOTIONS: BASIL THE 
YOUNGER (vita, ed. Vilinskij 1:333.13—-23) forbade 
laments and beating the chest at his funeral, since 
he considered it a time of rejoicing and entrance 
into “the spiritual marriage chamber.” 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 4:148—85. D. Abrahamse, “Rituals 
of Death in the Middle Byzantine Period,” GOrThR 29 
(1984) 125-34. G. Spyridakis, “Ta kata ten teleuten ethima 
ton Byzantinon,” EEBS 20 (1950) 75-171. V. Brum, J 
funerali di un sacerdote nel rito bizantino (Jerusalem 1972). 1.- 


H. Dalmais, Les liturgies d’Orient (Paris 1980) 129f. 
— Ap.K., A.K., N.T., A.C. 


FURNITURE. The main pieces in a Byz. house- 
hold were BEDS; TABLES; various seats (benches, 
chairs, thronoi), sometimes with FOOTSTOOLS; chests 
with Locks; and “small towers” (pyrgiskoi) for pre- 
cious objects. In a broader sense, furnishings in- 
cluded CARPETS, curtains (KATAPETASMAYTA), and 
lighting devices (LAMPS). Hagiographers and au- 
thors of sermons often mention precious pieces 
of furniture, covered with ivory plaques, silver, 
or gold. On the other hand, wills and inventortes 
of the 11th-15th C. list icons; books; and gold, 
silver, bronze, or glass VESSELS, but are strangely 
silent about beds, tables, and chairs. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 2.2:67-96. M. Poljakovskaja, A. 


Cekalova, Vizantija: byt i nravy (Sverdlovsk 198g) 1256. 
—A.K. 


FURRIER (youvaptos). The word gounaries is un- 
known before the 6th C. Fikhman (Egipet 30) 
suggests that kawnakoplokes and related terms used 
in some papyri designated furriers, but their con- 
text is unclear; S. Calderini (Aegyptus 26 [1946] 
17) translates it as “weaver of wool.” Constantin- 
opolitan furriers had their shops in the Forum 
(of Constantine?), where as early as 532 stood the 
basilica of the gounariot; the structure was dam- 
aged at least twice by fire (Janin, CP byz. 98). In 


FUSTAT, AL- 809 


14th-C. Constantinople there was a flourishing 
business of processing furs imported trom the 
north: a contract of apprenticeship to a furrier 
survives from this period (G. Ferrari dalle Spade, 
SBN 4 [1935] 264), and a Latin document of 1318 
mentions a furriers’ house in the quarter of Peli- 
pani or “furriers” (Loenertz, ByzFrGr I 425, no.4). 
Many furriers were Jews, esp. Jews from Venice 
(Matschke, Fortschritt g6f). -A.K. 


FUSTĀT, AL-, medieval Egyptian town at the 
southern end of the Nile delta. In late Roman 
times the site was occupied by the fortress of 
Babylon, and it was the camp (fossaton) of the 
besieging forces of ‘Amr ibn al-‘As in 640/1 that 
evolved into the Arab town. From a garrison for 
Arab forces advancing across North Africa, al- 
Fustat soon became the capital of Ecyrr. Its po- 
sition gave it control over Nile commerce, partic- 
ularly the vital grain trade, and a leading role in 
traffic moving along the southern Mediterranean 
coast. Byz. ships often called at al-Fustat, Byz. 
goods (esp. TEXTILES) were extensively traded, 
and by the time of the FAtrmips many Byz. mer- 
chants and craftsmen had settled there. 

Al-Fustat also figured in the conflict with Byz. 
More securely situated than the often-raided coastal 
towns, it served as a naval base and a market. for 
the spoils of piracy and war. In 1168 the town 
was burned by the Fatimid vizier Shawar to pre- 
vent its capture by AMALRIC I of Jerusalem. Al- 
ready affected by repeated plagues and famines, 
unrest, and increasing competition from neigh- 
boring Cairo (founded 96g), it did recover some- 
what, but by the 13th C. was no longer of much 
importance. 

uit. S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 5 vols. (Los 
Angeles-Berkeley 1967-86). W. Kubiak, Al-Fustdt (Warsaw 
1982). G.T. Scanlon, The Fustāt Expedition: Final Report 
(Winona Lake, Ind., 1986). —L.LC. 


seas ye Ay apui 





GABALAS (laBadas, fem. VaBadtiva), a family 
that served primarily with the fleet. Both the 
origin of the name and the early history of the 
family are unclear. S. Kourouses rejected the sug- 
gestion that the name originated from Gabala- 
Byblos and hypothesized a connection with the 
Old Testament Gabaclos. The family’s link with 
the Arab Jabala, the father of the Ghassanid king 
Areruas, or the late Roman patrikios Gabalas (Seibt, 
Bleisiegel, N0.12g) cannot be established. Kou- 
rouses Claims that the Gabalas family was known 
at least from the gth C., but the seal ol John 
Gabalas, dated by K. Reghng to 850-1050 (BZ 24 
{rg24] ggf) is insufficient for such a dating, and 
other seals of various individuals named Gabalas 
provide only meager information. Documents cite 
late 1gth-C. members of the Gabalas family; two 
were high-ranking officials of the fleet: the proto- 
nobelissimohypertatos Stephen (Seibt, supra, no.158) 
and John (Lavra 1, no.67.34). After 1204 the 
Gabalas family took control of Rhodes: the caesar 
Leo Gabalas signed a treaty with the Venetians 
against John IH Vatatzes in 1234; Leo’s brother 
John succeeded him in 1240. John HI captured 
the island m 1249. One of his navy commanders, 
also a Gabalas (Ahrweiler, “Smyrne” i6g, calls him 
John), was megas droungarios until 1266/7 (PLP, 
no.3293). John Gabalas was megas droungarios in 
1341 (Kantak. 2:118.21-23): he probably sup- 
ported John VI Kantakouzenos but then betrayed 
him and became megas logothetes by 1344. Guilland 
(Institutions 1:542) believes he was droungarios tes 
viglas, but, in view of the family traditions, pre- 
sumably he commanded the fleet. 

In the 13th C. members of the Gabalas family 


possessed lands in the Smyrna region. Some of 


them were church officials and some were intel- 
lectuals, including Manuel Gabalas (see GABALAS, 
Manure). None is known as a member of the 
administration after the mid-14th C., except for 
Michael Gabalas, oikeios of Manuel II ca.1400 (PLP, 
N0.3310). Fhe settlement of some family mem- 
bers in Crete can be explained by the traditional 


811 


interest of the Gabalas family in maritime busi- 
ness. 
tir. S. Kourouses, Manouel Gabalas eita Matthaios metro- 


polites Ephesou (Athens 1972) 297-302. PLP, nos. 3290- 
313- -A.K. 


GABALAS, MANUEL, also known as Matthew 
of Ephesus; metropolitan of Ephesus (1329-51); 
born Philadelphia ca.1271/2, died before 1359/60. 
Gabalas began his career in Philadelphia as ana- 
gnostes, deacon, and then as protonotarios (1309— 
12) of Metr. THEOLEPros. He lost his position 
because of his opposition to Theoleptos’s contin- 
uing anti-ARSENITE stance. He was widowed in 
1312. In 1321 he became a priest and, after rec- 
onciliation with Theoleptos, chartophylax of Phila- 
delphia; in 1322/3 he took the monastic habit. He 
spent much time in Constantinople, where he 
became acquainted with literati such as Nikepho- 
ros GREGORAS and Nikephoros CHouMmNos. He 
continued to live in the capital even after his 
appointment to EpHesus because his see was un- 
der Turkish occupation. He spent the years 1332- 
37 in Thracian Brysis, where he was named met- 
ropolitan kat’epidosin (i-e., to obtain additional in- 
come besides that from his own see). When he 
was finally abie to enter Ephesus in 1339, local 
Muslims made his life miserable by barring him 
from the cathedral (which was converted into a 
mosque) and throwing stones at his house (ep.55). 
Because of his opposition to PaALamism, he was 
eventually deprived of his see. 

Gabalas was also a writer; his 63 surviving letters 
treat literary and philosophical topics and make 
frequent allusions to Homer and Plato. He also 
wrote three treatises on the Odyssey. His other 
works include an oration to Andronikos II and 
three monodies. Reinsch (infra 45-57) recently 
identified Gabalas as the author of 200 CHAPTERS 
on moral themes (ef. A. Angelou in Maistor 259— 
67). Gabalas also worked as a scribe, copying, for 
example, Vienna, ONB, theol. gr. 174, an auto- 
graph MS of his own works. 


812 | GABRAS 


ED. Die Briefe des Matthaios von Ephesos, ed. D. Reinsch 
(Berlin 1974), with Germ. tr. L. Previale, “Due monodie 
inedite di Matteo di Efeso,” BZ 41 (1941) 4-39. Matteo di 
Efeso. L’ekphrasis per la festa di Pasqua, ed. A. Pignani (Naples 
1981), with Ital. tr. For complete list, see Tusculum-Lexikon 
261. 

LIT. S.I. Kourouses, Manouel Gabalas eita Matthaios metro- 
polites Ephesou (1271/2—1355/60), A’. Ta Biographika (Athens 
1972). PLP, no.330g. Vryonis, Decline 328, 343-48. 

-A.M.T. 


GABRAS (TaBpas, fem. PaBpaiva), a noble Byz. 
family known from the second half of the 1oth 
C. The Gabrades were predominantly military 
commanders in the East who participated in sev- 
eral rebellions: Constantine (died 979) supported 
Bardas SkLEROS, Michael was arrested in 1040. 
Theodore Gabras became semi-independent gov- 
ernor of Trebizond; his portrait and that of his 
wife, Irene, appear on leaves in Leningrad Publ. 
Lib. gr. 291, taken from the gospel book Sinai gr. 
172, which was commissioned by Theodore and 
written in May 1067. The inscription on folio 2v 
describes him as patrikios and topoteretes, while the 
colophon calls him hypatos (Spatharakis, Corpus, 
no.82). Constantine Gabras, strategos of Philadel- 
phia and later doux of Trebizond, controlled the 
latter city from 1126 to 1140 as an independent 
ruler. His exploits may have inspired the plot of 
the forged Byz. romance, the so-called Gabras- 
song, written down ca.1go0o. Several Gabrades 
served the Seljuks in the 12th—13th C. Although 
some Gabrades held administrative positions in 
the first half of the 14th C. (e.g., Gabras Kom- 
nenos, krites tou phossatou, ca.1300), they are better 
known as intellectuals, esp. Michael Gabras and 
his brother John, also a writer (see GaBRas, MI- 
CHAEL). 

LIT. A. Bryer, “A Byzantine Family: the Gabrades,” Uni- 
versity of Birmingham Historical Journal 12 (1970) 164-87, 
with add. A. Bryer, S. Fassoulakis, D.M. Nicol, BS 36 (1975) 
38-45. PLP, nos. 3319-73. H. Bartikian, “O vizantijskoj 
aristokratiteskoj sem’e Gavras,” IFŻ, no.3 (1987) 190—200, 
no.4, 181-93; no.1 (1988) 163-78. A. Avraméa, “Manuel 
Ducas Comnéne Gavras de Troade: A propos de CIG IV 


2, no.8763,” Geographica byzantina (Paris 1981) 37—41. 
-A.K., A.C. 


GABRAS, MICHAEL, writer and official of the 
imperial chancery; born ca.1290, died after 1350. 
Almost nothing is known of Gabras except for 
the internal evidence of his voluminous corre- 
spondence. A resident of Constantinople, he eked 


out a meager living as a bureaucrat, and seems to 
have had continual (or pretended) financial dif- 
ficulties: many letters to his friends are requests 
for necessities such as bread, salt, fish, wheat, and 
barley. 

Gabras was the author of a number of rhetorical 
works, including eulogies of his mother and fa- 
ther, four orations to Andronikos II, and a mon- 
ody on the deceased Michael IX. He also wrote 
“criticism of books” and a book on dreams. None 
of his oeuvre has survived, except for a large 
group of 462 letters dating between 1308 and 
1327. These are addressed to 111 different indi- 
viduals, including luminaries such as Andronikos 
H, John (VI) Kantakouzenos, Nikephoros 
Choumnos, and Theodore Metochites. Despite 
the emphasis upon style over content common to 
Byz. EPISTOLOGRAPHY, Gabras’s letters are not 
without interest. Some are requests for favors, 
complaints about his health, and lamentations over 
the death of his brother, John; many others deal 
with literary matters as Gabras exchanges MSS 
with his friends and seeks their opinion of his 
own work. 

ED. Die Briefe des Michael Gabras (ca.12g0—nach 1350), ed. 


G. Fatouros, 2 vols. (Vienna 1973). 


LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:232f. PLP, no.3372. ~A.M.T. 


GABRIEL (Fafpi7jA, in Hebrew meaning “man 
of God”), angel; feastday 26 March. Gabriel ap- 
pears in the Old Testament in the vision of Dan- 
IEL (Dan 8:15—16, g:21~22) and in the Gospel of 
Luke (Lk 1:11-13, 19, 26—38) as the messenger 
announcing the forthcoming births of John the 
Baptist and Jesus Christ. He was popular in Jew- 
ish legend and apocrypha as a guardian of the 
world and as a destroyer of enemies and sinners; 
for Muslims he is the one who revealed the Qur’AN 
to Muhammad. In Christian tradition Gabriel was 
promoted to the rank of ARCHANGEL (not con- 
ferred upon him in the Bible) and revered either 
together with the Archangel MICHAEL or in con- 
nection with the ANNUNCIATION. 

Gabriel’s function as a messenger was expressed 
by his carrying a walking staff, but he could also 
be depicted frontally as a guardian, clad in the 
imperial garb of an archangel holding globe and 
scepter, accompanying, along with Michael, the 
figure of Christ or the Virgin (e.g., the bema 
mosaics in Hacia Sopuia in Constantinople, NEA 


Mone on Chios). Gabriel is shown crowning the 
emperor Basil I in the gth-C. Paris GREGORY (fol. 
Cv). His role in the Annunciation, one of the 
Great Feasts, assured his presence in nearly every 
church program and on innumerable icons as well 
as in cycles of the AkaTuisros Hymn; Gabriel 
appears also in images of the VIRGIN OF THE 
Passion and in extended cycles of the DORMITION 
as the angel who brings the news to the Virgin of 
her impending death. Although he occasionally 
joined Michael in performing a miracle, Gabriel 
had no miracle cycle of his own. 

There were at least five churches or chapels in 
Constantinople dedicated to Gabriel (Janin, Eglises 
CP 66); a church of Gabriel in Miletos is also 
known (Grégoire, Inscriptions, no.22o0bis). 

uit. BHG 1290y—94c, 2158-59. C. Carletti, DPAC 
2:1413f. F. Spadafora, M.L. Casanova, Bibi.sanct. 5:1326— 
ag. D. Pallas, RBK 3:47. H. Maguire, “The Self-Conscious 


Angel: Character Study in Byzantine Paintings of the An- 
nunciation,” in Okeanos 377-86. ~A.K., N.P.S. 


GABRIEL HIEROMONACHOS, composer who 
lived and worked at the monastery of Xantho- 
pouloi; fl. Constantinople first half 15th C. He 
may be the author of Discourse on the Signs of Chant, 
known from 16th-C. MSS. This treatise discusses 
the meaning of the NEUMATA in allegorical and 
etymological terms. 

Lit. Tardo, Melurgia 183—205. D.E. Conomos, Byzantine 


Trisagia and Cheroubtka of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centu- 
nes (Thessalonike 1974) 327-34. PLP, no.3428. —-D.E.C. 


GABRIELOPOULOS (IaBpindézovaos, fem. 
TaBpindorovXiva), a family known in the 14th C. 
Stephen Gabrielopoulos established his rule over 
Thessaly sometime between 1318 and 1325 with 
a formal recognition from Constantinople of his 
dependency; he bore the title of sebastokrator. Until 
his death in 1332/3 he possessed Stagoi, Trikkala, 
Phanarion, and several other casties. After a pe- 
riod of struggle for Thessaly, Michael Gabrielo- 
poulos gained control there; in June 1342 he 
issued a charter in favor of the archontes of Pha- 
narion, guaranteeing privileges such as freedom 
of disposition of their property, exemption from 
taxes and billeting, strict conditions of military 
service, freedom from responsibility for treason- 
ous relatives, and the tribunal of peers (C.P. Kyr- 
ris, Hellenika 18 [1964] 73-78). As the lord (au- 
thentes) of the area, Michael swore an oath that 


GAGIKI | 813 


confirmed these privileges. His further fate is 
unknown. Other Gabrielopouloi are known at the 
same time in the Strymon region: a Gabrielopou- 
lina made a donation to Esphigmenou before 
1318 (Esphig., no.14.198), a certain Gabrielopou- 
los possessed one third of the village of Krousovo 
before 1347 (no.23.16). The family’s relationship 
to George Kydones Gabrielopoulos (fl.1348-83), 
physician and writer (see GEORGE THE PHILOSO- 
PHER), is unclear. A certain Gabrielopoulos was 
exiled in 1370 for possessing books on magic. 


LIT. PLP, nos. 3430-35. B. Ferjanci¢, Tesalija u XIII i 
XIV veku (Belgrade 1974) 168-89. -A.K. 


GAETA (Iaizy), port on the Italian Tyrrhenian 
coast, of importance to Byz. in the 8th C.; during 
the Lombard conquest of central Italy, it assured 
communication between Rome, Naples, Sicily, and 
Constantinople. After the fall of the exarchate of 
Ravenna (751), Gaeta, which was part of the du- 
chy of Nares, remained officially Byz. Between 
the end of the gth and the beginning of the 10th 
C., however, the dynasty of the local hypatoi— 
called duces after 91 5—gradually became indepen- 
dent. Constantine VII considered Gaeta a part of 
Longobardia (De adm. imp. 27.46—52). The eco- 
nomic interests of Gaeta were predominantly re- 
lated to those of the neighboring papal states; 
accordingly the city participated in the silver cir- 
culation of northwestern Europe, in contrast to 
the rest of southern Italy, where Byz. and Arab 
gold coinage prevailed. Nevertheless merchants 
from Gaeta are attested in Constantinople during 
the 1oth—11th C. In 1032 Gaeta was conquered 
by Pandolf IV, the Lombard prince of Capua, 
and in 1064 by the Normans. 

LIT. M. Merores, Gaeta im frühen Mittelalter (Gotha 1911). 


V. von Falkenhausen, “Il ducato di Gaeta,” in Guillou et 
al., Bizantini a Federico II 347-54. -V.v.F, 


GAGIK I (Kaxixtos), last major BAGRATiID king 
of Armenia (g89—ca.1017—20). Gagik was able to 
maintain a senior position vis-a-vis the other Ba- 
gratid kings of his time ruling in Kars and Lofi, 
esp. after the death of Davip oF Tayk‘/Tao, whom 
he supported against the Kurdish emirs of Azer- 
baijan. The divided kingdom of Vaspurakan of- 
fered no challenge to Gagik, who also acquired 
considerable territory in the east at the expense 
of Siwnik’, to which, however, he returned certain 


814 | GAGIK II 


ecclesiastical privileges. Gagik’s dominant position 
allowed him to withstand pressure even from Byz.: 
when Basil II reached the Armenian border in 
1000 to claim the bequest of David of Tayk/ lao 
and the other Armenian and Georgian rulers 
were hastening to submit to Basil, Gagik remained 
defiantly inside the walls of his capital, Ani. For 


the rest of his reign, which marked the peak of 


Bagratid power in Armenia, his authority re- 
mained unchallenged; Ani, whose cathedral was 
completed by his queen, became a major admin- 
istrative and cultural center. 

LIT. K.N. Juzbašjan, “K chronologii pravlenija Gagika I 
Bagratuni,” ADSV 10 (1973) 195-97. Grousset. Arménie 
518-20, 532-41. -N.G.G. 


GAGIK II, last BaGRatip king of Armenia (1042— 
45); son of the anu-king ASot IV; died Kzistra? 
ca.1079/80. At the death of his predecessor JOHN 
SmsatT, Byz. demanded the surrender of ANI with 
the support of the pro-Byz. party in the capital. 
The imperial troops, however, failed to take the 
city and the opposition party crowned Gagik king 
in 1042. In 1045, the young king was persuaded 
by Byz. to journey to Constantinople, where he 
was detained and induced to abdicate in exchange 
for the title of magistros and domains in Cappa- 
docia (possibly CrtaRsranoN and LykKanpos, though 
Byz. and Armenian sources disagree on the loca- 
tion). Meanwhile, the katholikos surrendered Ani 
to the Byz. After Gagik abdicated, he composed 
a defense of Armenian doctrine (preserved by 
MarrHew oF Eprssa), which Gagik is said to have 
delivered at Constantinople in 1065. Gagik was 
apparently murdered by the Byz. to avenge his 
slaying of the metropolitan of Caesarea. A Byz. 
scal bearing the name of Maria, “the daughter of 
‘Kakikes Aniotes,’” is preserved (A. Kazhdan, By- 
zantion 42 [1972] 602). 

LIT. J. Shepard, “Skylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s, and 
the Role of Catacalon Cecaumenos,” REArm n.s. 11 (1g75—- 
76) 283-97. Juzbasjan, “Skilica.” J. Gouillard, “Gagik II 
défenseur de la foi arménienne,” TM 7 (1979) 399-418. 

-N.G.G. 


GAINAS (laivés), general of Gothic origin; born 
north of the Danube, died in the northern Bal- 
kans before Jan. 401. Having begun his career as 
a common soldier, he was one of the commanders 
who led ‘Theodosios I’s barbarian troops against 
the usurper EuGENIUS In 394; the next year, in 


collaboration with STILICHO and Eurroprios, he 
accomplished the fall of Rufinus and became 
comes ret militaris (395-99). Appointed magister 
utriusque militiae in 399, he was ordered to march 
against the Gothic commander ‘TRrrB1GILp, but 
instead joined forces with him and engineered 
the fall of Eutropios. Power was seized, how- 
ever, by the anti-Germanic group of aristocrats 
headed by Aurelianos. Gainas secured the latter’s 
exile, and, acting in alliance with Kaisarios, the 
former praetorian prefect, he entered Constanti- 
nople with Gothic contingents. The Goths, Arian 
in belief, were opposed by the populace, whose 
anti-Gerinanic sentiments were expressed by John 
Chrysostom and soon thereafter by Synesios. 
Gainas tried to obtain a church for the Arians, to 
seize money belonging to the bankers, and to 
occupy the imperial palace, but failed. On 12 July 
400, Gainas’s troops were massacred. Gainas es- 
caped to Thrace, where he met with resistance 
from the local population. The administration in 
Constantinople sent some other Goths under the 
command of Fravitta against him. In the mean- 
time Gainas was killed by the Hunnic chieftain 
Uldin. At the beginning of 4go1 Aurelianos re- 
turned to the capital amid a triumphant welcome. 
Kaisarios withdrew from polities, Fravitta was ex- 
ecuted, and the “Gothic party” was defeated. In 
the early 5th C. the exploits of Gainas and his fall 
from power were the subject of two epic poems 
(Sokr. HE 6.6.36), since lost, and were probably 
the theme of the Column of Arkadios in the 
Forum of Arkadios. 

ur. G. Albert. Goten in Konstantinopel (Paderborn 1985), 
rev. F. Winkelman, Klio 68 (1986) 635-37. Demougeot, 
Unilé 235-66. A.D. Kozlov, “Osnovnye čerty politiceskoj 
oppozicit pravitel’stvu Vizantil v 399—400 gg.” ADSV 16 
(1979) 23-31. -T.E.G. 


GAISERIC (Titépixos), king of the Vandals (from 
428); born 38g, died 25 Jan. 477. Gaiseric led the 
Vandals from Spain to Africa in 429 and under- 
took its conquest. Peace with the Romans in 435 
divided Africa between the two peoples. After a 
Roman expedition failed in 441, Gaiseric negoti- 
ated a treaty in 442 with Valentinian IH whereby 
the Vandals received further territory (Africa 
Proconsularis, Byzacena, castern Numidia). In the 
4508 Gaiseric became involved in European af- 
fairs, urging ATTILA to attack the Visigoths, cap- 
turing and sacking Rome in 455, taking Valentin- 


jan LII’s widow Eudoxia and her daughters back 
to Africa, and raiding the coast of Greece. In 
460-61 the Western emperor Mayortan built large 
fieets to attack the Vandal king, but the latter 
captured them before they set sail. Gaiseric made 
regular attacks on Italy, in part to further the 
imperial claims of Olybrius. The elevation of An- 
THEMIOS in 467 meant greater Eastern involve- 
ment and led to the ill-fated expedition against 
Gaiseric under BAsiLiskos in 468. Probably in 476 
Gaiseric made peace with Emp. Zeno. 

Gaiseric was an Arian and systematically per- 
secuted the Orthodox; he discriminated between 
Romans and Vandals in his kingdom and pro- 
moted the latter. Under Gaiseric Vandal naval 
power shook Roman control of the Mediterra- 
nean and spread terror as far as Alexandria. 

ur. C. Courtois, Les Vandales et PAfrique (Paris 1955; rp. 
Aalen 19864) 260-62, 3g4f. PERE 2:4g6-gg. F.M. Clover, 
“Generic and Attila,” Historia 22 (1973) 104-17. -T.E.G. 


GALAKRENAI (ladakpyvat, “fountains of milk”), 
site of several Byz. monasteries on Asiatic shore 
of Bosporos, near Chalcedon. Scholars have been 
unable to idenufy the precise location of Gala- 
krenai, evidently a place where springs of water 
were made milky in color by a solution of carbon- 
ate of lime. Three different monasteries are at- 
tested in this group. 

1. The monastery of Galakrenai, first mentioned 
in 535. It may have been here that a lavishly 
illuminated copy of the homilies of GREGORY OF 
Nazianzos (Vat. gr. 463) was written in 1072 by 
Symcon, a pupil of a Theodore who was superior 
of “the monastery of Galakrenai” (J.C. Anderson, 
DOP 32 [1978] 178-83). 

2. The monastery of Nicholas I Mystikos, founded 
by the patriarch ca.900. He retired to Galakrenai 
tor five years after his deposition from the patriar- 
chate in go7 and was buried there after his death 
in 925. 

3. The monastery of John the Rhaiktor, founded 
by this official in the early 10th C. He was ton- 
sured there in 926, after being accused of com- 
plicity in a plot to assassinate the emperor Ro- 
MANOS | LEKAPENOS. This monastery had a metochion 
in Constantinople. During the Latin occupation 
of the capital, John the Rhaiktor’s monastery was 
given to the prior of the Pisan Church of St. Peter, 
located in Constantinople. After the Byz. recovery 


GALATA 815 


of 1261, the monastery, reduced to six monks, 
became a metochion of the Constantinopolitan 
monastery of St. Demetrios of the Palaiologoi. 

It is unclear which of these monasteries was 
given to the PANTOKRATOR MONASTERY in Con- 
stantinople as a metochion in the 12th C. 

ur. Beck, Kirche 208. Janin, CP byz. 4q7f. Janin, Églises 
centres 40-42. -A.M.T.. A.C. 


GALATA (Tà Tadarov, Takaras, etym. unclear), 
settlement occupying a promontory on the north 
side of the Golden Horn facing Constantinople. 
Originally called Sykai, by ca.425 it had become 
an integral part of the city, of which it formed 
the 13th Region. Lt possessed a theater, baths, 
dockyard, and other facilities (Notitiae urbis Con- 
stantinopolitanae, ed. Seeck, p.240.1~23). Defen- 
sive walls were probably built in the course of the 
5th C. In 528 Sykai was granted the status of a 
city and renamed Joustinianoupolis. It may have 
been abandoned in the 7th C. since later sources 
do not mention a city. Instead we find a fort 
(Rastellion), ton Galatou, situated on the seashore, 
which served as a point of attachment of the chain 
barring the mouth of the Golden Horn (first 
attested in 717). 

Churches and monasteries of Galata include St. 
Irene (on the site of present-day Arap Camii), 
dedicated in 551. Many more were just outside 
Galata, including the cruciform martyrion of the 
Maccabees (4th C.), St. Thekla, St. Konon, and 
the leper-house of St. Zotikos. ‘Fhe area to the 
east of Galata, known as Argyropolis (Turk. Top- 
hane) is mentioned in the legend of St. ANDREW 
as the site where the apostle ordained Stachys as 
first bishop of Byzantion. 

Probably in the 11th C. Galata became a Jewish 
quarter that attained a population of about 2,500 
(Jacoby, Société, pt.1] [1067], 1774—89). The Cru- 
sacers captured the fort in 1203 and destroyed 
the Jewish quarter. Attacked by Michael VIII in 
1260 and occupicd the next year, Galata was 
granted by him to the Genoese (1267), the precise 
limits of the colony being defined in a document 
in 1303. Despite stipulations to the contrary, the 
Genoese built walls around their settlement, which 
they gradually enlarged. A city of Western aspect, 
Galata became extremely prosperous thanks to 
international trade. It capitulated to the Turks in 
1453. retaining many of its privileges, but quickly 


816 | GALATIA 


declined as a commercial center. The name Pera, 
as used in the 13th—15th C., is synonymous with 
Galata. 

No Byz. remains survive at Galata. The Genoese 
walls, of various dates and now to a large extent 
dismantled, include the Galata Tower (mid-14th 
C., much rebuilt). 

ur. A.M. Schneider, M.I. Nomidis, Galata (Istanbul 1944). 
S. Eyice, Galata ve kulesi (Istanbul 1969). G.I. Bratianu, 
Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la Mer Noire (Paris 
1929). J. Sauvaget, “Notes sur la colonie génoise de Péra,” 
Syria 15 (1934) 252-75. P.B. Palazzo, L’Arap-djami (Istanbul 
1946). -C.M. 


GALATIA (Taàartia), the northern hilly region 
of the central Anatolian plateau, stretching from 
the mountains of Paphlagonia to the Salt Lake 
and from the Sangarios River eastward past the 
Halys. The region was sparsely inhabited, with 
few cities but a large rural population in its fertile 
areas; it produced wheat, sheep, and goats. Gala- 
tia gained strategic importance from its location 
on the highways from Constantinople to the east- 
ern frontier. 

The province of Galatia was created under Dio- 
cletian with its capital at ANkyRA. Galatia was 
divided into Galatia I (metropolis Ankyra) and 
Galatia II, or Salutaris (metropolis PessINous), 
ca.398. In 535, Justinian I gave the governor of 
Galatia I the title of comes, with both civil and 
military powers to deal with endemic brigandage; 
the reform was revoked in 548. GELIMER was 
granted estates in Galatia after his defeat. The 
civil province lasted into the 8th C. (Zacos, Seals 
1, nos. 136, 3189), by which time Galatia had 
become part of the Opsikion theme, then the 
BOUKELLARION. The ecclesiastical province, em- 
bracing all Galatia from the time of Constantine 
I, was also divided ca.398; its parts persisted 
through the Byz. period. Late mentions of Galatia 
in narrative sources have geographic, not admin- 
istrative meaning. 

UT. TIB 4:54-58. -C.F. 
GALEA (yaàća, from yadesós, “swordfish” or 
“small shark”), a term first used in the 1oth C. to 
denote light, rapid DROMONES powered by one 
bank of rowers (Naumachica, ed. A. Dain [Paris 
1943] 21). They were commonly used as messen- 
ger ships or for reconnaissance in enemy waters. 
Pirates are usually said to have galeai, which seem 


to be oar-powered ships, lighter and more nimble 
than an ordinary dromon, 


tir. Ahrweiler, Mer 414. -E.M. 


GALEN, Roman physician and philosopher; born 
Pergamon 129, died Rome? ca.210. The mark of 
this single Roman medical writer on Byz. medi- 
cine was extraordinary; his adaptations of the 
Hippocratic four humors as well as his use of 
Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics in creating an all- 
encompassing medical theory ensured his use as 
a source by learned Byz. physicians from ORIBA- 
SIOS to JOHN AKTOUARIOS. Oribasios was the first 
to make a synopsis of Galenic medicine; the extant 
sections of his Medical Collection show the first 
stages of a Byz. adeptness in fusing parts of Gal- 
en’s works with contemporary medical practice; 
this streamlining tendency continued through the 
medical encyclopedias of AETIOS OF AMIDA, ALEX- 
ANDER OF TRALLES, and PauL OF AEGINA. Yet the 
best Byz. medical authors did not simply borrow 
the quotations of “lost” authorities as they might 
be found in Galen, but generally went back to the 
original texts when they were available and set 
them in an assured context with those of the great 
Pergamene. Oribasios, for example, apparently 
consulted directly the Materia Medica of Diosxor- 
IDES, and probably formulated the first Greek 
alphabetical listing of drugs in Dioskorides’ work, 
the ancestor of so many alphabetical “Dioskor- 
ides” texts in Greek, Latin, and Arabic. Oribasios’s 
technique in using Dioskorides side-by-side with 
Galen was followed by almost all later Byz. med- 
ical encyclopedists. Not only professionals but also 
educated Byz. (e.g., Michael CuonraTEs) read 
Galen, who was popular enough to become a 
comic figure in the Trmarion. By the 13th—14th 
C., Galen had become the authority on medicine 
in Greek, Latin, and Arabic (see also INSANITY). 
His quasi-monotheism, best seen in Use of the Parts 
of the Body, made his medicine and medical phi- 
losophy easily adaptable into Christian and Is- 
lamic canons. 

ED. Opera omnia, ed. C.G. Kuhn, 20 vols. in 22 pts. 
(Leipzig 1821-33; rp. Hildesheim 1964—65). See also lists 
in H. Leitner, Bibliography to the Ancient Medical Authors 
(Bern 1973) 18-40, and J. Scarborough, ed., Society for 


Ancient Medicine Newsletter, nos. 3-13 (Lexington, Ky., 1978- 


85). 
LIT. O. Temkin, Galenism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1973) 51—94. J- 
Scarborough, “The Galenic Question,” Sudhoffs Archiv 65 


(1981) 1-31. —jS. 


GALERIUS, more fully Caius Galerius Valerius 
Maximianus, caesar under DIOCLETIAN (293—305) 
and augustus (from 1 May 305); born Romu- 
lianum in Illyricum ca.260, died Nikomedeia May 
311. Galerius presumably rose through the army 
and may have been praetorian prefect under Dio- 
cletian. As caesar he was responsible for much of 
the Balkans; his primary residence was at THES- 
SALONIKE, where remains of his palace can still be 
seen. He carried out wars against the Carpi on 
the Danube (295) and against the Persians (297— 
g8), the latter commemorated on an arch in Thes- 
salonike (see ARCH OF GALERIUS). After Diocle- 
tian’s abdication Galerius became senior emperor 
in the Terrarcnuy, with Maximinus Data as his 
caesar. In 307 he opposed the proclamation of 
MAXENTIUS as emperor. The next year he con- 
yoked the Conference of Carnuntum, the result 
of which was the appointment of Licinrus as 
caesar and the redivision of the empire. Lactan- 
tius pictures Galerius as an outspoken pagan, per- 
secuting Christians in his own territories and re- 
sponsible for Diocletian’s edicts against the church. 
He continued the persecution until he fell gravely 
ill; in 311, shortly before his death, he anticipated 
the Epict oF MILAN by granting toleration to the 
church. Galerius is remembered in the Byz. tra- 
dition as the archetypal persecutor, properly pun- 
ished for his crimes by a painful death. 

LIT. Jones, LRE 40-79. P. Keresztes, “From the Great 
Persecution to the Peace of Galerius,” VigChr 37 (1983) 
379-99- -T.E.G. 


GALERIUS, ARCH OF. See ARCH oF GALERIUS. 


GALESIOS, MOUNT (Turk. Alamandağ), mo- 
nastic center north of Ephesus, on right bank of 
the Kaystros River (Küçük Menderes). Monks were 
first attracted to this HOLY MOUNTAIN in the 11th 
C. by the stylite St. Lazarus. Three monasteries, 
under one hegoumenos, were built near the succes- 
sive sites of his pillar: (1) the Savior, reserved for 
12 eunuchs; (2) the Theotokos, for 12 monks; 
and (3) the Anastasis, for 40 monks. A diatyposis 
for the three institutions is incorporated in the 
Vita S. Lazari (AASS Nov. 3:585). A fourth mon- 
astery, the Theotokos of Bessai, was imperial and 
had its own hegoumenos; it housed 300 monks in 
the 11th C. but rapidly declined. Near the moun- 
tain was the convent of Eupraxia, which served 


GALESIOTES, GEORGE 817 


as a residence for female relatives of Galesiot 
monks. 

Galesios entered a period of obscurity after the 
death of Lazaros, but in the 13th C., with the 
establishment of the empire of Nicaea, a “mon- 
astery of Galesios” again attained prominence. 
Two early Palaiologan patriarchs, JosepH I and 
ATHANASIOS I, were former Galesiot monks, and 
a third, Grecory II or Cyprus, wrote a new 
version of the Vita Lazari. The monastery was 
reputed to have a rich library and had an active 
scriptorium (F. Halkin, Scriptorium 15 [1961] 221— 
27). Its history came to an end in the 14th C. 
when it was captured by the Turks (AASS Nov. 
3:503). 

LIT. Janin, Églises centres 241-50. -A.M.T. 
GALESIOTES, GEORGE, patriarchal official and 
writer; born Atramyttion or Constantinople? be- 
tween 1278 and 1280, died after 1346?. Galesiotes 
([Tadnovwryns) was apparently a family name and 
does not indicate that he was a monk at Mt. 
Ga esios (F. Halkin, Scriptorium 15 [1961] 225- 
27). Galesiotes studied with Grecory II oF Cy- 
PRUS and then with Manuel HoLoBo.os, to whom 
he later addressed a funeral monody. As a secular 
cleric, he began his career as archon of Hagia 
Sophia (ca.1303); he succeeded George Pachy- 
meres as protekdikos ca.1310. He held this post 
until 1334, when he took charge of the sakellion. 
Galesiotes’ works include a monody for Theodore 
Xanthopoulos and, according to S.I. Kourouses, 
a lament on the collapse of the dome of Hagia 
Sophia in 1346 (FEBS 37 [1969—70] 247-50). He 
was probably also the author of an oration of 
thanksgiving for the Christian naval victory over 
the Turks off Atramyttion in 1334 (V. Laurent in 
Eis mnemen K. Amantou [Athens 1960] 25-41). In 
collaboration with George Ornarores, he pre- 
pared a paraphrase, in simpler language, of the 
Imperial Statue of Nikephoros BLEMMYDES. 

H. Hunger and O. Kresten have recently pro- 
posed that the George Galesiotes who copied pa- 
triarchal documents from ca.1325 to 1357 is to 
be distinguished from the author Galesiotes, and 
suggest that he was a younger contemporary, per- 
haps his nephew (Hunger-Sevéenko, Blemmydes 
336). 

ED. Monody for Xanthopoulos—ed. A. Mai, Novae Pa- 


trum Bibl. VI/2 419-22. Imperial Statue—Hunger-Sevtenko, 
Blemmydes 19—117, 149—206. 


818 GALIČ 


ir. SI Kourouses, “He prote helikia kai he proimos 
stadiodromia tou protekdikou kai eita sakelliou tes megales 
ekklesias Georgiou Galesiotou (1278/80- 13577). Athena 75 
(1974/5) 335-74. PLP. 0.3528. -A.M.T. 


GALIČ. See GALITZA. 


GALILEE, STORM ON THE SEA OF. Mauhew 
8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, and Luke 8:22-25 tell 
of Christ sleeping in a storm-tossed boat on the 
Lake of Galilee. Awakened and upbraided by his 
disciples, he calmed the storm, chiding them for 
their lack of faith and eliciting their awe. The 
scene is illustrated only in extensive cycles: in 
FRIEZE GOSPELS, in marginal PSALTERS at Psalm 
89:9, In several DECORATIVE STYLE MSS, and at 
Cuora. The richest depiction, that in the Florence 
frieze Gospel (fol.1 gov), shows the boat three times: 
with Christ and the disciples seated, with Christ 
asleep and then rebuking a personification of the 
wind, and with Christ chiding the disciples. 


uT. Colwell-Willoughby, Karahissar 21274-77. 
-A.W.C 


GALITZA, or Galič ((aAtrfa, also “Galatikon” in 
Theodore PRopROoMos—A. Kazhdan in Okeanos 


356), town on the Dniester and center of one of 


the principalities of Rus’. Vladimirko of Galič 
(1141-53) was an ally (or vassal; Aypospondos in 


Kinn. 115.19) of Manuel I against Géza II of 


Hungary. Vladimirko’s son Jaroslav harbored the 
future emperor Andronikos I in 1165, but Man- 
uel’s diplomacy secured Andronikos’s return. AN- 
TONY OF NovGoROD mentions a Galician embassy 
to Constantinople in 1200, possibly negouating 
for the campaign of Roman of Galitza against the 
Cumans in 1201 (Ntk.Chon. 522.26—523.35). The 


bishopric of Galitza, under the metropolitan of 


Kiev, was founded between 1147 and 1153. In 
the 14th C. it was sporadically raised to the rank 
of metropolis (Notitiae CP, nos. 17.157, 18.150). 
Casimir of Poland, requesting a metropolitan from 
Patr. PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS in 1370, after his 
annexation of Galtza (MM 1:577.29g-32), men- 
tions four previous incumbents, and when Metr. 
Antony was appointed in 1371 bishoprics of Cholm, 
Turov, Peremys!’, and Volodimer were put under 
his jurisdiction (MM 1:579.23-24). In the mid- 
igth C. Galitza played a conspicuous role in the 
transmission of Byz. literary culture in Slavonic 


translation: the best texts of the translations of 
MALaLas, JOSEPHUS Flavius, and the ALEXANDER 
RoMANCE all derive from Galician compilations. 
trv. G. Stökl in Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands, ed. M. 
Hellman, vol. 1 (Stutgart 1981) 484-533. E. Frances, “Les 
relations russo-byzantines au Xile siècle et la domination 
de Galicie au Bas-Danube,” BS 20 (1959) 50-62. O. Jure- 
wicz, “Aus der Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen By- 
zanz und Russland in der zweiten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhun- 
derts.” Byzantinische Beiträge, ed. J. Irmscher (Berlin 1964) 
333757: S.C 


GALLA PLACIDIA (I &ħa llàarxiðia), more fully 
Aclia Galla Placidia, augusta of the Western Ro- 
man Empire (421-50); born 388 (S.I. Oost, ClPhil 
60 [1965] 1-4) or 393 (S. Rebenich, Historia 34 
[1985] 372-85) in Constantinople or ‘Tlhessaloni- 
ke, died Rome 27 Nov. 450. Daughter of Theo- 
dosios J, she spent most of her life in the West. 
When Rome was sacked by Alaric in 410 the 
Visigoths carried Galla Placidia off to Gaul, and 
in Jan. 414 she married the new king Athaulf. 
After his death she was returned to the Romans. 
On 1 Jan. 417 Galla married the patrician Flavius 
Constantius to whom she bore the future emperor 
Valentinian [I] and a daughter, Justa Grata Ho- 
noria. In Feb. 421 Honorius proclaimed Constan- 
tius augustus (as Constantius IH), but Theodosios 
II refused to recognize his accession. There are 
some vague indications that Constantius made 
warlike preparations against the East, but he died 
on 2 Sept. 421. Galla Placidia was accused of 
treason and conspiracy against her brother Hono- 
rius. She sought sanctuary at the court of Theo- 
dosios II in 423. After the death of Honorius the 
Eastern court used Galla Placidia and her son to 
assert indirect control over the West. Valentinian 
was brought to Italy and created augustus, with 
Galla Placidia exercising regency over him, a power 
she shared increasingly with the magister militum 
Aetius. She was an ardent supporter of Ortho- 
doxy and a generous donor of churches, esp. in 
Ravenna, but she also knew how to maintain a 
modus vivendi with Arians. Her only known por- 
trait is on solidi struck under Valentinian IH. 
ur. S.L Oost. Galla Placidia Augusta (Chicago 1968). 


V.A. Sirago, Galla Placidia e la trasformazione politica dell- 
Occidente (Louvain 1961). -T.E.G. 


GALLERY (izep@ov, KaTnxovpevov. KATNXOV- 
méviov), a corridor above the aisles and narthex 
of a church, opening fully onto the space of the 


GALLUNIANU TREASURE 819 





GaLLERY. North gallery of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. looking west. 


nave through arcades or colonnades. Galleries 
occur in major churches throughout the empire 
from the 4th to igth C. Reserved elsewhere for 
women or (in early centuries) for CATECHUMENS, 
gallerics in palace chapels or churches became the 
preserve of the emperor or local ruler and his 
court, m part because they provided casy access 
to the church from upper levels of adjacent pal- 
aces (Hagia Sophia, Constantinople; St. Sophia. 
Kiev); portions of the gallery in the Hagia Sophia, 
Constantinople, served as the PARAKYPTIKON and 
METATORION and were the setting of church COUN- 
cits. Canon 97 of the Council in TRULLO (680/1) 
forbade pricsts and laymen to live in gallorics with 
their wives (a ban renewed by nov. 73 of Leo VI). 
Galleries were introduced into all types of churches: 
longitudinal pasiicas, whether truss-roofed (“ex- 
ta muros“ basilica at PHILIPPI, St. DEMETRIOS, 
Thessalonike) or domed (St. John, Ernesus; S. 
Marco, Ventcr), and centralized churches, whether 
arcular (Konjuh, Macedonia), polygonal (S. Vi- 
tale. Ravenna), tetraconch (S. Lorenzo, MILAN; 
ZUART'NOG’), or otherwise. They do not appear 
in the naves of basilicas where major fresco or 


mosaic cycles were planned in continuous se- 
quence of images. While galleries become less 
common after the 7th C., they reappear with some 
frequency in the 1gth—1sth C., most notably in 
Misrra and other provincial capitals. Galleries 
enhance the majesty of ecclesiastical spaces; may 
add substantially to the cost of the structure; iden- 
uly imperial, roval, or princely presence; and 
exhibit society divided between the people below 
and the aristocracy above. 

tir. C. Delvove, RBA 2:12g—44. Mathews, Early Churches 


10-23. 31-33. 47751. 128-33, 103-65, 179- 
-W.L K.MLK, 





GALLIPOLI. See KALLIPOLIS. 


GALLUNIANU TREASURE, dated to the 6th 
C. and found in 1963 near Poggibonsi in Tuscany, 
Italy, 2.5 km from Galognano. Now im the Pina- 
coteca of Siena, the treasure contains six silver 
objects (four chalices, one paten, one spoon). Two 
objects bear inscribed dedications made by, re- 
specuvely. Sivegerna and Himnigilda (names of 


820 GALLUS 


Germanic, perhaps Gothic, origin), with one men- 
tioning the “church of Gallunianu,” a place iden- 
tified with the modern village of Galognano. All 
six objects resemble comparable types found in 
Asia Minor and Syria and have been ascribed to 
local Byz. manufacture in the mid-6th C., on the 
eve of the Lombard invasion. In size and com- 
position (type of objects and dedications) the Gal- 
lunianu Treasure is similar to contemporaneous 
silver TREASURES from other Byz. villages. 

LT. ©. von Hessen, W. Kurze, C.A. Mastrelli, // tesoro 


di Galognano (Florence 1977). Mango, Silver, nos. 77—82. 
-M.M.M. 


GALLUS (IaAdos), more fully Flavius Claudius 
Constantius Gallus, caesar of the eastern part of 
the empire (from 15 Mar. 351); born on the estate 
of Massa Veternensis, Etruria, 325/6, died near 
Pola end of 354. Nephew of Constantine I and 
half-brother of Julian, he survived the massacre 
of his family in 337 and lived out of public view 
until Constantius I made him caesar. Constantius 
then gave his sister Constantia to Gallus in mar- 
riage and stationed him in Antioch so that he 
could deal with the Persian threat while Constan- 
tius suppressed the usurpation of MAGNENTIUS. 
Gallus succeeded in keeping the Persians at bay. 
He was a fervent Christian of Arian persuasion; 
he reportedly placed the relics of St. Babylas in 
the temple of Apollo at Antioch to silence the 
demon’s prophecies. Ammianus Marcellinus con- 
demns the cruelty of Gallus, his bloody suppres- 
sion of a Jewish revolt in Palestine, and the mur- 
der of some subordinates, but R. Blockley (infra) 
considers these charges unfair. In 354 he was 
recalled and executed by orders of Constantius. 
LIT. Stein, Histoire 1:141f. O. Seeck, RE 4 (1901) 1094- 
gg. PLRE 1:224f. R. Blockley, “Constantius Gallus and 
Julian as Caesars of Constantius H,” Latomus 31 (1972) 
433-68. J. Arce, “La rebelion de los Judios durante el 
gobierno de Constancio Galo Cesar: 353 d-C.,” Athenaeum 
H7 (1987) 109-25. P. Schäfer, “Der Aufstand gegen Gallus 
Caesar,” in Essays in Honour of J.C.H. Lebram (Leiden 1986) 
184-201. -T.E.G. 


GAMBLING. See Games, BOARD. 


GAMBROS (yaußpós), properly “son-in-law,” term 
that in the 12th C. became a semiofficial title 
encompassing a broad group of nobles linked to 
the emperor by affinity—husbands of the em- 


peror’s daughters, sisters, aunts, and esp. nieces 
and cousins. The latter were called “sebastot” and 
“gambrow” and formed an upper layer within the 
category of the seBasTor. Pseudo-Kodinos con- 
siders gambrot as members of the group of the 
DESPOTAI and ascribes to them a special kind of 
coronet (pseudo-Kod. 147.4—8). The term could 
also be employed as a separate title, for example, 
in the prostagma of 1330 (Esphig., no.18.13). Gam- 
bros was also a term of Byz. pIPLOMACY conferred 
upon certain rulers within the so-called hierarchy 
of nations (see STATES, HIERARCHY OF). 

LIT. L. Stiernon, “Notes de titulature et de prosopogra- 
phie byzantines. Sébaste et gambros,” REB 23 (1965) 232- 
43. S. Binon, “A propos d’un prostagma inédit d’Andronic 
III Paléologue,” BZ 38 (1938) 388-94. ~ALK, 


GAMES, BOARD, were inherited from antiquity 
and common among all layers of society. There 
were several kinds of board game: in addition to 
cHEss Koukoules (infra) distinguishes among dice 
(kybor), backgammon (tablia) or checkers (petteia), 
and knucklebones (astragalismos), but the exact 
difference between them is hard to define. It is 
reported (Malal. 345.16-17) that Theodosios I 
transformed the temple of Artemis in Constanti- 
nople into a tabloparochion or gaming room for 
dice players. Gambling by clergy, however, was 
prohibited by canon law (PG 137:125C—128B). 
The major reason for the prohibition was the Byz. 
tendency to abstain from playing with TYCHE or 
fortune. Anna Komnene, who approved of chess, 
was very critical of other board games. They be- 
came ubiquitous during the late period: in 1437 
Pero TaFrur saw gaming boards in the imperial 
library of Constantinople (N. Wilson, GRBS 8 
[1967] 54). John Choumnos (end of the 13th C.), 
in a letter to a “philosopher” (Boissonade, AnecNova 
215f), describes gambling along with feasting and 
dancing as main elements of an ENTERTAINMENT 
during the CaLEnps: “the spotted bones,” he says, 
“promptly changed the mood of men, making 
some happy and others sad.” SACHLIKES com- 
plains (or rather boasts) of his losses at gambling. 

Excavations have uncovered many dice and other 
gaming pieces of uncertain date. Game boards 
have been found, scratched crudely on paving 
slabs of roadways and buildings. These are mainly 
of two types: circles divided into wedge-shaped 
sections and rectangles divided into square sec- 
uons. 


tir. Koukoules, Bios 1:185-219. H. Lamer, RE 13 (1927) 
1900—2029. —Ap.K. 


GAMMATA (yáåupara), ornaments in the shape 
of the Greek letter gamma, signifying the number 
three; as a symbol of the Trinity this letter became 
popular at the time of the Trinitarian discussion. 
Jonn Lypos (De mag. 88.16) describes festive cloaks 
with aurigammoi, small golden gammata. Very sim- 
ilar in form was the Latin uncial L interpreted as 
the foundation stone (Eph 2:20), that is, Christ 
himself. The shape persisted in later periods, used 
to surround the crosses On a POLYSTAURION (Bal- 
samon, in Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 4:551.19—20) 
and on meta! book covers. 


uit. A. Quacquarelli, “La gammadia pietra angolare: L,” 
VetChr 21 (1984) 5-25. -A.K. 


GAMZIGRAD, modern name of a fortified site 
in the province of Dacia Ripensis, north of Niš in 
Yugoslavia. Thanks to an early 4th-C. inscription 
reading “Felix Romuliana” (D. Srejovic, Startnar 
36 [1985] 51—60 and fig.1), it can be identified as 
the Romyhana mentioned by Prokopios (Buildings 
4:4). Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, in his epitome, re- 
lates that GALERJUS was buried in a place called 
Romulianum in honor of the emperor’s mother, 
Romula. 

Monumental walls with 20 octagonal towers and 
elaborate gates to the west and east surround the 
site. Inside this fortification excavations have re- 
vealed two temples, one of which may be the 
mausoleum of Galerius, and palatial structures; 
mosaic pavements include Dionysiac and hunting 
scenes. Fragments of marble cult statues and of 
porphyry figure(s) of an emperor survive; archi- 
tectural sculpture depicts royal themes. This im- 
perial complex was erected at the beginning of 
the 4th C.; construction occurred in two phases, 
apparent in both fortifications and interior archi- 
tecture. It deteriorated soon after the death of 
Galerius but was reconstructed at the end of the 
4th or early 5th C. and survived through the 6th 
C. The nature of the site changed, however: two 
Christian churches, simple dwellings, and work- 
shops were built. According to Prokopios, Justi- 
nian I restored Romyliana. A basilica dating to 
the late 6th C. was the latest monumental con- 
struction. Afterwards the area acquired a rural 
character. 


GANGRA, LOCAL COUNCIL OF | 821 


uit. D. Srejovie, A. Lalavi¢, Dj. Jankovic, Gamzgrad (Bel- 
grade 1983). M. Canak Medić, Gamzigrad kasnoanti¢ka palata 
{Belgrade 1978). D. Srejović, “Two Memorial Monuments 
of Roman Palatial Architecture: Diocletianus’ Palace at Split 
and Galerius’ Palace at Gamzigrad,” Archaeologia Tugoslavica 
22—23 (1982-83) 41—49. Idem, “Felix Romuliana: Carska 

palata ili. . . 2” Starinar 37 (1986) 87-102. 
-R.E.K., AK. 


GANGRA (layypa, sometimes Tayypat, now 
Cankin), city on a tributary of the Halys, com- 
manding the main routes from Galatia to the 
Black Sea, became capital of PAPHLAGONIA ¢a.297. 
‘Tradition associated Gangra with the martyr Kal- 
linikos and the bishop St. Hypatios; it was the 
site of a council (see GANGRA, LOCAL COUNCIL OF) 
in ca.341. In the 5th and 6th C., Gangra appears 
primarily as the place of exile for several leading 
churchmen, such as TIMOTHEOS AILOUROS and 
PHILOXENOS OF Massguc. Patr. Makedonios fled 
to Gangra in 515 and later was buried in the 
Church of St. Kallinikos. Although off the main 
invasion routes, Gangra was attacked by the Arabs 
in 712, 724, and 742. St. PHILARETOS THE MER- 
cIFUL, whose life illustrates local conditions in the 
8th C., was a major landowner in a village under 
the jurisdiction of Gangra. It was taken in 1075 
by the Danismendids, who held it against the 
Crusaders in 1101. John H Komnenos captured 
it ¢a.1134 during his Paphlagonian campaigns, 
but it soon fell permanently to the Turks. Gangra 
was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Paphlagonia; 
it had five suffragans in 451, four ca.850, and 
three at the end of the 11th C. The hill above the 
city preserves the dilapidated remains of an un- 
dated Byz. fortress. 


tir. R. Janin, D. Suernon, DHGE 1g (1981) 10g1--1103. 
-C.F. 


GANGRA, LOCAL COUNCIL OF. This council 
Was CUnvCucd ta.441 (daic diəpuicu) Www tunden 
the radical asceticism associated with the Eusta- 
thians (see EusrarHios oF ANTIOCH). Its only 
surviving document is a synodal letter consisting 
of 20 canons and a concluding epilogue (some- 
times viewed as an additional canon) addressed 
to the episcopate of neighboring Armenia. The 
ascetics under judgment were primarily accused 
of rejecting family life and marriage (including 
married clergy), promoting social revolution by 
encouraging slaves to disobey their masters, in- 


822 | GANOS, MOUNT 


sisting that the rich could not enter the Kingdom 
of God, inspiring women to dress like men, and 
maintaining their own private liturgical assemblies 
while rejecting those of the church. Although 
evidence is lacking, the theological and soctoeco- 
nomic implications of these ascetic novelties were 
no doubt discussed at length. Their explicit con- 
demnation by the council is nevertheless balanced 
by a forceful affirmation (in the letter’s epilogue) 
of traditional asceticism and continence. The can- 
ons constitute our earliest and, hence, crucial evi- 
dence for the origins Of MONASTICISM in Asia 
Minor. Despite their provincial origin, they were 


incladed in all the major canonical collections of 


the church; BatsaMmon and Zonaras commented 
on them (PG 137:1233—73). 

SOURCE. Mansi 2:109371122. 

wir. G. Gribomont, “Le Monachisme au IVE s. en Asie 
Mineure: De Gangres au Messalianisme,” Si? 2 (Berlin 
1957) 400715. J. de Churruca, “Lanathème du Concile de 
Gangres contre ceux qui sous prétexte de christianisme 
incitent les esclaves à quitter leurs maitres,” Revue hastorique 
de droil francais et Aranger 60 (1982) 201-78. -A.P. 


GANOS, MOUNT, holy mountain in Thrace, on 
the western shore of the Sea of Marmara, about 
15 kin southwest of Rhaidestos. Located near the 
small town of Ganos (Pav(v)os, mod. Gazikéy). by 


the roth or aith C. the mountain was the site of 


a federation of monastic communities. headed by 
a PROTOS (Laurent, Corpus 5.2, nos. 1228-32). 
One of its most famous protoi was John PHOURNES, 
who assisted Euthymios ZIGABENOS in the compi- 
lation of his Panoplia. Its monasteries suffered 
destruction during the attacks of the Bulgarians 
in 1199, the Crusaders in 1203, and the Catalan 
Company in the early 1gth C. In the late 13th C. 
the future patriarch Aruanasios I founded a 
double monastery there and clashed with the pro- 
Unionist bishop of Ganos who had been installed 
by Patr. John XI Bekkos. Maximos KausoKaLy- 
BITES spent the carly part of his career on Ganos. 

LT. R. Janin, L. Stiernon, DHGE 19 (1981) 1105710. 
M. Gedeon, “Mnemeia latreias christianikes en Ganocho- 
rois.” FERAL 92 (1912) g04f. 311-13. 325-27. 352-55. 389- 
g2. Zacos, Seals, vol. 2. no.688. -A M.T. 


GARDEN (Kros, also called peribolion). Essential 
to Byz. HORTICULTURE, gardens formed a valuable 
part of a domestic establishment, providing its 
members with FREUrT and vegetables. Even a poor 


monastery had a garden (e.g.. vita of Meletios the 
Younger, ed. V. VasiVevski, PPSb 17 [1886] 21.10-7— 
1g), and most peasants, according to Athonite 
praktika, had vineyards and small garden plots 
(Laiou, Peasant Society 32f). Big Farms. like that 
of the Argyropouloi in 15th-C. Thessalonike, which 
raised vegetables for market, are also known. There 
was no clear distinction between VINEYARDS, gar- 
dens, and kitchen gardens: vines often grew to- 
gether with (and upon) fruit trees, and vegetables 
were raised under trees; accordingly “mixed” terms 
such as ampelokepion (vinevard-garden) were used. 
Gardens were usually established where there was 
access to water: in Instances where IRRIGATION 
was used. the plot was sometimes qualified with 
the adjective /ypopotion (drinking). Probably the 
term chersoperibolon designated allotments where 
no irrigation system had been installed. Vineyards 
and gardens were usually surrounded by a fence 
and a dich (already mentioned in the FARMER’S 
Law). and later even by a brick wall, and special 
guards were commonly used to prevent trespass- 
ing. 

Pleasure gardens occupy an important place in 
Byz. ROMANCE as a place for romantic encounters, 
and the garden of Enrn played a significant part 
in Byz. cosmology. 

pry. OL Schussel. Der bytantinische Garten (Vienna 1942). 
ALR. Littlewood. “Romantic Paradises: The Role of the 


Garden in the Byzantine Romance.” BMGS 5 (1979) 95- 
tig —J.WON. AK. 


GARIGLIANO, or Liris, a river in southern Italy 
ün the arca of Gacta). In the second half of the 
gth C. there existed on the right bank of the 
Garigliano an Arab colony dangerous both to 
Rome and to Byz. possessions in southern Italy. 
In the next century Pope Jonn X forced the Arabs 
to retreat to the Garigliano from Narni and Ciculi. 
In 914 the coalition that arose against the Arabs 
of the Garigliano region included the newly elected 
pope, Constantinople, and Berengar of Friuli as 
well as Spoleto and several other southern Italian 
princedoms. In June gi5 the Byz. fleet blocked 
the estuary of the Garigliano, and a united army 
üncluding the troops of Nicholas Picingli, strategos 
of Longobardia) forced the Muslims to flee to the 
mountain peaks. In Aug. 915, pressed by famine, 
they tried to escape but were killed or captured. 
A legend asserts that the apostles Peter and Paul 
appeared and encouraged the Christian army. 


LIT. Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.1:236-38. ©. Vehse, “Das 
Bündnis gegen die Sarazenen vom Jahre g15,” Quellen und 
Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 19 (1927) 
181-204. -A.K. 


GARIZIM. See NEAPOLIS. 


GARLAND, rope woven of leaves, usually laurel, 
sometimes with fruit or flowers and, like the 
WREATH, suggestive of ceremonial splendor. Com- 
mon in Late Antique art, garlands were some- 
times carried by putti and combined with masks 
in the classical tradition. ‘hey frequently fes- 
tooned official and funerary monuments, for ex- 
ample, the Mausoleum of Diocletian at SPLIT, 
consular DIPTYCHS, and sarcophagi. 

Garlands decorated vaults and arch soffits in 
monumental painting and mosaics throughout Byz. 
art, e.g., Church of the AcrerRopoiEeros, Thessa- 
lonike, apse mosaic of Hacia Sorna (Constanti- 
nople), and the CHORA MONASTERY. Framing ele- 
ments consisting of garlands appeared in FLOOR 
MOSAICS, TEXTILES, and BOOK ILLUMINATION, for 
example, the Paris PsaLTER. They were most 
common from the qth to 6th C. and again in the 
gth to 10th C. 

ur. E. Borsch-Supan, Garten-, Landschafts- und Paradies- 


motiven im Innenraum (Berlin 1967) 79-110. Frantz, “Byz. 
Illuminated Ornament’ 67f. -R.E.K. 


GASMOULOS (yacovdos, also Bacpotdos, etym. 
unknown), a descendant of a Byz. and a Latin 
(most often a Byz. female and a Latin, esp. Vene- 
tan, male). The word first appears in sources of 
the second half of the 13th C. Following the 
reconquest of Constantinople by Michael VIII 
Palaiologos in 1261, gasmouloi were recruited in 
large numbers as mercenaries to form the core of 
the light-armed contingent serving aboard Mi- 
chael’s refurbished fleet, this Gasmuulikun appears 
in several naval campaigns during the 1260s and 
1270s. Despite Andronikos II’s reduction of the 
fleet in 1285, some gasmouloi remained in the 
service of the emperor, others served aboard Latin 
ships or acted as pirates in the Aegean. Later they 
seem to have played a significant military role in 
the Cıvıl War OF 1341-47. By the mid-1q4th C. 
service in the fleet as a gasmoulos (gasmoulike dou- 
leia) had lost its ethnic character. Gasmouloi served 
the Ottomans in the second half of the 14th C., 


GATE, CITY 823 


and gasmouloi with a hereditary military obligation 
(servitio et tentmento vasmulia) served the Latin rul- 
ers in the Aegean in the 15th—16th C. A number 
of gasmouloi were Venetian nationals. Their na- 
uonality was a source of friction between the em- 
pire and Venice from 1277 until the 1320s. 

ur. D. Jacoby, “Les Vénitiens naturalisés dans l'empire 
byzantin,” TM 8 (1981) 221-24. Ahrweiler, Mer 339, 361f, 
384. 405. —M.B. 


GATE, CITY, designated by múàn, the same word 
as “door,” formed an opening in the city walls, 
usually in the form of an arcu. The gate marked 
the point where the principal urban thoroughfare 
changed into a highway. Through the gate the 
city communicated with the outer world: goods 
were imported, livestock driven to market, troops 
departed and returned, visitors and processions 
entered. Some portals were the setting of cere- 
monies, such as ADVENTUS. The gates sometimes 
consisted of wide passages for carriages and nar- 
row wickets for pedestrians. Gates were the weak- 
est point in the system of fortifications; they had 
to be barred at night and guarded by special 
watchmen who had possession of the keys; they 
were flanked by towers. 

The Roman practice of embellishing the main 
entrances in city walls was pursued at SPLIT, 
Gamzicrab, and other towns and camps. Gates 
were decorated with statuary set in niches and 
colonnades resting on corbels to either side and 
above the gate. Other examples are preserved at 
Nicaea, Nrkopo._is, and the north and south gates 
at SERGIOPOLIS. Apart from the GOLDEN GATE and 
those of the BLACHERNa! quarter, the names of 
seven of Constantinople’s gates are known. Most 
derive from the region of the city in which they 
were situated, local churches (e.g., St. Romanos), 
or destinations beyond them (PEGE, RHEGION). 
Towers flanking these gates bear many inscrip- 
uon allesuing to thei imperial sponsorsnip or 
restoration. There is little basis for the widespread 
supposition that some gates were reserved for 
military use only. 

In Byz. symbolism the pyle (gate or door) played 
an important role: both heaven and hell were 
supposed to have gates; Christ was a gate in the 
tower that represented the Church, and the gate 
facing east was a typos of the Virgin. In iconog- 
raphy, the gate stood for the city in the ENTRY 
INTO JERUSALEM, for the province in the FLIGHT 


824 | GATTILUSIO 


INTO Ecyrr. Book illustrators employed a pyle (a 
pi-shaped framed HEADPIECE) at the “entrance” of 
many texts. 

ur. W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in Syrien 
(Berlin 1976). Janin, CP byz. 267-83. E-B. Smith, Architec- 
tural Symbolism (Princeton 1956) 10-51. R. Schultze, “Die 


römischen Stadttore,” BJb 118 (1909) 324-46. 
-M.J A.K., A.C. 


GATTILUSIO (laredtod{os) or Gattilusi, Gen- 
oese family that ruled Lesbos from 1355 to 1462. 
The Levantine branch of the family was founded 
by Francesco L, an adventurer who was reportedly 
instrumental in securing control of Constantino- 
ple for Jonn V PaLasoLocos in Nov. 1354 (Douk. 
67-69). He was rewarded with marriage (summer 
1355) to the emperor’s sister Irene (who took the 
name Maria) and with lordship over Lesbos. In 
1366 he helped AMaveEo VI or Savoy recapture 
Gallipoli (KaLuipotis) from the Turks. Doukas 
called Francesco a “good and faithful friend” of 
John V; he accompanied the emperor to Rome 
in 136g. Francesco died in the earthquake that 
struck Lesbos on 6 Aug. 1384, together with two 
of his sons, Andronico and Domenico. 

He was succeeded by his son Francesco II (1384—- 
1403), whose daughter Irene (later Eugenia) mar- 
ried John VII Palaiologos and was the mother of 
the short-lived ANDRONIKOS V (N. Oikonomnides, 
Thesaurismata 5 [1968] 28-31 and “Ivory Pyxis” 
331f). To underline their Palaiologan connec- 
tions, the Gattilusio family made frequent use of 
the double-headed EAGLE on their coins and her- 


aldry. The family ruled over Lesbos until 1462, 
when Niccolò Gattilusio was forced to surrender 
to the Turks. They also acquired control of other 
northern Aegean islands and coastal lands, in- 
cluding Ainos, Thasos, Samothrace, Lemnos, and 
Palaia Phokaia. The salt beds of Ainos and alum 
mines of Phokaia provided substantial income. An 
important source for the later history of the fam- 
ily is Doukas, who was in the service of the Gat- 
tilusio and went on embassies for Dorino I (1428— 
55) and Domenico (1455-58). (See genealogical 
table.) 

tir. G.T. Dennis, “The Short Chronicle of Lesbos 135 5~ 
1428,” Lesbiaka 5 (1966) 128-42. W. Miller, “The Gattilusj 
of Lesbos (1355-1462)," BZ 22 (1913) 406-47. PLP, 
nos.3580—94. A. Luttrell, “John V's Daughters: A Palaio- 
logan Puzzle,” DOP 40 (1986) 103-12. -A.M.T., A.C. 


GAUFREDUS MALATERRA, Benedictine monk 
who accompanied other Normans to southern 
Italy and who evidently belonged to the entourage 
of Count Roger I of Sicily; died before 1101. At 
Count Roger I’s request Gaufredus authored On 
the Deeds of Roger Count of Calabria and Sicily and 
his Brother Robert Guiscard, a history of the Nor- 
mans from ca.1038 to 1099. Dedicated to Anger- 
ius, bishop of Catania, the work mixes prose with 
verse and apparently was left unfinished. Al- 
though the earlier part contains legendary mate- 
rial, the contemporary section offers unique de- 
tails on prosopography and military events of the 
Byz.-Norman conflict in southern Italy, possibly 
furnished by Roger’s court. Gaufredus considered 


SELECTED GENEALOGY OF THE GATTILUSIO FAMILY IN THE LEVANT 
IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES 


Francesco I m. — Irene-Maria Palaiologina 


Francesco II m. (?) daughter of JOHN V PALAIOLOGOS Andronico Domenico 


Jacopo I Dorino I Palamede Irene-Eugenia m. JOHN VIJ PALAIOLOGOS 


Caterina Dorino Il ANDRONIKOS V PALAIOLOGOS 
m. CONSTANTINE XI 


PALAIOLOGOS 


Domenico Niccold 


Based on A. Luttrell, DOP 40 (1986) 103-12. 





the Byz. too soft to make good warriors (bk.3, 
ch.13), but his account sheds much light on Byz. 
CALABRIA, esp. on George ManiakeEs (bk.1, chs. 
7—8). and the subjugation of Calabria (bk.1, chs. 
9—37). He describes how Guiscard exploited Mi- 
chae! VII's deposition (bk.3, chs. 13-14) and the 
Norman assault on Greece (bk.3, chs. 24-29, 33, 
39741). 

ED. De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis, ed. 
E. Pontieri [= RIS? 5.1] (Bologna 1927-28) 3-108. 

LIT. O. Capitani, “Specific Motivations and Continuing 
Themes in the Norman Chronicles of Southern Italy: Elev- 
enth and Twelfth Centuries,” in The Normans in Sicily and 
Southern Italy (Oxford 1977) 1-46. Karayannopulos-Weiss, 
Quellenkunde 2:41 5. —M.McC, 


GAVRIIL OF LESNOVO, Bulgarian hermit and 
saint; born Osi¢e near Kriva Palanka, f. 11th- 
early 12th C. Gavriil founded the monastery of 
the Archangel Michael (later known as the Les- 
novo monastery) on the slopes of Mt. Plavitsa, 
near the village of Lesnovo (now in the Yugoslav 
republic of Macedonia). Established in the period 
of Byz. rule in Bulgaria, it became a center of 
learning and book production throughout the 
Middle Ages. In the second half of the 14th C. 
the saint’s remains were removed to the Church 
of the Holy Apostles in the capital city of Tur- 
novo. The present monastery church was built in 
1347 by the Serbian despotes Jovan OLIVER on the 
site of Gavriil’s original church. The fine frescoes 
are probably of the same date. 

ur. G. Traichev, Manastirite v Makedonija (Sofia 1930) 
gi—1o1. K. Balabanov, A. Nikolovski, D. Kornakov, Spo- 


menici na kulturata na Makedonija (Skopje 1980) 112-17, 
304 (plate). -R.B. 


GAYANE. See VAŁARŠAPAT. 


GAZA (Táta, Ar. Ghazzah), ancient city on south- 
ern coast of Palestine that remained prosperous 
until the end of the 6th C., when the PIACENZA 
PıLcRıM (ch.33) called it a “lovely and renowned 
city.” Gaza lay inland, almost 5 km from its harbor 
at Constantia. It was a center of trade with Mecca; 
according to Arabic legend, Hashim, great-grand- 
father of Muhammad, died there. Gaza resisted 
the penetration of Christianity and until the be- 
ginning of the 5th C. possessed a pagan shrine of 
Zeus Marnas (the Marneion), which was finally 
destroyed by PorpHyrios or Gaza, probably in 
402. Even after the extinction of paganism, Gaza 
remained an important focus of ancient culture; 


GAZES, THEODORE 825 


teachers at its school of rhetoric included CHo- 
RIKIOS OF Gaza and Prokorios OF Gaza, while 
DOROTHEOS OF GAZA was an influential monastic 
writer. On the MADABA MOSAIC MAP, Gaza is shown 
as a large city with colonnaded streets crossing its 
center and a large basilica in the middle, probably 
the church erected over the Marneion. A mosaic 
dated by Greek inscription to 508/9 was found 
during the excavations of a synagogue on the 
seashore; it represents David as Orpheus, and 
dressed as a Byz. emperor (A. Ovadiah, /EJ 19 
[1969] 193-98). 

When Gaza was conquered by the Arabs under 
‘AMR in 635, the soldiers of the garrison were 
massacred; the Christian civilian population sur- 
vived, however, and the city remained the seat of 
the governor of the Negev. In 723-26 the pilgrim 
Willibald saw a church in Gaza. The sequence of 
ceramic finds near Gaza indicates that soon there- 
after the area was abandoned (I..Y. Rahmani, IEJ 

33 [1983] 219-30). Probably recovered by the 
1oth C., Gaza was again in ruins when it fell to 
the Crusaders. They fortified it anew from ca.1149, 
and a lower town of merchants and peasants grew 
up around the citadel. The citadel of Gaza played 
an important part in the Crusaders’ conquest of 
ASKALON. Saladin captured Gaza in 1187, but 
Richard I Lionheart retook it and the Latins held 
it until 1229. Gaza was never a goal of pilgrimage, 
but an EULOGIA stamp with a representation of 
the Virgin was found near there (L.Y. Rahmani, 
IEJ 20 [1970] 105—08). 

ur. D. Sourdel, EI? 2:1056f. G. Downey, Gaza in the 
Early Sixth Century (Norman, Okla., 1963). K. Scitz, Die 


Schule von Gaza (Heidelberg 1892). FAEHL 2:408-17. 
-G.V., A.K., Z U.M 


GAZES, THEODORE, Greek émigré teacher and 
translator in Italy; born Thessalonike ca.1400, 
died Policastro in Calabria 1475/0. The early ca- 
reer of Gazces (Pagis) is poorly documented. Be- 
fore 1440 he moved to Italy and taught Greek in 
Ferrara, Naples, and Rome, where he joined the 
literary circle of Bessarion. In Ferrara he wrote 
the Introduction to Greek Grammar (D. Donnet, By- 
zantion 49 [1979] 133-55), which became the stan- 
dard textbook for humanists and was highly praised 
by Erasmus. He also delivered a speech called On 
the Importance of Greek Studies, in which he empha- 
sized the value of reading Greek literature as 
preparation for participation in political life. Gazes 
contributed much to developing mutual knowl- 


826 | GEITONIA 


edge of the Latin and Greek worlds; he translated 
Cicero and Claudian into Greek and made Latin 
translations or paraphrases of Xenophon, Aris- 
totle, and some patristic texts (e.g., Chrysostom’s 
commentary on Matthew). The study of Aristotle, 
whom Gazes tried to reconcile with Christian doc- 
trines on the Trinity, on the immortality of the 
individual soul, and on the incarnation, led him 
into polemics with PLETHON, the consistent fol- 
lower of Plato. 

Gazes supported the policy of Union of 
Churches, in which he saw the only means to stop 
the Ottoman conquest. His letter to Francesco 
FILELFO, a treatise on the origin of the Turks (PG 
161:997—1006), attests to his interest in their his- 
tory. Moreover, Gazes argues against Plethon’s 
fatalistic concept of the Turkish invasion as a 
revenge for Alexander the Great’s conquest; he 
lays the foundation of historical criticism, drawing 
a contrast between Plethon’s account and the his- 
tory of the Turks as presented by “Skylax” (i.e., 
Skylitzes), whom Gazes finds closer to Strabo. 

ED. PG 19:1168-1216; 161:985—1014. For complete list 
of works, see Tusculum-Lexikon 269. 

ur. D.J. Geanakoplos, “Theodore Gaza, a Byzantine 
Scholar of the Palaeologan ‘Renaissance’ in the Italian 
Renaissance,” MedHum n.s. 12 (1984) 61—81. J. Irmscher, 


“Theodoros Gazes als griechischer Patriot,” ParPass 78 
(1961) 161—73. PLP, no.3450. ~A.K., A.M.T. 


GEITONIA (yecrovia), neighborhood, quarter; 
the term was esp. often applied to Antioch, where 
Malalas (Malal. 417.14) mentions various gezloniat. 
Some geitoniat are known by name: in Evagrios 
Scholastikos (HE 2.12), Ostrakine; in Malalas 
(272.6), Skepane; and in Theophanes (Theoph. 
68.16), Iobiton. G. Downey (A History of Antioch 
[Princeton 1961] 478) suggests that Ostrakine was 
the potters’ quarter. Theophanes (236.6) also 
mentions the gettoniai of the Blues in Constanti- 
nople, and in an excerpt from Malalas (T. Momm- 
sen, Hermes 6 [1972] 380f) a gettonia ta Mazentiolou 
in Constantinople reappears. A.P. Djakonov’s the- 
ory (in VizSb 155f) that geitoniai were centers of 
FACTIONS is now rejected. 

The term geztonia disappeared after the 6th C. 
but the term gettonema (“neighborhood”) contin- 
ued in use. The hagiographer of GREGORY OF 
DEKAPOLIs (vita, ed. Dvornik, 63.22—26) reveals 
that geitonema gave some right to a neighboring 
piece of land. 


LIT. Cameron, Circus Factions 26f. G. Prinzing, “Zu den 
Wohnvierteln der Grünen und Blauen in Konstantinopel,” 
Studien zur Frühgeschichte Konstantinopels (Munich 1973) 31f, 
37741- -A.K. 


GEITONIARCHES (yetrovidpyns), the chief of- 
ficial of the Grironia. According to the 6th-C. 
GREGENTIOS (PG 86:577D), the king of the Him- 
yarites established in his capital 36 regiones and 
appointed to each a gettontarches with a SEKRETON. 
In the late gth-C. Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS the 
term designates subaltern officials of two depart- 
ments—that of the EPARCH OF THE CITY and that 
of the DEMARCHOI. The scanty evidence creates 
problems. If 1oth-C. geitoniarchai were in fact dis- 
trict magistrates, it seems strange that Philotheos 
speaks of only 12 geitoniarchai (Oikonomides, Listes 
209.22), whereas there were 14 districts in Con- 
stantinople. Secondly, if the geitontarchai of the 
demarchoi were local supervisors, then it is curious 
that there was only one geitoniarches of each color 
(Cameron, Circus Factions 92, n.3). 


LIT. Oikonomides, Listes 321, n. 194, 326. -A.K. 


GELASIOS OF CAESAREA, nephew of CYRIL of 
Jerusalem, died 395. Gelasios ([eAdotos) was 
elected bishop of Caesarea in 367. As a Nicaean, 
he naturally fell foul of the Arian emperor Valens 
and was ousted, but came back on the accession 
of THEeoposros I. THEODORET OF CYRRHUS (HE 
5-8) commends the purity of both Gelasios’s doc- 
trine and his life. JEROME (De vir. ill. 130) observes 
that he wrote quite well, but did not publish. At 
least some works circulated, however, since a 
number of authors do cite him. PHotios (Bibl, 
cod.8g) distinguishes two or three Gelasioses of 
Caesarea and lists their works, among which was 
the Church History, which ends with the death of 
Constantine the Great. Its relationship to the last 
two books of the continuation by RUFINUS OF 
AQUILEIA is much disputed (J. Schamp, PBR 6 
[1987] 146-52; idem, Byzantion 57 [1987] 360- 
go). Only fragments survive, as is the case with 
his Exposition of the Symbol, possibly similar to the 
catechetical lectures of his uncle Cyril. A polemic 
Against the Anomaeans mentioned by Photios is lost. 

Ep. Dickamp, AnalPatr 16-49. 

ur. F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte 
des Gelasios von Kaisareia (Berlin 1986). A. Glas, Die Kirchen- 


geschichte des Gelasios von Kavsareia (Leipzig-Berlin 1914). 
—B.B. 


GELASIOS OF KYZIKOS, church historian; died 
after 475. The name of Gelasios (TeAdouos) is 
preserved only by Photios (Bibl., cods. 15 and 88); 
the MSS of his writings, of which the oldest and 
the most important codex is Milan, Ambros. gr. 
534 of the 12th and/or 13th C. (ie., later than 
Photios), are anonymous. Of his life is known only 
what he himself says in the preface to his History: 
he was a son of a priest in Kyzikos and composed 
his work during the rebellion of BasiLisKos in 
order to refute the statement of the partisans of 
EuTYCHES that the fathers of the Council of Ni- 
caea allegedly had been inclined to the Mono- 
physite creed. The title of the book was Ekklesias- 
tike historia (Church History), replaced in later 
tradition by the title Syntagma of the Holy Council 
in Nicaea. The book begins with Constantine I the 
Great’s assumption of power; the manuscript 
breaks off at the description of the synod in Tyre 
in 335. According to Photios, the history originally 
extended to the end of Constantine’s reign; the 
Bibliotheca also records that Gelasios rejected the 
view that the emperor was baptized by a heretic 
and affirmed that Constantine was Orthodox. For 
his compilation Gelasios used some sources that 
are still extant (EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA, RUFINUS, 
SOKRATES, THEODORET OF CyRRHUS) as well as 
some texts now lost, such as the Church History of 
GELASIOS OF CAESAREA, the Church History of a 
certain John, and the documents of the Council 
of Nicaea, particularly the address of Constantine 
to the Council and the dialogue between the Fa- 
thers of Nicaea and the Arian philosopher Phai- 
don. 

FD. PG 85:1191—1360. Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. Loeschcke, 
M. Heinemann (Leipzig 1918). 

tir. F. Winkelmann, “Die Quellen der Historia Ecclesias- 
tica des Gelasius von Cyzicus (nach 475),” BS 27 (1966) 
104-30. C.T.H.R. Ehrhardt, “Constantinian Documents in 
Gelasius of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History,” JbAChr 23 (1980) 
48-57. G. Loeschcke, “Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzi- 
cenus,” RAM n.s. Go (1yup) §94-Gi39; Si (1906) 34-77- 

—A.K., B.B. 


GELASIUS I, pope (from 1 Mar. 492); died 21 
Nov. 496; probably an African by birth. As arch- 
deacon and papal secretary under FELIx III, Ge- 
lasius exerted influence even before his election 
to the papacy. He contributed much to developing 
the concept of papal primacy. Unlike his prede- 
cessor Leo I, Gelasius sought support from the 
barbarians, esp. THEODORIC THE Great. When 


GELIMER 827 


Emp. Zeno and particularly Anastasios | inclined 
toward alliance with Alexandria against Rome, he 
favored severing relations with Constantinople. 
He rejected the HENOTIKON and accused Patr. 
Akakios of heresy; his opposition to Constanti- 
nople was formulated in instructions (commonito- 
rium) sent to Theodoric’s magister officiorum Probus 
Faustus Niger. In his treatises, Gelasius developed 
the idea of papal authority as parallel to that of 
the emperor—as a governor of all the Romans 
based on the jus publicum—but with the emperor 
receiving his power from men and the pope from 
God. Accordingly, Gelasius stated that the canons 
of the Council of CHALCEDON (451) had validity 
only insofar as they were acknowledged by the 
papacy, and he denied the legality of canon 28 
(H. Anton, ZKirch 88 [1977] 79—82). It was prob- 
ably under his auspices that the legend of Pope 
SILVESTER developed. 

tir. W. Ullmann, Gelasius / (Stuttgart 1981). Idem, “Der 
Grundsatz der Arbeitsteilung bei Gelasius 1,” Hist/b 97—98 
(1978) 41-70. J. Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work: Ge- 
lasius I (4g2—96),” Journal of Religious History 8 (Sydney 
1975) 317-32. -A.K. 


GELATI, a monastic academy southwest of Ku- 
taisi in Georgia, founded by Davin H/IV THE 
RESTORER in 1106 and completed under King 
Demetrios (1125—56). The katholikon, a domed 
cruciform building with low chapels inserted at 
the four corners, is completely frescoed, save the 
apse, which carries a mosaic of the VircIn Ni- 
KOPOIOS. The subject and medium are both rare 
in Georgia, suggesting Byz. work, as does the 
presence of a lengthy Greek inscription. The pose 
of the Virgin, however—standing and closely 
flanked by archangels—and the enamel-like col- 
ors, are local features, as is the juxtaposition of 
the mosaic with frescoes (now obscured by 16th- 
and 17th-C. work) in the nave. Twelfth-century 
frescoes in the narthex represent the Seven Ecu- 
menical CounciLs. 


LIT. R. Mepisagvili, Architekturny] ansambl’ Gelati (Tbilisi 
1966). -A.T. 


GELIMER (lediuep), last Vandal king (530-34); 
born North Africa at unknown date, died Galatia 
at unknown date. The son of Gelaris, great-grand- 
son of GAISERIC, and nephew of kings Guntha- 
mund and Thrasamund, Gelimer became king 


828 | GEMS 


after his overthrow of the philobyzantine Hilderic 
on 19 May (Stein, infra 311) or 15 June 530 
(Courtois, infra 269). This act and his haughty 
rejection of the demand of Justinian 1 that Hild- 
eric be handed over created a diplomatic pretext 
for the Byz. reconquest of North Africa. Belisa- 
rios’s landing of an expeditionary force in Sept. 
533 surprised Gelimer, who ineptly directed the 
Vandal resistance; Belisarios subsequently de- 
feated the Vandals at Ad Decimum on 13 Sept. 
533. Gelimer unsuccessfully tried to besiege Be- 
lisarios at Carthage, was crushed at Tricamarum 
in mid-Dec., and fled to Mt. Pappua on the border 
of Numidia during the winter of 533-34. In Apr. 
534 Gelimer surrendered to Belisarios, effectively 
ending Vandal resistance. Gelimer was brought 
to Carthage, and then in the summer of 534 with 
his wife and children to Constantinople, where he 
was exhibited in a triumph in the Hippodrome. 
Justinian gave him an estate in Galatia but denied 
him the rank of patrikios because he refused to 
renounce Arianism. Despite his earlier reputation 
for military prowess, Gelimer was a poor military 
commander whose complex and moody person- 
ality (according to Prokopios, Wars 3:19.25-29) 
caused his lack of steadiness and inability to rule 
or to save his kingdom and people. 

LIT. C. Courtois, Les Vandales et l'Afrique (Paris 1955; rp. 
Aalen 1964) esp. 269-71, 353-55- Stein, Histoire 2:314- 
18. L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Wandalen (Munich 1942) 121- 


41. P. Pischel, Kulturgeschichte und Volkskunst der Wandalen 
(Frankfurt-Bern 1980) 117-22. ~W.E.K. 


GEMS (Ac@dpia) in Byz. were used for JEWELRY, 
on horse fittings, weapon mounts and scabbards, 
and religious items, such as crosses and liturgical 
vessels; they could also be attached to textiles. All 
types of precious and semiprecious stones were 
used, the most common being carnelians, emer- 
alds, sardonyx, jasper, haematite, lapis lazuli, 
amethysts, and rock crystal. Stones were used in 
their natural crystalline form wherever that oc- 
curred, polished or carved into CAMEOS and ring- 
stones. They were rarely faceted, even though the 
use of diamonds for cutting diamonds was known. 
Gems were used in conjunction with gold, silver, 
and other materials. Thirty stones, of seven dif- 
ferent kinds, are combined with marble and glass 
paste on Justin H's reliquary cross (C. Belting- 
Ihm, /bRGZM 12 [1965] 142-66). A law of Leo 1 
(Cod. Just. XI 12[11]) expressly states that private 


individuals were forbidden to use pearls, emer- 
alds, and hyakinthoi (sapphires, aquamarines, ame- 
thysts?) on harness trappings but were allowed to 
use other gemstones. The imperial monopoly on 
the use of specific gems may have been entirely 
for economic reasons or could imply belief in the 
amuletic value of such stones. The two most im- 
portant works on the healing powers of gems were 
written by EpipHANIOS of Salamis and Michael 
PSELLOS. 

tir. UT. Holmes, “Mediaeval Gem Stones,” Speculum g 
(1934) 195-204. Z. Kádár, “Uber die Symbolik der Edel- 
steine der ungarischen Krone,” in Studien zur Machtsymbotik 


des mittelalterlichen Ungarn (Budapest 1983) 147-52. 
-S.D.C., A.C. 


GENEALOGY OF CHRIST, enumerated in Mat- 
thew 1:1-17 (40 names) and Luke 3:23-38 (56 
names), is commemorated on the Sunday before 
Christmas. [lustrations of Christ’s ancestors are 
rare: for example, Paris, B.N. gr. 64, fols. 1ov— 
11r, and the two FRIEZE GosPELs where the ances- 
tors appear as witnesses to the Incarnation. The 
43 ancestors named in the liturgy adorn the inner 
narthex domes of the CHORA, and ancestors ap- 
pear in the nave of the Church of the Nativity at 
BETHLEHEM (12th C.). Christ’s Davidic ancestry 
through his mother, Mary, is frequently empha- 
sized: David is axially aligned with Christ in mon- 
umental cycles and accompanies him in Gospel 
headpieces (Parma, Bibl. Pal. 5—Nelson, Preface 
& Miniature, frontispiece); the marginal PSALTERS 
illuminate Psalm 71 with an image of Mary, who 
also prefaces aristocratic Psalters; and the TREE 
OF JESSE flourishes in Palaiologan art. 

ur. S. Tsuji, “The Headpiece Miniatures and Geneal- 
ogy Pictures in Paris. Gr. 74.” DOP 29 (1975) 188-203. 
Underwood, Kariye Djami 1:49-59. -A.W.C. 


GENESIOS (levéctos), conventional name of the 
1oth-C. author of the anonymous “History of 
emperors” that is preserved in a single MS (Leip- 
zig, Univ. Lib. gr. 16); an 11th-C. hand wrote the 
text of Genesios, but on fol.248 another, later 
hand has inserted the notation “Genesiou” (F. 
Steinman, VizVrem 21 [1914] 37-39). There have 
been numerous attempts to reconstruct the biog- 
raphy and genealogy of Genesios, who has been 
given the first name of Joseph (a Joseph Genesios 
is mentioned in the preamble to Skylitzes) and 


proclaimed the son or grandson of a certain 
Armenian Constantine (A. Markopoulos, ZRVI 
24—25 [1986] 103-08). Written at the court of 
CONSTANTINE VII, the chronicle encompasses the 
period 813-86 and presents events from the view- 
point of the MACEDONIAN DYNASTY. 

The problem of its interrelationship with THE- 
OPHANES CONTINUATUS is complicated: because 
Genesios stated that he employed eyewitnesses 
and rumors (p.3.11—12), he used to be considered 
the source of Theophanes Continuatus; compar- 
ing the texts, however, leads to the conclusion 
that he borrowed his material from the contin- 
uator (esp. from Vita Basılı) or that they both 
depended on the same source. F. Barišić sug- 
gested that Genesios used SERGIOS THE CONFESSOR 
(Byzantion 31 [1961] 260f). Genesios’s composition 
is loose, full of insertions and non sequiturs. Es- 
pecially poor is the last section, on Michael III 
and Basil I; its allegedly precise data turn out to 
be either invented or suspect. 

ep. Regum libri quattuor, eds. A. Lesmitller-Werner, H. 
Thurn (Berlin—New York 1978). 

tr. P. Karlin-Hayter, “Etudes sur les deux histoires du 
règne de Michel HI,” Byzantion 41 (1971) 452-98. F. Bar- 
išić, “Génésios et le Continuateur de Théophane,” Byzantion 
28 (1958) 119-33. A. Werner, “Die Syntax des einfachen 
Satzes bei Genesios,” BZ 31 (1931) 258-323. Ja.N. Ljubar- 
skij, “Theophanes Continuatus und Genesios,” BS 48 (1987) 
12-27. -A.K. 


GENESIS, first book of the Old Testament, which 
deals with the Creation. Illustration of the Book 
of Genesis is found most abundantly in two frag- 
mentary MSS that are unrelated iconographically. 

The Vienna Genesis (Vienna, ONB theol. gr. 
31; 6th C.) now consists of 24 folios of an esti- 
mated 96. It is a sumptuous book, written in silver 
ink on purple-dyed parchment. Fhe layout is con- 
ceived around the illustrations, with the lower half 
of each page given over to the artist and the text 
in the upper half abbieviaied from: ihe Septu- 
agint. No manuscript quite like it survives. The- 
ories about the origin of its iconography and style 
have led to an attribution to the region of Syria/ 
Palestine, although the purple parchment might 
seem to point to Constantinople itself. 

The Cotton Genesis (London, B.L. Cott. Otho 
B.VI; 5th? C.) once contained the full text of 
Genesis and some 360 miniatures, but a fire in 
1731 reduced it to charred and shrunken frag- 
ments. Scholarly ingenuity has reconstructed in 


GENIKON 829 


large part its original layout and to some extent 
the appearance of its miniatures. This was pos- 
sible after study of iconographically related ma- 
terial, notably mosaics in the porches of S. Marco 
at Venice, which, since the work of Tikkanen 
(1899), have been accepted as closely related de- 
scendants of miniatures in the Cotton Genesis. 
The Cotton Genesis has been attributed to Egypt, 
in part on the basis of its interest in the JOSEPH 
story and enthusiasm for Nilotic landscapes, bee- 
hive granaries, and pyramids. 

Further cycles of Genesis illustration in the early 
period are implied by the OcTarevcus and mon- 
uments such as the mosaics of MONREALE. Yet, in 
contrast to the situation in and after the 1oth C. 
when, it is often argued, artists frequently made 
reference to pre-Iconoclastic artistic treasures, it 
is striking that the Cotton and Vienna Genesis 
MSS seem to have been unknown in the East. 
Both had reached Venice and been consulted by 
artists by the early 14th C. at the latest (for the 
Vienna Genesis, see H. Buchthal, Historia Troiana 
{London 1972] 47-52). Genesis illustration is usu- 
ally held to be characterized by its literalism. Sig- 
nificant elements were derived from extrabiblical 
sources, notably Jewish and Christian legends and 
exegesis, which probably entered the pictorial tra- 
ditions before the 6th C. 

LIT. K. Weitzmann, H. Kessler, The Cotton Genesis 
(Princeton 1986). H. Gerstinger, Die Wiener Genesis (Vienna 
1931). O. Mazal, Wiener Genesis, 2 vols., fasc. and comm. 
(Frankfurt am Main 1980). S. Dufrenne, “A propos de 
deux études récentes sur la Genése de Vienne,” Byzantion 
42 (1972) 598—601, with add. in Byzantion 43 (1973) 504f. 

H.L. 


GENIKON (yevıkóv), major fiscal department that 
dealt with assessment of land and other taxes, 
maintaining the lists of taxpayers, and collecting 
payments (Dölger, Beilräge 19f). It also served as 
all iwuital fun ital Lases, Dasil i is saiu tO have 
presided over trials in the genzkon. It occupied a 
special building allegedly constructed by Constan- 
tine I and located within the Great Palace. The 
building was destroyed by Isaac II (Janin, CP byz. 
173f). 

The head of the genzkon was the logothetes tou 
gentkou. The office is distinct from that of the 
genikos logothetes, who was a high-ranking pro- 
vincial KOMMERKIARIOS in the 6th—7th C. The first 
menuoned head of the genikon LOGOTHESION was 


830 | GENNADIOS I 


the (former?) monk Theodotos ca.6g2. N. Oikon- 
omides (Dated Seals, no.23) attributed to him the 
seal of Theodotos “monk and genikos logothetes.” 
Under the logothetes were various officials: megas 
CHARTOULARIOS, chartowlarioi of the ARKLAI, EPOP- 
TAI, DIOIKETAI, KOMES HYDATON, OIKISTIKOS, kom- 
merkiariol, KOMES TES LAMIAS, etc. The role of the 
genthon declined under the Komnenoi but re- 
covered under Andronikos I and the Angeloi. 
After 1204 the term logothetes tou genikou survived 
only as a title, often conferred on intellectuals 
such as George and Constantine AKROPOLITES and 
Theodore Merocuites. The chrysobull of 1302 
mentioning the SEKRETON of the gentkos logothetes 
(Xerop. 235.40) is a forgery. Pseudo-KopInos 
refers to the logothetes tou genikou but admits ig- 
norance of his functions. The last logothetes tou 
gentkou was probably Iannes [sic] Androuses in 
1380 (PLP, no.go111). 

LIT. R. Guilland, “Les logothétes,” REB 29 (1971) 11- 
24. Laurent, Corpus 2:129-94. -AK. 


GENNADIOS I, patriarch of Constantinople (Aug./ 
Sept. 458—between 17 and 20 Nov. 471); born 
ca.400. A man of wonderful memory and excel- 
lent education, he was highly praised by GENNA- 
DIUS OF MARSEILLES. A consistent opponent of 
Alexandrian political and theological indepen- 
dence, Gennadios polemicized in his youth against 
Cyril of Alexandria and later deposed TIMOTHEOS 
ArLouros. On the other hand, he was a true ally 
of Pope Leo I and composed an enkomion of the 
pope’s tome addressed to FLavian and directed 
against EUTYCHES. In 458 or 459 Gennadios sent 
an encyclical epistle condemning simony (RegPair, 
fasc. 1, no.143). Gennadios enjoyed fame as a 
miracle worker: Theodore Lector relates that the 
patriarch healed a painter whose hand withered 
because he dared to depict Christ with the attri- 
butes of Zeus; when the anagnostes Charisios re- 
fused to improve his behavior, Gennadios pre- 
dicted his death, which indeed occurred the next 
day. Little has survived from his exegetic and 
dogmatic works. NEOPHYTOS ENKLEISTOS wrote a 
eulogy of Gennadios, whom he compared to Dan- 
iel the Stylite and Andrew the Fool (H. Delehaye, 
AB 26 [1907] 221-28). 

ED. PG 85:1613-1734. K. Staab, Pauluskommentare aus 
der griechischen Kirche (Minster in Westfalen 1933) 352- 
422. Diekamp, AnalPatr 54-108. 


Lit. Quasten, Patrology 3:525f. RegPatr, fasc. 1, nos. 143- 
47. J. Kirchmeyer, DictSpir 6 (1965) 204f. ~A.k. 


GENNADIOS II SCHOLARIOS, theologian and 
patriarch of Constantinople (6 Jan. 1454-56, 1463, 
and 1464-65); baptismal name George; born 
Constantinople between 1400 and 1405, died Mt. 
MENOIKEION Ca.1472. He is sometimes referred to 
as Kourteses, perhaps his mother’s name. A stu- 
dent of Mark EucENikos, John CHORTASMENOsS, 
and Joseph Bryennios, Gennadios taught logic 
and physics in Constantinople. By 1438 he was 
didaskalos, senator, and krites katholikos. He at- 
tended the Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE, where 
he took a Unionist position. By 1444, however, 
Gennadios became an avowed opponent of Union 
OF THE CHURCHES and inherited from Mark Eu- 
genikos the leadership of the anti-Unionist party, 
He was consequently deposed (1446/7) from his 
official positions and ca.1450 took monastic vows 
at the CHARSIANEITES MONASTERY. Gennadios was 
captured by the Turks in 1453; after his release 
he served three times as patriarch. He sought to 
reach a modus vivendi with the Turkish authorities, 
urged a policy of OIKONOMIA with respect to in- 
fractions of the canons, and hoped for spiritual 
revival among the Orthodox. In the interlude 
between his patriarchates, he retired to the Pro- 
dromos monastery near Serres; he later died and 
was buried there. 

Gennadios knew Latin well and admired Latin 
scholarship, esp. the works of Aquinas, of which 
he prepared translations and commentaries. He 
wrote an ardent defense of ARISTOTLE, who had 
been attacked by PLETHON, and sought to incor- 
porate into Byz. thinking scHOLASTICISM and the 
Thomist interpretation of Aristotle (G. Podskal- 
sky, Theologie und Philosophie 49 [1974] 305-23). 
His extensive writings include anti-Union trea- 
tises; expositions of the Christian faith for Mehmed 
H (A. Papadakis, Byzantion 42 [1972] 88-106); 
and essays on divine providence, predestination, 
and the origin of the human soul. 

ED. Oeuvres complètes, ed. L. Petit, X.A. Sidéridés, M. 
Jugie, 8 vols. (Paris 1928—36). 

LIT. C.J. Turner, “The Career of George-Gennadius 
Scholarius,” Byzantion 39 (1969) 420-55. Th.N. Zeses, Gen- 
nadios B’ Scholarios. Bios-Syngrammata-Didaskalia (Thessalo- 


nike 1980), corr. G. Podskalsky, BZ 77 (1984) 58—60. Beck, 
Kirche 760-63. -A.M.T. 


GENNADIUS OF MARSEILLES, Latin theolo- 
gian; died between 492 and 505. His biography 
is unknown, and most of his works (including 
books against Nestorios and Eutyches) are lost. 


His book On Famous Men, which is a continuation 
of JEROME, is Our most important source concern- 
ing Christian writers of the 4th and esp. sth C. 
Gennadius knew both Greek and Latin, he de- 
scribed only those works he himself had read, and 
he tried to be objective in his approach. He viewed 
Pelagios as a heresiarch; at the same time he had 
no praise for AUGUSTINE, rejecting his concept of 
PREDESTINATION. 

ED. E.C. Richardson in TU 14.1 (1896) 57—97. 

urr. B. Czapla, Gennadius als Litterarhistoriker (Münster 
1898). M. Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Literatur 4.2 (Mu- 
nich 1920) 552-54. -A.K. 


GENOA (T ér[v]ova), port city in Liguria in north- 
western Italy, which after Diocletian belonged to 
the province of Alpes Cottiae. It was a bishopric 
in the 5th C., and its bishop Paschasius partici- 
pated in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Two 
edicts of Theodoric the Great mention a Jewish 
community and a synagogue in Genoa. By 539 
the city was in the hands of the Byz.; it was taken 
for a short time by the Franks, but then remained 
Byz. until the 7th C. The Lombard king Rothari 
conquered Genoa ca.642 and destroyed its walls. 
The city recovered in the 10th C. despite Muslim 
raids in 930-35; in the 11th C. Genoa defeated 
the Arabs and expelled them from SARDINIA; its 
fleet also sacked Tunis. 

The Genoese took part in the First Crusade, 
sending a squadron of 13 vessels that was instru- 
mental in attacking the Syrian and Palestinian 
coast. Genoa’s abundant archives record Genoese 
trade activity with Syria, Alexandria, and Con- 
stantinople; in 1155 Emp. Manuel I Komnenos, 
suspicious of VENICE, granted the Genoese a chry- 
sobull promising them an EMBOLOS and SKALAI in 
Constantinople as well as a reduction of the KOM- 
MERKION. In their penetration into “Romania” the 
Genvese encountered competition from Venice 
and Pisa; Manuel I considered Genoa a natural 
ally in his struggle with Venice, and after 1171 
the Genoese position in the empire became favor- 
able. In 1201 the Genoese ambassador Ottobone 
della Croce received new privileges from Alexios 
III, and relations were active in 1203 when the 
threat of the Crusaders’ attack on the Byz. capital 
became imminent (P. Schreiner, QFItArch 63 [1983] 
292-97). 

Although Venice benefited enormously from 
the fall of Constantinople in 1204, Genoa took 


GENOA 831 


advantage of Greek hostility toward Venice to 
secure its position in the Empire of Nicaea. Gug- 
lielmo Boccanegra, “captain of the people,” con- 
cluded the Treaty of NyMpHaIoNn with Michael 
VIII in 1261, and after the Byz. reconquest of 
Constantinople the same year Genoa attained a 
privileged position in the empire, replacing Ven- 
ice. The Genoese naval victory of 1284 at the 
battle of Meloria (near Livorno) weakened, if not 
completely destroyed, Pisa, another rival (Genova, 
Pisa e il Mediterraneo tra due e trecento [Genoa 1984]), 
making Genoa the major Italian power in the 
Levant. Genoa established colonies in Pera (see 
GALATA), Chios, the Danubian delta (VICINA, 
Cui), the Crimea (Kaffa, Soucpata), and TRE- 
BIZOND; alum mines in PHOKAIA were ceded to 
the Genoese. From 1292 on, however, the Vene- 
tians waged a counterattack that led to a series of 
wars involving the Greeks, Catalans, and Turks 
(C.P. Kyrris, Byzantena 4 [1972] 331-56; M. Bal- 
ard, TM 4 [1970] 431-69). The treaty of 1352 
signed by John VI Kantakouzenos expanded 
Genoa’s privileges in the Levant (I.P. Medvedev, 
VizVrem 38 [1977] 161-72). Thereafter Genoese 
activity began to decrease, owing to the collapse 
of the Mongols and the advance of the Ottomans, 
among other reasons; Pera was lost in 1453, Kaffa 
in 1475, and Chios in 1566. 

The Byz. of the 14th C. attentively observed 
internal strife in Genoa. Theodore Metochites 
deplored it as an example of the inadequacies of 
democracy; Gregoras and Kantakouzenos men- 
tion Simone Boccanegra’s rise to power (1339— 
44). However, an attempt to demonstrate that 
Boccanegra’s uprising inspired the ZEALOTS in 
Thessalonike (where a Genoese colony allegedly 
existed) is inconclusive (Sevéenko, Soc. & Intell., 
pt-HI [1953], 603-17). 

A textile with a cycle of the Life of St. Lawrence 
and extensive Latin inscriptions, sent by Michael 
Vill to his Genoese allies, 1s preserved in the 
Galleria di Palazzo Bianco (Cutler-Nesbitt, Arte 
318f). R. Nelson (ArtB 67 [1985] 548-66) sug- 
gested that frescoes painted in the Cathedral of 
St. Lawrence in Genoa ca.1310 were the work of 
an itinerant Byz. artist. 

UT. A. Frondoni, “Note preliminari per uno studio sulla 
topograha di Genova ‘paleocristiana, ” Atti del V Congresso 
nazionale di archeologia cristiana, vol. 2 (Rome 1982) 351— 
64. L.G. Bianchi, E. Poleggi, Una città portuale del medioevo: 
Genova nei secoli X-XVI (Genoa 1980). M. Balard, La Ro- 


manie génoise, 2 vols. (Rome 1978). G. Day, “Byzantino- 
Genoese Diplomacy and the Collapse of Emperor Manuel’s 


832 | GENRE, LITERARY 


Western Policy 1168~1171," Byzantion 48 (1978-79) 393- 
405. C. Manfroni, “La relazione fra Genova, PImpero bi- 
zantino, € į Turchi,” Att della società ligure di storia patria 
28.3 (1902) 5757860. R.S. Lopez, Storia delle colonie genovesi 
nel Mediterraneo (Bologna 1938). -A.K ALC. 


GENRE, LITERARY. The concept of genre is 
historically determined, and the classical catego- 
rization of literature into three genres (lyric, epic, 
and drama) did not apply to Byz. The Byz. had 
no coherent theory of genre, except in the case 
of rhetoric, whose works they divided, in accord- 
ance with ancient principles, into various gene and 
eide (Martin, Rhetorik 9). Some Byz. writers, such 
as Psellos (Ljubarskij, Psell 189-41) or Eustathios 
of Thessalonike (Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies 183— 
87), tried to draw a distinction between certain 
genres. The principle of classification for medie- 
val literature was functional rather than aes- 
thetic—the objective and the audience addressed 
were the major criteria of categorization; accord- 
ingly, the genres formed an interconnected sys- 


tem that can be characterized as a hierarchy of 


genres. Each genre was supposed to possess strict 
rules of stylistic formulas (which some historians 
of literature call “etiquette”), even though the Byz. 
accepted the existence of mixed genres. Eusta- 
thios justified this formulaic method of composi- 
tion: although in antiquity Solon demanded that 
each work of art be unique, now standards had 
changed, and God and the divine deeds of em- 
perors should be praised repeatedly, retained “as 
a seal of brilliant character,” and promoted every- 
where (Regel, Fontes 1:98.21—27). Eustathios ar- 
gued that the repetitive formulas were necessary 
for the didactic purposes of Byz. literature. 

The type of genre was often, but not in every 
case, stated in the heading of a work (logos, epi- 
taph, chronicle, vita, etc.), but this categorization 
is not always the author’s and in any case is incon- 
sistent. From the point of view of modern criti- 
cism, one can distinguish the following major 
genres: POETRY (secular and religious, both with 
subdivisions), RHETORIC (with many subdivisions), 
and esp. SERMONS, EPISTOLOGRAPHY, HAGIOGRA- 
PHY, theological literature (primarily POLEMIC and 
EXEGESIS), HISTORIOGRAPHY, ADMONITIONS, RO- 
MANCE, FABLE, GNOMAIL, PROVERBS, and SATIRE. Àl- 
though scientific and juristic literature contain 
some elements of literary genres, they belong to 
the sphere of normative, not didactic and enter- 
taining works. 


urr. K.W. Kempfer, Gattungstheorte (Munich 1973). D.S. 
Lichačev, Poetika dreunerusskaj literatury (Moscow 1979) 55— 
102. W.-H. Schmidt, K.-D. Seemann, “Die Gattungsfor- 
schung und die älteren slavischen Literaturen,” Gattungs- 
probleme der älteren slavischen Literaturen (Berlin 1984) 13~ 
32. E. Patlagean, “Discours écrit, discours parlé: Niveaux 
de culture à Byzance aux VIlHe-XTe siècles,” Annales ESC 
34 (1979) 264-78. -A.K. 


GEOFFREY I VILLEHARDOUIN (Nredpés vrè 
BiAaptovn), prince of Achaia (ca.1209-25/31); 
born between 1170 and 1175, dicd between 1225 
and 1231. Nephew of the historian Geoffrey de 
VILLEHARDOUIN, Geoffrey accompanied the part 
of the Fourth Crusade that went to Syria. ‘There, 
in 1204, he learned of the capture of Constanti- 
nople and set sail for the city. His ship was forced 
to pass the winter of 1204/5 at Methone, where 
an unnamed Byz. magnate invited him to help 
seize that area. Their cooperation prospered until 
the magnate’s death. In summer 1205, his son’s 
hostility forced Geoffrey and his followers to seek 
out BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT, then besieging 
Nauplia. With Boniface’s consent, Geoffrey joined 
WILLIAM I or CHAMPLITTE in conquering the Mo- 
REA. After William departed for France, Geoffrey 
did homage to Emp. HENRY OF HAINAULT (1209) 
and became prince of AcuHata. Around 1209/10 
he took the Acrocorinth (where he constructed a 
donjon) and then the Lakonian plain, leaving only 
MonemvasIA, the Slavs of Taygetos, and the MAN 
unconquered. In the feudal organization of the 
principality, former Byz. magnates assumed a rec- 
ognized place while peasants continued to pay 
dues similar to those in Byz. times. The circum- 
stances of Geoffrey’s death are unknown. 

LIT. Bon, Morée franque 64-76. Longnon, Compagnons 
32—41. B. Hendrickx, “Quelques problèmes à Ia conquête 


de la Morée par les Francs,” Byzantina 4 (1972) 373-88. 
-C.M.B. 


GEOFFREY II VILLEHARDOUIN, prince of 
Achaia (ca. 1226/3 1—1246); born France ca.1195?, 
died Morea early summer 1246. The son of GEOF- 
FREY I VILLEHARDOUIN, he came to the Morea 
ca.1210. In 1217 he married Agnes de Courtenay, 
daughter of Pierre de Courtenay, Latin emperor 
of Constantinople. As Picrre’s vassal Geoffrey 
helped the Latins oppose Byz. efforts to recon- 
quer Constantinople. In 1236 and 1238 he fought 
against Jonn II] Vararzes, who was besieging the 
capital. The Latin emperor rewarded him with 
suzerainty over Euboea. During Geoffrey’s reign 


the principality of AcHala enjoyed great tran- 
quility and prosperity. Since he left no male heir, 
he was succeeded by his brother WiLLiam II 
VILLEHARDOUIN. 


uit. Bon, Morée franque 1:75f, 79-115. Longnon, Empire 
latin 165f, 175f. HC 2:242-44. ~A.M.T. 


GEOFFREY DE VILLEHARDOUIN (historian). 
See VILLEHARDOUIN, GEOFFREY. 


GEOGRAPHY as a scholarly discipline was in- 
herited by the Byz. from antiquity. SrraBo and 
Pausanias were the favorite sources of STEPHEN 
of BYZANTIUM in the 6th C., and interest in Strabo 
was revived by the gth C. (A. Diller, Studies in 
Greek Manuscript Tradition [Amsterdam 1983] 1- 
62, 137-82): a gth-C. Heidelberg MS contains a 
selection of minor geographical works, including 
the Pertplous of the Erythrean (Red) Sea (sce PERI- 
pLous), and an epitome of Strabo (Wilson, Scholars 
87). Strabo and Stephen of Byzantium were ex- 
cerpted in chronicles and lexika, in works by Con- 
stantine VIL Porphyrogennetos, and elsewhere. 
The didactic poem on geography of Dionysios 
Periegetes (2nd C.) also acquired popularity and 
was commented on by EUSTATHIOS OF THESSA- 
LONIKE, among others. PToLeMy, however, was 
more appreciated as the author of the Handy 
Tables than as a geographer, and Eratosthenes, 
the most scientific of ancient geographers, re- 
mained scarcely more than a name to the Byz. 
The late Roman period witnessed an interest in 
descriptive geography—from accounts of market- 
places and harbors (EXPOSITIO TOTIUS MUNDI) to 
the itineraries of pilgrims (EGERIA). The devel- 
opment of this genre stopped after the 6th C. and 
only slowly revived, beginning with EPIPHANIOS 
HaGiopo utes (end of 8th or gth C.). The resur- 
gence of TRAVEL LITERATURE from the 11th C. on 
shows growing interest in geography, although 
the Byz. retained a generally negative attitude 
toward TRAVEL. Psellos made ironic remarks about 
the wandering monk Elias (Ljubarskij, Psell 74- 
79), and Niketas Choniates ridiculed Patr. John 
X Kamateros for behaving as if he had journeyed 
throughout the world. Later this negative attitude 
disappeared: Gregoras included in his History 
(Greg. 3:3-75) a lengthy section devoted to his 
friend Agathangelos, who allegedly spent 20 years 
traveling around the Mediterranean, describing 
his journeys in letters. The representatives of Greck 


GEOGRAPHY | 833 


travel literature of the 12gth—15th C. are John 
PHokas, Andrew Lisapnenos, and Laskaris KANA- 
nos. To descriptive geographic literature also be- 
long the narrative accounts of AMBASSADORS to 
foreign lands, such as Priskos of Panion and 
Nonnosos in the late Roman period and Con- 
stantine Manasses, Nicholas MESARITES, and 
Theodore METocuirtes in the 12th—14th C. Many 
geographic observations, based partly on personal 
experience and partly on the records of travelers, 
are contained in historical works from AMMIANUS 
MARCELLINUS to Laonikos CHALKOKONDYLES. 

Theoretical geography, however, lagged behind 
descriptive observations. CARTOGRAPHY was barely 
known after the late Roman period. Description 
of lands and cities tended to be replaced by lists 
of names, as in H1iEROKLES or the COSMOGRAPHER 
OF RAVENNA, rarely supplemented with informa- 
uon. More elaborate are the lists of themes and 
esp. of neighboring peoples in Constantine VII's 
DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO and DE THEMATIBUS, 
which also provide historical and ethnographic 
data. Various causes hampered the development 
of Byz. geographic perceptions. First, writers felt 
the need to reconcile observations and empirical 
findings with preconceived nouons based on the 
Bible—such a combination of personal experience 
and traditional stories is typical of Kosmas INDI- 
KOPLEUSTES. Following another tradition, already 
found in ancient literature, some Byz. “geogra- 
phers” uncritically accepted bookish information 
as true. Even in De thematibus the distribution of 
cities in ancient times is not distinguished from 
the situation of the 1oth C. Finally, geographic 
views were strongly influenced by folklore; fan- 
tastic notions regarding alien lands and peoples 
were often blended with reliable information. 

In Byz. cosmography views on the shape of the 
earth ranged from the domed cube (Kosmas) to 
the globe (Photios), but in both cases the orkou- 
MENE was centered on the MEDITERRANEAN, which 
was seen as surrounded by three continents— 
Europe, Asia, and Libya—that were surrounded, 
in their turn, by the Ocean. The extremes of the 
earth—the British Isles, China, and Black Af- 
rica—were more often than not presented in leg- 
endary form, whereas Innia had a double exis- 
tence—both as a place situated on the Ganges and 
as another identifed with Ermiopta. Far in the 
east was the earthly Parapisr, where the four 
major rivers (see PARADISE, RIVERS OF) supposedly 
rose. 


834 GEOPONIKA 


uit. Ahrweiler, Byzance: Les pays, pL (1967), 465-73. 
Hunger, Lit. 1:507-22. G. Guarnieri, Le correnti del pensiero 
geografico nell’eta medioevale, vol. 3 (Pisa 1971) 27—46. A. 
Diller, “Byzantine Lists of Old and New Geographical 
Names,” BZ 63 (1970) 27-42. Z. Avalichvili, “Géographie 
et légende dans un écrit apocryphe de S. Basile,” ROC 26 
(1927—28) 279-304. ALK. 


GEOPONIKA (Ilepi yewpytas &xdAoyat), collec- 
tion of excerpts on agriculture dedicated to Con- 
STANTINE VII; probably compiled 944-59. The 
Geoponika deals with grain production, horticul- 
ture, apiculture, and esp. viticulture. In the pref- 
ace the compiler praises Constantine’s victories 
and patronage of philosophy, rhetoric, and all 
sciences and arts. Since the state consists of three 
elements—the army, the clergy, and agriculture 
(p.2.6—7)—it was natural to issue an encyclopedia 
of this kind. 

The originality of the Geoponika has been much 
discussed. Lipšic emphasizes the original elements 
of the treatise (e.g., the author expressed the hope 
that the Arabs would perish [p.19.16]) and re- 
gards the Geoponika as a source for the study of 
1oth-C. agriculture. Lemerle asserts that the Geo- 
ponika contains nothing original except the pref- 
ace; he argues that the Geoponika was based on 
the work of Kassianos Bassos the scholastikos (an 
office that had already disappeared by the 10th 
C.) and ascribes to him all the personal remarks 
included in Bassos’s Eklogai, a compilation based 
in turn on the work of Vindanios Anatolios of 
Berytus (4th C.), mentioned in Photios’s BisBLio- 
THECA (cod. 163). Gemoll, on the other hand, saw 
in Kassianos Bassos the compiler of the Geopontka. 
This very popular book has been preserved in 
approximately 50 MSS of the 11th C. and later; 
the Geoponika (or its source) was translated into 
Arabic, Syriac, and later into Armenian. In 1157 
Burcunpio or Pisa acquired a MS of the Geopon- 
ika and translated into Latin the section on viti- 
culture. 

ED. Geopunica, ed. H. Beckh (Leipzig 1895), with corr. 
and add. Eu. Fehrle, Richtlinien zur Textgestaltung der griech- 
ischen Geoponica (Heidelberg 1920), and A.D. Wilson, BMQ 
13 (1939) 10f. Russ. tr. E. Lipšic (Moscow 1960). 

LIT. Lemerle, Humanism 332-36. W. Gemoll, Unter- 


suchungen über die Quellen, der Verfasser und die Abfassungszeit 
der Geoponica (Berlin 1884). -A.K. 


GEORGE (lewpytos), personal name (derived 
from georgos, “peasant”). The name appeared in 
the 4th C. and became more common in the 5th 


C., primarily in the milieu of intellectuals (rhetores) 
and state functionaries (PLRE 1:391; 2:503f). The 
only known clergyman of this time with the name 
George is bishop of Laodikeia (died ca.360), a 
man who received a philosophical education. Rare 
in Prokopios (3 examples), the name is frequent 
in late papyri (J. Diethart, Prosopographia arsinoi- 
tica, vol. 1 [Vienna 1980] nos. 1321—1552). It 
penetrated into narrative sources by the gth C.: 
in Theophanes the Confessor, George is tied for 
ninth place with Anastasios. In Skylitzes it also 
holds ninth place, together with Niketas. The 
name George reached its peak in the history of 
Anna Komnene, following directly after Con- 
STANTINE and JOHN, but in Niketas Choniates it 
returned to ninth place. This situation probably 
reflects the attitude of the aristocratic milieu toward 
the name; it was more popular with the peasantry 
and no emperor bore this name. At any rate, vol. 
1 of the acts of Lavra (1oth—1 2th C.) lists 41 cases, 
third only to John (go) and to NICHOLAS (42); in 
Lavra, vols. 2—3 (13th—15th C.), George, with 275 
instances, is second only to John. -ALK. 


GEORGE, saint; principal feastday 23 Apr. No 
reliable evidence attests his martyrdom, attributed 
to the time of a legendary Persian king Dadianos 
and located in Lydda (Diospo.is in Palestine); 
later accounts transferred his execution to Niko- 
medeia and the reign of Diocletian. Nevertheless 
the veneration of George is attested very early. 
An inscription of 323 found at Shakka in the 
Hauran mentions George “and the saints who 
suffered with him.” A decree of Pope Gelasius I 
of 496 rejects George’s acta as apocryphal; several 
6th-C. pilgrims observed the cult of George’s tomb 
in Lydda. The earliest fragments of his passiones 
are the 5th-C. palimpsest in Vienna, the 6th-C. 
papyrus from the Negev, and a fragment (ca. 1000?) 
from Nubia (W.H.C. Frend, AB 100 [1982] 79- 
86). The earliest passio emphasized George’s or- 
deal and endurance; gradually, the theme of 
George as intercessor developed, esp. in his Mira- 
cula (some of which cannot be dated earlier than 
1100—A. Kazhdan, Byzantion 52 [1982] 420), in 
which the saint helped in finding cattle, releasing 
captives, etc. Unlike the passiones, the Miracula 
present George as a mounted knight. George, 
DEMETRIOS, THEODORE STRATELATES, and THEO- 
DORE TERON were the most popular MILITARY 


saints; Emp. John II Komnenos introduced the 
image of George in military costume on coins. 
The legend of George’s victory over the dragon 
was known probably only from the 12th C. Many 
writers such as ROMANOS THE MELODE, Theodore 
DAPHNOPATES, and Theodore PRODROMOS eulo- 
gized George. His passiones were translated into 
Latin, Slavic, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, and 
Ethiopic. 

Representation in Art. Virtually no other saint 
is so widely depicted in Byz. art as George. His 
portrait as a youthful warrior, elegantly clad, his 
hair in tight curls, is an essential feature of every 
church program, and appears in every other pos- 
sible medium as well, from painted icons to ivo- 
ries, from MSS to coins. In the post-Iconoclastic 
period (mostly after the 1oth C., though there is 
a gth-1oth-C. icon with a related image on Mt. 
Sinai; Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, B.44) George is also 
shown on horseback, often as a pendant to the 
mounted St. Theodore Stratelates (B.E. Scholz, 
JOB 32.5 [1982] 243-53). His martyrdom on the 
wheel appears in the earliest marginal PSALTERS, 
and cycles of his martyrdom, with its long se- 
quence of tortures as well as some of his miracles, 
are painted in subsidiary areas of churches from 
the 11th C. onward, esp. in Georgia and Serbia. 
Large historiated icons may contain over a dozen 
scenes surrounding a central figure of the saint; 
in some of these the figure of George is in relief, 
as though to imitate one of the three-dimensional 
wooden statues (zoana) of George such as that 
housed in his church in Omorphekklesia near 
KASTORIA. 

SOURCES, K. Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griech- 
schen Uberlieferung (Munich 1911). Miracula s. Georgii, ed. 
J.B. Aufhauser (Leipzig 1913). A.V. Rystenko, Legenda o 
sv. Georgii i Drakone (Odessa 1909). 

uur. BHG 66gy—6g1y. S. Braunfels-Esche, Sankt Georg: 
Legende, Verehrung, Symbol (Munich 1976). E.A. Wallis Budge, 
George of Lydda, the Patron Saint of England (London 1930). 
D. Howell, “St. George as Tnicicessur,” Bycuniiun sy (1ydy) 
121~36. F. Cumont, “La plus ancienne légende de Saint 
Georges,” RHR 114 (1936) 5-51. E. Lucchesi Palli, LCI 
6:365-73. K.J. Dorsch, “Der Drachentöter Georg—Kor- 
rektur eines Heiligenbildes,” Das Münster 39 (1986) 297- 
300. J. Myslivec, “Svatý Jiři ve východokřesťanském umění,” 
BS 5 (1933) 304~75. ~A.K., N.P.Š. 


GEORGE, ROTUNDA OF SAINT. Located in 
Thessalonike, it may have been originally dedi- 
cated to the AsomaToI or to Christ as the Dynamis 
Theou (W. Kleinbauer, CahArch 22 [1972] 55- 


GEORGE BRANKOVIC | 835 


60). First built as a temple or mausoleum (part of 
the palace complex of Galerius) at the end of the 
grd C., this structure was transformed into a church 
by the first half of the 5th C. Constructed entirely 
of brick, it is a large domed cylinder 24 m in 
diameter, with eight vaulted recesses set regularly 
into the 4-m thickness of the wall (G. Velenis, 
BalkSt 15 [1974] 298-307). When the building 
became a church, an apse was added to the east- 
ernmost niche and an aisle was constructed around 
the entire exterior, with a monumental entrance 
to the west and an ambo in a special enclosure to 
the south. 

The mosaics in the drum show 16 figures, 
standing orans in pairs against elaborate two-storied 
gold architectural fantasies of gemmed arcades, 
peacock-feather conches, and ciboria over altars 
and thrones. The identity of the figures is still 
disputed: inscriptions near each head provide a 
name, a month, and even a profession for each 
figure, but it is not clear whether they represent 
saints or donors. In the dome are fragments of 
mosaics, probably a standing Christ and four flying 
angels in the center, and standing prophets around 
them. In the vaults of the recesses are mosaics 
with geometrical motifs enclosing birds and fruits. 

uit. Th. Pazaras, The Rotunda of St. George in Thessaloniki 
(Thessalonike 1985). Krautheimer, ECBArch 78. W. Klein- 
bauer, “The Original Name and Function of Hagios Geor- 
gios at Thessalonike,” CahArch 22 (1972) 228-33. M. Vick- 
ers, “Observations on the Octagon at Thessaloniki,” JRS 


63 (1973) 111-20. H. Torp, Mosatkkene i St. Georg-rotunden 
(Oslo 1963). -T.E.G., N.P.S. 


GEORGE BRANKOVIĆ, despotes of Serbia (from 
1427); born ca.1375, died Belgrade 24 Dec. 1456. 
Between 1398 and 1402 Bayezip I reinstalled 
George and his brother Gregory in lands confis- 
cated from their father Vuk. George participated 
in the battle of Ankara in 1402 as a Turkish vassal; 
atter the Ottoman defeat he returned to Serbia 
via Constantinople and used the temporary weak- 
ness of the Ottomans to build up a significant 
principality. Silver mines at Novo Brdo provided 
Branković with the necessary financial resources 
to construct between 1428 and 1430 a new capital 
on the Danube, the well-fortified SMEDEREVO. 

In 1427 Branković inherited the territory of his 
childless uncle, STEFAN LAZAREVIĆ, and received 
the title of despotes from the Byz. emperor John 
VIII. In addition to coping with the increasing 


836 GEORGE HAMARTOLOS 


Ottoman threat, Branković had to resist both 
Venice and Hungary; he lost Belgrade to Hun- 
gary in 1427 and had to acknowledge the suze- 
rainty of the Hungarian king. In these conditions 
Dubrovnik and Constantinople were his natural 
allies. In 1414 he had taken as his second (or 
third) wife Irene Kantakouzene, granddaughter 
of Matthew I (Nicol, Kantakouzenos 184-88, no.71). 
Irene’s brother Thomas became one of Branko- 
vic’s leading generals. A daughter Mara was mar- 
ried to Muran II (I. Papadrianos, Hellentka 19 
[1966] 113-16). 

In 1439 Smederevo fell to the Turks. In 1444 
Branković and Hunyapt, votvode of Transylvania, 
recaptured Smederevo and in 1444 reinstated the 
despotate of Serbia. This initially successful Chris- 
tian crusade against the Turks ended the same 
year, however, in defeat at the battle of VARNA 
(in which Branković did not participate). Bran- 
kovi¢ resumed his vassalage to the Ottomans and 
was forced to send a contingent of troops and 
sappers for the siege of Constantinople in 1453. 
After the fall of the Byz. capital, Mehmed II 
repeatedly attacked the Serbian despotate. In 1455 
the Turks captured Novo Brdo and in June 1459, 
after the death of Branković, they took Smeder- 
evo, thus ending the last Serbian medieval state. 
A portrait of Branković with his family is pre- 
served on a chrysobull of 1429 in the Esphig- 
menou monastery on Athos. 

LIT. JstSrpskNar 2:218~74. M. Spremic¢, “La Serbie entre 
les Turcs, les Grecs et les Latins au XVe siècle,” ByzF 11 
(1987) 436-40. C. Mijatović, Despot Djuradj Brankovic, 2 
vols, (Belgrade 1880—82). -J-S.A. 


GEORGE HAMARTOLOS (“the sinner”), or 
George the Monk, author of a universal chronicle 
encompassing history from Adam to 842. His 
biography is unknown, the time of his compilation 
under discussion. The traditional date of ca.866/ 
7 has been questioned by P. Lemerle (7M 1 [1965] 
259, n.13); W. Regel (Analecta byzantino-russica [St. 
Petersburg 1891] vi—xili) hypothesized that George 
used the Life of the empress THEODORA (who 
died 867) and was therefore a contemporary of 
Leo VI; A. Markopoulos (Symmezkta 5 [1983] 252- 
55), although rejecting Regel’s argument, believes 
that George could not have written before 872. 
C. de Boor based his edition on a single MS (Paris, 
B.N. Coisl. 305 of the 10th or early 11th C.), even 


though various other MSS represent a common 
archetype (P. Odorico, JOB 32.4 [1982] 39). 

George’s Chronicle is very combative and biased, 
He claims that his “small and modest biblidarion” 
conveys unadorned truth, for it is better “to stam- 
mer in the path of the truth than to be false while 
imitating Plato” (1:2.3—10); whether George had 
more than textbook knowledge of Plato remains 
unclear (G. Belfiore, Sileno 4 [1978] 23—71). George 
hates Iconoclasm, Islam, Manichaeanism, and 
idolatry and often expresses his hatred with a 
string of obscene epithets. He focuses primarily 
on the events of ecclesiastical history: thus he 
dedicates ten lines to Julius Caesar, but 20 pages 
to Augustus, whose reign coincided with Christ's 
birth. George is expansive in describing church 
councils and quotes abundantly from the church 
fathers. For the Byz. period his main sources are 
‘THEOPHANES and MALa tas; he is independent for 
813-42. Some MSS contain a continuation some- 
times ascribed to SYMEON LOGOTHETE, going up 
to 948 or 1081, even 1142/3. The Chronicle was 
translated into Old Georgian and Church Sla- 
vonic. An illustrated late 13th- or early 14th-C. 
MS of the latter version, now in Moscow (Lenin 
Lib. 100), contains an author portrait and a full- 
page image of Christ enthroned between Michael, 
prince of Tver (died 1318), and his mother. One 
hundred twenty-seven miniatures set in the text- 
columns depict Old Testament, New Testament, 
and historical subjects. These are derived by Po- 
dobedova and others from Byz. CHRONICLE ilhus- 
tration. 

ED. Georgius Monachus, Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. 
(Leipzig 1904; rp. Stuttgart 1978, with corr. P. Wirth). 
V.M. Estrin, Chronika Georgija Amartola v dreunem slavjano- 
russkom perevode, 3 vols. (Petrograd-Leningrad 1920-30); 
rp. with intro. and bibl., F. Scholz, 2 vols. (Munich 1972). 

tir. Hunger, Lit. 1:347-51. S. Sestakov, O proischozdenii 
i sostave chroniki Georgija Monacha (Kazan’ 1891). A. Dostál, 
“Slovanský překlad byzantské kroniky Georgia Hamartola,” 
Slavia 32 (1963) 375-84. O.I. Podobedova, “Otraženie vi- 
zantijskich illjustrirovannych chronik v ‘I'verskom (Tro- 
ickom) spiske chroniki Georgija Amartola,” 14 CEB (Bu- 
charest 1974) 1:373—90. G.V. Popov, “Zametki o Tverskoj 
rukopisi chroniki Georgija Amartola,” VizVrem 39 (1978) 
124-47. ~A.K., A.C. 


GEORGE KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebizond 
(1266-80); born after 1254, died 1284 or later. 
Young and violent when he ascended to the throne, 
he changed the cautious policy of his father Man- 


uel I and took an anti-aristocratic course. He also 
supported anti-Unionists and, in his foreign pol- 
icy, attempted alliances with the Golden Horde 
and some Georgian princes against the Mongols 
of Persia. In 1278 George replaced his utle of 
despotes with that of basileus to emphasize the in- 
dependence of his position. This action provoked 
objections both in Constantinople by Michael VII 
and in Tabriz by the Ilkhan Abaga. En route to 
Abaga, in the mountains near ‘Tabriz, George was 
betrayed by Trapezuntine nobles, seized by the 
Mongols, and imprisoned. He was probably lib- 
erated after Abaga’s death in 1282. In 1284 he 
(or an impostor) invaded Trebizond; again be- 
trayed, he was captured by his brother Jonn II 
KomNeEnos and died in captivity. 

uit. A. Bryer, “The Fate of George Komnenos, Ruler 
of Trebizond (1266-1280)," BZ 66 (1973) 332-50. M. 
Kurganskis, “L’usurpation de Théodora Grande Com- 
nene,” REB 33 (1975) 187-210. Karpov, Trapezundskaja 
imperija 120f. PLP, no.12094. —A.K. 


GEORGE MT‘ AC’MINDELI (“of the holy moun- 
tain,” Gr. Hagiorites), Georgian translator and ha- 
giographer; born Trialeti 100g, died Constanti- 
nople 1065. After long study in Constantinople 
(1022-34), George went to Mt. Athos; he became 
superior of the Georgian monastery of lvERON 
ca.1045, then traveled widely—back to Georgia, 
to the Black Mountain, and to Jerusalem. George 
is important for his extensive translations from 
Greek into Georgian. These include revisions of 
the Psalms, Gospels, Acts, and Epistles; liturgical 
and hymnographical texts (the Great Synaxarion, 
Menaion, Sticharia, and homilies); and patristic 
texts (Basil the Great of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron, 
Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Making of Man and 
Commentary on the Song of Songs). His most valuable 
original work (written ca.1044) is a Life of John 
and EUrHyMIOS THE 1BERIAN, respectively the 
founder and first supcrior of Iveroi. Geoige’s 
own Life was written soon after his death by a 
disciple, also named George, at the request of 
George the Recluse on the Black Mountain, where 
George Mt‘ac’mindeli was well known. 

ED. Dzveli kartuli agiograp'iuli literaturis dzeglebi, ed. 1. 
Abuladze. vol. 2 (Tbilisi 1967) 38—100. Lat. tr. in P. Peeters, 
AB 36~37 (1917-19) 8-68. 

Sources. Vita of George Mt’acmindeli—Lat. tr. P. Pec- 
ters, AB 36~37 (1917-19) 69-159. Eng. excerpts in W.Z. 
Djobadze, Materials for the Study of Georgian Monasteries in 


GEORGE OF CYPRUS 837 


the Western Environs of Antioch on the Orontes (Louvain 1976) 
5O-39- ee 

LIT. Tarchnišvili, Georg. Lit, 154-74. vir. 1 (1985) 50- 
53- -R.T. 


GEORGE OF AMASTRIS, saint; born in the town 
of ton Kromnenon, near Amastris, died Amastris 
between 802 and 807; feastday 21 Feb. Born to a 
family of local nobility, George began at an early 
age to participate in church administration; he 
then became a hermit on Mt. Agrioserike but 
subsequently moved to the cenobitic community 
of Bonyssa (in Paphlagonia?). Patr. TARASIOS ap- 
pointed him bishop of Amastris ca.7go0, although 
the emperor supported a different candidate. 

The Life of George, preserved in a single 10th- 
C. MS, consists of a biography, very poor in de- 
tails, and the description of a few miracles, in- 
cluding the conversion or at least appeasement of 
the barbarian “Rhos,” who attacked Amastris and 
tried to despoil the saint’s tomb. The authenticity 
of this information depends on the date and at- 
tribution of the Life: Vasil’evskij (infra) and, re- 
cently, Ševčenko (“Hagiography” 123-25) at- 
tribute it to IGNATIOS THE Deacon, whereas G. da 
Costa-Louillet (Byzantion 15 [1940-41] 245-48) 
considers it a roth-C. work. A. Markopoulos (JOB 
28 [1979] 78—82) proposes a compromise solu- 
tion: that the Life is by Ignatios but the “Russian 
miracle” is an insertion produced under the influ- 
ence of PHotios. Another puzzle in the Life is its 
lack of anti-Iconoelastic invective, despite George’s 
evident closeness to Empress IRENE and esp. to 
Emp. Nikepnoros I, whose ascent to the throne 
George allegedly predicted. The hagiographer is 
exceptionally eloquent when criticizing trade “on 
land and sea” (p.52f). 

SOURCE. V. Vasil’evskij, Russko-vizantijskija issledovanija, 
vol. 2 (St. Petersburg 1893) 1-73, reproduced in his Trudy 
3:1-71. 


LIT. BHG 668-668e. -A.K. 


GEORGE OF CYPRUS, 7th-C. geographer of 
whom nothing is known save that he was born in 
Lapithos on Cyprus. His work is preserved in a 
compilation ascribed to another obscure individ- 
ual, the Armenian Basil of lalimbana, although 
Darrouzès (Notitiae CP 34, n.1, 42f) considers this 
attribution extremely hypothetical; the compila- 
ton is assumed to have been written in the gth 


838 | GEORGE OF MYTILENE 


C., and the compiler probably altered the text of 
George’s work. While accompanied in MSS by 
notitiae, that is, lists of metropolitan sees, arch- 
bishoprics, and bishoprics, George’s record, like 
that of HIEROKLES, contains secular administrative 
divisions, including cities (the term polis is usually 
omitted), KASTRA, komai (villages), KLIMATA, and, 
rarely, polichnat (towns), islands, and harbors. 
George begins with the district under the “eparch” 
of Rome or Italy, then follows with Africa, Egypt, 
and the Orient (Anatolike), that is, Cilicia, Isauria, 
Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phoenicia, Pales- 
tine, Arabia, and Cyprus. The list is evidently 
incomplete. 

ED. Descriptio orbis Romani, ed. H. Gelzer (Leipzig 1890) 
28-56. 

uit. Hunger, Lit. 1:531f. E. Honigmann, “Die Notitia 
des Basileios von lalimbana,” Byzantion 9 (1934) 205-22. 
V. Laurent, “La ‘Notitig’ de Basile ’Arménien,” EO 34 
(1935) 439-72. V. Grumel, “La ‘Notitia’ de Basile de Ialim- 
bana,” REB 19 (1961) 198—207. -A.K. 


GEORGE OF MYTILENE. See Davin, SYMEON, 
AND GEORGE OF MYTILENE. 


GEORGE OF NIKOMEDEIA, metropolitan of 
Nikomedeia (from ca.860); deacon and chartophy- 
lax of Hagia Sophia, preacher, author of various 
encomiastic works, esp. some devoted to the Vir- 
GIN Mary. The typikon of the EUERGETIS monas- 
tery (Dmitrievskij, Opisanie 1.1:550.30-32) in- 
cluded George’s sermon on “the threnos of the 
Virgin” in the service for Good Friday. According 
to H. Maguire (“Depiction of Sorrow” 162f), 
George’s introduction of the theme of the Virgin 
“holding and embracing the body” of Christ in- 
fluenced the artistic representation of the scene 
of the DEPOSITION FROM THE Cross beginning 
with the 1oth C. (an early surviving example is a 
fresco in the Old Church of Tokalı, GÖREME). R. 
Cormack (in Iconoclasm 151-53) hypothesized that 
the painted wooden reliquary of the True Cross, 
now in the Vatican, reflects the dramatic descrip- 
tion of the Virgin kissing Christ’s bleeding feet in 
George’s sermon for Good Friday. The homily on 
the Presentation of Christ published as a work of 
Athanasios of Alexandria (PG 28:973—1000) is 
spurious and in some MSS ascribed to George of 
Nikomedeia (CPG 2 no.2271). 
ED. PG 100:1336-1529. 


LIT. Beck, Kirche 542f. Pallas, Passion und Bestattung 108. 
~-A.C., A.K 


GEORGE OF PISIDIA, poet; born probably in 
Pisidian Antioch, died between ca.631 and 634, 
George served as deacon, skeuophylax, and refer- 
endarios in Hagia Sophia at Constantinople. His 
unabashedly Christian tone and stylistic innova- 
tion of using the iambic trimeter for EPIC poetry, 
the first step toward the later POLITICAL VERSE, 
make him a significant early landmark in Byz. 
poetry; PsELLos even compared him (sometimes 
favorably) to Euripides (A.R. Dyck, Michael Psel- 
lus: The Essays on Euripides and George of Pisidia 
[Vienna 1986] 25-74). George’s major historical 
epics eulogize HERAKLEIOS, esp. for his campaigns 
against the Persians and Avars. Imperial virtues 
and achievements are exalted but emphatically 
subordinated to God. Some predilection for med- 
ical diction and imagery is observable (J.D.C. 
Frendo, Orpheus 22 [1975] 49-56). George’s lan- 
guage and themes strive for symbiosis of sacred 
and profane, classical and biblical; Frendo (infra 
186) praises his “dazzling sophistication and in- 
tellectual subtlety.” Others celebrated by George 
include Patr. SeERcios | and Bonos the patrikios. 
Of his religious poetry, George’s best efforts are 
the iambic HEXAEMERON on the Creation (which 
was translated into Chureh Slavonic) and a rare 
hexameter piece On the Vanity of Life; also notable 
are a hymn on Christ’s Resurrection and a po- 
lemic against Severos of Antioch. His short poems 
on religious and secular subjects look back to the 
Hellenistic and forward to the Byz. EPIGRAM. 

ED. Poemi, ed. A. Pertusi (Ettal 1959), with It. tr. Carmina 
inedita, ed. L. Sternbach in WS 13 (1891) 1—62; 14 (1892) 

51-68. Hexaemeron—ed. R. Hercher in Claudii Aeliant varia 
historia (Leipzig 1866) 2:603—62. Sestodnev Georgija Piside i 
njegovu slovenski prevod, ed. N. Radošević (Belgrade 1979), 
with Slavonic tr. 

uT. J.D.C. Frendo, “The Poetic Achievement of George 
of Pisidia,” in Maistor 159-87. G. Bianchi, “Note sulla 
cultura a Bisanzio all'inizio del VII secolo in rapporto 
all’ Esamerone di Giorgio di Pisidia,” RSBN 2—3 (1965-66) 
137-43. -B.B. 


GEORGE OF TREBIZOND. See GEORGE TRaA- 
PEZOUNTIOS. 


GEORGE THE MONK. See GEORGE HAMARTO- 
LOS. 


GEORGE THE PHILOSOPHER, also known as 
George (metropolitan?) of Pelagonia, writer of the 
second half of the 14th C. Virtually nothing cer- 


tain 1s known of his biography, although his clas- 
sical allusions indicate a secular education. He 
wrote a (still unpublished) treatise against Gre- 
gory PaLaMas and an enkomion of Jonn HI Va- 
+arzes, who was later called St. John the Merciful 
(Gy. Moravesik, BZ 27 [1927] 36-39). Moravcsik 
theorized that George was originally a monk at 
the monastery in Magnesia where the saintly em- 
peror’s relics were preserved but that, under the 
pressure of Turkish occupation, he moved to Pe- 
lagonia in Macedonia. N. Festa also attributed a 
Lenten homily to Vatatzes’ hagiographer (VizVrem 
13 [1906] 1-35). 

Probably to be distinguished from George of 
Pelagonia is George Kydones GABRIELOPOULOS 
(ca.1323~—ca.1383), also known as George the Phi- 
losopher, who was a friend and correspondent of 
Demetrios Kypones (PLP, no.3433; cf. F. Tin- 
nefeld, OrChrP 38 [1972] 141-71). This George 
was probably born in ‘Thessalonike, became Ky- 
dones’ physician in Constantinople, and then trav- 
eled to Cyprus, Palestine, Crete, the Morea, and 
Genoa. He was a Platonist and, like George of 
Pelagonia, an anti-Palamite. 

ED. A. Heisenberg, “Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der 
Barmherzige,” BZ 14 (1905) 160-233. 

ur. PLP, no.4117. Beck, Kirche 723. K. Amantos, “Ho 
Bios Ioannou Batatse tou Eleemonos,” in Prosphora eis Stil- 


pona P. Kyriakiden |= Hellenika, supp. 4 (1953)] 29—34- 
-A.M.1. 


GEORGE THE SYNKELLOS, historian; died after 
810. His life is scarcely known; he was a monk 
and a SYNKELLOS of Patr. Tarasios. V. Grecu 
questioned the hypothesis that George visited Pal- 
estine and Syria (BSHAcRoum 28.2 [1947] 241- 
44). His Selection from Chronographers (Ekloge chrono- 
graphias) covers history from the creation of the 
world to Diocletian (284); perhaps he planned to 
continue it to his own time but was prevented by 
illness and death. ihe work is an antiquarian 
compilation of various carefully indicated sources 
(JoserHus Flavius, Sextus Julius AFRICANUS, etc.) 
in separate topical clusters. Even though different 
layers of George’s information are sometimes con- 
tradictory or repetitious, his purpose is consistent: 
to set forth the history of mankind in strict chro- 
nological sequence. The presentation is uneven, 
shifting from dry lists of rulers to descriptions of 
events. George’s choice of material is arbitrary: as 
in GEORGE HaAMARTOLOS, only a few lines are 


GEORGE TRAPEZOUNTIOS | 839 


dedicated to Julius Caesar, in contrast to a vast 
section on Augustus. C. Mango’s attempt (ZRVI 
18 [1978] 9—17) to ascribe to George the author- 
ship of the Chronicle of THEOPHANES THE CONFES- 
SOR was criticized by I. Cičurov (VizVrem 42 [1981] 
78—87), who admitted, however, that George could 
have provided Theophanes with some materials 
collected for his own work. ‘The only complete 
MS of George is Paris B.N. gr. 1711, dated 1021 
(A. Mosshammer, GRBS 21 [1980] 2894—95). AN- 
ASTASIUS BIBLIOTHECARIUS used George for his 
Historia tripartita. 

ED. Ecloga chronographica, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 
1984). 

LT. W. Adler, Tome Immemorial: Archaic History and Its 
Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to 
George Syncellus (Washington, D.C., 198g) 132-234. R. La- 
queur, RE 2.R. 4 (1932) 1388-1410. Hunger, Lit, 1:33.18, 
G.L. Huxley, “On the Erudition of George the Synkellos,” 
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 81 C (1981), n0.6, 207- 
Py: ~A.K. 


GEORGE TRAPEZOUNTIOS, conventionally 
termed “George of Trebizond,” humanist teacher, 
rhetorician, and translator; born Crete 3 Apr. 
1395, died Rome ca.1472/3. The descendant of 
Trapezuntines who emigrated to Crete, George 
moved to Italy ca.1416, converted to Catholicism 
in 1426, and taught Greex in Vicenza, Venice, 
and Rome. He attended the Council of FERRARA- 
FLORENCE as a Supporter of the Pope, and in the 
1440s entered the papal curia as a secretary. 
George’s translations of Aristotle, Plato, Demos- 
thenes, and the Cappadocian fathers were se- 
verely criticized, perhaps unfairly, by some of his 
contemporaries. His translation of Ptolemy's Al- 
magest fared better, although his commentary was 
attacked. He also produced a wide variety of writ- 
ings predominantly in Latin on rhetoric, logic, 
philosophy, theology, astrology, and astronomy 
(J. Irmscher, 12 CEB 2 [Belgrade 1964] 362). He 
dreamed of ie unity of mankind, Lut Was s1ULKEU 
by the expectation of PLETHON that this unity be 
achieved on the basis of a revitalized paganism. 
George built his hope first on papal supremacy, 
but in 1453 expressed the utopian view (in his 
Greck treatise On the Truth of the Christian Faith) 
that the Turkish sultan, converted to Christianity, 
would be able to conquer the world. George's 
hopes in this respect were strongly affected by his 
eschatological vision of the Roman Empire (mean- 
ing the papacy) fighting the Antichrist. In 1465 


840 GEORGIA 


he went to Constantinople as emissary of Pope 
Paul II to Menmen IT, but his mission was unsuc- 
cessful; on his return to Rome in 1466, George 
was briefly imprisoned for his fulsome praise of 
the sultan. 

George argued that the study of antiquity was 
useful as preparation for political activity. He had 
high regard for Cicero, but replaced the latter’s 
ideal of the orator-philosopher with that of the 
orator-statesman (Monfasani, George of Trebizond 
294). George had a hot temper and quarrelsome 
nature; although a translator of Plato, he turned 
into an ardent defender of Aristotle in his Com- 
parison of the two philosophers. As a result he was 
the target of the polemic of BESSARION, Against 
the Calumniator of Plato. George sharply criticized 
not only Plethon and Bessarion, but the more 
moderate Gazes: Plato’s closeness to Christianity 
George considered deceptive, whereas Aristotle, 
he said, taught the immortality of the soul, crea- 
tion ex nihilo, and a consistent monotheism; he 
even anticipated the Christian Trinity (Monfasani, 
George of Trebizond 157). 

ED. G.Y. Zoras, Georgios ho Trapezountios kai hai pros hel- 
lenotourkiken synennoesin prospatheiai autou (Athens 1954) 93— 
165. Fr. tr. A.Th. Khoury, PrOC 19 (196g) 320-34; 20 
(1970) 238—71; 21 (1971) 235-61. For complete list of ed., 
see J. Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntiana: Texts, Documents 
and Bibliographies of George of Trebizond (Binghamton, N.Y., 
1984). 

LIT. J. Monfasani, George of Trebizond (Leiden 1976). E. 
Garin, “H platonismo come ideologia della sovversione eu- 
ropea: la polemica antiplatonica di Giorgio Trapezunzio,” 
Studia humanitatis. E. Grassi zum 7o. Geburtstag (Munich 
1973) 118-20. PLP, no.4120. —A.K., A.M.T. 


GEORGIA. The modern term refers to two areas: 
eastern Georgia (Georg. K‘art’li, Gr. Iberia, Arm. 
Virk’, Pers. Gurgan) and western Georgia (Gr. 
Colchis, later Lazika; Georg. Egrisi, later AB- 
CHASIA). These were united politically in Byz. times 
only in the years g78—1258 and 1330-1491, but 
had a common language and similar social struc- 
ture. 

The Georgian language (with Mingrelian, Laz, 
and Svan) belongs to the southern Caucasian, or 
Kartvelian, group. The literary language is based 
on the K’art‘li dialect and the written tradition 
(cf. GEORGIAN LITERATURE) goes back to the 5th 
C. 

King Mirian of Iberia was converted to Chris- 
unity in the 330s by Nino, known to tradition as 
a captive attached to the court. There were Chris- 


tian settlements on the Black Sea coast by the 4th 
C. Western Georgia accepted Christianity in the 
same century, but as in Armenia, the populace 
was not fully converted until much later. In 505 
or 506 at the Council of Duin the Georgians and 
Armenians rejected CHALCEDON. At the beginning 
of the 7th C., however, the Armenian and Geor- 
gian churches split; from then on the Georgians 
remained in communion with the Greek church. 
This encouraged close contacts, political and in- 
tellectual, between Byz. and Georgia; relations 
with Armenia were intimate but often strained. 

The original capital of K‘art'li, MC'XET'A, re- 
mained the patriarchal seat after Tblisi became 
the political capital in the reign of Vaxtang Gor- 
gasali (ca.440—522). At the end of his reign, dis- 
lodged by the Persians, Vaxtang fled for a short 
time to Western Georgia, which remained under 
Byz. control. After 523 the Persians installed a 
marzpan (governor) in Tblisi, and Iberia with Ar- 
MENIA fell into the Iranian orbit. In the following 
century the Muslims gained control of both Ar- 
menia and Iberia. The enlarged province was 
ruled from Duin, Tblisi remaining the center for 
local administration. 

The caliph’s hold over Georgia lasted two cen- 
turies. In 888, three years after the Armenian 
BaGRATID princes assumed the royal title, Adar- 
narse of the Georgian branch of that family claimed 
the title of king. Georgia was not united, however, 
for Abchasia remained an independent kingdom 
until the reign of Bagrat II (978—1014). 

As the borders of Byz. expanded eastward in 
the 10th C., upper ‘Tayk’ was annexed on the 
death of its prince Davip oF Tayk‘/Tao in 1000. 
Unlike the Armenian kingdoms, however, which 
were incorporated into the empire in the 11th C., 
Georgia remained independent. After Byz. con- 
trol in eastern Anatolia collapsed following the 
defeat at MANTZIKERT (1071), the Georgians ex- 
tended their sway in Caucasia under Davin IIV 
THE RESTORER and his descendants. The eastern 
region of Kakhetia was incorporated in 1105. 
‘Tblisi was regained in 1122 from the Shaddadids 
(a Muslim Kurdish dynasty of Gandza, which had 
occupied Ani and Tblisi after the Turkish con- 
quest of Anatolia). Tblisi now became the capital; 
the monastic complex of GELAT‘I near the earlier 
capital of Kutaisi remained an important center 
of learning. In 1124 Ani was captured, but during 
the remainder of the 12th C. it passed back and 


forth several times between Georgians and Shad- 
dadids. 

Cultural contacts between Georgia and Byz. were 
fostered in Constantinople and in monastic cen- 
ters such as Mt. Athos (where the Georgians had 
their own monastery, IVERON), Mt. Sina (see G. 
Garitte, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires 
du Mont Sinai [Louvain 1956]), and Jerusalem. 
Political ties were strengthened in the 6th C., 
when the emperor first bestowed titles (usually 
KOUROPALATES) on Georgian princes. In the 11th 
C. marriage alliances confirmed those ties: in 1032 
Bagrat IV married the niece of Romanos lI, 
following a visit to Constantinople by Bagrat’s 
mother Maria, herself of Armenian descent; Ba- 
grats daughter Maria OF “ALANIA” married Mi- 
chael VII Doukas and subsequently Nikephoros 
II. The daughter of David IIV the Restorer 
married the grandson of Alexios I Komnenos, 
while the first wife of Andronikos I Komnenos 
was related to Queen T'amara (who helped Al- 
exios and David Komnenos to seize TREBIZOND in 
1204). Many nobles of Georgian or Armenian 
descent served in the Byz. army, such as John 
Tornikios and Gregory PAKOURIANOS. 

After 1204 direct contacts with Constantinople 
were few. The Mongol attack of 1220 curbed the 
military success of T‘amara and her son George 
IV (1212-23). In 1240 Queen Rusudan (1223- 
45) appealed to Pope Gregory IX for help. Latin 
missionaries had been in Tblisi since 1233 and a 
Latin bishopric was established there in 1329. 
Nevertheless, the Georgian delegation to the 
Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE did not sign the 
act of Union. 

In the 14th C. Georgian control over eastern 
Georgia and Armenia declined. George VI (the 
Brilliant, 1314-46) moved his capital to Kutaisi 
and contacts with the West and Trebizond became 
more significant. The second wife of Bagrat V 
(1360—g95) was Anna, the daughter of Alexios Il 
of Trebizond; the daughter of Alexander I (1412- 
42) married John IV Komnenos of Trebizond. 
Constantinople remained beyond the Georgian 
horizon, save for unsuccessful negotiations to ar- 
range a marriage between the daughter of George 
VIII (1446—65) and the last emperor, CONSTAN- 
TINE XI. 

LIT. Toumanoff, Caucasian Hist. Idem, CMH = 4.1:593- 
637, 983-1009. M.D. Lordkipanidze, Georgia in the XI-XII 
Centuries (Tbilisi 1987). K. Salia, History of the Georgian 


GEORGIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE 841 


Nation (Paris 1983); rev. BK 43 (1984) 93-108. M. van 
Esbroeck, “Eglise géorgienne des origines au moyen age,” 
BK 40 (1982) 186—gg. RAT. 


GEORGIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE. 
Georgian art retained its distinctive national char- 
acter throughout the medieval period despite sig- 
nificant foreign influences affecting certain me- 
dia. Byz. influence was strongest in the 11th—14th 
C.; it dominated some schools of metalwork (esp. 
enamels) and painting. Before the Arab conquest 
Georgian architecture and sculpture followed a 
course parallel to that of ARMENIAN ART AND AR- 
CHITECTURE, but, although both nations based their 
later architecture on the achievements of the 7th 
C., the experimental Georgian approach after 
ca.800 has little in common with Armenia’s almost 
reverential use of 7th-C. models. 

Architecture and Stone Sculpture. ‘The earliest 
Christian monuments are small hall churches and 
basilicas; centralized domed plans were intro- 
duced by the 7th C. As in Armenia, virtually all 
the churches are constructed of rubble conglom- 
erate faced with tufa; vaults and domes are also 
masonry. Because most architectural types used 
in Georgia appear simultaneously in Armenia 
(Dzvari at Mc’xer‘a [586 (or 587)—604?] is par- 
alleled by Avan [ca.5go0], C’romi [626-35] by St. 
Gayané at VararSapat [630—-41]), attempts to as- 
sign precedence to either tradition have proved 
fruitless. The few Georgian CHURCH PLAN TYPES 
not attested in Armenia include a tetraconch with 
four small oval chambers inserted between the 
apses (Ninoc'minda [6th C.?]) and the widely used 
“three churches basilica,” in which partition walls 
with only one or two small openings divide nave 
and aisles into very distinct spaces. 

In the early basilican churches, only pier capi- 
tals and bases are sculpted; those in Sion at Bolnisi 
(478-83) carry Christian symbols (the Cross with 
stags, peacocks) and pre-Christian Georgian or 
Sasanian motifs (animals pursuing one another, 
vegetal patterns). Façade programs begin ca.600. 
Dzvari at Mc'xet‘a displays donors kneeling be- 
fore Christ and angels. At Ateni (7th C.), separate 
reliefs show donors at the hunt and Christ and 
the Virgin. An altar (?) slab from Cebelda com- 
bines an image of St. EustaTHios and the stag 
with Old and New Testament scenes and donor 
portraits. N. Thierry (BK 44 [1985] 169-223) has 
shown that at least one atelier (in Gugaren) pro- 


842 GEORGIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE 


duced stelae for both Armenian and Georgian 
patrons, but some forms, such as standing crosses, 
are attested only in Georgia. 

The Arab invasions curtailed building in Geor- 
gia, but the experimentation in church plans that 
typifies 7th-C. architecture had resumed by 800. 
Somewhat debased standards of construction, with 
more use of uncut or rough-cut stone facings and 
less sculpture, suggest the difficulties encountered 
during this period. 

The triumphs of the BaGRarTips intensified 
building activity, particularly the foundation and 
restoration of monasteries. The new, lighter 
churches dwarf their predecessors. By the early 
vith C. finely cut tufa was used again almost 
universally in Georgia, along with elaborately 
carved facades: blind areading, bands of fleshy 
vegetation, large crosses, Old and New Testament 
scenes. Exteriors now give little hint of the spaces 
within: Nikorcminda (early 11th C.) appears to 
be a blocky inscribed cross, but the north, south, 
and east arms together conceal five radiating apses. 

Monumental Painting. Although Iconoclasm did 
not affect Georgia, litle figural art other than 
stone carving survives from before the gth C. In 
the apse at C'romi (626-35), Christ holding a 
scroll, flanked by apostles, is visible in a mosaic 
and its underdrawing. The only later example of 
mosaic occurs at GELAT'I, which has the more 
traditionally Byz. theme of the Virgin and Arch- 
angels. 

At Ateni, the 7th-C. fresco program consisted 
of the Cross in the dome and geometric patterns 
in the conches. The Cross is often painted in the 
dome and Christ in glory in the apse; in Tayk’/ 
Tao and in David-GaredZza far to the east are 
examples from the 11th C. or even earlier. In 
1oth- through 13th-C. Svanetia, painting may be 
restricted to the apse, and saints popular locally— 
George, Julitta, Kyros—appear both as individual 
figures and in abbreviated cycles. 

‘The Georgian kings and princes of the 12th— 
13th C. favored Byz. programs of church deco- 
ration, although these were altered to fit Georgian 
church plans and often preserved the unusual 
placement of the Cross and of Cbrist. Thus at 
Ateni in 1080, elements of a typical Byz. program 
were distributed over the four apses of the 7th- 
C. tetraconch, while the Cross remained in the 
dome. The rock-cut hall church of the Dormition 
at Vardzia (1184-6) is painted with a thoroughly 
Byz. program, and King George III and Queen 


T AMARA OF GEORGIA appear here in imperial Byz. 
robes; the Glorification of the Cross has been 
displaced to the narthex vault. At St. Nicholas in 
Kinevisi (1208) and at Timotesubani (ca.1220) the 
dome contains the Cross along with a Drxsis. 

The program and style of Ahtala (early 13th 
C.) are typical of late Komnenian painting. The 
church may have been frescoed by Byz. artists, 
Palaiologan models were widely accepted, esp. in 
western Georgia, where Byz. artists worked at 
Calendzicha (1384-96; see Manuel EuGENIKOs), 
and probably at Lihni (mid-14th C.). The frescoes 
of the Church of the Transfiguration at Zarzma 
(first half of the 14th C.) have iconographic and 
stylistic ties with the [VERON MONASTERY on Mt. 
Athos. 

Manuscript Illumination. The earliest surviv- 
ing Georgian illuminated MSS are gth- and 10th- 
C. Gospel books. Their decoration consists pri- 
marily of full-page CANON TABLES and standing 
EVANGELIST PORTRAITS, although the First Džruči 
Gospels of g40 (Tbilisi H-1660) also includes the 
Virgin and three Miracles of Christ. 

More up-to-date Byz. styles were introduced 
from the 11th C. onward as Georgian monasteries 
edited and translated Greek texts. The synaxarion 
of EUTHYMIOS THE IBERIAN of 1030 (Tbilisi A- 
648) resembles contemporary Byz. MENOLOGIA, as 
does the 14th-C. synaxarion (Leningrad, Publ. Lib. 
gr. 01-58); both are bilingual (Greek/Georgian; 
P. Mijović, Zograf 8 [1977] 17-23). The Second 
Dzrudi Gospels (12th C.; ‘Tbilisi N-1667) is a FRIEZE 
GospeL. The srYLE MIGNON is also represented in 
the text miniatures of the Homilies of Gregory of 
Nazianzos (Tbilisi A-109; its frontispiece minia- 
tures, however, are in a broad fresco style). Ac- 
cording to a Greek inscription, Michael Koresis 
illustrated the 13th-C. Vansk Gospels (Tbilisi A- 
1335) in Constantinople. 

Metalwork and Enamel. Metal (esp. silver-gilt) 
was the favored medium for icons; repoussé was 
used both for scenes and for the floral grounds 
of icons set with small enamels. ‘The earliest dated 
example, the Transfiguration from Zarzma (886), 
is a very shallow relief with chased lines. Later, 
figures were modeled almost in the round (e.g., 
the [shan Crucifix of 973 and the 11th-C. tondo 
of St. Mamas on the lion). 

Although Georgian figured ENAMELS from the 
8th-gth C. are distinct from Byz. work, Greek 
inscriptions are common (as in other Georgian 
figural art), and by the 11th C., Byz. influence 


was so strong that it is hard to distinguish Geor- 
gian from Byz. work. 

LIT. A. Alpago-Novello et al., Art and Architecture in Me- 
dieval Georgia (Louvain-la-Neuve 1980). W. Beridze, E. 
Neubauer, Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Georgien vom 4. bis 
zum 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna 1981) 7-219. L. Chuskivadze, 
Gruzinskie emali (Tbilisi 1981). A. Djavashvili, G. Abramish- 
vili, Goldschmiedekunst und Toreutik in der Museen Georgiens 
(Leningrad 1986). -ALT. 


GEORGIAN CHRONICLES. The term is a loose 
rendering of K‘art'lis Cxovreba (Life of K'art'li 
[Iberia]), an official collection of some, but not all, 
historical works written in Georgian between the 
8th and 14th C. (For the others, see GEORGIAN 
LITERATURE.) The process of compilation had be- 
gun by the 12th C. In the early 18th C. King 
Vaxtang VI appointed a commission that edited 
and amplified it into a continuous whole. Since 
then earlier MSS have been discovered, the ear- 
liest (Queen Anne Codex) dating to the period 
1479-95 (C. Toumanoff, Traditio 5 [1947] 340- 

). 
The first item in the collection is the History of 
the Kings of Iberia by Leontius Mroveli, archbishop 
of Ruisi, giving the legendary origins of the Geor- 
gian people. There follow the History of King Vax- 
tang Gorgasali by DzuanSer, giving a semifabulous 
account of that 5th- or 6th-C. king (the Armenian 
abbreviated adaptation of the first five parts of 
the Chronicles, made in the late 12th or 13th C., 
falsely attributes the whole collection to Dzuan- 
Ser); the Martyrdom of King Arčil II (died 786); the 
Chronicle of Iberia, 786—1072 (from whose original 
title, Cxovreba, the whole collection probably de- 
rives its name); the History of the King of Kings, an 
enkomion of Davip II/IV THE RESTORER; the His- 
tories of the Sovereigns, which deals primarily with 
the reign of Queen T‘amara; and the History of 
the Mongol Invasions, covering the period 1212- 
1346. The last four items are of special inicicsi 
for Byz.-Georgian relations. 

ED. K‘art'lis Cxovreba, ed. S. Kauchéisvili, 2 vols. (Tbilisi 
1955-59). Histoire de la Géorgie deputs l'antiquité jusqu’au XIXe 
siècle, tr. M.F. Brosset, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg 1849-58). 


LT. C. Toumanoff, “Medieval Georgian Historical Lit- 
erature,” Traditio ı (1943) 139-82. -R.T. 


GEORGIAN LITERATURE. Before the creation 
of a script for their native tongue, the Georgians 
used Greek and Middle Persian written in Ara- 
maic script. As in Armenia, at the beginning of 


GEORGIAN LITERATURE | 843 


the 5th C. church authorities created a script for 
Georgian based on the Greek alphabet (unlike 
Armenian, the extra letters are added at the end). 
The oldest surviving examples of Georgian are 
the inscription of 493/4 at Bolnisi church and 
undated inscriptions on mosaics in Jerusalem (G. 
Tseret‘eli, BK 11—12 [1961] 111—830). 

The first texts written in Georgian are transla- 
tions of biblical and liturgical texts. The transla- 
tion of the New Testament was based on the 
earliest Armenian version (the surviving Arme- 
nian text is a later revision); in the 10th—11th C. 
an extensive revision of the Bible based on Byz. 
Greek MSS was undertaken (B. Metzger, The Early 
Versions of the New Testament [Oxford 1977] 182- 
g8). The influence of Jerusalem was strong in 
liturgical texts, reflecting the large number of 
Georgian monastic establishments in Palestine. 

The earliest original composition is the Martyr- 
dom of St. Susanik (daughter of Vardan MamiKo- 
NEAN); her cult was popular in both Georgia and 
Armenia (I. Curtaveli, Martvilobay Susanikisi, ed. 
I. Abuladze [Tbilisi 1938; rp. 1978]). After the 
rupture with the Armenian church in the time of 
Katholikos Kyrion (early 7th C.), literary contacts 
were less significant with Armenia than with Greek 
centers. Because the Georgians were Chalcedon- 
ian, they frequented Constantinople as well as 
Greek monasteries on the Black Mountain, on Mt. 
ATHOS, and in Palestine. Hence translations from 
Christian Arabic played a significant role in the 
development of Georgian Christian literature (G. 
Garitte, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires 
du Mont Sinai [Louvain 1956)). 

Historical works in Georgian date from the 7th 
C. The texts, both those included in the official 
GEORGIAN CHRONICLES and others, primarily con- 
cern local matters. Of greater value for the By- 
zantinist are the Lives of numerous Georgians 
who were active in Constantinople, Mt. Athos, the 
Black Mountain, and the Holy Land (Latin tr. of 
Georgian texts in P. Peeters, AB 36-37 [1917- 
19] 1-317). Scholars such as Ep‘REM MCIRE and 
GEORGE MrT‘ac’MINDELI translated anew or revised 
earlier versions of biblical, liturgical, hagiograph- 
ical, and patristic texts. John Perric’l treated 11th- 
and 12th-C. Byz. philosophical traditions. In the 
same period astronomical and medical texts were 
translated from Arabic. After the 12th C., how- 
ever, secular literature (prose and poetry), despite 
overtones of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philos- 
ophy, was more influenced by Persian models 


844 | GEPIDS 


(Shota Rustaveli, The Lord of the Panther-Skin, tr. 
R.H. Stevenson [Albany, N.Y., 1977]). 

Georgian authorship for the corpus of pseudo- 
DIONYSIOS THE AREOPAGITE and BARLAAM AND 
loasapH (Balavarianis kartuli redak‘ciebi, ed. 1. 
Abuladze [Tbilisi 1957]; D-M. Lang, The Balavar- 
iani: Barlaam and Josaphat [Berkeley~Los Angeles 
1966]) has not been unanimously accepted. 

rr. G. Deeters in Handbuch der Orientalistik, vol. 7, Are 
menische und kaukasische Sprachen (Leiden-Cologne 1963) 129- 
55. Peeters, Tréfonds. M. Varchnisvili, J. Assfalg, Geschichte 
der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Vatican 1955) [= ST 
185]. E. Khintibidzé, “Byzantine-Georgian Literary Con- 
tacts.” BK 36 (1978) 275-86. -R.T 


GEPIDS (IT hraðes), an eastern Germanic people, 
akin to the Gorys. They are first mentioned in 
the Historia Augusta. In the 4th C. they settled in 
northern Dacia and were soon subjugated by the 
Huns. After the death of Attica, the Gepids, 
commanded by their prince Ardaricus, defeated 
the Huns at Nedao in 454, leading to the disso- 
lution of the Hunnic confederacy. The Gepids 
occupied the flatland on the left bank of the 
Danube and were supported by Constantinople 
against the Ostrogoths. Sirmium was, for a long 
period, a bone of contention between the Gepids 
and the Ostrogoths, but at the ume of Prokopios 
(mid-6th C.) the Gepids held both Sirmium and 
Singidunum. Justinian ] encouraged the Lom- 
BARDS to attack them; allied with the Avars, the 
Lombards defeated the Gepids in 567/8. After 
this catastrophe the Gepids disappeared. Many 
hoards of gold and silver objects, including the 
princely graves in Apahida (near Cluj), have often 
been attributed to the Gepids, but the ethnic at- 
tribution of 5th-C. archaeological material found 
in Dacia is difficult—the distinction between Ger- 
manic tribes and the local population or Sarma- 
tians is not casy to draw (V. Kropotkin, SovArch 
[1958] no.2, 316). In the 12th C. the name Gepids 
reappears in Byz. historiography and rhetoric as 
a designation of Hungarians (Gy. Moravesik, BZ 
30 [1929/30] 250). 

tir. C. Diculescu, Die Gepiden, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1923). H. 
Sevin, Die Gepiden (Munich 1955). D. Csallány, Archdolo- 
gische Denkmäler der Gepiden in Mitteldonaubecken (Budapest 
1961). K. Horedt, D. Protase, “Das zweite Ftirstengrab von 
Apahida,” Germania 50 (1972) 174-220. A. Kiss. “Das Wei- 
terleben der Gepiden in der Awarenzeit,” in VölkSüdost 
203-18, -A.K. 


GERAKI (‘lepakiov, Pepaxe, anc. Geronthrai), 
town in the Peloponnesos, situated between Mo- 
nemvasia and Sparta; it flourished in the 13th— 
15th C. The Frankish baron Guy de Nivelet was 
granted the region after the Fourth Crusade, but 
ca.1263 it was returned to the Byz.; Geraki was 
an iniportant town of the despotate of the Morea, 
It fell to the Ottomans by 1460. 

A fortress was built by Guy de Nivelet ca.1230 
on a hilltop less precipitous than that of Mistra. 
The fortress was well protected by the mountain 
ridge save for the southern section where the walls 
were reinforced by two square towers; the walls, 
which were 1.5—1.7 m thick, have ceramic deco- 
ration. The approximate size of the stronghold 
was 125 X 60m. 

The Frankish town grew up on the west slope 
of the hill, while the Byz. town was situated in the 
plain below. Numerous churches survive in both 
sites, as well as in the fortress. East of the modern 
village is an early Christian basilica, now in ruins. 
‘To the northwest is the well-preserved Church of 
the Evangelistria, probably of the 12th C. Its vir- 
tually complete fresco program, of the late 12th 
C., seems to be the work of two painters, probably 
contemporary with each other and from Constan- 
tinople. Moutsopoulos-Demetrokalles (infra 136), 
however, argue that the frescoes are of two dif- 
ferent periods. Southeast of the village is the 
Church of St. Sozon, of inscribed cross plan and 
dating to the 12th C., according to Moutsopoulos- 
Demetrokalles (infra 218); frescoes of the 12th or 
early 13th C. survive only in the cupola and sanc- 
tuary. Very similar in plan is the Church of St. 
Athanasios (ca.1200); its poorly preserved fres- 
coes (14th C.?) include portraits of bishops framed 
like icons. The frescoes of the small single-naved 
church dedicated to John Chrysostom have sur- 
vived in their entirety; they are of two layers, one 
ca.1300, another dated ca.1450. 

Within the fortress is the Church of St. George, 
originally built under the Franks with two naves; 
a third nave and narthex were added after the 
Byz. recovery of Geraki. Its frescoes probably date 
to the second half of the 14th C. A church of the 
late 19th C., dedicated to St. Nicholas, has frescoes 
of St. Mary of Egypt and Zosimos on its masonry 
templon. 

About 8 km south of Geraki lies the Church of 
Hagios Strates, built ca.1430 (S. Kalopissi-Vert in 
Festschrift Wessel 147—686), which contains unusual 


frescoes of the Synaxis ton Asomaton (see Aso- 
maros) and, in the apse, the Virgin Zoodochos 
PEGE. 
tir. N.K. Moutsopoulos, G. Demetrokalles, Gereke: Hoi 
ekklesies tou otkismou (Thessalonike 1981). Bon, Morée franque 
112f, 592-98, 642-45. W. McLeod, “Castles of the Morea 
in 1467." BZ 65 (1972) 362. M. Panayotidi, “Les églises de 
Géraki et de Monemvasie.” 22 CorsiRav (1975) 335-49- 
~A.M.T., A.C. 


GERASA (Pépace, Ar. Jarash, in mod. Jordan), 


one of the cities of the Decapolis and bishopric of 


the province of Arabia under Bosrra. The first 
attested bishop was Exeresius, who attended the 
Council of Seleukeia in 359. There are consider- 
able remains for the period of the 4th—7th C.: 
city walls, a stoa and bath of the mid-5th C., and 
in the 6th C. another bath complex and colon- 
nades flanking the cardo (513-307). It is possible 
that the Maiouma theater was restored in 535 
when that pagan festival, previously abolished, 
was revived in the guise of a Christian harvest 
festival. 

Gerasa is best known for its extensive number 
of churches (at least 12), many of impressive size. 
Most date from the 5th and 6th C. and are bas- 
ilican in plan. The oldest of these is the cathedral 
of ca.365, with the Basilica of St. Theodore (496) 
immediately to the west. Fhe Church of the 
Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs (465) has a cross- 
in-square plan. A complex of Justinianic date (529— 
33) is composed of three linked churches sharing 
acommon atrium. The central Church of St. John 
the Baptist has an unusual circular plan; the 
northernmost church, dedicated to Sts. Kosmas 
and Damianos, has particularly fine FLOOR MO- 
sarcs with portraits of the donors, the paramona- 


rios Theodore and his wife Georgia. A number of 


other churches have well-preserved pavements. 
The last church to be constructed at Gerasa was 
the Basilica of Bp. Genesios, dated to 611 by a 
mosaic inscription. 

The city was conquered by the Arabs in 634, 
but half its population remained Greek into the 
gth C. 

LIT. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, ed. C.H. Kraeling (New 
Haven 1938). Jerash Archaeological Project 1981—1983, ed. 
F. Zayadine (Amman 1986). J.W. Crowfoot, Churches at 
Jerash (London 1931). R. Pierobon, “Gerasa in Archaeolog- 
ical Historiography.” Mesopotamia 18—19 (1983-84) 13-35. 
D. Sourdel, EF? 2:458. I. Browning, Jerash and the Decapolis 
(London 1982) g2—102, 180-207, 209-211. —M.M.M. 


GERMANOI | 845 


GERMANIKFIA (leppavixeca, mod. Maras), city 
in the Antitaurus at the edge of the Mesopota- 
mian plain, on roads connecting Asia Minor and 
Syria. A bishopric of EUPHRATENSIS, Germanikeia 
became a Monophysite center in the 5th C.; it was 
the birthplace of Nesrorios and later Leo III 
“the Isaurian.” Persians occupied Germanikeia 
when Herakleios campaigned there in 625. Briefly 
recovered by Byz., it was destroyed by the Arabs 
in 637, then rebuilt by them to become a base for 
raiding Asia Minor. Germanikeia was the scene 
of constant fighting in the 8th-1o0th C., when it 
was usually controlled by the Arabs and attacked 
by the Byz. In 746, Constantine V transferred 
some of its inhabitants (including many Mono- 
physites) to Thrace; in 76g, the people of Ger- 
manikeia, accused of spying for Byz., were de- 
ported to Palestine. Michael LAcHANODRAKON 
pillaged the region in 778; Theophilos temporar- 
ily reconquered it in 841; and in 87g Basil I made 
Germanikeia the goal of his eastern expedition, 
ravaging the suburbs when he failed to take the 
city. It was finally taken by Nikephoros 11 Phokas 
in 963. Germanikela was the southernmost point 
reached in the campaigns of Romanos IV in 1068— 
6y. The area was entrusted to Philaretos BRA- 
CHAMIOS, who created an ephemeral Armenian 
principality there from 1078 to 1097. Although 
briefly captured by Alexios I in 1099, it was soon 
lost to the Crusaders of Edessa. 


LT. E. Honigmann, EZ? 6:505-08. D. & L. Stiernon, 
DHGE 20 (1984) 943-60. -C.F. 


GERMANOI (leppavoi, derived from the Latin 
Germani), Byz. term for the Germans. Prokopios 
(Wars 4.11.29, 12.8) defined Germanoj as the for- 
mer name of the FRANKOI, associating the latter 
with the Rhineland Germans of the early Roman 
Empire. Through the 15th C. it remained an 
axiomatic ethnic formula in yz. nistoriograpny 
that Germanoi and Frankoi were the same, the 
only exception being the occasional and even more 
anachronistic association of the Germanoi with 
the “Keltoi” (Celts). The Germanic peoples of the 
Holy Roman Empire were not independently rec- 
ognized in Byz. sources until the 11th C., and 
then as ALEMANNI or Nemitzoi. Thus, Kinnamos 
defined the German Conrad IH as the king of 
the Alamanoi and the French Louis VII as the 
king of the Germanot. 


846 GERMANOS 


ur. H. Ditten, “ ‘Germannen’ und ‘Alamannen’ in an- 
tiken und byzantinischen Quellen,” BBA 52 (1985) 20-31. 
B.H. 


GERMANOS (leppaves), general, nephew of 
Justin I (PLRE 2:505) or more likely Justinian I; 
born before 505, died Serdica early autumn 550. 
Justinian appointed him magister militum per Thra- 
cias; he successfully fought the Anrar. In 536 
Justinian sent him to suppress the revolt of STOT- 
zas and, in 540, to defend Antioch against CHos- 
ROES I, but Germanos abandoned the city. There- 
after he fell into disfavor, due esp. to Theodora’s 
hostility: the empress saw in him a probable suc- 
cessor to Justinian and was angry with Germanos’s 
marrying his daughter Justina to a powerful leader 
of the foederati—John, nephew of ViTa.ian. After 
Theodora died and Germanos displayed loyalty 
by refusing to join the plot of Artabanes and 
Arsakes (who probably were planning to place 
Germanos on the throne), Justinian changed his 
attitude toward his nephew. He approved Ger- 
manos’s marriage with the Ostrogothic princess 
MATASUNTHA of the AMALI, which established 
Germanos as heir to both realms; Germanos was 
to replace BELisariIos as commander of land op- 
erations against the Ostrogoths. He assembled an 
army in Illyricum and frightened the Slavs who 
had tried to cross the Danube, but died suddenly 
before the expedition started. 

Prokopios (Wars 7:40.9) praises his manliness, 
justice, and generosity. Germanos showed himself 
to be a brave warrior. He was immensely rich, 
kept a personal retinue, and was popular in Con- 
stantinople. By his first wife, Passara, he had two 
sons, one of whom, Justin, was executed by Emp. 
Justin If; Matasuntha bore him a posthumous 
son, named Germanos. 

LIT. Stein, Histoire 2:324-27, 595-97. Bury, LRE 2:67f. 
C. Benjamin, RE 7 (1912) 1258—61. W.E. Kaegi, “Arianism 


and the Byzantine Army in Africa 533-546,” Traditio 21 
(1965) 48f. -W.E.K., A.K. 


GERMANOS I, patriarch of Constantinople (11 
Aug. 715-17 Jan. 730) and saint; born between 
630 and 650 (Garton-Westerink, infra, p.v) or 
between 653 and 658 (Lamza, infra 57), died 
Platanion 730 or 742°; feastday 12 May. Germa- 
nos was reportedly more than go years old at his 
death. However, his vita (Lamza, infra 204.73- 
76) states that in 705, when he reached the middle 
of his life, Germanos turned 37; this would give 


him dates of 668—742. E. Stein asserts, on shaky 
grounds, that Germanos belonged to the family 
of Justinian I (Klio 16 [1919-20] 207). In 66g 
Germanos’s father was executed and Germanos 
castrated. Elected bishop of Kyzikos ca.705, Ger- 
manos supported Emp. Philippikos-Bardanes in 
his sympathy for MONOTHELETISM but opposed 
Monotheletism after the fall of Philippikos in 713. 

As patriarch, Germanos supported Leo III and 
praised in his sermons Leo’s victory over the Ar- 
abs. He was probably that anonymous patriarch 
who questioned the Paulician Gegnesios (Peter of 
Sicily, PG 104:1284B—1285A) and permitted him 
to remain at large; among the issues discussed 
were veneration of the cross and of the Virgin, 
sacraments, and baptism, but not icon veneration. 
It is not clear how and when the patriarch came 
into conflict with Leo’s policy of ICONOCLASM; 
probably the veneration of the Virgin, to whom 
Germanos dedicated several sermons, was the ma- 
jor point of dispute. Germanos was forced to 
resign and was replaced by the Iconoclast patri- 
arch ANASTASIOS. 

The oeuvre of Germanos is not yet established; 
the distinction between his writings and those of 
GERMANOs II is occasionally hard to draw. The 
dialogue On Predestined Terms of Life is sometimes 
ascribed to Photios; even his authorship of the 
commentary on the liturgy preserved under the 
curious title of Church History remains dubious. 
The commentary was translated into Latin by 
ANASTASIUS BIBLIOTHECARIUS. In his genuine 
works Germanos is revealed as an experienced 
rhetorician: he created new composite words, such 
as theobastaktos (PG 98:321A, 324D, 368A) or axio- 
zographistos (PG g8:336CD), used symmetrical 
structure of clauses (e.g., the chairetismoi so typical 
of the poetry of Romanos the Melode), and ex- 
quisite puns such as korakes and kerykes (PG 
g8:265CD). Especially interesting is his dialogue 
between Gabriel and Mary in the sermon on the 
Annunciation in which the protagonists converse 
on different stylistic levels, the archangel being 
majestic and the Virgin simple and naive. He was 
a hymnographer who wrote kanones; the AKA- 
THISTOS HYMN has been attributed to him by some 
scholars. The anonymous vita of Germanos is 
legendary; it was written not in the 8th (Beck, 
Kirche 506) or gth C. (Garton-Westerink, infra, 
p.v, n.1) but in the 11th C. 


ED. PG g8:39-454. On Predestined Terms of Life, ed. C. 
Garton, L. Westerink (Buffalo, N.Y., 1979). IL commentario 


liturgico, ed. N. Borgia (Grouaferrata 1912). P. Meyendorff, 
On the Divine Liturgy (Crestwood, N.Y., 1984), with Eng. tr. 

LIT. L. Lamza, Patriarch Germanos I. von Konstantinopel 
(Würzburg 1975). J. List, Studien zur Homiletik Germanos I. 
von Konstantinopel und seiner Zeit (Athens 1939). P. Speck, 
“Klassizismus im achten Jahrhundert? Die Homelie des 
Patriarchen Germanos tiber die Rettung Konstantinopels,” 
REB 44 (1986) 209-27. J. Darrouzés, “Deux textes inédits 
du patriarche Germain,” REB 45 (1987) 5-13. -A.K. 


GERMANOS II, patriarch of Constantinople (4 
Jan. 1223-June 1240 [V. Laurent, REB 27 (1969) 
136f]); born Anaplous second half of the 12th C., 
died Nicaea. Germanos was a deacon at Hagia 
Sophia when Constantinople fell to the Latins in 
1204; he fled to a monastery at Achyraous. In 
1223 JOHN III Vatatzes selected him as patri- 
arch-in-exile at Nicaea (A. Karpozilos, Byzantina 6 
[1974] 227-49). He was a strong proponent of 
the Nicene claim to be the sole legitimate Byz. 
successor state and emphasized his own authority 
as ecumenical patriarch; he censured Demetrios 
CHOMATENOS for crowning THEODORE KOMNENOS 
Doukas as baseleus in Thessalonike (G. Prinzing, 
RSBS 3 [1984] 21-64). By 1232 he had regained 
control over the dissident church of Epiros, even 
visiting Arta to establish his jurisdiction (1238). 
In 1235, however, he acknowledged the limited 
autocephalous status of the church of BULGARIA 
and recognized the archbishop of TURNovo as 
patriarch. Germanos was noted as an opponent 
of UNION OF THE CHURCHES, esp. at the synod of 
Nicaea-Nymphaion (1234). He wrote several anti- 
Latin treatises (on the Procession of the Holy 
Spirit, azymes, purgatory, and baptism), pro- 
duced numerous homilies, and was also a poet, 
composing kanones on the seven ecumenical coun- 
cils and political verses on repentance. Only a 
small portion of his oeuvre has been edited. 

ED. S.N. Lagopates, Germanos ho B’  patriarches 
Konstantinoupoleos-Nikaias (Tripolis 1913). For complete list 
of works, see Beck, Kirche 667t. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 4, nos. 1233—1304. A. Karpozilos, The 
Ecclesiastical Controversy between the Kingdom of Nicaea and 


the Principality of Epiros (1217—1233) (Thessalonike 1973) 
68-93. -A.M.T. 


GERMANY, kingdom that succeeded that of the 
Eastern Franks; the term Germania was applied 
to it in Latin texts of the 10th C. The Greeks 
called its population Alamanoi (ALEMANNI), FRAN- 
OI, GERMANOI, and, in official documents, Ne- 
mitzoi. The coronation of OTTO I THE GREAT in 


GERMIA 847 


g62 as emperor of the so-called Roman Empire 
created the problem of “two empires,” Byz. at 
first denying the imperial title to the German 
king, then acknowledging him as the king or even 
basileus of the Franxol. The situation in Italy 
made the problem even more complicated: Otto 
I tried to subdue it, and Nikephoros I] Phokas 
supported minor Lombard rulers against Ger- 
many. A temporary alliance with Germany was 
reached by John I Tzimiskes, who married his 
relative THEOPHANO to OTTO II; as a result their 
son, the half-Greek Orro III, came to ascend the 
German throne. The political alliance was accom- 
panied by the intensification of economic and 
cultural links. Despite some frictions, relations 
between the two empires remained tolerable 
through the reign of Conran III, when Manuel 
I married BERTHA OF SULZBACH. Theological con- 
tacts were evident on the eve of the Constanti- 
nople local council of 1166—67 (see under Con- 
STANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF) (P. Classen, BZ 48 
[1955] 339-68). 

A serious conflict developed when FREDERICK I 
BaRBAROSSA sought to retain control of Italy, and 
Manuel I sent money and armies to support the 
resistance of Italian cities. Byz. lost the struggle 
and capitulated to Henry VI. PHILIP OF SwaBIA 
used his conjugal connections to intervene in the 
domestic strife in Constantinople at the time of 
the Fourth Crusade, while FREDERICK I] HOHEN- 
STAUFEN Cherished the expectations of an alliance 
with John III Vatatzes and a successful war against 
the infidels. In the 14th and 15th C., Germany, 
which was in political decline, remained aloof 
from active involvement in Eastern politics, al- 
though emperor Sigismund (1433—37) negotiated 
with Manuel II; his assistance, however, was not 
effective. 

LIT. W. Ohnsorge, Abendland und Byzanz (Darmstadt 


1979). Byzanz i in der europäischen Staatenwelt, ed. J. Dummer, 
J-i Tidatscite: (Der un 1yO%). R. Mancini, “ il Saviu Rumanu 
Impero di fronte all'Impero Romano d'Oriente e all- 
Oriente musulmano,” in Roma, Costantinopoli, Mosca (Naples 
1983) 125—34. K.J. Leyser, Medieval Germany and its Neigh- 
bours goo—1250 (London 1982) 103-37. W. Ullmann, “Re- 
flections on the Medieval Empire,” Transactions of the Royal 


Historical Society, 14° (1964) 89-108. —-R.B.H., A.K. 


GERMIA (léppia, now Yérme), a city in western 
Galatia below Mt. Dindymon. It was famed for 
its healing spring whose fish, with the aid of the 
archangel Michael, were said to effect cures. When 
Stoudios, consul in 454, was healed there, he 


848 GERMIYAN 


restored the Church of St. Michael and built homes 
for the sick and aged. Germia, under its alterna- 
tive name Myriangeloi (“10,000 Angels”), became 
a bishopric by 553 and received a visit from Jus- 
ünian F in 554, which may have occasioned its 
promotion to autocephalous archbishopric, a rank 
it maintained through the Byz. period. ‘THEODORE 
OF SYKEON visited Germia in the late 6th C. and 
was said to have worked miracles there. It fell to 
the Turks after the battle of MANTZIKERT in 1071. 
The site contains a five-aisled basilica of ashlar 
masonry with much sculptured decoration; prob- 
ably built by Stoudios, it is the largest surviving 
church in Galatia. Justinian and Theodora exten- 
sively restored it. Phe site is frequently confused 
with the nearby Colonia Germa. 

LIT. TIB 4:166—-68, 247. K. Belke, “Germia und Eudoxi- 
as,” in Byzantios 1—11. C. Mango, “The Pilgrimage Centre 
of St. Michael at Germia,” JOB 36 (1986) 117-32. -C.F. 


GERMIYAN (Keppcavos), a Turkish emirate that 
emerged from the breakup of the SELjuK sultan- 
ate of Rom. Its name probably derives from a 
Turkoman tribe that appears, in the Greek form 
“Karmianoi,” in an account of the miracles of St. 
Eucenios worked as early as 1223 (A. Papado- 
poulos-Kerameus, Sbornik istoénikov po istort Tra- 
pezundskot imperi? (St. Petersburg 1897] 131.12). 
Around 1239 a Turk named Germiyan, estab- 
lished in the Melitene region, was in the service 
of the Seljuk sultan; ca.1277 the Germiyan-oglu 
Husam al-din ibn Alishir founded an emirate with 
Kütahya (see Koryation) as its capital. Byz. au- 
thors seem to give the dynastic founder’s name, 
Alishir, to any Germiyan-oglu. According to Pa- 
CHYMERES (ed. Bekker, 2:426.16), Germiyan was 
the most powerful Turkish state in the early 14th 
C. Its emirs were apparently the overlords of the 
Turkish emirs of the Aegean regions; they at- 
tacked PHILADELPHIA repeatedly and extracted poll- 
tax (jizye) from the inhabitants before 1314. Ac- 
cording to the 14th-C. Egyptian encyclopedist al- 
‘Umari (Notices et extraits 13 [1838] 355), they also 
extracted tribute from the Byz. The emirate pro- 
duced alum in Gediz (the ancient Kadoi), which 
was sold in the ports of Ephesus (Theologos) and 
Miletos (Palatia). In 1381 the Ottoman prince 
Bayezid F married a girl of the Germiyan dynasty 
and received some territories as dowry. The emir- 
ate was annexed by the Orromans temporarily 
(from 18390 to 1402) and finally in 1428/9. 


ur. P. Lemerle, “Philadelphie et l'émirat d’Aydin,” in 
Philadelphie et autres études (Paris 1984) 55—67. 1. Mélikoff, 
F1? 2:g8gf. Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica 2:62f, 154, 158, 
M.C. Varlik, Germiyan-ogullant tarihi (1300-1429) (Ankara 

1974). Zachariadou, Menteshe & Aydin 27—29, 1071. 
-E.A.Z. 


GEROKOMEION § (ynpoxoueiov), or gerotro- 
pheion, home for the destitute elderly, under the 
direction of a GEROKOMOS. As part of their tradi- 
tion of PHILANTHROPY, the Byz. built special homes 
for elderly people who could not be cared for by 
their families. According to the Parria OF Con- 
STANTINOPLE, gerokomeia were founded in Con- 
stantinople as early as the 4th C. At least 27 
gervkomeia are recorded as having existed at one 
tume or another in the capital, many of them 
imperial foundations; the best known was the 
facility at the PANTOKRATOR MONASTERY for 24 
elderly men who were no longer able to work 
because of infirmity or illness (Pypikon, 1909.1347- 
111.1389). The residents received an allocation of 
food, oil, firewood, and a cash allotment for clothes 
and incidentals, and were entitled to two baths 
per month. In case of severe illness they were 
admitted to the monastery HOosprraL. Other mo- 
nasuic gerokoumeia were those associated with the 
provincial monasteries of Perrirzos and Kosmo- 
soteira at BERA and the Constantinopolitan mon- 
astery of St. George of Mancana. In the mid- 
roth C. gerokomeia were specifically included in 
Nikephoros I] Phokas’s law forbidding the con- 
struction of new monasteries and affiliated char- 
itable institutions in order to curtail their rapid 
increase and permitting only the restoration of 
existing institutions (Reg 1, no.6gg.). This legisla- 
uon was soon revoked, however, by Basil IT. 

ur. Janin, Églises CP 552-57, 565. Constantelos, Philan- 
thropy 222-40. A.M. Talbot, “Old Age in Byzantium,” BZ 
77 (1984) 278. -A.M.T. 


GEROKOMOS (yņnpoxóuos), director of a GERO- 
KOMEION, or old-age home. Justinian’s novel 7.12 
names the gerontokomos as an ecclesiastical official 
along with OIKONOMOS, XENODOCHOS, ORPHANO- 
TROPHOS, and others. Several seals are preserved 
that belonged to ecclesiastical gerokomoi, such as 
the priest Theophylaktos and Epiphanios, “gero- 
komos of [the monastery?] of St. Kyros,” both of 
the 8th C. (Zacos, Seals 1, nos. 2543, 3102). It is 
unclear whether Constantine, apo eparchon and 


gerokomos (seal of the 7th C., ibid., no.1800), was 
an ecclesiastical or secular official. That the gero- 
komos could be a former high-ranking official is 
seen in a later addition to the 7th-C. Life of St. 
Spyridon (P. van den Ven, La légende de S. Spyridon 
{Louvain 1953] gif, n.), speaking of a patrikios 


John, who was gervkomos and later bishop of 


Trimithous in Cyprus. In the late gth-C. Aletoro- 
logion of PHILOTHEOS the gerokomos together with 
the xenodochos appears as a secular functionary in 
the department of the SAKELLION. His functions 
are not specified. A xenodochos and gerokomos of 
Nicaea is known from a seal of ca.goo (Zacos, Seals 
2, no.263); enigmatic is the undated seal of Con- 
stantine primikertos and gervkomos of the Constan- 
tinopolitan (?) monastery in Psamathia (Zacos, Seals 
2, no.426). In the lists of functionaries of the 11th 
C. another official with the similar name of gero- 
trophos appears in the same clause as orphanotrophos 
(Délger, Beiträge 46; cf. Zacos, Seals 2, no.487). In 
the 11th C. a patriarchal official who fulfilled the 
same functions preserved the old name of gero- 
komos (Laurent, Corpus 5.1, 10.134). 


ur. Constantelos, Philanthropy egof. -ALK. 


GESTA EPISCOPORUM NEAPOLITANO- 
RUM. See JOHN OF NAPLES. 


GESTA FRANCORUM ET ALIORUM HIERO- 
SOLIMITANORUM (Deeds of the Franks and 
other Jerusalem Pilgrims), earliest account of the 
First Crusade from May 1095 to 12 Aug. 1099, 
by an eyewitness participant, who, to judge from 
his simple Latin and expert observation of mili- 
tary matters, was a professional soldier in the 
contingent of BOHEMUND I, probably from Apu- 
lia. The work may have been completed by 1099 
and seems to be mentioned in 1101; it was used 
by a number of later historians of the Crusade 
like ALBERT OF AACHEN and FULCHER OF 
Cuarrres. The author, who may have known a 
little Greek (ch.20, p.46), supplies detailed evi- 
dence on relations of the Crusaders, esp. Bohe- 
mund, with Byz. and their passage through the 
empire (chs. 2—9, pp. 2-21; ch.27, p.65; ch.go, 
p.72). Although extremely hostile to Emp. Alexios 
I, the author admits instances of Byz. assistance 
and shows no religious animosity. He even im- 
plicitly recognizes Byz. logistical skills and admires 


GESTURE 849 


the TourkoPouLot (ch.8, p.16) as well as the Turks 
(ch.9, p.21). 

ED. Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R. 
Hill (London 1962), with Eng. tr. 

Lr. B. Skoulatos, “L'auteur anonyme des Gesta et le 
monde byzantin,” Byzantion 50 (1980) 504-32. Karavan- 
nopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde 2:418. -M.MeC. 


GESTURE, a movement of the body as an ele- 
ment in a comprehensive system of communica- 
tion. Human gesticulation can be divided into two 
categories: “natural” movement (BODY LANGUAGE) 
expressing various EMOTIONS, and gestures based 
on deliberate cultural, legal, political, and reli- 
gious conventions. Both archaic Roman law and 
barbarian leges provided for special gestures to 
reinforce CONTRACTS or the statements of wIT- 
NESSES; Byz. law infrequently applied such pro- 
cedures, although there is mention of solemn 
processions that testified to or revised boundaries 
between two properties. Conventional gestures 
were used in a broad range of state ceremonies 
with PROSKYNESIS as the extreme expression of 
self-submission and including ACCLAMATIONS, 
expressions of power and triumph, and the grant- 
ing of titles and/or offices. The submission of 
conquered cities could take the form of conven- 
tional processions. Gestures accompanied acts of 
secular and ecclesiastical investiture (¢.g., CHEI- 
ROTONIA and CHEIROTHESIA), formed an integral 
part of LITURGY and PRAYER, and were used for 
HEALING Of specific (esp. mental) diseases. Birth 
festivities, weddings, and funeral ceremonies also 
involved conventional language of gesture based 
on actual or feigned emotions. 

The largely formulaic contexts in which gesture 
was used and the immobility and FRONTALITY of 
the human figure lent added importance to sig- 
nals of the head, arm, and hand. Prokopios’s 
record of the gesture made by the Justinian I 
statue m the AUGUSTAION and Paul Silenuarios’s 
description (Friedlander, Kunstbeschreab., lines 776— 
77) read more into Christ’s preaching hand than 
is immediately apparent from artistic expressions 
of the period. Nonetheless Roman motions of 
address, triumph, supplication, concord, and 
meditation endured and were applied to such 
themes as the acclamation of Christ, blessing, an- 
gelic salutes, the Visitation, and EVANGELIST POR- 
TRAITS. To these were added more dramatic, nat- 
ural movements, for example, a hand covering 


850 GHASSANIDS 


the mouth, the cheek or, in extremis, the whole 
face to express grief. Such physical vocabulary 
was freely transferred from one scene to another. 
In and after the 12th C., the number and intensity 
of gestures multiplied as part of a process in which 
ICONOGRAPHY was enriched esp. with pathetic im- 
agery. At its most sophisticated, gesture carried 
not only emotional connotations but also ideolog- 
ical significance: according to the sermons of 
GEORGE OF NIKOMEDEIA, Mary’s embrace of the 
dead Christ emphasized his humanity and thus 
the reality of the INCARNATION. 

LIT. M. Barasch, Grotto and the Language of Gesture (Cam- 
bridge 1987) 1-14. K. Wessel, RBK 2:766-—83. Maguire, 
“Depiction of Sorrow.” R. Suntrup, Die Bedeutung der litur- 
gischen Gebärden und Bewegungen in lateinischen und deutschen 
Auslegungen des 9. bis 13. Jahrhunderts (Munich 1978) 11— 


30. H. Demisch, Erhobene Hände (Stuttgart 1984). 
—A.C., A.K. 


GHASSANIDS, the dominant group among the 
Arab FOEDERATI in the 6th C. Their most illus- 
trious rulers were ARETHAS, his son ALAMUNDA- 
Rus, and his grandson NAmaaNn. The Ghassanids 
fought for Byz. against the Arabs of the Penin- 
sula, the LakHmips of Hira, and the Persians. 
They were Monophysites, and this set the em- 
perors against them, Tiberios I and Maurice esp. 
seeking to weaken their power. The Ghassanids, 
however, did not disappear in the reigns of Pho- 
kas and Herakleios and continued to play an 
important role in the wars of Byz. The “Saracens” 
singled out for honorable mention in the bulletin 
issued by Herakleios after his victory over the 
Persians in 628 are most probably the Ghassanids. 
In 636 they appear in the Arab sources as the 
principal Arab federates of Byz. at the battle of 
YarMuK. After that defeat, those Ghassanids still 
loyal to Byz. settled in central Anatolia, in Char- 
sianon, and Cappadocia. According to al-TaBari, 
Emp. Nikephoros I was a Ghassanid. The Ghas- 
sanids were great builders of churches, monaster- 
ies, palaces, and castles; their court was visited by 
the foremost poets of pre-Islamic Arabia who 
composed panegyrics for their kings. 

LIT. Nöldeke, Die Ghassdnischen Fürsten. Shahid, Byz. & 
Arabs (5th C.) 282-89. M.V. Krivov, “Poslednie Gassanidy 


mezdu Vizantiej 1 Chalifatom,” VizVrem 42 (1981) 154-58. 
~LA.Sh. 


GHAZI (Tačńs), also called Amir Ghazi and Gü- 
mustegin Ghazi; DANISMENDID emir; died 1134. 


Eldest son of Danişmend, in 1104 he inherited 
Sebasteia, Amaseia, Neocaesarea, and adjacent 
towns. Around 1120 he defeated and held for 
ransom Constantine GaBrRas, doux of Chaldia (A. 
Bryer, The Empire of Trebizond and the Pontos [Lon- 
don 1980} pt.III [1970], 177.) About 1127 Ghazi 
acquired Caesarea, Ankyra, Kastamon, and Gan- 
gra, becoming the leading Anatolian Muslim ruler. 
Jonn II took Kastamon in 1132, but Ghazi re- 
covered it the following year. On his deathbed, 
he received the title malik from the caliph. 

LIT. J. Mélikoff, “Danishmendids,” El? 2:110. Idem, La 
geste de Melik Danigmend (Paris 1960) 1:104-06, 1293—25, 
453-55- —C.M.B. 


GHULAM (Ar. pl. ghilman, lit. “pages”), a mem- 
ber of the armed forces of slave status utilized in 
the Arab caliphate from the gth C. onward and 
developed by the SAMANIDS. They formed a pro- 
fessional army; according to IBN AL-ATHIR (8:15 7), 
“a soldier must be able to take with him everything 
he possesses, wherever he may go, and nothing 
must hold him back.” These troops were manned 
primarily by young Turkish slaves bought or cap- 
tured on the northeastern borders of the Samanid 
realm between the Islamic and Turkic worlds. A 
description of the ghuldém system is found in the 
Swydsatndma of N1zAM AL-MuLK. It was this system, 
introduced into Anatolia by the Seljuks of Ram 
and continued by the Anatolian beyliks, that would 
reach its most famous form in the Ottoman Jar- 
ISSARY system. 

ut. D. Sourdel, C.E. Bosworth, EI? 2:1079—84. D. Pipes, 


Slave Soldiers and Islam (New Haven 1981). P. Crone, Slaves 
on Horses (Cambridge 1980). ~S.V., A.K. 


GIDOS (Tios), a family known in the second half 
of the 12th and in the 13th C. S. Papadimitriu 
(VizVrem 5, [1898] 734; VizVrem 6 [18gg] 169) 
considered the name to be the Greek rendering 
of the Italian name Guido; W. Hecht (Aussenpolitik 
85, n.336), however, doubts that Gidoi of this 
period were still Latins. 

The Gidoi of the 12th C. may have descended 
from the son of RoBert GuiscarD named Guido, 
who deserted to Byz. and became Alexios I’s mil- 
itary adviser; Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 2:51.10) 
relates that Alexios suggested to Guido a relation- 
ship by marriage. The legendary CHANSON 
D’ANTIOCHE (v.g01, 1033) calls Guido (Guis) the 


emperor’s close friend and seneschal but not his 
nephew, as Chalandon (Comnéne 1:92) says. 
Thomas of Toscana (MGH SS 22:498) preserved 
a legend that William, Guiscard’s son, married 
Alexios’s daughter and became the lord of his 
empire, but died without descendants. 

Under Andronikos I, Alexios Gidos was megas 
domestikos of the Orient; he retained his high po- 
sition after Andronikos’s downfall and in 1194 
still commanded the eastern troops sent against 
the Bulgarians. Andronikos Gidos was Theodore 
I Laskaris’s general; in 1206 he defeated the Hal- 
ian allies of David Komnenos. It is hypothesized 
that he is to be identified with the Andronikos 
Gidos who ruled Trebizond from 1222 to 1235 
(Miller, Trebizond 19). 


LIT. Guilland, /nstitutions 1:408f. -A.K. 


GILDO, Moorish prince and Roman official in 
Africa; died on the river Ardalio, near THEVESTE, 
31 July 398. A son of Nubel, the king of Mauri- 
tania, Gildo was a client of the family of Theo- 
dosios I. In 373, when his own brother Firmus 
rebelled, he helped Theodosius the Elder put 
down the revolt. He was appointed comes of Africa 
in 387/8 (S.I. Oost, ClPhil 57 [1962] 29) or 385 
(Matthews, Arzstocracies 179). He probably pre- 
served hostile neutrality during the revolt of Ev- 
GENIUS. In 397 he broke with the Western court 
and declared allegiance to the government in 
Constantinople; he withheld the customary grain 
shipments from Africa to Rome. In Africa Gildo 
incited the hostility of the urban population by 
vast land confiscations and by his favoritism toward 
the Donatists. Stilicho mounted an expedition 
against Gildo, and Gildo’s brother Mascezel (whose 
children Gildo had murdered) was entrusted with 
the campaign. The Eastern court offered no as- 
sistance. Gildo retreated inland, far from the ur- 
han centers. Easily defeated, he was killed The 
estates he acquired by confiscations formed a spe- 
cial area in North Africa, the Gildoniacum patri- 
monium. 

uT. H.J. Diesner, “Gildos Herrschaft und die Nieder- 
lage bei Theueste (Tebessa),” Klio 40 (1962) 178-86. T. 
Kotula, “Der Aufstand des Afrikaners Gildo und seine 


Nachwirkungen,” Altertum 18 (1972) 167-76. Bury, LRE 
Migi-25. PLRE 1:395f. -T.F.G. 


GIRDLE. Sec BELT. 


GLABAS | 851 


GIUSTINIANI LONGO, GIOVANNI, Genoese 
hero of the final siege of Constantinople (see 
CONSTANTINOPLE, SIEGE AND FALL oF); died Galata 
or Chios early June 1453. Giustiniani, a member 
of a distinguished Genoese trading family based 
on Chios, arrived in Constantinople on 29 Jan. 
1453 and offered his services to CONSTANTINE XI. 
He brought with him 700 soldiers and two ships. 
The emperor gave him the title protostrator and 
promised him the island of Lemnos. Since Gius- 
tiniani was experienced in siegecraft, he was placed 
in charge of the defense and repair of the land 
walls. He fought valiantly against the Turks, in- 
spiring loyalty and courage in both Greek and 
Italian soldiers. On 2g May, in the final hours of 
the siege, Giustiniani was wounded and aban- 
doned his post; many Genoese troops then pan- 
icked and fled. The Ottoman janissaries took ad- 
vantage of the ensuing confusion to make their 
final successful assault on Constantinople. Doukas 
stresses Giustiniani’s bravery and the severity of 
his wound, whereas the “sicge section” of the 
Chronicon Maius of pseudo-Sphrantzes (perhaps 
by Sphrantzes himself) accuses Giustiniani of cow- 
ardice and of using his wound as an excuse for 
flight (Sphr. 426.9—24). His wound must have 
been serious, since Giustiniani soon died, either 
in Galata (pseudo-Sphrantzes) or Chios (Doukas). 

sources. Douk. 331. 343, 347: 353-57 371- Kritob. gof, 


48-50, 57, 67-70. 
urr. S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople: 1453 (Cam- 
bridge 1965) &3f, gif. -A.M.T. 


GLABAS ([AaBés, fem. PAdBauva), a family name 
probably of Slavic origin (glava, “head”): Manuel 
Philes (Philes, Carmina, ed. Miller 2:107, n0.57.74—- 
75) clearly recognized the Slavic etymology of the 
name. From the late oth C. the Glabades were 
active in Macedonia: the first, Basil, an illoustrios 
in Adrianople, suspected of pro-Bulgarian lean- 
ies Wena ection Oy Ba andamp nonea tor 
three years. Another Glabas conspired against 
Constantine VIII and was blinded. In 1047 men 
“from the kin of the Glabades” (Skyl. 442.74-75) 
supported the rebellion of Leo ToRNIKIos in Ma- 
cedonia. Nonetheless the family remained in Byz. 
military service: ca.1050 Niketas Glabas, topoteretes 
of the dagma of the scholae, was sent from Adri- 
anople against the Pechenegs. Another (?) Niketas 
Glabas is named strategos on a seal (Schlumberger, 
Sig. 667). They did not play any significant role 


852 GLABAS, ISIDORE 


under the Komnenian dynasty, remaining pro- 
vincial landowners: in the mid-1gth C. they still 
lived in Kastoria (Akrop. 1:g0.18—19). The pro- 
tostrator Michael ‘Tarchaneiotes Glabas was gov- 
ernor of Thrace under Andronikos IL (see Gia- 
BAS, MICHAEL TARCHANEIOTES). Another Glabas 
served in the 1330s as a high-ranking civil func- 
tionary—megas dioiketes and judge (PLP, no.4215). 
Some Glabades occupied high ecclesiastical posi- 
tions, for example, Ignatios, metropolitan of 
Thessalonike (PLP, no.4222), and another met- 
ropolitan, Isidore Glabas (see GLABAS, ISIDORE). 
Women of the family were active as well: Maria 
Glabaina, known only from her 11th- or 12th-C. 
seal (Laurent, Corpus 5.2, n0.1336), possessed a 
chanstikion and probably founded a monastery of 
St. Stephen; after 1310 another Glabaina, proto- 
stratorissa (perhaps the wife of the protostrator Gla- 
bas?), founded a convent (V. Laurent, EO 38 
[1939] 297-305). The Glabades were apparently 
closely connected with the TaRCHANETIOTES family. 


ur. PLP, nos. 4200-28. -A.K. 


GLABAS, ISIDORE, metropolitan of Thessalo- 
nike (25 May 1380—Sept. 1384 and Mar. 1386— 
11 Jan. 1396); baptismal name John; born Thes- 
saloniker 1341/2, died Thessalonike 11 Jan. 1396. 
He became the monk Isidore in Apr. 1375. His 
first years as metropolitan coincided with the fu- 
ture emperor Manuel Is defense of Thessalo- 
nike against the Turks (1383—87). Although Gla- 
bas urged the citizens to respect and support 
Manuel, he himself left his see during the siege, 
was temporarily deposed, and resided for a while 
in Constantinople. After the capture of Thessa- 
lonike (1387), he traveled to Asia Minor to ne- 
gotiate with the Turks; this perilous trip is de- 
scribed in the monody of Constantine Ivankos 
(PLP, no.7973) on Glabas. By 1393 he had re- 
turned to his see. His sermons (many unpub- 
lished) and letters provide evidence for conditions 
in Thessalonike during the Turkish siege and 
during the occupation of 1387 to 1403 (A.E. Bak- 
alopoulos, Makedonika 4 [1955-60] 20-34). He 
reported that even under the Turkish yoke some 
Byz. officials remained in their positions. Glabas 
complained of heavy Ottoman taxation; a sermon 
of 1395 (ed. B. Laourdas in Prosphora eis Stilpona 
P. Kyriakiden [= Hellenika, supp. 4, 1953] 389- 


98) is one of the first Byz. sources to refer to the 
Ottoman devshirme, the dreaded “child levy” (S. 
Vryonis, Speculum 31 [1956] 433-43). Glabas ar- 
gued that the fall of the city was divine punish- 
ment for the decadence of priests and monks, 
and the moral decline of its citizens. 

FD. PG 139:11~164. Homiliai ets tas heortas tou Hagiou 
Demetriou, ed. B. Laourdas (Thessalonike 1954). “Okto epi- 
stolai anekdotoi,” ed. S.P. Lampros, NE g (1912) 343~414, 
C.N. ‘Tsirpanlis, “Symbole eis ten historian Thessalonikes, 
Dvo anekdotoi homiliai Isidorou archiepiskopou Thessa- 
lonikes,” Theologia 42 (1971) 548-81. Eng. tr. idem, PBR 
1 (1982) 184-210; 2 (1983) 65-83. 

urr. R.-J. Locnertz, “Isidore Glabas, métropolite de 
Thessalonique (1380-1396),.” REB 6 (1948) 181-87, with 
add. V. Laurent, 187-90. PLP, no.4223. —A.M.T, 


GLABAS, MICHAEL TARCHANEIOTES (or 
Michael Doukas Glabas Tarchaneiotes), protostra- 
tor; born ca.1235, died after 1304. Glabas is first 
mentioned in 1260 as the Byz. official assigned to 
regain Mesembria from the Bulgarian rebel Miko. 
He held a series of government posts, megas pa- 
pias, kouropalates, pinkernes, and megas konostaulos, 
culminating sometime after 1297 in the dignity of 
protostrator. He waged successful campaigns against 
the Bulgarians in 1263 and 1278 and fought the 
Angevins in Albania ca. 1284. In 1297, as gover- 
nor of the western part of the empire, he was 
entrusted with defending Macedonia against the 
Serbs and built or restored 15 fortresses in Thrace. 
He died soon after his campaign of 1304. 

Glabas and his wife, Maria Doukaina Komnene 
Branaina Palaiologina, were wealthy patrons of 
the arts. In 1303 they sponsored the restoration 
of the Chapel of St. EUTHYMIOS THE GREAT, at- 
tached to the Church of St. DeMETRtos in Thes- 
salonike (T. Gouma-Peterson, ArtB 58 [1976] 168- 
83). Glabas also restored the monastery of PAM- 
MAKARISTOS in Constantinople; he was buried there 
in the parekklesion constructed by his widow, who 
became the nun Martha. Glabas had become a 
monk before his death and, as an inscription 
about the apse mosaic records, the chapel was 
intended as a pledge for his salvation. His military 
exploits were commemorated in a (now lost) fresco 
cycle, probably at the Pammakaristos, known from 
the description in a poem by Manuel PHILES. 

LIT. G. Theocharides, “Michael Doukas Glabas Tarcha- 


neiotes,” EEPASPTh 7 (1957) 183—206. Belting et al., Pam- 
makaristos 11—23. -A.M.T., A.C. 


GLAGOLITIG, the earliest alphabet for the writ- 
ing Of CHURCH SLavonic, probably invented by 
St. CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER in the mid- 
gth C. It consisted of 40 letters, apparently de- 
rived partly from Greek MINUSCULE, partly from 
adaptations of Semitic letters, and partly from 
characters devised by Constantine the Philoso- 
pher himself. Among the Orthodox Stavs, Gla- 
golitic was almost completely supplanted by Cy- 
rillic by the beginning of the tith C., although in 
Serbia and parts of Macedonia it survived until 
the 13th C. The Catholic Slavs of Croatia used it 
until the late 18th C. 

uT. A. Vaillant, “L'alphabet vieux-slave,” RES 32 (1955) 
7-31. T. Eckhardt, “Theorien über den Ursprung der 
Glagolica,” Slovo 13 (1963) 87~118. -=S.C.F. 


GLASS, PRODUCTION OF. The term for glass- 
maker, Ayalopsos (and variants), is known from 
papyri, early hagiographic texts, and epistolog- 
raphy (Smetanin, Viz.obščestvo 86). John Chryso- 
stom (PG 61:142.24—26) was astonished by the 
glassmakers who transformed sand into a cohesive 
and transparent substance. The vita of Symeon 
of Emesa describes the workshop of a Jewish 
glassmaker in Emesa in which the needy found 
warmth at the furnace and watched the blowing 
of vessels that at times burst; Moschos mentions 
a hyalopsos who was blinded by the flame (Ruda- 
kov, Kultura 149f) and a Jew in Constantinople 
who was a glassmaker (hyalourgos) by profession 
(E. Mioni, OrChrP 17 [1951] 93.25). They are 
relatively seldom mentioned in later texts: thus, 
in the 12th C. Michael GLykas (Annales 506.7) 
speaks of a Jewish Ayelepsos, but this glassmaker 
lived in the days of Justin II. There is neither a 
glassmakers’ guild in the Book of the Eparch nor 
any evidence that the monks of the Stoudios pro- 
duced glass, unless we surmise that the phlaskopoios 
in this monastery (Dobroklonsky, Feodor 143) blew 
glass bottles. In the 15th C. some glass wares were 
imported from Italy (Oikonomides, Hommes d'af- 
faires 104). 

Nevertheless, later Byz. objects of glass are well 
known: vessels (bottles, goblets, cups), often of 
blue or green glass, sometimes with marvered-in 
decorations; bracelets; mosaic cubes; window 
panes; etc. An inventory of 1142 lists glass lamps 
(Pantel., no.7.25). Literary sources mention cham- 


GLASS, STAINED 853 


ber pots made of glass (Koukoules, Bios 2:76, 
n.11). Some late Roman glass workshops were 
found in Sardis (A. von Saldern, Ancient and Byz- 
antine Glass from Sardis (Cambridge, Mass., 1980]), 
Galilee (G. Davidson Weinberg, Museum Haaretz 
Bulletin 10 [1968] 49f), and other locations. In 
Corinth two glass factories of the 11th—12th C. 
were excavated and it is plausible that glass was 
produced in Constantinople and Paphos. Byz. glass 
was exported (e.g., several Byz. vessels have been 
found in Byelorussian Novogrudok and in Ani); 
Romanos I, when dispatching an envoy to Italy, 
sent with him 17 glass vessels together with a 
luxurious garment (De cer. 661.1316). 

Technological analysis of Corinth glass suggests 
that it belonged to the same type as the Roman 
and Egyptian wares (and probably the glass from 
Cherson and Belaja Veza-Sarkel), but the Byz. 
glassmakers learned by the 11th C. to proportion 
their materials better and to produce more du- 
rable glass (F. Matson, AJA 44 [1940] 325-27). 
Some fragments of Byz. stained glass have been 
found in Istanbul (see GLASS, STAINED). 

Lrt. J. Philippe, Le monde byzantin dans Uhistoire de la 
verrerie (Bologna 1970). M.A. Bezborodov, Steklodelie v Drevnej 
Rusi (Minsk 1956). G. Davidson Weinberg, “The Impor- 
tance of Greece in Byzantine Glass Manufacture.” 15 CEB 
2B (Athens 1981) g15—19. Lemerle, Cing études 107, n.gt. 

-A.R. 


GLASS, STAINED. Although certainly not as 
prominent a part of 1oth~12th-C. Byz. church 
decoration as MOSAICS and FRESCOES, stained glass 
nevertheless had an important role. This is clear 
from the discovery of the window fragments from 
the south church of the PANTOKRATOR MONASTERY 
in Constantinople. Datable to shortly after 1125, 
they attest to a mature stained-glass tradition, 
generally similar to that of the West in style and 
technique, but clearly not dependent on it. In- 
deed, this Monuments early date suggests tnat 
the influence was the other way around. Highly 
ornamental in effect, Byz. stained glass had more 
in common with enamelwork than with monu- 
mental painting, although large figures domi- 
nated each panel. Characterized by large areas of 
blue and a dark purple-red, it was cast in rectan- 
gular pans, unlike Western glass, which was blown. 
Indeed, the Western monk Theophilus (ca.1110— 
40) indicates that blue, a color achieved only with 


854 | GLASS CRUETS 


difficulty in the West. was a Greek specialty; he 
calls it saphirus graecus. 

tir. ALH.S. Megaw, “Notes on Recent Work of the Byz- 
antine Institute in Istanbul,” DOP 17 (1963) 349-64. J. 
Lafond, “Découverte de vitraux historiés du moyen age à 
Constantinople.” CahkArch 18 (1968) 231-38. “GV, 


GLASS CRUETS, a common type of mold-blown 
vessels decorated with Christian and Jewish sym- 
bols (primarily crosses and menorahs). Distin- 
guished by a squat hexagonal or, more rarely, 
octagonal body, with intaglio decoration on its 
side, this vessel type is known in two main var- 
iants: “bottles,” with short necks (and, occasion- 
ally, handles), and “jugs,” with long necks, spouts, 
and handles. Most are of brown glass and nearly 
all examples are between 8 and 16 cm in height. 
Findspots and provenance, which poiut toward 
Palestine and Syria, suggest sepulchral use. Their 
remarkable uniformity speaks for a single work- 
shop, whose activity can be dated to the 6th and 
early 7th C. on the basis of similarities between 
certain cross types employed and those appearing 
on coins. A ritual function is beyond doubt, but 
the often-repeated suggestion that they are pil- 
grims’ flasks is supported neither by inscriptional 
evidence nor texts and is difficult to reconcile with 
the interchangeability of Christian and Jewish 
symbols that is characteristic of the type. There is 
also no evidence to support the theory that certain 
of the crosses replicate the jeweled cross then 
standing on Golgotha in JERUSALEM. 

uv. D. Barag, “Glass Pilgrim Vessels from Jerusalem,” 


Journal of Glass Studies 12 (1970) 35-63; 13 (1971) 45-63. 
-G.V. 


GLASS PASTE CAMEOS, a popular genre of 
devotional medallion, produced in Venice from 
the later 12th to the early 14th C. Typically oval, 
2—6 cm high, they are most often opaque red to 
reddish brown, with dark striations, although ex- 
amples in clear green, yellow, and blue also sur- 
vive. Made of molten glass with reusable dies, 
more than 200 surviving examples reflect about 
60 mold types. About one-third bear images of 
Christ or the Virgin; the Crucifixion and Nativity 
are the most popular scenic representations. Most 
bear inscriptions in Latin or Greek. This amalgam 
is paralleled in the choice of subject: some, such 
as Sts. Francis, Christopher, and James of Com- 


postella, are disunctively Western; others, such as 
Sts. Theophano, Sophia, and Demetrios as well as 
scenes of the Dormrrion, are more characteristj- 
cally Byz. These cast-glass medallions were inex. 
pensive, “mass-produced” imitations of Byz. hard- 
stone CAMEOS made to suit a broad, mobile clientele. 
Authenticated findspots range over the entire 
Mediterranean basin, through the Balkans and 
western Europe, to points as far away as Moscow 
and Sweden. Patron saints of land and sea travel 
(Christopher and Nicholas) and pilgrims (James) 
appear frequently, as do MILITARY SAINTS, who 
held special appeal for Crusaders. 

uit. H. Wentzel, “Das Medaillon mit dem HE. Theodor 
und die venegianischen Glaspasten im byzantinischen Stil,” 
in Festschrift für Erich Meyer zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, 29. 
Oktober 1957 (Hamburg 1959) 50-67. -G.V, 


GLASS PENDANTS are small (approximately 2 
em diam.) disks of colored glass—usually blue, 
yellow, or green—with a suspension loop and a 
dic impression on one surface. Similar in appear- 
ance tO GLASS WEIGHTS, they were manufactured 
in the eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, Syria, Pal- 
estine) until the 7th C., perpetuating a traditional, 
inexpensive type of jewelry current among pagans 
and Jews of the Roman period. Clearly amuletic 
in function, glass pendants typically bear scenes 
of protection (the Good Shepherd) or deliverance 
(the Sacrifice of Isaac); the cross or CHRISTOGRAM 
also appears, as do representations of one of the 
Sts. SYMEON THE STYLITE. 


LIT. J. Philippe, Le monde byzantin dans l'histoire de la 
verrerie (Ve-XVIe siècle) (Bologna 1970) 37f. -G.V. 


GLASS WEIGHTS, small disks (diam. approxi- 
mately 1.7—2.5 cm) of colored glass—mostly yel- 
low, green, or blue—used as Exacia. Their de- 
rived weights correspond to the SOLIDUS, SEMISSIS, 
and ‘rREMISsis; they would have been used either 
with COIN SCALES Or BALANCE SCALES. Issued by 
the EPARCH OF THE CITY, glass weights may be 
either figural or nonfigural. Figural specimens 
most often show the eparch, identified by inscrip- 
tion and usually with a Mappa in his raised hand. 
More rarely, the emperor is shown, either alone 
or with simply the MonoGRAM of the eparch. 
Sometimes one or two eparchs are shown with 
the emperor or with Christ above (in this case 
with one eparch only); again, a monogram iden- 


tihes the Issuing official. Nonfigural glass weights 
usually bear a single monogram (cither cruciform 
or block-shaped). Rare specimens also include nu- 
merical weight designations (¢c.g., KA for 21 sili- 
quae). Closely related to bronze flat WEIGHTS, glass 
weights were issued in substantial quantities 
throughout the 6th C. and into the 7th. From 
Constantinople they made their way via commer- 
cial routes to points throughout the Mediterra- 
nean basin. Many duplicates are known. 


tii. Vikan-Nesbitt, Security 360, -G.V. 


GLEB. Sec BORIS AND GLEB. 


GLOBOS. See SPHAIRA. 


GLORIOSUS, or gloriostssimus (évd0EdTaTOs), the 
highest title of SENATORS in the 6th C. As the old 
senatorial titles lost their eclat, the state tried to 
introduce new distinctions. In the mid-sth C. the 
ILLUSTRES were renamed magnifici, later excelsi, 
and in the 6th C. gloriosi. The title was awarded 
to prefects, MAGISTRI MILITUM, MAGISTRI OFFICI- 
ORUM, QUAESTORES, and PRAEPOSITI SACRI CUBICU- 
LI, whereas comiles (see Comes) received the title 
of magnificentissimus. The ttle of gloriosus was also 
granted to some barbarian kings, such as the 
Ostrogoth T HEODORIC THE GREAT. 


ui. ©, Julian in C. Daremberg, F. Saglio, Dictionnaire 
des antiquités (Paris 1899) 3.1:388F. -—A.K. 


GLOSSAE, glosses and commentary on legal texts 
and terminology. In the adaptation of the Latin 
texts of the Corpus Juris Civiiis by the ANTECES- 
sors for a Greck-speaking population, most Latin 
technical terms were left untranslated. The Greek 
NOVELS Of Justinian I and his immediate succes- 
sors also included a great numbcr of Latin cxpres- 
sions. The rapid decline in knowledge of the Latin 


language made it necessary to replace most of 


these words through exhellenismos, as the prooimion 
to the PROCHIRON calls it, or at least to comment 
on them in the MSS. Alphabetically arranged lists 
of glossae, called lexeis rhomaikai, soon appeared. 
Some of these lists can be attached to specific 
works of legal literature; some lists were enlarged 
or combined with others. Greek words were also 
adopted as lemmata; the glossae were mixed with 


GLYKAS, MICHAEL 855 


Latin-Greek glossae drawn from the works of 


Jous Lypos and with short independent com- 


mentaries on legal acrions and similar concepts 
of Roman law. 

ur. L. Burgmann, “Byzantinische Rechtslexika.” FM 2 
(1977) 87-146. Idem, “Das Lexikon ade(—ein Theophilos- 
glossar,” EM 6 (1984) 19-61. -L.B. 


GLOSSARIES, BILINGUAL, lists of words either 
in Greek with Latin translations or in Latin with 
Greek translations produced by Carolingian scribes 
and preserved in MSS from the oth C. onward. 
They are based on the so-called Hermenewmata 
pseudo-Dositheana (grd C.?) and various other 
sources, including ISIDORE OF SEVILLE and MA- 
crosius. The texts are of different lengths. Thus 
the Scholica Graecarum glossarum contains about 
450 Greek terms and definitions; other expanded 
glossaries are the so-called “Philoxenus” (Latin- 
Greek) and “Cyrillus” (Greek-Latin); many are 
short, limited to several words. The etymologies 
are often more fantastic than those found in Isi- 
dore, and explanations of Greek words can be 
completely wrong. The glossaries, however, can 
be indicative of Western interest in Byz. institu- 
tions; for example, the St. Gall glossae of the gth 
C. include terms (with interpretations) for Byz. 
charitable institutions such as xenodochium, ptocho- 
trophium, nosochomium, orphanotrophium, geronto- 
chomium, and brephotrophium; the definitions are 
probably drawn from Julian the Antecessor, a 
Constantinopolitan jurist of the 6th C. (B. Ka- 
czynski, Speculum 58 [1983] 1008-17). 

ED. Corpus glossariorum Latinorum, vol. 2, ed. G. Goetz, 
G. Gundermann (Leipzig 1888). “Glossaire Grec-L.atin de 
la Bibliothèque de Laon,” ed. M.E. Miller, Notices et extraits 
29.2 (1880) 1-230. M.L.W. Laistner, “Notes on Greek from 
the Lectures of a Ninth Century Monastery Teacher,” 
Bull] RylandsLib 7 (1922-23) 421-56. 

LIT. J.J. Contreni, “Three Carolingian Texts Attributed 
to Laon: Reconsiderations,” SiMed 17.2 (1976) 802-08. 


WM Tindar “Pha Dhilavaniec Chacon SOD ase ne Lyova) 


` CY Se e de Je 
158-63. -A.K. 


GLYKAS, MICHAEL, 12th-C. writer; born first 
third of 12th C., perhaps on Kerkyra (cf. Krum- 
bacher, GBL 381). As imperial grammatikos, Glykas 
(TAvKas) was involved in a plot against Manuel I; 
according to Kresten (“Styppeiotes” 66—70), this 
scheme was connected with the conspiracy of 
Theodore STYPPEIOTES in 1159. Blinded (perhaps 
not totally), Glykas was imprisoned until at least 


856 | GNOME 


1164. His identification with Michael Sikidites 
(Kresten, op. cit. go—g2). who was charged ca.i200 
with heresy and magic, is not impossible. Politi- 
cally Glykas was anti-Komnenian: in his chronicle 
(Biblos chronike) of events from the Creation to 
1118, he followed Zonaras in criticizing Alexios 
strongly, He also condemned Manuel I’s astrolog- 
ical enthusiasm. Glykas’s attitude toward antiquity 
was critical as well; he rejected all ancient philos- 


ophers save Aristotle. He rejected also the idea of 


ananke, “historical determinism”—his polemic 
against astrology was connected with this antide- 
terministic approach to history. Both Glykas’s 
chronicle and his letters, often on similar subjects, 
were overtly didactic. His substantial additions to 
the first part of the chronicle are borrowed from 
the PHysioLoGcos (F. Sbordone, BZ 29 [1929/30] 
188-97) and demonstrate Christian moral prin- 
ciples. Proverbs which Glykas collected and abun- 
dantly inserted in his works also served didactic 
ends. His language is plain albeit scholarly, but in 
his Verses from Prison Glykas was one of the first 
to use the vernacular. 

ED. Annales, ed. 1. Bekker (Bonn 1836). Eis fas aportas tes 
Theias Graphes kephalaia, ed. S. Eustratiades, 2 vols. (Athens 
1906, Alexandria 1912), rev. E. Kurtz, BZ 17 (1908) 166— 
72 (see also W. Lackner, JOB 28 [1979] 127). S&chot hous 
egrapse kath’ hon kateschethe kairon, ed. E.Th. Tsolakes (Thes- 
salonike 1959). 

LIT. Hunger. Lit. 1:422—26. K. Krumbacher, “Michael 
Glykas,” SBAW (1894) 391-460, rev. V. Vasil’evskij, Viz- 
Vrem 6 (1899) 524-37. H. Eideneier, “Zur Sprache des 
Michael Glykas,” BZ 61 (1968) 5-9. H. Hunger, “Stilstufen 
in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung des 12. Jahr- 
hunderts,” BS/EB 5 (1978) 139-70. -A.K. 


GNOME (yvon, Lat. sententia), pithy saying or 
maxim. A gnome was a type of rhetorical orna- 
mentation, similar to a PROVERB, that was suppos- 
edly familiar to the audience and accordingly would 
evoke predictable sentiments (Martin, Rhetorik 
257f). Theoreticians of rhetoric, such as APH- 
THONIOS and NICHOLAS OF Myra, treated the gnome 
as a kind of PRoGyMNaSMa and tried to distinguish 
it from the chreia (Hunger, Lit. 1:100f). Collec- 
tions of gnomai (gnomologia) were made from an- 
cient authors, both in prose (e.g., Democritus, 
Isocrates, Epictetus) and verse (e.g., Euripides, 
Menander of Athens), and were presented either 
thematically or alphabetically. The distinction be- 
tween gnomologium and FLORILEGIUM is narrow 
and conventional. Though many scholars use the 


terms interchangeably, guomologium may be kept 
for works of predominantly secular content. 

The Eklogai of Stosalos contained large num- 
bers of ancient gnomai used by Byz. writers and 
by the later (mosuly anonymous) compilers of 
gnomologia, of which the fullest is the Gnomologium 
Vaticanum (Vat. gr. 743, 14th C.). Other examples 
include the Gnomologium Democrito-Epictetum (ed. 
C. Wachsmuth, infra 162-216), the Gnomologium 
Parisinum (Paris, B.N. suppl. gr. 134, 13th C.— 
ed. Sternbach, infra), aud that of John Georgides 
Goth C.; Paris, B.N. gr. 1166—ed. Odorico, infra 
119-255). On the basis of various recensions 
Wachsinuth (infra) tried to reconstruct the text of 
a Gnomologium Byzantinum (i.e., the corpus of gno- 
mai in circulation in Byz.). To the genre of gno- 
mologia also belonged works of more developed 
character (KEKAUMENOS, SPANEAS, etc.), in which 
gnomai are elaborated in short stories or didactic 
digressions. Greek gnomai were translated into 
Syriac and Arabic. 

ED. Gnomologium Vaticanum, ed. L. Sternbach, WS 9 (1887) 
175—206; 10 (1888) 1—49; 11 (1889) 43-64, 192—242; rp. 
Berlin 1963. Z Prato e PApe: IL Sapere Sentenzioso del Monaco 
Giovanni, ed. P. Odorico (Vienna 1986). 

tit. K. Horna, K. von Fritz, RE, supp. 6 (1935) 74-90. 
C. Wachsmuth, Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien (Berlin 
1882; rp. Amsterdam 1971). P. Odorico, “Lo Gromologium 
ee e la recensione del Cod. Bibl. Nat. Athen 1070,’ 
RSBS 2 (1982) 41—70. D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in 


Arabic Translation (New Haven, Conn., 1975). 
~E.M.J., A.K. 


GNOSTICISM (from yvaots, “knowledge”), a 
loose-knit and variable system of belief based on 
DUALISM and the premise that the full revelation 
of God is given only to a select few. It flourished 
esp. in the end C. The works of Gnostics were 
condemned and destroyed so that until fairly re- 
cently their teachings were known only through 
the Christian polemic directed against them; the 
discovery of the Nac Hamman texts, however, 
niakes Gnostic writings directly available. Gnostics 
ranged from the Valentinians, who taught an 
elaborate and decidedly non-Christian mythology, 
to Marcion (died ca.160), who was a Christian 
heretic with dualist tendencies. Gnostics associ- 
ated the God of the Old Testament with Satan, 
and their Christology was docetic; it was an early 
rival of Christianity, and much of Orthodox the- 
ology was developed to answer its challenge. By 
the grd C., however, Gnosticism was no longer a 


threat, surviving in an instituuonalized form only 
among the MANbAEANS. Nevertheless, Gnostic ideas 
continued to be influential in the ALEXANDRIAN 
SCHOOL, esp. in the writings Of CLEMENT OF AL- 
EXANDRIA, ORIGEN, and Evacrios Ponrikos. Some 
scholars have seen Gnostic influence in the Pau- 
LIcIANS and Bocomizs, but this is unlikely except 
in the most general sense. 

ure. K. Rudolph, Gnosis (New York 1983). G. Vallée, A 
Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics (Waterloo, Ontario, 1981). 
E.H. Paegels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York 1979). H.A. 
Green, The Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism (Atlanta 
1985). M.K. Trofimova, “Gnosticism,” PSb 26 (1978) 103- 
27. -T.EG. 


GOATS (aiytéra). Goats are often mentioned in 
combination with SHEEP as digidoprobata (Lavra 
g, no.109.361) or may be listed separately (e.g., 
Lavra 1, no.38.36). A household might keep as 
many as 100 goats (Lavra 2, no.109.854), and a 
monastery a flock of 2,000 sheep and goats. 

The Byz. kept goats for milk, CHEESE, MEAT, 
and wool. The term aigeometaxa (“goat silk”), used 
by ProcHOPRODROMOS (3:77), indicates that their 
wool was considered a high-quality material. On 
the other hand, the rough cloak of a holy man 
could also be made of goat wool (PG 120:45B). 
The Greopontka (bk.18.g—10) devotes less space 
to goats than to sheep, but otherwise there are no 
data to establish the relative proportions of the 
two species. According to the Geoponika, goats 
were pastured on mountains; the vita of Paul of 
Latros (ed. H. Delehaye, AB 11 [1892] 44f) also 
tells of a peasant (georgos) who lived with his goats 
in the mountains, but returned home at harvest 
time. -A.K.. J.-W.N. 


GOD (Oesós). Of five known ancient etymologies 
of the word theos the church fathers retained at 
least three: from theo, “run”; theoreo, “observe”; 
and tithemi, “set” (I. Opelt, StP 5 [1962] 532-40). 
The Christian concept of God originated as a 
middle way between the pagan idea of gods as 
“older brothers” of humans, immortal but vul- 
nerable to human passions, and the Eastern con- 
cept of the transcendent God, fully distinguished 
from mankind. Dissatisfied with the pagan idea 
and esp. hostile to the concept of the divine em- 
peror, church fathers tried to preserve the mon- 
otheistic principle of the Old Testament without 


GODFREY OF BOUILLON | 857 


disrupting the ties between God and mankind, 
thus making possible the “divinization” or SAL- 
VATION Of man. 

According to Gregory of Nyssa (PG 45:932C), 
God is unknowable in his essence; thus, the church 
fathers, using apophatic THEOLOGY, define God 
primarily with negative epithets, commencing with 
the negative prefix a(n) (“without”): thus anarchos 
(without beginning), apermnoetos (unintelligible), etc. 
(e.g., John of Damascus, Exp. fidei 2.10~12, ed. 
Kotter, Schriften 2:8f). However, the concepts of 
OLKONOMIA and INCARNATION make it possible to 
bridge the gap between God and man. The in- 
comprehensibility of God created an epistemolog- 
ical problem—how can we learn about God? John 
of Damascus (Exp. fidei 3.4—5, ed. Kotter, Schriften 
2:10) solved it by arguing (see ANALOGY) that our 
belief in God is natural (physzkos). 

Other qualities of God emphasized his omnip- 
otence and omniscience (usually beginning with 
pan- [“all”], e.g., PANTrOKRATOR) or his justice and 
PHILANTHROPY toward men. In the political sphere 
God was considered the guarantor and guardian 
of the Byz. Empire and of its ruler in particular. 

uit. G.L. Prestige. God in Patristic Thought (London 1952). 
W. Schoedel, “Enclosing, not Enclosed: The Early Christian 
Doctrine of God,” in Early Christian Literature and the Clas- 
sical Intellectual Tradition (Paris 1979) 75—86. R.M. Hubner, 
Der Gott der Kirchenviter (Munich 1979). F.M. Young, “In- 
sight or Incoherence? The Greek Fathers on God and Evil,” 
JEH 24 (1973) 113-26. B.A. Mastin, “The Imperial Cult 
and the Ascription of the Title theos to Jesus (John XX, 
28)," Studia Evangelica 6 (Berlin 1973) 352-65. 

—G.P., A.K. 


GODFREY OF BOUILLON, duke of Lower Lor- 
raine; born ca.1060, died Jerusalem 18 July 1100. 
Leading the Lotharingian contingent of the First 
Crusade, Godfrey (loevrofpé) peacefully tra- 
versed the Balkans until, at Selymbria, he learned 
that HUGH OF VERMANDOIS was captive in Con- 
slanunopie, whereupon He devastated die 1 egiut. 
Mollified by Alexios I, he pacified his troops and 
reached the outskirts of Constantinople on 23 
Dec. 1096. Alternating peace and conflict between 
Godfrey and the Byz. culminated in a serious 
battle outside Constantinople on 2 Apr. 1097. 
Anna Komnene says he was attacking the city; 
pillaging of the suburbs followed. Only after fur- 
ther skirmishes did Godfrey agree to enter Con- 
stantinople and swear fealty to Alexios (5 Apr. 
1097). Thereafter he mediated between BOuE- 


858 GODPARENT 


MUND and the emperor. Godfrey plaved a leading 
role in the Crusade. After the conquest of JERU- 
SALEM he may have become advocatus sancti sepul- 
chri. Anna Komnene calls him wealthy and arro- 
gant and emphasizes his rapid changes of attitude 
toward Alexios. 

UIT. J.C, Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of 


Bouillon (Bloomington [1947]; rp. Freeport, N.Y., 1972). 
Pryor, “Oaths” 111-41. —C.M.B. 


GODPARENT (davadoxos), a sponsor at the sac- 
rament of BAPTISM, one who “stands as a surety,” 
receiving the baptized infant or adult from the 
“waters of rebirth.” AH Orthodox Christians, ex- 
cept monks and nuns, could stand as godparents. 
Some imperial and aristocratic offspring had more 
than one godparent,; other children had only one. 
Usually the same person served as godparent for 
all the children of a marriage. Baptism established 
a SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP between godparent and 
godchild and created a tie between godparent and 
natural parents, “coparenthood” (synteknia), which 
manifested itself in gift-giving, social contact, and 
joint business ventures. Godparents were chosen 
from among friends and relatives. According to 
the church fathers, it was the godparent’s duty to 
give moral and religious instruction to his god- 
children. A few cases show that godparents some- 
times took in orphaned godchildren, raised them, 
and provided for their education and marriage. 
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS among spiritual relations 
increased from the 6th C., when godparent and 
godchild were forbidden to marry, until by the 
12th C. the prohibitions were considered to be 
the same as those for blood relations. Godparent- 
hood has elements in common with ADOPTION. 
ur. Koukoules, Bios 4:43-6g. Patlagean, Structure, pt. XII 
(1978), 625-36. R. Macrides, “The Byzantine Godfather,” 
BMGS 12 (1987) 139-62. -R.J.M. 


GOLD (xpvoós) was considered the most precious 
metal in Byz. As with other metals, the location 
and exploitation of gold sources and MINES be- 
tween the 4th and 15th C. is somewhat a matter 
of speculation. It was used (sometimes alloyed 
with SILVER or copper as billon and electrum) for 
manufacturing COINS, MEDALLIONS, ENAMEL 
plaques, luxurious domestic PLATE and LITURGI- 
CAL VESSELS, and JEWELRY. Gold foil was used for 
gilding architectural details (Asterios of Amaseia 


[PG 40:209B] inveighs against those who dwell] 
beneath “roofs overlaid with gold”) and metal 
objects. It was also used in “gold glass,” Mosaic 
tesserae, book illumination, and icon painting, 
and even woven into textiles and used in embroi- 
dery. 

Much gold was reserved for imperial use, even 
if Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 189.57—62) ridi- 
cules it as “the color of bile” that has ominous 
significance when worn during battle. Only the 
emperor issued CHRYSOBULLS and dined on golden 
dishes; gilded auTOMATA occupied a place of honor 
in impcrial ritual. Theologians interpreted gold 
as condensed light, as the symbol of incorrupti- 
bility, truth, glory, and of the sun. 

Many recorded “gold” objects and furniture 
(such as those mentioned by Constantine VII [De 
cer. 580.5, 8—9; 587-g—10; 593.6]) were probably 
gilded silver, like the Byz. objects of the 10th— 
11th C. preserved in San Marco. Very few vessels 
made of gold survive from the 4th—15th C. Most 
of a selection of gold jewelry (dated from 350 to 
1000) analyzed in 1986 was found to be 86—96 
percent pure, that is, more debased than gold 
solidi of the same period; later jewelry (11th— 
13th C.) was 80—89 percent pure. Gold for jewelry 
was worked in repoussé, filigree, and granulation 
techniques and drawn out as wire and in the form 
of straps. 

ure. Hunger, Reich 8g—g5. S. Averincev, “L'or dans le 
système des symboles de la culture protobyzantine,” StMed* 
20 (1979) 47-67. Vryonis, Byzantium, pt.VE (1962), 5-10. 
M.E. Frazer, “Byzantine Enamels and Goldsmith Work,” 
in Treasury $. Marco 109-78. A. Oddy, S. La Niece, “Byz- 
antine Gold Coins and Jewellery: A Study of Gold Con- 
tents,” Gold Bulletin 19 (1986) 19-27. B. Brenk, “Early 
Gold Mosaics in Christian Art,” Palette 38 (1972) 16-25. 

—M.M.M., L.Ph.B. 


GOLDEN GATE (Xpvoai ITvAat, Xpvceta van), 
monumental gate situated at the south end of the 
land walls of Constantinople, used for imperial 
triumphs and other state occasions (see CONSTAN- 
TINOPLE, MONUMENTS OF). It was constructed un- 
der Theodosios, most probably ‘Theodosios H. 
Built of marble blocks, it consists of three arched 
openings flanked by square towers. A Latin in- 
scription in metal letters placed on the central 
arch refers to the gilding of the gate (Le., of its 
valves) after the defeat of a usurper (loannes, 
executed at Ravenna in 425). The gate was dec- 


orated with various statues. The complex was 
protected by an outer wall, pierced by a single 
gate, on either side of which were placed antique 
mythological reliefs. The latter survived until the 
i7th C. A fort, built here by John V in 1389/90, 
was immediately dismantled by order of Sultan 
Bavezid I. The gate was incorporated into the 
Castle of the Seven Towers (Turk. Yedikule) 
erected by Sultan Mehmed II in 1457/8. 

‘There were Golden Gates in some other cities 


as well, such as Antioch (also called the Gates of 


Daphne, end of the 4th C.) and Thessalonike (also 
called the Gates of Vardar). In the 11th C. a 
golden gate was erected in Kiev. 

ur. T. Macridy, S. Casson, “Excavations at the Golden 
Gate, Constantinople,” Archaeologia 81 (1931) 63-84. B. 
Mever-Plath, A.M. Schneider, Die Landmauer von Konstan- 
tinopel, vol. 2 (Berlin 1943) 39-62. Miiller-Wiener, Bildlex- 
ikon 297-300. -C.M. 


GOLDEN HORDE. Sec MONGOLS; TATARS. 
GOLDEN HORN. See CONSTANTINOPLE. 
GOLDSMITH. See JEWELER. 


GOLGOTHA. See SErpuLCHRE, HOLy. 


GONIKON (yovixov), a category of land owner- 
ship. F. Uspenskij (in Sbornik stalej po slavjanove- 
deniju, sostavlenny) i izdannyj učenikami V. I. Laman- 
skogo [St. Petersburg 1883] 4) contrasted gonikon 
and PRONOIA as hereditary patrimony versus a 
conditional grant. As a term denoting the origin 
of property (“parental”), gonikon also distin- 
guished patrimonial land from property received 
through paradosis (conferred upon a paroikos by 
his landlord or the state), EXALEIMMA, dowry, and 
purchase (Chil., no.g2) as well as trom other rel- 
atives. Paroikot who held gontkon could be called 
gonikarioi (Laiou, Peasant Society 184). In an ex- 
tended application complementing the term’s lit- 
eral sense as a titulus acquirendi, imperial grants to 
religious institutions (e.g., Chil., no.24.14) and lay- 
men often state that property or revenue was 
henceforth to be regarded as if it were or had 
become gonikon (hos gonikon . . . kiema [Binon, 
Xéropotamou, no.20.2], kata logon gonikotetos [Guil- 
lou, Ménécée no.6.6]). In these cases, gonikon im- 


GOOD FRIDAY 859 


pled an intensified degree of tenure over the 
property but not necessarily the right to bequeath 
or to alienate. Ostrogorsky (Féodalité 134) suggests 
that at minimum it included the right to profit 
fully from improvements to a property and could 
be applied to certain kinds of conditional grants. 
On the other hand, in an act of 1432 from Tre- 
bizond, gonikun is distinguished from property 
held in simple possession (he diapherousa nome kai 
gontkeia—ed. V. Laurent, ArchPont 18 [1953] 
263.79, 264.85—86). 

The very rare verb gonikeuomai means “to make 
hereditary”; thus, in 1307 Andronikos IT Palaio- 
logos granted Alexios Diplovatatzes’ request that 
a property already within his vckonomia be “here- 
ditized” (gontkeuthe) so that he could hold it “as 
gontkon” (katechein . . . hos gontken—Guillou, Mé- 
nécée, NOS. 2.3, 9—10); and in 1261 Michael VII 
Palaiologos granted land in hereditary tenure (eis 
charin gonikeutheises) to the Thelematarioi. The 
fluidity and imprecision in the use of the word is 
also seen in Frankish Greece; the Chronicle of the 
Morea employs igonika, pronota, and, in the French 
version, héritaige as equivalents of “fef” (Jacoby, 
Société, pt. VI [1967], 430-32). 

uit. Kazhdan, Agrarnye otnošenija 219-21. Chvostova, 
Osobennosti 219-20. —M.B. 


GOOD FRIDAY (ueyáàn [yia] Tapackevy), the 
day of the CructFixion, the Friday before EASTER, 
from at least the 2nd C. a day of FasTING. Origi- 
nally Good Friday had no special liturgical ser- 
vices since it was considered, with Holy Saturday 
and the Easter VictL, an integral part of the 
paschal triduum (three concluding days of HOoLy 
WEEK). By the end of the 4th C. it had become a 
feast in its own right, celebrated at Jerusalem with 
a lengthy vigil Thursday night and on Friday with 
tbe veneration of the relic of the Cross (see Cross, 
GULT OF THE) and an office of lecuons on ine 
Passion of Christ, services that soon spread to 
Constantinople and elsewhere. The Typikon of the 
Great Church (Mateos, Typicon 2:76—83) describes 
a vigil at Hagia Sophia with reading of the Twelve 
Passion Gospels (see EVANGELION), followed by the 
veneration of the Passion RELICS, esp. the Sacred 
Lance, a service that drew huge crowds and lasted 
unul noon. After the HouRS of terce-sext, the 
patriarch held a service for the catechumens at 
the Church of St. Irene. The day concluded with 


860 | GOOD SHEPHERD 


the liturgy of the PRESANCTIFIED at Hagia Sophia. 
The emperor participated in the veneration of 
the lance, the service of terce-sext, and the cate- 
chesis at St. Irene. The introduction of Jerusalem 
Holy Week customs at Constantinople from the 
oth C. led to the demise of these services. Accord- 
ing to ANTONY of Novgorod, in Constantinople 
by ca.1200, only in the Anastasia church in the 
Portico of Domninos was there a service to ven- 
erate “the Lord’s nail and blood” (ed. Ch. Lo- 
parev, PPSb 51 [1899] 29). The other churches 
were merely washed and strewn with blossoms in 
preparation for Easter. 


LIT. S. Janeras, Le Vendredi-saint dans la tradition liturgique 
byzantine (Rome 1988), RFT. 


GOOD SHEPHERD (kados moruńy [Jn 10:11), 
agathos poimen; cf. also Lk 15:3~—7), a Christian 
symbol borrowed from pagan images of a kriopho- 
ros (ram-bearer): Christ was perceived by early 
Christians as both the Lams or Gop and the 
shepherd who cares for his flock. The date of the 
origin of the Good Shepherd’s representation in 
art is debatable. Klauser (infra) denied its exis- 
tence at the time of Clement of Alexandria and 
Tertullian; he likewise rejected the interpretation 
of kriophorot on early sarcophagi as representa- 
tions of the Good Shepherd. This figure, how- 
ever, was a favorite image of Christ in the cata- 
combs of the grd—4qth C. and in small-scale 
sculpture (K. Weitzmann, DOCat 3, nos. 3, 5). 
The theme of the shepherd and his flock occurs 
in early baptisteries and in the baptismal ritual of 
Eastern churches. The shepherd was depicted 
standing with the sheep slung over his shoulder 
or seated among his flock, protecting his lambs, 
playing a flute, or carrying a milk pail; he is 
usually a beardless youth wearing a tunic. In the 
5th-C. mausoleum of Garra PLacip1A in Ravenna 
the figure is royal, clad in gold and purple robes, 
and holding a cross-staff instead of a crook. The 
Good Shepherd does not occur as an independent 
image after the 6th C. 

uit. H. Leclercq, DACL 13:2272—2390. T. Klauser, “Stu- 
dien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der christlichen Kunst I,” 
JbAChr 1 (1958) 20-51. J. Quasten, “Das Bild des guten 
Hirten in der altchristlichen Baptisterien und in den Tauf- 
liturgien des Ostens und Westens,” in Pisciculi, Studien zur 


Religion und Kultur des Altertums (Minster/Westf. 1939) 220- 
44. K. Wessel, RBK 1:1051—-54. -A.K.. N.P.S. 


GÖREME, a valley in Cappavocia, the site of a 
number of medieval ROcK-cUT refectories, mills, 
cells, and painted chapels attesting to a thriving 
monastic enclave for which there is no textual 
documentation. Churches with elaborate figural 
decorations include Kılıçlar Kilise, a cross-In-square 
structure (carly roth C.?); El Nazar, a domed- 
cruciform church (early 10th C.?); the CoLtumn 
CHuRCcHES; and the Yılanlı Group, a series of 
relatively crudely carved and simply decorated 
monuments probably dating from the period of 
SELJUK Occupation after 1071. Tokalı Kilise, a 
complex of three churches, retains the most elab- 
orate carving and decoration in the valley. The 
Old Church may be ascribed to the early 10th C. 
on the basis of its close stylistic relation to Ayvalı 
Kilise in GULLU Derr. Images in the Pigeon House 
in Cavusin (g63—6y) were derived from those in 
the New Church, thus providing it with a terminus 
ante quem. The extremely rich narrative cycles of 
the New Church are lavishly rendered in a clas- 
sicizing style with quantities of ultramarine (see 
Fresco TECHNIQUE) and gold and silver foil; the 
cycle is unique within the empire for high-quality 
monumental painting of the mid-1oth C. 

Lit. Jerphanion, Églises rupestres 1.2:95~—497. G.P. Schie- 
menz, “Felskapellen im Göreme-Tal, Kappadokien: Die 
Yılanlı-Group und Sakh Kilise,” IstMitt 30 (1980) 291-319. 
A.W. Epstein, Tokalı Kilise: Tenth Century Metropolitan Art in 
Cappadocia (Washington, D.C., 1986). L. Rodley, Cave Mon- 
asteries of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge 1985) 48—56, 
160-83. -A.J.W. 


GORTYNA (lop7vva, also Gortys), capital of CRETE 
in late antiquity, located in the south of the island. 
Gortyna remained the capital until the Arab con- 
quest and the establishment of CHanpbax ca.824- 
27. An earthquake ca.670 caused much destruc- 
tion and early Arab attacks prevented substantial 
rebuilding. Byz. sources speak of the destruction 
of Gortyna by the Arabs and the martyrdom of 
its bishop Cyril, although both accounts are prob- 
ably fictitious (Christides, Crete g2—gq4) and the 
city—much reduced—continued to exist after the 
conquest. The bishop of Gortyna, always a met- 
ropolitan, was frequently listed simply as metro- 
politan of Crete; in the later 10th C. he held the 
roth rank in the empire, above that of Corinth, 
Sicily, and Thessalonike. 

The governor’s palace (praetorium) was rebuilt 


in 381-83 and continued in use into the Arab 
period, after which it was apparently transformed 
into a monastery (Sanders, infra 80). The acropo- 
lis was fortihed, perhaps in the 7th—8th C. The 
Church of St. Titos, probably built in the early 
yth C., is a domed three-aisled basilica with three 
apses and side aisles terminating in apses; the 
sanctuary is a triconch with flanking pastophoria. 
It was probably rebuilt in the 1oth C. Another 
church was constructed in the remains of the 
temple of Apollo; it may have served as the ca- 
thedral until construction of St. Titos. 

uit. LF. Sanders, Roman Crete (Warminster 1982) 110- 


13. D. and L. Stiernon, DHGE 21 (1986) 786-811. A. 
DiVita, Gortina I (Rome 1988). -T.E.G. 


GOSPEL BOOK. The tetraevangelion (Tetpaev- 
ayyédov), not to be confused with the EvANGE- 
LION, contains the complete text of the four Gos- 
pels, arranged exactly as they are in the New 
Testament, but with the beginning and end of 
each passage to be read indicated in the margin, 
and numbered. 

The illustration of Gospel books is a subject of 
major interest. From before the 8th C., only two 
illustrated Greek Gospel books—the Rossano 
GosreLs and Sinope Gospels (Paris, B.N. gr. suppl. 
1286)—survive, but the Syriac RABBULA GOSPELS 
is also preserved. Following Iconoclasm, the typ- 
ical Gospel book was written in MINUSCULE script. 
Containing prefaces and liturgical aids, it was 
decorated with CANON TABLES, HEADPIECES, INI- 
TIALS, and EVANGELIST PORTRAITS and was some- 
times produced in diminutive format in combi- 
nation with the Psalter to form a devotional book. 
Only rarely did it receive extensive narrative il- 
lustration (e.g., the two FRIEZE GosPELs). Its pre- 
faces prompted certain subjects, such as EVANGE- 
LIST SYMBOLS, figures inspiring the evangelists, 
and the Majesras Domini. Its devotional and li- 
turgical character occasioned preliminary iconic 
images and miniatures of nonbiblical events that 
pertain to the text’s liturgical context, for ex- 
ample, the DormiTion of the Virgin or the An- 
ASTASIS. The most innovative MSS were produced 
in the 11th and 12th C., and many MSS in the 
Decorative STYLE (e.g., Karahisar Gospels) sur- 
vive. In the Palaiologan period, the illustrated 
Gospel book remained popular, but its decoration 


GOSPELS | 861 


was generally restricted to headpieces and evan- 
gelist portraits with occasional iconic miniatures. 

ut. R. Deshman in //luminated Greek MSS 40-44. R.S. 
Nelson, The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byz- 
antine Gospel Book (New York 1980). A.W. Carr, “Diminu- 
uve Byzantine Manuscripts,” Codices Manuscript: 6 (1980) 
130-61. -R.S.N. 


GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS. See Nicopemus, 
GOSPEL OF. 


GOSPELS (Evayyéavoy, lit. “good message”). The 
canonical Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and 
John, an evangelical canon established by the end 
of the end C.; other gospels were proclaimed to 
be apocryPHa. The most ancient papyrus frag- 
ments of the Gospels belong to the and C.; from 
the 4th C. onward complete MSS are known that 
contain both the Old and New Testament; sepa- 
rate MSS of the Gospels are preserved from the 
4th~5th C. (the Freer Gospels from Egypt). The 
text is preserved in the form of the GOSPEL BOOK 
(tetraevangelion) and the Gospel lectionary or 
EVANGELION. 

ExEGEsIs of the Gospels created difficulties that 
the church fathers sought to explain: the four 
versions of the Gospels difter and sometimes even 
contradict each other. ORIGEN endeavored to re- 
solve the contradictions by applying allegorical 
interpretation. THEODORE OF MopsuesTia, on the 
other hand, avoided allegorical assimilation of 
contradictory stories and treated the Gospels as 
the memoirs of apostles with differing recollec- 
uons. In the West, Augustine collected parallel, 
but inconsistent, passages without trying to rec- 
oncile them artificially. Although original exegesis 
did not continue after the 6th C., the matter of 
discrepancies between the Gospels arose time and 
again. JOHN I, archbishop of Thessalonike, tried 
to establish in his homily on the Myrrophoroi a 
concordance of Gospel evidence for Christ's res- 
urrection. Euthymios ZIGABENOS and esp. THEO- 
PHYLAKTOS of Ohrid produced voluminous com- 
mentaries on the Gospels. 

‘The plain style of the Gospels also created dif- 
ficulties for the Byz., who were fond of exquisite 
rhetoric. Some authors, such as John CHorras- 
MENOS, defended this stylistic simplicity against 
the fashionable Arricism. 


862 GOTHS 


uit. H. Merkel, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien 
(Tübingen 1971). RG. Heard, “Vhe Old Gospel Pro- 
logues.” JFhSt ms. 6 (1955) 1-16. J. Reuss, Mathdus-, 
Markus- und Johannes-Katenen (Münster 1941). =J.. ALR. 


GOTHS (Tórĝot), a Germanic people who, ac- 
cording to JORDANES, migrated from the Vistula 
region to Oium, between the Dniester and the 
Don. Archaeological remains of the CernjacHovo 
culture have been tentatively identified with them. 
From 238 onward, the Goths harried the Danu- 
bian provinces, Greece, and Asia Minor, and ca.273 
Emp. Aurelian yielded Dacia to them. At this 
time they probably formed two groups, Visi- 
GoTHS and OsTROGOTHS, which moved westward 
in the 4th C. They played an ambivalent role in 
relation to the late Roman Empirc—as attackers 
and plunderers, and as FOEDERATI. In any case, 
the archaeological record in the DANUBE prov- 
inces does not suggest an economic crisis during 
the 4th C. when the Goths were settling this area. 
Some Gothic generals (GaiNnaS, 'FRIBIGILD, Fravi- 
tas, etc.) became influential at the court in Con- 
stantinople. Their leading position in the army 
incited envy and hostility both among aristocratic 
intellectuals (such as Synesios of Cyrene) and the 
population of Constantinople whose spokesman 
was John Chrysostom, a hostility exacerbated by 
the Arian creed that had been spread among the 
Goths by ULritas. On 11/12 July 400 a massacre 
of Gothic soldiers took place in Constantinople. 
Gainas soon fled and perished, Fravitas was exe- 
cuted, and the Gothic impact diminished. ‘he 
hordes of ALARiC were turned toward Italy, and 
the empire was deprived of valuable warriors in 
the face of the Hunnic invasions. 

Both the Visigothic and Ostrogothic kingdoms 
in the West at times offered formal allegiance to 
Constantinople. In the 6th C. Justinian I recon- 
quered Italy and a part of Spain, but his success 
was of short duration: the Goths who were ready 
to accept the Roman way of life and to form an 
alliance with the empire were replaced by the 
much more innovative LomBarps. Some Goths 
remained in Byz. where in the 8th~gth C. the 
district of Gothograikia existed in northwestern 
Asia Minor (Kulakovskij, /stortja 3:414—-16); they 
also continued to be found in neighboring areas 
such as Dory in the Crimea. 





ur. H. Wolfram, History of the Goths (Berkeley 1987). 
H. von Petrikovits in Studien zur Ethnogenese (Opladen 1985) 


112-22. E. Chrysos, To Byzantian kat hoi Golthoi (Thessalo- 
nike 1972). V. Budanova, “Goty v sisteme predstavlenij 
rimskich i vizantijskich avtoroy o varvarskich narodach,” 
WizVrem 41 (1980) 141-52. S. Teillet, Des Goths à la nation 
gothique (Paris 1984). -O-P, 


GOUDELES (lovdéAns, fem. Tovdediva), a noble 
Byz. family. The first Goudeles, perhaps of Slavic 
origin, was blinded by Constantine VIII for his 
role in a plot organized by Presianos (see AARONI- 
os) and other Slavs. The 11th-C. Goudelai were 
influential magnates in Asia Minor (Christopher 
Goudeles was magzsiros and strategos) who took part 
in aristocratic plots and rebellions of 1034 and 
1078. Although related to the noble lineage of 
‘TZIKANDELES, the position of the Goudelai de- 
clined by the 12th C. They reappeared in the 
13th C. as military commanders and landowners: 
the will of the imperial doulos Goudeles Tyrannos 
of 1294 is a useful description of an estate in the 
Smyrna region (MM 4:285—-87). Some Goudelai 
were important functionaries, esp. Ca. 1400-53: 
George Goudeles, mesazon of Manuel IT; his son 
John Goudeles; Nicholas Goudeles, an envoy to 
Russia in 1436 (with IsiporE oF Kiev) and to 
Ferrara in 1438 and a defender of Constantinople 
in 1453. For this Nicholas, or some earlier scion 
of the family, his widow, the nun Theodoule 
Palaiologina Goudelina, had a 12th-C. lectionary 
(Oxford, Bodl. Auct. T. inf. 2.7) bound in leather 
and stamped with the Palaiologan EAGLE. She pre- 
sented it, as an undated entry on folio 357v notes, 
for the salvation of Nicholas’s soul (Hutter, CBM 

:72 {no.42]). 

LIT. S. Lampros, “Ho Byzantiakos oikos Goudele,” NE 
13 (1916) 211-21. PLP, nos. 4330-43. -AK. 


GOURIAS, SAMONAS, AND ABIBAS (Tovpias, 
Lapwvas, “ABuBos; Syriac Gurja, Smona, and 
Habib), martyrs and confessors, saints; feastdays 
15 Nov. and 2 Dec. According to legend, Gourias 
of Sargai, an ascetic, and Samonas of Ganada, his 
companion, were brought to trial under Diocle- 
tian by Mysianos, governor (hegemon) of Edessa, 
and executed, after severe tortures, on the hill of 
Béth-alah-giqla, north of Edessa. Abibas, a deacon 
from the village of Tel Sehe, was judged by Lysa- 
nias (or Ausonios), governor of Edessa under 
Licinius, and burned in a cemetery near Edessa. 
Syriac, Armenian, Greek, Georgian, Arabic, and 
Latin versions of the legends survive; most schol- 


ars assume that the original was in Syriac, al- 
though different from the preserved Syriac ver- 
sions, and probably similar to the Armenian and 
one of the Greek texts. The author of Abibas’s 
passio, Theophilos. claims to have been an eyewit- 
ness, but errors in chronology suggest that the 
legends are later works. 

The three martyrs appear together in the story 
of Euphemia and the Goth, as protectors of a 
young woman marricd to a barbarian, taken from 
Edessa, mistreated, and her baby poisoned; the 
martyrs miraculously brought her home, and 
eventually the Goth was executed—on the initia- 
uve of Eulogios, bishop of Edessa (378-87). This 
legend is known in Greek and Syriac; Burkitt 
(infra) tried unsuccessfully to prove that the orig- 
inal was in Syriac. EPHREM THE Syrian dedicated 
a strophe to Gourtas, Samonas, and Abibas; Jacos 
OF SARUG wrote another hymn. SYMEON META- 
PHRASTES included the legends in his collection; 
ARETHAS OF CAESAREA wrote a laudatio of the 
martyrs. 

Representation in Art. The three saints to- 
gether reflect the three ages of man: Abibas is 
depicted as a young deacon, the other two as 
princely martyrs in tunic and chlamys, with Gour- 
ias generally elderly and Samonas middle-aged 
The Euphemia miracle is sometimes treated as an 
independent text, but no illustrations of it survive. 
In the MENOLOGION or Basix II (p.183), Gourias 
and Samonas are about to be beheaded, while 
Abibas is being burned alive in a furnace; in 
another contemporary menologion, there is a scene 
of the translation of their relics (Athos, Vatop. 
456, fol.253r, Weitzmann, Studies fig.224). 

sources. Die Akten der edessenischen Bekenner Gurjas, Sa- 
monas und Abibos, ed. O. von Gebhardt, E. von Dobschiitz 
(Leipzig 1gt1), rev. H. Delehaye, AB 31 (1912) 332-34. 
F.C. Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth (London 1913), rev. P. 
Peeters, AB 33 (1914) 68-70. 

ur. BHG 731-740m. J.-M. Sauget, “Gurias, Samonas et 
Habib,” DHGE 22 (1988) 1193f. F. Halkin, “Translation 
du chef de S. Abibus, un des trois confesseurs d’Edesse, 
BHG 740m,” AB 104 (1986) 287-97. K.G. Kaster, LCI 
6:465.. -A.K.. N.P.S. 


GRAČANICA, a monastery and the seat of the 
bishops of Lipljan, near Priština (Yugoslavia). The 
present Church of the Dormition (originally An- 
nunciation) was begun ca.1311,. under the aus- 
pices of the Serbian king Sreran UROŠ H Miku- 
TIN, on the site of a destroved 13th-C. church and 


GRACE 863 


a 5th~6th-C. basilica. Milutin’s church is in all 
likelihood the work of builders from Thessalonike 
and, possibly, from Arta; in quality, Gračanica 
exceeds contemporary achievements in these two 
centers. The church consists of a domed cross-in- 
square naos, enveloped by a bema flanked by two 
domed lateral chapels, north and south ambula- 
tory wings, and an inner narthex. Two additional 
domes cover the corner bays of the inner narthex. 
The characteristic five-domed scheme at Gračan- 
ica is marked by an unusually well-balanced com- 
position and elongated proportions. The exterior 
displays high-quality cloisonné construction and a 
restrained application of decorative brickwork. 
Painted before 1321, the frescoes represent a fairly 
standard version of the CHURCH PROGRAMS OF 
DECORATION Of the Palaiologan era, including Old 
‘Testament PREFIGURATIONS and liturgical subjects 
in the bema. Milutin’s charter for the monastery 
and the death of a Serbian bishop are depicted in 
the south chapel; portraits of the Nemanjid dy- 
nasty arranged in a family tree borrowed from 
the TREE OF JESSE appear in the inner narthex. 
‘The painters developed the style of MICHAEL (As- 
TRAPAS) AND Eurycuios, displaying some interest 
in human anatomy and employing both original 
and reverse perspective. Gračanica may have been 
at first intended to serve as Milutin’s mausoleum 
church, but this idea was subsequently aban- 
doned. The church continued to function as a 
mausoleum for local bishops and eminent individ- 
uals. 

Lir. S. Ćurčić. Gracanica: King Milutins Church and Its 
Place in Late Byzantine Architecture (University Park, Pa.— 


London 1979). S- Curéié, B. Todić, Gračanica, 2 vols. (Bel- 
grade 1988). -S.C., G.B. 


GRACE (xápis, lit. “gift”) is a free and unmerited 
favor of God. Christianity contrasted itself, as a 
religion of grace, with Mosaic religion based on 
the Law. [he source o1 grace 1s God acting througn 
Christ or the Holy Spirit, always in synergy with 
man (sce SYNERGISM). The INCARNATION was the 
major vehicle of grace. Christ liberated man from 
the damnation of sin and opened for him the way 
of SALVATION and divinization. After the Incar- 
nation the Church mediated grace through the 
SACRAMENTS. The relationship between grace and 
FREE WILL was seldom explicitly discussed in Byz. 
as it was in the West. And yet, the doctrines of 
gnosis (see GNOSTICISM), MANICHAEANISM, and fa- 


864 GRADO 


talism as well as the philosophical presentation of 
the soul’s similitude to God, present a clear dis- 
tinction between the image (eikon) of God in man, 
which cannot be lost. and his likeness (homotosis) 
to God, which can be realized only through ascetic 
labors. THEOosrs, or deification, is the work of the 
trinitarlan ENERGY in which the Holy Spirit assim- 
ilates man to the Incarnate Son of God. 

This strongly personal conception of divine ac- 
tivity was questioned from time to time through 
the conception of the multitude of uncreated 
energies in Palamism. The theological expression 
of grace is found also in the idea of the sonship 
(Cyril of Alexandria, PG 73:156CD) of those who 
believe and of participation in the divine nature 
through spiritual rebirth. Earlier mysticism used 
such phrases as “the presence of the Trinity in 
the soul” and “the illumination of man,” which 
was the preferred way for speaking from the ume 
of pseudo-Dionysios THE AREOPAGITE and was 
embraced esp. by Palamite HESYCHASM (J. Mey- 
endorff, GregPal 37 [1954] 19-31). 

LIT. J. Gross, La divinisation du chrétien d'après les Pères 
grecs (Paris 1938). H. Merki, Homoiosis theo (Freiburg 1952). 
E. Scholl, Die Lehre des heiligen Basilius von der Gnade (Frei- 
burg 1881). S.1. Gošević, “He peri theias charitos didaskalia 
Ioannou tou Chrysostomou,” Theologia 27 (1956) 206-39, 
367-89. J. McW. Dewart. The Theology of Grace of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia (Washington, D.C., 1971). J. Loosen, Logos 
und Pneuma im begnadeten Menschen bet Maximus Confessor 
(Munster 1940). -G.P. 


GRADO ([padov), late Roman city and fortress 
(castrum) on an island south of AQUILEIA, probably 
serving as its harbor. The first churches seem to 
have been built here in the 4th C. In the 5th and 
6th C. Grado was used as a place of refuge; in 
568, after the Lombard conquest of his city, the 
bishop of Aquileia, Paulinus I, transferred the see 
and its treasures to Grado. Eventually, two rival 
dioceses were formed: vetus Aquileia and Aquileia 
nova, or Grado. While Aquileia severed its rela- 
tions with Constantinople and Rome, forming an 
independent patriarchate under Lombard au- 
thority, Grado remained within the Byz. sphere. 
Its bishop Elias (Greek by origin) supported the 
principles of the Council of Chalcedon, however, 
against those of the Second Council of Constan- 
tinople of 553; he promoted the cult of St. Eu- 
phemia, dedicating the new cathedral to her in 
579. The exarch of Ravenna exercised authority 
over the church of Grado. The patriarchate of 


Grado was organized probably between 607 and 
614 to counterbalance that of Aquileia, and the 
two sees pursued rival claims to metropolitan ju- 
risdiction over the province of Venetia-Istria until 
the dispute was resolved in Aquileia’s favor by 
Pope Alexander III in 1180. The city was in 
decline from the 11th C., and after 1156 the 
patriarchs of Grado moved to Venice. There was 
a Byz. garrison in Grado: inscriptions made by 
milites of two infantry numeri and a mounted “Perso- 


Justinianus” numerus have been found. 


Monuments of Grado. The well-preserved Ca- 
thedral of S. Euphemia encloses a contemporary 
floor mosaic. The cathedral’s baptistery and its 
mosaic pavement are older—tfrom the second half 
of the 4th C. Ninth-century sources mention a 
throne of St. Mark sent by Emp. Herakleios to 
the bishop of Grado (ca.630). A group of ivory 
plaques dispersed in various museums was once 
commonly ascribed to this throne, but K. Weitz- 
mann (DOP 2g [1972] 43-91) refuted the attri- 
bution. S. Tavano (AntAa 12 [1977] 445-89) has 
returned to the theory that they belonged to the 
throne. A second, alabaster reliquary throne, now 
in the Treasury of S. Marco in VENICE, is thought 
by some scholars (Treasury S. Marco g8—105) to 
have originated as another gift by Herakleios to 
Grado; but as M. Werner demonstrated (Studies 
in Iconography 10 [1984-86] 32, n.75), the icon- 
ography of its bas-reliefs suggests on the contrary 
that it may have been made in northern Italy. 

ur. S. Tramontin, DHGE 21 (1986) 1024—29. S. Tava- 
no, Aguilera e Grado (Trieste 1986). Grado nella storia e 
nell'arte, 2 vols. (Udine 1980). C.G. Mor, “Grado da Bisanzio 


a Venezia,” in Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 59 (1979) 11—23. 
-A.K., D.K., A.C.. 


GRAIN. Wheat was the predominant grain in the 
empire. Two archaeological finds from Egypt 
demonstrate that the cultivation of hard wheat, 
which is easier to thresh and store than the soft 
wheat of Roman times, began there just before 
the Arab conquest of the 7th century (A.M. Wat- 
son, Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World 
{Cambridge 1983] 20). Hard wheat was also the 
major grain in the 1oth-C. finds from Beycesultan 
in Anatolia (H. Helbaek, AnatSt 11 [1961] gof). 
Barley was probably cultivated more in the Balkan 
peninsula, whereas wheat was common in Asia 
Minor. In the finds from Beycesultan, rye is at- 
tested in an insignificant amount, but it increased 


vat? 


mn 


fA a E x 5 ec 
agen atapi fae E Eiai 


LE RM Sp: duyan ET 


fhe tke 





i s 
aye Said iay PEZI 
[op Hirra" a Feria aiid 
Aa ce Trpoc Toyu Tens tons 
se otis pagum pike re, 
iq pi crepacsy % Copy a j 


M: vay ate aya npt Agee. ee 


Yasir auo ANT Ea 





Grain. Grinding grain. Miniature in an Octateuch 
manuscript; lower poruon (Vat. gr. 747, fol.25Ir); Hlth 
C. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 


by the end of the 13th C.—a certain Skaranos, in 
his will of ca. 1270—74 (Xerop., no.g.A44), stated 
that he had sown 31 modiot of wheat (sttarion), 27 
modioi of barley (krithe). and 45 modioi of rye (briza). 
Millet (kenchros) was cultivated (e.g., Chil., 10.27.48) 
and used for bread, as was bran (J. Darrouzés, 
BS 23 [1962] 280.63—64), but Symeon SETH (Syn- 
tagma de alimentarum facultatibus 1937.21—25) as- 
serted that millet was injurious to the stomach. 
‘The cultivation ot oats 1s retiected in the tax 
accounts of the castellany of Corinth (J. Longnon, 
P. Topping, Documents sur le régime des terres dans 
la principauté de Morée au XIV" siècle [Paris 1969] 
158). 

The Byz. cultivated both winter and summer 
crops: a 14th-C. historian (Greg. 1:346.21-24) 
observed both young grain (galaktotrophoumenos) 
and ripe grain in the fields at the same ume, and 
Skaranos in his will related that he planted crops 
before 30 Nov. The season of heaviest rainfall 


GRAMMAR 865 


occurs during the winter, favoring the sowing of 
crops in the fall and their harvesting and THRESH- 
ING in the spring. Mirroring such a cycle of pro- 
duction, Michael Psellos admonishes, “The best 
time for sowing of wheat is thought to be the 11th 
and 13th of November. ‘Thereafter come many 
rainy storms, soil and water combining to bring 
the sowings to fruition” (Boissonade, AnecGr 1:242). 
Harvesting is a normal component of Old Testa- 
ment illustration. In the OcTaTEUCHS grain is 
shown being cut with sickles (Uspenskij, Seral’skij 
kodeks, no.284), but is more often gathered with- 
out implements (ibid., nos. 205, 305). 

The supply of grain evidently decreased in the 
7th C., when Byz. lost Egypt and North Africa to 
the Arabs and the steppes of the northern shore 
of the Black Sea also ceased to be a granary for 
the empire. Moreover, Sicily was conquered by 
the Arabs in gog. This probably led to the declin- 
ing consumption of BREAD in Byz., partly com- 
pensated by the growing role of LIVESTOCK. 

uT. J. Teall, “The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Em- 


pire,” DOP 13 yas 87—139. Koukoules, Bios 5:254-74. 
Hendy, Economy 44-54. - J.W.N.. A.K., A.C. 


GRAMMAR (ypaypaTtxn). For Dionysios THRAX 
grammar was “the practical knowledge of the 
language generally used by poets and prose writ- 
ers” and was subdivided into topics such as OR- 
‘VHOGRAPHY, prosody, MORPHOLOGY, mythology, 
and figures of speech (but not synrax). lt was 
thus a descriptive study of the language of Greek 
literature. Byz. teachers continued to use Diony- 
sios’s brief treatise and built round it a vast corpus 
of commentaries; in their hands, however, as the 
spoken language diverged more and more from 
the classicizing language of literature, grammar 
became prescriptive rather than descriptive, and 
laid down rules for correct spelling, inflection, 
meter, etc. Tne Byz. grammai ial (GKAMMA LIKUD), 
responsible for the second stage in education, 
tended to concentrate on the study of classical 
Greek poetry, esp. Homer, leaving prose to the 
teacher of rhetorie (cf. ‘Theodore of Stoudrios, PG 
gg9:117C-D; Michael Psellos, in Sathas, MB 5:g0— 
92). The principal textbooks used until the 12th 
C. were Dionysios Thrax with his Byz. commen- 
taries (esp. that of George CHoiroBosKOS), Theo- 
dosios’s Canons and the commentaries on it, On 
Orthography by THEOGNOSTOS, EPIMERISMS on 


866 GRAMMATIKOS 


Homer and on the Psalms, and a handbook at- 
tributed to Fheodore Prodromos. From the 12th 
C. onward textbooks in the form of questions and 
answers (erotemata) tended to replace the older 
manuals. Anonymous ¢rotemata occur m MSS as 
early as the 12th C., and others were later written 
by Manuel MoscHorou.os, Manuel CuHryso- 

LorAS, Demetrios Chalkokondyles, and others. 
ur. L. Reynolds, N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars? (Ox- 
ford 1974) 38—69. Wilson, Scholars 42f, 68-78. A. Pertusi, 
“Erotemata, Per la storia e le fonu delle prime grammiatiche 
greche a stampa,” MMedUm 5 (1982) 321-41. L Spatha- 
rakis, “An Huminated Greek Grammar Manuscript in Je- 
rusalem,” JOB 35 (1985) 231-44. A. Wouters, The Gram- 

matical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt (Brussels 1979). 
-R.B. 


GRAMMATIKOS (ypaymarixos). In addition to 
its ancient meaning of “scholar” or “teacher” often 
used as a sobriquet, the word came to signify 
scribe or secretary. In the 14th C., pseudo-Kopi- 
NOS (185.23—24) simply equated grammatikos and 
NOTARY. An act of 1217 (Reg 3, no.16g3) mentions 
Nicholas Kalotheos, grammatikos of the imperial 
vestiarton (MM 4:290.5—-6); in 1258 George Pro- 
batas was grammatikos of the theme of the Thrake- 
sion (Ahrweiler, “Smyrne” 160). Several seals of 
grammatikoi, primarily of the 11th~-1e2th C., are 
known (Laurent, Corpus 2:663-67). Délger and 
Karayannopulos (Urkundenlehre 64) suggest that 
the term grammatikos replaced that of ASEKRETIS 
under the Komnenoi. The term also appears in 
the acts of Athos of the 11th~-12th C., probably 
only as a sobriquet but, at least from 1406 (and 
possibly already in the 11th C.), it could signify 
the secretary of a monastery (J. Lefort et al. in 
vir, 1:218). Some patriarchs of Constantinople 
(John VII, Nicholas IH) were called Gram- 
matikoi. -A.K. 


GRAND KOMNENOS (Méyas Kouvnvós), title 
of the emperors of TReBIzonb. An unofficial ep- 
ithet of members of the Komneno! in 12th-C. 
oratory, it was eventually applied to the Trape- 
zuntine branch of the family, which descended 
from ANbRONIKOS I Komnenos. The first ex- 
ample is a MS note concerning the death of Davib 
Komnenos (N. Oikonomides, REB 25 [1967] 141, 
n.67). The initials MK appeared on the coinage 
of Emp. George (1266—80) and by 1282 the title 


was entrenched. B. Hemmerdinger’s hypothesis 
(Byzantion 40 [1970] 33-35) that the title was 
based on that of Hohenstaufen was refuted by O. 
Lampsides (Byzantion 40 [1970] 543-45). The 
purpose of this titulature was to emphasize the 
rights of the Trapezuntine rulers to the Komnen- 
ian heritage. Accordingly, it was only in Trebi- 
zond that the epithet megas was applied to the 
MESAZON. The Grand Komnenoi actively and de- 
liberately emulated the emperors of Constanti- 
nople in the construction of fortifications and the 
patronage of monasteries. Thus ALExios I] Kom- 
NENOS enclosed the lower city of Trebizond with 
a huge wall and fortified Kerasous. He re- 
founded the monastery of St. Eugenios at Trebi- 
zond, as Manuel I of Trebizond (1238-63) or his 
successor had built that of Hagia Sophia in the 
same city. On the model of Hagia Sophia, Con- 
stantinople, portraits of ALEx10s IV KOMNENOS 


Grand Komnenoi and Emperors of Trebizond 


Ruler 





Reign Dates 





ALEXIOS I KOMNENOS 1204—1222 


Andronikos I Gidos 1222-1235 
John I Axouch 1235-1238 
MANUEL I KOMNENOS 1238—1263 
Andronikos H Komnenos 1263-1266 
GEORGE KOMNENOS 1266-1280 
Joux I] KOMNENOS 1280—1297 
1284-1285 
1297-1330 
1330-1332 
1332 
1332-1340 
1340-1341 
17739 July 1341 
30 Julv-7 Aug. 1341 
7 Aug. 1341~4 Sepl. 1342 
1342-1344 
1344-1349 
134971390 
1390—1416/17 
1416/17—1429 
1429- 1458/60 
1459-1481 


Source: Based on Grumel, Chronologie 372. with modifications. 


‘Theodora 

ALEXIOS I] KOMNENOS 
Andronikos IlI Komnenos 
Manuel II Komnenos 
Basil Komnenos 

Irene Palaiologina 
Anna Anachoutlou 
Michael Komnenos 
Anna Anachoutlou 
John HI Komnenos 
Michael Komnenos 
ALEXIOS II] KOMNENOS 
MantEL III KOMNENOS 
ALEXIOS 1V KOMNENOS 
JOHN IV KOMNENOS 


Davip I KOMNENOS 





and his son Jonn IV KoMNenos flank an image 
of the Virgin in the tower of Hagia Sophia, Tre- 
bizond. From JOHN I] Komnenos onward, the 


Grand Komnenoi supported the monastery of 


SouMELA. Even legends of these rulers aped those 
of the emperors of Constantinople: as Romanos 
I of Constantinople allegedly slew a lion, so Al- 
exios IL of Trebizond is said to have destroyed a 
dragon whose head was then publicly exhibited. 
(See table for a list of Grand Komnenot of Tre- 
bizond.) 

urr. R. Macrides, “What's in the Name ‘Megas Komne- 
nos?” ArchPont 35 (1979) 238-453- N. Oikonomides, “The 
Chancery of the Grand Komnenoi: Imperial Tradition and 
Political Reality,” ArchPont 35 (1979) 321-32. S. Karpov, 
“U istokov politiceskoj ideologii Trapezundskoj imperii,” 
VizVrem 42 (1981) 101-05. -C.M.B., A.K., AC. 


GRATIAN, more fully Flavius Gratianus, West- 
ern Roman emperor (from 24 Aug. 367); born 
Sirmium 18 Apr. or 23 May 359, died Lyons 25 
Aug. 383. The son of Valentinian I, in 374 he 
married Constantia, daughter of Constantius ll. 
A pupil of Ausonius, Gratian followed his advice 
after he succeeded his father in Nov. 375 (with 
his half-brother, the minor Valentinian IT, as co- 
ruler). Gratian expressed respect for the senate 
and traditional cultural values such as rhetorical 
education (S. Bonner, AJPh 86 [1965] 113-37) 
and promoted men such as SYMMACHUS, Petro- 
nius PRoBus, and Nicomachus FLAVIANUS. 

The defeat of his uncle Valens at ADRIANOPLE 
in 378 marked a radical change in Gratian’s pol- 
icy. Shocked by the Goths’ victory, Gratian with- 
drew from Illyricum and interpreted the catastro- 
phe as the result of God’s wrath against the people 
of the region because of their Arianism; under 
the growing influence of AMBRoSE he became an 
ardent Christian and supporter of Orthodoxy. He 
had the ALTAR OF VICTORY removed from the 
senate of Rome, and iu 37y or rather 363 (Ai. 
Cameron, JRS 58 [1968] 96-99) renounced the 
pagan title of pontifex maximus. He sought alliances 
with people like Theodosios I, whom he ap- 


pointed ruler of the East in 379. The revolt of 


Maximus in 383 provoked discontent in Gratian’s 


army. He was assassinated by his own magister 


equitum. 


Lre. Stein, Histoire 1:183-85, 200-202. O. Seeck, RE 7 
(igtg) 1831-39. M. Fortina, L'imperatore Graziano (Turin 


GREAT CHURCH 867 


33). G. Gottlieb, Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian 
(Gottingen 1973) -T.E.G. 





GRAVE-ROBBING (muBwpvxia) belongs, like 
SACRILEGE (Averosylia), to which it is closely related, 
to crimes against religion. It included every kind 
of desecration of burial places, esp. the plunder- 
ing of valuables, the theft of building material, 
and the unauthorized exhumation of corpses. The 
type of punishment varies accordingly, ranging 
from penalues for THEFT to capital punishment 
(Basil. 60.23; Ecloga 17.14; Nov. Leo VI 96; Bal- 
samon, in Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 1:207—09, 325f). 
Ecclesiastical law, which assigns EPITIMIA to grave- 
robbers, recognizes comparable variations (Basil 
the Great, canon 66; Gregory of Nyssa, canon 7; 
and the Byz. commentaries, Rhalles-Potles, Syn- 
tagma 4:222, 326-28). Valuable grave goods in- 
creased the likelihood of grave-robbing; the des- 
ecration of imperial graves may also have been 
politically motivated. Grave-robbing (Alopophoresai 
to soma, cf. vita of St. Peter of Athos, ed. K. Lake, 
The Early Days of Monasticism on Mount Athos [Ox- 
ford 1909] 34.34f) is a relatively rare subject in 
hagiography: usually the saint is described as ca- 
pable of protecting his own grave from desecra- 
tion (e.g., GEORGE OF AMASTRIS, St. NICHOLAS OF 
Myra in 809). 


uT. Koukoules, Bios 4:1 90-93, 242f. Troianos, Poinalros 
99—101. -L.B., A.K. 


GREAT CHURCH (7 pweyadn éxxdAnoita), the 
original name of the Church of Hacia SOPHIA in 
Constantinople; aceording to a 5th-C. ecclesias- 
tical historian (Sokr. HE 2.16), the emperor Con- 
stanuus II “built the Great Church that is now 
called Sophia.” The edifice took this name no 
doubt because it was larger than any other church 
in Constantinople. Even after the church came to 
be calicd Tlayia Supitia, n twnunucd tU Dear tuie 
currently the name Great Church (Prokopios, 
Buildings 1.1.66). By the 8th C. the term was also 
applied to the patriarchate of Constantinople and 
by extension to the entire Orthodox Church. The 
seals of patriarchal officials frequently call them 
oikonomos, chartoularios, ete., “of the Great Church” 
(e.g., Laurent, Corpus 5.1, nos. 50-54, 66-71). 
The expression megale ekklesia or megas naos might 
also be applied to some larger provincial churches 


868 GREAT ENTRANCE 


such as Hagia Sophia in Thessalonike (S. Kapla- 
neres, Byzantiaka 5 [1985] 84f). ~A.M.T. 


GREAT ENTRANCE (h peyaaAn eicosdos), ritual 
procession that opens the second half of the LIT- 
uRGY, the EvcHarist, just as the LrrrLe En- 
TRANCE opens the earlier part, the Liturgy of the 
Word. The deacon carries the paten with the 
eucharistic bread and the priest the chalice with 
the wine from the prothesis chamber (see Pas- 
TOPHORIA) into the nave of the church, then 
through the TEMPLON to the altar. The entrance 
of the bread and wine symbolizes Christ’s coming 
in the sacrament of his body and blood. 

The Great Entrance is a ritualization of the 
primitive transfer of the gifts offered by the con- 
gregation: these gifts were brought from the 
skeuophylakion or treasury to the altar by deacons. 
It is first attested at Constantinople in sources of 
the 6th C. (Eutychios of Constantinople—PG 86.2: 
2400C—2401B), at which time the CHEROUBIKON 
chant was added to accompany it. Formerly called 
the “entrance of the holy mysteries” (Maximos the 
Confessor, PG g1:693C) or simply the “prepara- 
tory procession of the deacons” (Germanos, Lit- 
urgy, par.37), it is first called the Great Entrance 
in the 12th—13th-C. praTaxis in Athens (Nat. Lib. 
gr. 662, P. Treinpelas, Hai treis lettourgiai kata tous 
en Athenais kodikas (Athens 1935], p.g) to distin- 
guish it from the Little Entrance. 

Early COMMENTARIES interpreted the Great En- 
trance also as the angelic procession of the Celes- 
tial Eucharist (see Lorp’s Supper), later also as 
the triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (see PALM 
Sunpay), as Jesus led to the cross, as his burial 
cortège, his entry into glory, the entrance of the 
saints and the just, ete. The Great Entrance in 
Hagia Sophia was esp. splendid on those days 
when the emperor participated in the liturgy, 
moving at the head of a vast procession of clergy 
and members of the court through the church to 
greet the patriarch at the doors of the templon. 


LIT. R. Taft, The Great Entrance (Rome 1975). —R.F.T. 


GREAT FEASTS were originally distinguished 
from regular liturgical Feasts on the basis of the 
special liturgical practices surrounding their cel- 
ebration. In the TyPiKON OF THE GREAT CHURCH 
only Easter. the Nativity, and Epiphany were dis- 
tinguished as Great Feasts; they were preceded 





Great Feasrs. Icon of the Great Feasts; mosaic, early 
14th C. Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Florence. Left 
half of a diptych showing six Great Feasts: the Annun- 
ciation, Nativity, Hypapante, Baptism of Christ, Trans- 
figuration, Raising of Lazarus. 


by a forefeast in the form of a viGiL the night 
before. The number of Great Feasts eventually 
increased to 12 (dodekavrton): nine fixed feasts 
(ANNUNCIATION, NatTiviry, EPIPHANY, HYPA- 
PANTE, [RANSFIGURATION, BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN, 
the PRESENTATION OF THE VIRGIN and the Dor- 
MITION, the Exaltation of the Cross) and three 
mobile (PALM SUNDAY, ASCENSION, PENTECOST). 
The “paschal triduum” (Goop FRIDAY to EASTER) 
was SO important as to be in a class by itself, 
beyond the category of Great Feasts. 

Only the nine fixed feasts have both a forefeast 
(proeortia)—usually one day long but lasting five 
days at Christmas and four at Epiphany—and an 
afterfeast period (metheorta) of one to eight days, 
plus a closure (apodosis). These same nine feasts, 
as well as four others—Circumcision (1 Jan.), the 
Birth (24 June) and Beheading (29 Aug.) of JOHN 


THE Baptist, and Sts. PETER and PauL (2g June}— 
were important enough to have at orthros a single 
kanon, that of the feast, as well as the Great Dox- 
oLoGY; all have Great Vespers, and a vigil that is 
usually an AGRYPNIA. Nativity and Epiphany have 
further festive material the preceding and follow- 
ing Saturday and Sunpay and the older Constan- 
tinopolitan paramone as a vigil, instead of the mo- 
nastic agrypnia, the eve of the feast—these being 
elements retained froin the 1oth-C. Typikon. 

The manner and degree to which the emperor 
participated in the liturgy of these feasts was not 
always related to the solemnity of the feast itself. 
His involvement on Palm Sunday and Easter, for 
example, was actually less than on some other 
days. 

The choice of what constituted a Great Feast 
did not in fact always have a purely liturgical basis, 
and in other contexts the list could be different. 
The illustrated dodekaorton cycles, which dominate 
Byz. art in all media from the 11th C. onward, 
comprise six fixed feasts (Annunciation, Nativity, 
Epiphany, Hypapante, Transfiguration, Dormi- 
tion) and six mobile (Lazarus SATURDAY, Palm 
Sunday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Pente- 
cost), 

Only the dominical Great Feasts totally dis- 
placed a Sunday office. Six Great Feasts were 
followed by a syNaxis or closely related special 
commemoration, to which should be added the 
commemoration of the Holy Spirit the Monday 
after Pentecost. 

(For the artistic representation of Great Feasts, 
see NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATION and entries on 
individual feasts.) 


uit. Mother Mary, K. Ware, trs., The Festal Menaion? 
(London 1977). -R.F T. 


GREAT LAVRA. See Lavra, GREAT. 


GREAT PALACE (Méya raddzeov), the imperial 
palace of Constantinople situated on a sloping site 
between the HippopRoME and the sea walls. Built 
or begun by Constantine I, it remained the actual 
residence of the emperors until the reign of Al- 
exios 1, who moved his court to the BLACHERNAI 
palace, and continued as the official imperial res- 
idence until 1204. The Latin emperors also lived 
there. 


GREAT PALACE 869 


The archaeological remains of the palace are 
meager. Apart from a system of artificial terraces 
(ŒŒ. Mamboury, T. Wiegand, Die Kaiserpalaste von 
Konstantinopel [Berlin-Leipzig 1934]), they are lim- 
ited to: (1) a seaward façade deployed along two 
re-entrant angles of the sea walls, overlooking the 
aruficial harbor of Boukoleon; (2) a stretch of 
defensive wall, probably the one built by Nike- 
phoros I] Phokas, running north from the old 
lighthouse tower of the sea walls; and (3) rem- 
nants of an apsed hall preceded by a peristyle 
court (66 x 55 m), the latter decorated with a 
magnificent FLOOR Mosaic. This complex, exca- 
vated in 1935-38 and 1952—54, appears to date 
no earlier than the reign of Justinian I and has 
not been convincingly identified with any of the 
palatine buildings known from the textual evi- 
dence. 

‘The palace is best known to us as it was in the 
gth-1oth C. and should be visualized not as a 
synimetrically planned complex (although parts 
of it may have been) but as an irregular agglom- 
eration of buildings of various dates separated by 
gardens and sporting grounds. The three princi- 
pal texts that help us to recreate the layout of the 
palace are the DE CEREMONIIS; the description in 
TheophCont (139-43, 325f) of the buildings put 
up by the emperors Theophilos and Basil I; and 
the account by Nicholas Mesarires of the failed 
coup of John Komnenos the Fat in 1200. On the 
basis of these and other sources, repeated at- 
tempts have been made to reconstruct the palace 
on paper, the first by J. Labarte (1861). All are 
highly conjectural. 

Of the earlier phase of the palace relatively little 
is known. It had a monumental vestibule called 
CHALKE opening on to the main street (MESE) to 
the southeast of Hacia SopHiA; an area occupied 
by the barracks of the palace guards (scholarit, 
excubitores, candidali); a “public” section, centered 
on a big court (called 1 ribunal or Delphax) with 
meeting rooms (Consistorium, Augusteus) and a 
dining room (the Hall of the 1g Couches) grouped 
around it; finally, a residential wing called Daphne, 
which communicated with the imperial box 
(Karuisma) in the Hippodrome by means of a 
spiral staircase (kochhas). A chapel of St. Stephen 
was added by Pulcheria (ca.428) and another, of 
St. Michael, before the end of the 5th C. The 
palace had a harbor or other landing facilities and 
was certainly protected by a wall. A private sport- 


870 GREECE 


ing ground called “the covered Hippodrome” may 
have dated from the same period. 

The Chalke and guards’ quarters were burned 
down in the Nika Revolt (532) and rebuilt by 
Justinian I. Justin II is credited with the CHRY- 
SOTRIKLINOS (Golden Hall), a domed octagon that 
was to become the throne room and ceremonial 
center of the palace. Tiberios I (soon after 578) 
remodeled the north section of the palace to pro- 
vide new quarters for himself and his family. A 
further expansion was carried out by Justinian l, 
who strengthened the palace walls and built a big 
reception hall called Ioustinianos or the TRIKLI- 
NOS OF JusrINIAN. The next important building 
phase was initiated by Theophilos, who erected a 
two-story complex (the Trikonchos, the Sigma, 
and several pavilions). Next, Basil I put up resi- 
dential rooms (the Kainourgion and the Penva- 
KOUBOUKLON), the Nra EKKLESIA, and several 
chapels and laid out a polo ground (TZYKANIS- 
TERION). 

Judging the detenses of the palace to be inad- 
equate, Nikephoros II surrounded what was then 
the central part of it. i.e., the part overlooking 
the palatine harbor of Boukoleon, with a strong 
wall. No further building activity is recorded until 
the mid-1eth C., when Manuel I erected a hall 
called Manouelites decorated with mosaics depict- 
ing his victories (P. Magdalino, BMGS 4 [1978] 
101—14) and probably another, in the Seljuk style, 
called Mouchroutas, directly to the west of the 
Chrysotriklinos. During the Palaiologan period 
the palace gradually fell into decay; except for 
the Nea Ekklesia, little of it had survived by the 
time of the Turkish conquest. 

ur. J. Ebersolt, Le Grand Palais de Constantinople (Paris 
1910). J.B. Bury, “The Great Palace,” BZ 21 (1912) 210- 
25. Great Palace, 1st Report. Great Palace, 2nd Report. Mango, 
Brazen House. Guilland, Topographie 1:3-367. S. Miranda, 
Etude de topographie du Palais Sacré de Byza nece? (Mexico City 
1976). W. Jobst, “Der Kaiserpalast Konstantinopel und 
seine Mosaiken,” Antike Welt 18.3 (1987) 2—22. J. rilling, 
“The Soul of the Empire: Style and Meaning in the Mosaic 
Pavement of the Imperial Palace in Constantinople,” DOP 
43 (1989) 27-72. -C.M. 


GREECE, the southern part of the Balkan penin- 
sula, encompassing the PELOPONNESOS, Central 
Greece (Arvica, Bororia, Akarnania, AITO- 
LIA), Northern Greece (THESSALY, MACEDONIA, 
Epiros), and the islands of the Aegean and Ionian 
seas. The traditional concept of an economic de- 


cline of Greece during the late Roman period 
needs substantial revision: even though the des- 
tinies of individual cities differed (THESSALONIKE 
flourished, while ATHENS stagnated), classical ur- 
ban civilization prevailed in the q4th—6th C. and 
was able to overcome the attacks of the Goths and 
Huns. The antique city pattern remained despite 
active construction of churches (T. Gregory in 
City, Town and Couutryside in the Early Byzantine Era 
[New York 1982] 43-73). The situation changed 
drastically in the 7th C.; it remains under discus- 
sion whether it was the result of an internal eco- 
nomic and political crisis (the mechanism of which 
escapes us) or was caused by the invasion of the 
Avars and Slavs (whose impact, however, could 
not have been greater than that of the Goths and 
Huns). The ancient cities disappeared or were 
ruralized, construction work ceased almost en- 
tirely, and new settlers penetrated down to the 
southern parts of the Peloponnesos. 

The old administrative system (Greece be- 
longed to the prefecture of ILLYRICUM), forming 
the provinces of AcHata, Thessaly, Macedonia, 
and Epiros, dissolved, since Constantinople re- 
tained control essentially over ouly a narrow strip 
along the sea coast with cities such as Thessalonike 
and CorintTH, whereas in the interior indepen- 
dent principalities (sce SKLAviNia), tribal units, 
and semi-independent grand possessions (like those 
of the widow Danes) became established. 

Ecclesiastical administration also underwent 
changes by the end of the 7th C.: many bishoprics 
ceased to exist—at the Council of 680 only the 
bishops of Lakedaimon, Athens, Corinth, and Ar- 
gos were present as well as a handful of Mace- 
donian representatives: Thessalonike, Selyimbria, 
Herakleia, Mesembria, Bizye, Ainos, Philippi, 
Amphipolis, Edessa, Uzusa, Dyrrachion, Stobi 
(Ostrogorsky, Byz. Geschichte 107-09); in the No- 
tilia of pseudo-Epiphanios 27 metropolitans from 
Asia Minor are listed and only five from Greece, 
predominantly from northern regions (Thrace, 
Rhodope, Haimimontos [see Hatmos]). A part of 
Greece stood under the jurisdiction of Rome until 
the mid-8th C. 

The Byz. reconquest of Greece began at the 
end of the 8th C. and, though in some districts 
Slavic villages survived through the 14th C., the 
country was deeply hellenized by the ioth C. (J. 
Herrin, BSA 68 [1973] 113-26). In the 11th and 
izth C. Greece witnessed an economic revival 


GREECE | 871 


24° 


P T Philippopolis 


A, 


3 & ka aot 


N z 
ne a harkai p | 


Le ‘ 
UA 
ę ee Berroiag” 
Oy 


I 


> 
ory “a 


\ Argyro akastron 
wo 


è 4 


‘gBow uthroton 
ye 

1 & 
AERMYR ASS s 


Se 
Kerkri 


Taimyras A 


vLacHIHA À ; 

$ Lamia, A 
Neapaoary L 

å, Ao ry 


are BS Corinthe ag Kenchre 


garo THOS. PELOPONNESOS” P S 
7 Pee MOREA) ‘Naupļia © 


f Karytainas oNikli ; DNG) 
IONIAN ye 


C need 


SEA 


Methone 


CITIES AND 
REGIONS OF 
GREECE 


Themes shown thus: STRYMON 
Regions shown tbus: 4 PTICA 





greater than Asia Minor: the larger cities such as 
Thessalonike, Corinth, and Thebes successfully 
competed with Constanunople as trade and man- 
ufacturing centers, and splendid churches were 
erected throughout Greece. Some writers (e.g., 
Michael Choniates) deplored the cultural decline 
of ancient cities such as Athens, but probably this 
attitude itself indicates the increasing self-con- 
sclousness of provincial intellectuals who accused 


cae -Uhry spots: 


3° CHALKIDIKE Shiietisos ve 


oe = ekitros 2 Iiris TEN N 
k “ES a l Kassandreia’ ` r SOF 
YSekia D- yPlatamon ì Ne OAR 


Me el 


~tebres Ne 
*Stenimachos S T 


= \y Adrianople k 
t Bulgarophy vgon ` 
& A C A 


fzoloron, 


Sw “ef o 
Sety. Mri, è Bosporos 


Rhaidestose _..- 
Princes’ 


kameny 
SEA OF MARMAR 1 Islands 
Pr: skennes n 


Christoupolis  Maroneic =, 
ITHASOS Sa 
r. SAMOTHRACL <allipoli a ales 
ne 
St oy r o Kyzikos, 
‘Dardanelles / 


IMBROS — 
caine Abydos pi 


TENOS” 


AEGEAN 

È = 
lee 
SEA ee 


Shiren 


MINOR 


A 
oS, Heros ra 


“Philadelphia 
i 


Ste RA a hn 
Ç Kuistrus 
f s 38° 


Seriju wo 


Lae y 
Simos 7 


Hilos aan A 
ab ( 


Sy 
RHODOS, Pood _ 
á van 
a I 
f 


urpathos 


Ce- Changax 


ai A CRETE | SP gee he Miles 


100 150 km 
B° 


Constantinople of grasping the lion’s share of 
wealth and glory. At any rate, many first-rate 
literati dwelt in Greek towns and actively partici- 
pated in local administrative and ecclesiastical life. 

Administrative units of Herras and ‘Thrace were 
formed in Greece from which gradually other 
themes separated: Peloponnesos, Nikopolis, Dyr- 
rachion, ‘Thessalonike, Macedonia, Strymon, Bo- 
leron; other themes encompassed the islands of 


872 GREEK 


the Aegean Sea. Rome lost its jurisdiction over 
East Ulyricum. A notitia of the d3th—gth C. reflects 
the growing role of Greece in church organiza- 
tion: there are listed 27 metropolitans from Asia 
Minor compared with ten metropolitans from 
Greece, including southern sites—Patras, Athens, 
and Larissa. 

After the fall of Constanunople to the Crusad- 
ers in 1204, Greece was relatively easily conquered 
by the Franks, in contrast to Asia Minor where 
they meta stubborn resistance. Boniface of Mont- 
terrat established himself as the king of Thessa- 
lonike, then the following Frankish states were 
created: the principality of AcHaia (Morea), and 
the duchy of the Archipelago (both under the 
direct suzerainty of the Latin emperor of Con- 
stantinople); the lordship of Athens and Thebes 
standing in a vassal relationship to the king of 
Thessalonike; Euboea (NEGROPONTE), which was 
dependent on Thessalonike and Venice; and the 
county of Kephalenia, in theory held by Venice 
but actually autonomous. 

The centers of Byz. resistance in Greece were 
the despotate of Eprros and MONEMVaSIA as well 
as sonte mountainous areas of Taygetos that es- 
caped subjugation to Achaia. By 1248 Monem- 
vasia had to surrender, but by that time the em- 
pire of Nicaea became a factor; in 1259 at the 
battle of PELAGonia it showed itself as the strong- 
est power in the Balkans, and in 1261 a Nicaean 
general was able to reconquer Constantinople. In 
1262 Achaia ceded three strongholds (MISTRA, 
Monemvasia, and Marna) to the Byz. emperor, 
thus opening the way for the Greek recovery of 
a part of the Peloponnesos; Michael VIII also 
attacked Thessaly and Euboea and then pene- 
trated as far as Avlon and Dyrrachion. The Byz. 
reconquest of Greece, however, was short-lived: 
first the CATALAN GRAND Company, then the Ser- 
bian offense under Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, and 
finally the Turkish invasion climinated the suc- 
cesses achieved by the Greeks in the second half 
of the 13th C. 

In the 14th and 15th C. Greece was divided 
into various independent and semi-independent 
seigneuries, of which Epiros, the despotate of 
Morea, and Kephalenia seem to have been the 
most stable and militarily active; these seigneuries 
engaged in constant internecine warfare, and also 
fought against the Turks, Serbs, Albanians, invad- 
ers from Italy, and not infrequently Constanti- 


nople. Nevertheless, the country prospered eco- 
nomieally; population density grew; and trade 
relations with Venice, Dubrovnik, and Sicily flour- 
ished. The relations between the Franks and the 
Grecks were not strictly determined; the Byz. 
ruling class found a modus vivendi, strengthened 
by intermarriages; the ordinary Greeks, however, 
felt oppressed by both Latin knights and Italian 
merchants, and Orthodoxy, in opposition to the 
idea of subordination to the pope, served as an 
expression of ethnic and social hatred. 

‘The Turkish occupation of the Greek mainland 
was accomplished by 1460 (the conquest of Mo- 
rea); it put an end to the existence of the multi- 
national agglomeration created in Greece during 
the 13th—15th C. Some islands continued their 
independent status for a while longer, partly un- 
der Venetian protection. 

tir. A. Philipson, Die griechischen Landschaften, 2 vols. 
(Frankfurt a.M. 1950—52). D. Zakythenos, He byzantine Hel- 
las (Athens 1965). N. Cheetham, Mediaeval Greece (New 
Haven-London 1981). J-M. Spieser, “La ville en Grèce du 
Hle au Vile siécle,” in Villes et peuplement dans lIllyricum 
protobyzantin (Rome 1984) 315-40. P. Charanis, “On the 
Demography of Medieval Greece: A Problem Solved,” BadkSt 
20 (1979) 193—218. A. Vasiliev, “Slavjane v Grecii,” VizVrem 
5 (1898) 404-38. 626—70. -A.K. 


GREEK. See LANGUAGE. 


GREEK ANTHOLOGY, conventional title for two 
collections of ancient and Byz. epigrams. 

1. Anthologia Palatina, the name given to a 
collection of about 3,700 EPIGRAMS contained in a 
unique MS, now divided between Heidelberg 
(Palat. gr. 23) and Paris (B.N., suppl. gr. 384). 
The MS is usually dated to the 10th C. (A.D.E. 
Cameron, GRBS 11 [1970] 339-50), but an 11th- 
C. date has been proposed by R. Aubreton (REA 
70 [1968] 32—82; AntC/ 38 [1969] 459f). Present- 
ing complex codicological problems, the MS—in 
which several hands can be distinguished—also 
includes revisions and late insertions. Created by 
an unknown compiler, who probably drew on the 
1oth-C. KEPHALAS anthology of pagan classical 
and late antique epigrams and funerary inscrip- 
tions, the Anthologia Palatina is set out in 15 books. 
Of these, books 3—7, 9-12, and probably 13-14 
represent the core taken from Kephalas’s collec- 
tion. Books 1 (Christian epigrams, largely from 
inscriptions in churches), 8 (funerary epigrams by 
GREGORY OF Nazianzos), and 15 (a miscellaneous 


group, concluding with poems by ARETHAS OF 
CAESAREA, IGNATIOS THE DEACON, and Komcetas 
as well as inscriptions from the HIPPODROME) are 
yoth-C. additions. Book 2 is made up of the ek- 
phrasis by CHRISTODOROS OF Kopros on the statues 
in the ZeEuxippos in Constantinople. A represen- 
tative work of 1oth-C. ENCYCLOPEDISM, the An- 
thologia Palatina is an invaluable witness, without 
which the work of many poets (¢.g., PALLADAS or 
those in the Cycle of AGarutas) would have been 
completely lost. 

2. Anthologia Planudea, a collection of some 
2,400 epigrams made by Maximos PLANouDES and 
surviving in an autograph MS (Venice, Marc. 
gr. 481, dated 1299) and two apographa, revised 
in 1300 or 1305 under Planoudes’ supervision; 
of these, one (London, BM Add. 164069; D.C.C. 
Young, ParPass 10 [1955] 197—214) is a prelimi- 
nary revision and the other, now fragmentary 
(Paris, B.N. gr. 2744; R. Aubreton, Scriptorium 23 
[1969] 69-87), is his final version; the latter was 
used for Laskaris’s edition of the Greek Anthology 
in 1494. The epigrams in Marc. gr. 481 are set 
out in two blocks, the second being additions to 
be incorporated into the first; from this it appears 
that Planoudes had access to two ANTHOLOGIES of 
epigrams, both of which resembled the Anthologia 
Palatina, and also a version of the anthology of 
Kephalas (R. Aubreton, REA 70 [1968] 32-82). 
Planoudes expurgated his sources and rearranged 
his selection into seven books: epidcictic epigrams, 
satiric, funerary, ekphrastic, the ekphrasis of Chris- 
todoros of Koptos, votive, and amatory. Within 
each book the epigrams were arranged alphabet- 
ically by theme. Some 388 epigrams in the An- 
thologia Planudea are not found in the Anthologia 
Palatina; these are conventionally but somewhat 
misleadingly printed as book 16, the “Appendix 
Planudea,” in modern editions of the Greek An- 
thology. Demetrios TRIKLINIOS prepared a revised 
edidon of the Anihoiogia Pianudea. 

ED. H. Beckby, Anthologia Graeca”, 4 vols. (Munich 1965), 
with Germ. tr. W.R. Paton, The Greek Anthology, 5 vols. 
(London-New York 1925—27), with Eng. tr. Anthologie grecque, 
ed. P. Waltz et al., 13 vols. (Paris 1928-80), with Fr. tr. 

irr. J. Bauer, “Zu den christlichen Gedichten der An- 


thologia Graeca” JOB 9 (1960) 31—40; 10 (1961) 31—37- 
-E.MJ. 


GREEK-CROSS DOMED OCTAGON. See 
CHURCH PLAN Types. 


GREEK OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE | 873 


GREEK FIRE (iypov mòp, lit. “liquid fame”). 
KALLINIKOS was said to be the inventor of the 
liquid fire that saved Constantinople from the 
Arabs in 678 and from the Rus’ in 941. Its exact 
composition and means of propulsion are stili 
uncertain, esp. since the term “Greek fire” was 
used to refer to various types of incendiary weap- 
ons. Although some scholars prefer to understand 
Greek fire as an explosive compound triggered 
by saltpeter (E. Paszthory, Antike Welf 17.2 [1986] 
27-37), the most likely ingredients included crude 
oil (obtained from regions east of the Azov Sea 
[TMUTOROKAN, Zicuia] or from wells east of Ar- 
menia listed in De adm. imp. 53.483-511) mixed 
with resin and sulphur, which was then heated 
and propelled by a pump (siphon) through a bronze 
tube (strepton). The liquid jet was ignited either as 
it left the tube or by flaming projectiles fired after 
it. The Byz. were careful never to divulge details 
on the composition or propulsion of Greek fire 
(De adm. imp. 13.73-—103); thus even when the 
Bulgars captured a great supply of the mixture 
and firing tubes (Theoph. 499.13~14) they were 
unable to use them. 

The use of Greek fire in sea battles is frequently 
mentioned in the sources, but it was also used in 
siege machinery (see ARTILLERY AND SIEGE Ma- 
CHINERY). ‘The Arab historian Ibn alAthir de- 
scribes the terrible effect of flame-throwing tubes 
during the Byz. attack on Duin in g27, a danger 
the Arabs were able to avert only by killing the 
operator (Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes 2.21150). The re- 
mains of a medieval workshop that produced Greek 
fire “grenades” were discovered in Hama-EpipHa- 
NEIA (P. Pentz, Antiquity 62, no.234 [1988] 89-93). 

uit. J.F. Haldon, M. Byrne, “A Possible Solution to the 
Problem of Greek Fire,” BZ 70 (1977) 91-99. J.R. Parting- 
ton, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (Cambridge 1980) 
1—41. A. & N. Vasojevic, “Naphtha,” Philologus 128 (1984) 


208-29. Th.K. Korres, Hygron pyr (Thessalonike 1985). 
-E.M. 


GREEK OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE long remained 
in use as a VERNACULAR Or as a learned language. 
In Syria and Palestine some monasteries, esp. the 
Lavra of St. Sagas, preserved Greek learning after 
the Arab conquest and produced famous authors 
such as JOHN OF Damascus; the revival of Greek 
hagiography started in this area at the end of the 
8th C., and Arabic translations (e.g., by Hunayn 
ibn Ishaq) bear witness to familiarity with Greek 


874 GREENS 


culture. This knowledge apparently declined after 
the gth C. in this region, except in and around 
Antioch. Greek was well known im Armenia, 
Georgia, and Alania, and in use as a liturgical and 
administrative language in Nusia. Also in Egypt 
after the Arab conquest Greek persisted in ad- 
ministration and theology for over a century and 
still survives in parts of the Coptic liturgy. In the 
Balkans some PROTO-BULGARIAN INSCRIPTIONS are 
in Greck characters, and later Bulgaria played an 


important part in conveying the knowledge of 


Greek to the Rus’, who received their Greek also 
via Tmutorokan, Cherson, and Mt. Athos. Greek 
liturgical chants were sung in Russian churches, 
and as late as the 14th C. the minutes of church 
councils were written in Greek. In Sicily and 
southern Italy Greek continued to be spoken after 
the end of Byz. rule: documents in Greek survive, 
and Greek poetry and hagiography still flourished 
in the 1gth C. In Rome, Greek exiles, concen- 
trated in the Forum Boarium, kept their language 
alive in the 7th-1oth C. Farther afield the knowl- 
edge of Greck was limited and sporadic—in Eng- 
land and Ireland it died out soon after BEDE and 
Johannes Scotus Eriugena; thanks to intermar- 
riages, there was some knowledge of Greek at the 
court of the Ottonians. After the Crusades an 
interest in Greek was revived; among others, the 
Englishman Robert GROSSETESTE and the Fleming 
WILLIAM OF MOERBEKE translated works of Aris- 
totle. (See also TRANSLATION.) 

ur. W. Berschin, Griechisch-latemisches Mittelalter: von Hi- 
eronymus zu Nikolaus von Kues (Berne-Munich 1980). H. and 
R. Kahane, RB 1:345—-498. E. Delaruelle, “La connaissance 
du gree en Occident du Ve au IXe siècle,” Mélanges de la 
Société Toulousaine d'Etudes Classiques 1 (1946) 207-26. K.M. 
Setton, “The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renais- 
sance,” PAPAS 100 (1956) 1-76. J. Kubińska, Faras IV: 
Inscriptions grecques chrétiennes (Warsaw 1974), rev. T. Hägg. 
Orientalia Suecana 25—26 (1976—77) 144-150. P. Courcelle, 
Les lettres grees en Occident? (Paris 1948). -R.B.. A.R. 


GREENS. Sce FACTIONS. 


GREGENTIOS (Tponyévrios), archbishop of Za- 
far, in South Arabia, and saint, fl. mid-6th C. His 
biography is based mainly on haphazard and leg- 
endary information (R. Aubert, DHGE 21 [1986] 
19881). According to the vita (BHG 705d) by 
Palladios, bishop of Najran, also preserved in a 
Slavonic translation, Gregentios was born in the 
late 5th C. in Moesia. After journeying to north 


and central Italy, he sailed to Alexandria; from 
there, soon after the martyrdom of Christians at 
NagjRAn and the Axumite intervention of 525 that 
ended with the defeat of the Jewish Himyarite 
king Dut Nuwas, the patriarch of Alexandria, 
called Proterios in the vita (but actually Timothy 
I1), sent him as bishop to the land of Himyar 
(V. Christides, Annales d'Éthiopie g [1972] 115~ 
46). Having consecrated several churches to- 
gether with the Axumite king Kaléb “Ella “Asbeha 
(ELESBOAM), Gregentios remained in Zafar at the 
side of ABRAHA, the newly appointed Axumite 
viceroy of Himyar, to reestablish Christian Ortho- 
doxy. He died some thirty years later, on 1g Dec., 
and was inscribed on this day in the Synaxarian of 
Constantinople (Synax.CP 328-30; G. Fiaceadori, 
Egitto e Vicino Oriente 3 [1980] 314, n.79). 

With the name of the saint are also connected 
the so-called Laws for the Himyarites (BHG 706h— 
i), and the Conversation with Herban the Jew (BHG 
706d); ostensibly forming an integral part of the 
vita, both are, in different measure, subsequent 
compilations. The whole dossicr was assembled 
not before the ioth C., although the Laws for the 
Himyarites shares some points with legal inscrip- 
tons from pre-Islamic South Arabia (A.K. Irvine, 
BSOAS 30 [1967] zgot), and the Conversation, a 
cento of passages from various texts, may reflect 
the drastic efforts of the saint to convert the local 


Jews. 


Gregentios is called Gregory in one MS of the 
vita (BHG 7oKa). The latter name (a lectio facilior) 
appears constantly in the Slavonic tradition and 
is also found in the inscription on a Cypriot fresco 
of 1110-18 that portrays the saint (C. Mango, E. 
Hawkins, DOP 18 [1964] 339 and fig.44). 

sources. A.A. Vasiliev, “Žitie sv. Grigentija, episkopa 
Omiritskogo.” VizVrem 14 (1907—09) 23-67. PG 86:568- 
78 
7°4- 

LIT. Patlagean, Structure, pLXIL (1964), 579-602. 1. 
Shahid, “Byzanuum in South Arabia.” DOP 33 (1979) 23- 
g4 G. Fiaccadori, “Yemen nestoriano,” in Studi in onore di 
Edda Bresciani, ed. S.F. Bondi et al. (Pisa, n.d. [1985]) 1986 
210f. -G.F. 


GREGORAS, NIKEPHOROS, polymath and his- 
torian; born Herakleia Pontike ca. 1290/1 (V. Grecu, 
BSHAcRoum 27 [1946] 56-61) or 1293/4 (H.-V. 
Beyer, JÖB 27 [1978] 129f), died Constantinople 
between 1358 and 1361. Orphaned as a child, 
Gregoras (Cpnyopas) was initially educated by his 
uncle John, inetropolitan of Herakleia. Circa 1314/ 


15 he went to Constantinople to study logic and 
rhetoric with the future Patr. Jonn XII GLYKYS, 
and philosophy and astronomy with Theodore 
METOCHITES. He supported ANDRONIKOS IT in the 
avil war of 1321-28, but later also found favor 


with ANDRONIKOS ITI. Gregoras was a partisan of 


JOHN V1 Kantakouzenos during the Civi. WAR 
OF 1341—47; from 1347, however, when Gregoras 
succeeded AKINDYNOS as leader of the anti-Palam- 
ite party, his fortunes declined. Shortly after tak- 
ing monastic vows, he was condemned and anath- 
ematized by the local council of Constantinople 
of 1351 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS 
or) and placed under house arrest. After his death 
his corpse was dragged through the streets of the 
capital. 

Gregoras was one of the most versatile scholars 
of the 14th C. Based at the CHora monastery, 
where he ran a school and had access to the library 
of Metochites, he wrote hagiography (including 
Lives of MICHAEL SYNKELLOS; “THEOPHANO, wife 
of Leo VI; and John of Herakleia), rhetorical 
works, and theological treatises (antirrhetics against 
Gregory PaLamas). His dialogue Phlorentios, or On 
Wisdom, a discussion between Gregoras and Bar- 
laam of Calabria, is a successful imitation of a 
Platonic dialogue. He also maintained an exten- 
sive correspondence, wrote treatises on the con- 
struction of the astrolabe, and calculated ECLIPSES; 
his proposals for calendar reform and for the 
calculation of the date of EASTER were not adopted, 
but presaged the Gregorian reform of 1582. 

The most important work of Gregoras was his 
Rhomaike Historia, in 37 books. It covered the 
period 1204-1359, and he imposed a strict an- 
nalistic structure on his material. He emphasized 
the events of his own lifetime, with particular 
attention to theological controversy. Gregoras re- 
jected a determinist explanation of historical events, 
arguing that God is not responsible for men’s evil 
actions, but that he does foresee the future (A. 
Kazhdan, Byzantion 50 [1980] 320, 324f). Al- 
though the history was composed over many years 
and never properly edited or revised by Gregoras, 


itis an extremely valuable source for the first half 


of the 14th C. and as a complement to the mem- 
virs of Kantakouzenos. 


ED. Byzantina Historia, eds. L. Schopen, I. Bekker, 3 vols. 
(Bonn 1829—1855). Germ. tr. J.L. van Dieren, Nikephoros 
Gregoras. Rhomaische Geschichte, 3 vols. (Stuttgart 1973-88). 
Nicephori Gregorae Epistulae, ed. P.A.M. Leone, 2 vols. (Ma- 


GREGORY I THE GREAT | 875 


uno 1982-83). Nikephoros Gregoras Antirrhetika 1, ed. H-V. 
Beyer (Vienna 1976) with Germ. tr. Fiorenzo o intorno alla 
sapienza, ed. P.A.M. Leone (Naples 1975). with Ital. w. For 
complete list of works, see Tusculum-Lexikon 299—9302. 

urt. R. Guilland, Esai sur Nicéphore Grégoras (Paris 1926). 
Hunger, Lil. 1:453-65; 2:191f, 249f. PLP, no.4443. H-V. 
Beyer, “Nikephoros Gregoras als Theologe und sein erstes 
Auftreten gegen die Hesychasten,” JOB 20 (1971) 171-88. 
FE. Moutsopoulos, “La notion de ‘kairicité historique chez 
Nicéphore Grégoras.” Byzantina 4 (1972) 205-13. O.G. 
Zakrževskaja, “Koncepcija patriotizma Nikifora Grigory,” 
ADSV (1977) 85—95- -A.M.T. 


GREGORY (l pnyópios), exarch of Carthage and 
relative of Herakleios; died Sufetula 647. A sup- 
porter of the anti-Monothelite position of MAx1- 
MOS THE CONFESSOR, the “most pious patrikios” 
Gregory was already exarch by July 645, when he 
attended the disputation in Carthage between 
Maximos and Patr. Pyrrios and reportedly helped 
reconcile them (PG g1:287A). In late 646 or early 
647, Gregory and “the Africans” rebelled against 
Constans II. Gregory’s action is partly explained 
by African estrangement from Constantinople over 
MOoNOTHELETISM: local support was strong for Pope 
Theodore and Maximos (both later accused in 
Constantinople of inciting Gregory), and during 
645/6 various African synods denounced the “her- 
esy.” The more immediate cause was probably 
anxiety about the Arabs’ conquest of Egypt. In 
647 Abdallah invaded western TRIPOLITANIA and 
marched on Byzacena. Gregory, who had mar- 
shalled his forces at SuUFETULA, confronted him in 
the nearby plains and was defeated. Theophanes 
the Confessor (Theoph. 343.25-27) and some 
Syriac sources record that Gregory fled to Con- 
stanunople, but most scholars accept Arab reports 
that he was killed in battle. 

ur. C. Diehl, L'Afrique byzantine (Paris 1896) 554-59. 
Stratos, Byzantium 3:60—71. Pringle, Defence 1:46-47. R. 
Guery, “Le pseudo-monnayage de l'usurpateur Grégoire, 
patrice d'Afrique,” Bulletin de la société francaise de numis- 
manque (1981) 66-68. -P.A.H. 


GREGORY I THE GREAT, in Greek known as 
ho Dialogos; pope (from Sept. 590); born Rome 
ca.540, died Rome 12 Mar. 604. Born to an aris- 
tocratic family (related to AGAPETUS I), Gregory 
was urban prefect in 572 and 573. Although he 
was papal apocrisiarius in Constantinople from 579 
to 586, Gregory claimed ignorance of Greek. Once 
elected pope, he dedicated his efforts to the eco- 
nonuc and political strengthening of his diocese: 


876 GREGORY II 


he made a truce with the Lomparps who threat- 
ened Rome in 592 and 593 and reorganized the 
utilization of church patrimonia, esp. in Sicily (V. 
Recchia, Gregorio Magno e la società agricola [Rome 
1978]). Gregory recognized not only the secular 
authority of the emperor, but also his authority 
in ecclesiastical matters, provided the emperor did 
not violate the canons. Gregory did not actively 
interfere in the domain of the patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, although in 595 he examined an ap- 
peal from two priests condemned in the Byz. 
capital. He recognized the see of Constantinople 
as the first among the Eastern patriarchates but 
rejected the claim of JOHN IV NesTEUTES to the 
title of ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH. He was opposed 
to Maurice and his court and welcomed the usur- 
pation of PHoxas, displaying the portraits of the 
new imperial couple on the Palatine Hill. 

Gregory is generally believed to have been the 
author of the Dialogues, although this attribution 
has recently been challenged by Clark (infra). These 
Dialogues, which were miraculous stories about 
6th-C. saints and deliberations on the immortality 
of the soul, were translated into Greek by Pope 
ZACHARIAS, and were popular in Byz. Short an- 
ecdotes about Gregory, probably known to John 
Moscuos, as well as pieces in synaxaria and meno- 
logia (F. Halkin, OrChrP 21 [1955] 109-14), formed 
the core of Gregory’s Greek vita. 

LIT. BHG 1445y—1448b. R. Gillet, DHGE 21 (1986) 1387— 
1420. J. Richards, Consul of God: the Life and Times of Gregory 
the Great (London 1980). J. Fontaine et al., Grégoire le Grand 
(Paris 1986). C. Dagens, “Grégoire le Grand et le monde 
oriental,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 17 (1981) 243~ 
52. E.H. Fischer, “Gregor der Grosse und Byzanz,” ZSavKan 
67 (1950) 15~144. G.R. Evans, The Thought of Gregory the 
Great (Cambridge 1986). F. Clark, The Pseudo-Gregorian 
Dialogues, 2 vols. (Leiden 1987). —A.K. 


GREGORY II, pope (from 19 May 715); born 
Rome 669, died Rome 11 Feb. 731. As deacon, 
Gregory accompanied Pope Constantine I to Con- 
stantinople and participated in discussions con- 
cerning the decisions of the Council in TRuL.o. 
As pope, Gregory resisted Byz. economic and 
religious policy in Italy. He rejected Emp. Leo 
ITs demands for increased taxation in Sicily and 
opposed his new policy of IconocLasM. Two let- 
ters in Gregory’s name addressed to Leo HI and 
preserved only in Greek have sparked consider- 
able debate concerning their authenticity. They 
seem to have been compiled not in Constantinople 


but in Italy, though not necessarily by the pope 
himself. The gist of these letters is a denial of the 
emperor’s right to define dogma. Gregory’s resis- 
tance led to attempts on his life but the people of 
Rome caught some of the assailants and forced 
others to flee. The exarch Paul’s effort to control 
the situation incited a riot, and he was killed. A 
new imperial army under the patrikios exarch Eu- 
TYCHIOS was sent to Naples to restore order, but 
Gregory managed to gain the support of the Lom- 
bard king Liutprand and to coerce Eutychios into 
reconciliation. Thereafter Gregory remained loyal 
to Eutychios and even sent a Roman detachment 
to assist him against the rebellious Tiberius Petas- 
ius. 

tir. J. Gouillard, “Aux origines de l'iconoclasme: Le 
témoignage de Grégoire II?” TM 3 (1968) 243-307. E. 
Caspar, “Papst Gregor II. und der Bilderstreit,” ZKirch 52 
(1933) 29—79. H. Grotz, “Beobachtungen zu den zwei Briefen 
Papst Gregors II. an Kaiser Leo HI,” ArchHistPont 18 
(1980) g—4o and add. ibid. 24 (1986) 365-75. H. Michels, 
“Zur Echtheit der Briefe Papst Gregors II. an Kaiser Leon 
IL,” ZKirch gg (1988) 376-91. D.H. Miller, “The Roman 


Revolution of the Eighth Century,” MedSt 36 (1974) 101- 
Il. -A.K. 


GREGORY II OF CYPRUS, patriarch of Con- 
stantinople (28 Mar. 1283—June 1289); born Cy- 
prus ca.1241, died Constantinople 1290. He was 
educated in Cyprus, Nicaea, and Constantinople, 
where he studied under George AKROPOLITES 
(Autobiography 177-87). He then joined the ranks 
of the palace clergy. In 1283 he was elevated to 
the patriarchate. Although under Micuaet VIII 
he supported the negotiations with the West for 
UNION OF THE CHURCHES, Gregory was disillu- 
sioned by its apologists, the “Latinophrones,” and 
with Rome’s unyielding demands for submission. 
His patriarchate was thus marked by the resto- 
ration of Orthodoxy and the formal rejection of 
the union of Lyons at the local council of Con- 
stantinople of 1285 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, 
CouNcILs OF). Eventually, however, the complex 
ecclesiastical crisis provoked by the ARSENITES, 
conservative bishops, and unionists opposed both 
to his rule and to the Tomos of 1285, forced his 
conditional resignation (1289). 

Gregory played a prominent part in the intel- 
lectual revival of the late 19th C., as his corre- 
spondence, proverb collection, enkomia, declama- 
tions, and Lives of the saints indicate. His 
Autobiography—possibly inspired by the autobio- 


graphical reflections of Nikephoros BLEMMYDES— 
is a brief yet precious account of the cultural and 
“academic” background of his youth in Nicaea 
and Constantinople. His correspondence, too, in 
an elegant Attic style, contains material evidence 
for social and economic history (M. Bibikov, ZRVI 


17 [1976] 93-99). 

ED. PG 142!:1—470. Correspondence—ed. S. Eustra- 
tiades, EkklPhar 1—5 (1908-10). Autobiography, ed. with Fr. 
tr. W. Lameere, La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance 
de Grégoire de Chypre (Brussels-Rome 1937) 176-91. See 
also lasts in Tusculum-Lextkon g0o2f, and Beck, Kirche 686. 

tit. RegPatr, fasc. 4. nos. 1460-1548. Papadakis, Crisis 
in Byz. ALP. 


GREGORY III, pope (18 Mar. 731-28 Nov. 741) 
and saint. Of Syrian origin, Gregory was elected 
unexpectedly after the demise of Grecory II and 
inherited his predecessor's conflict with Byz. At 
the council convened in Rome on 1 Nov. 731, 
Italian bishops condemned Iconoc.asm. Gregory 
sent messengers to Emp. Leo III, but they either 
tarried from fear or were detained and arrested. 
To quell the pope’s resistance, Leo dispatched to 
Italy a fleet, which was destroyed in a storm in 
the Adriatic Sea. Then Leo ordered the tenants 
of the papal patrimonia in Sicily and Calabria to 
pay their taxes not to Rome, but to the fisc (A. 
Guillou, ZRVI 1g [1980] 74-78); he also trans- 
ferred ILLYRICUM to the jurisdiction of Constan- 
tinople. In this precarious situation Gregory vac- 
illated between alliance with the duchies of 
Benevento and Spoleto, on the one side, and with 
the Lombard king Liutprand, on the other; he 
even endeavored in 740 to attract Charles Martel 
as Rome’s protector. Gregory did not disrupt po- 
litical ties with Byz., however, and urged the 
Venetians and the archbishop of Grado to sup- 
port exarch Eurycuios when the Lombards forced 
him to flee Ravenna in 737. 


v DTe 


uit. Richards, Popes 223-26. P. Monocle, BTC G { (1447) 
1785-90 and add. R. Aubert, DHGE 2: (1986) 1421f. 
-A.K. 


GREGORY V (baptismal name Bruno), pope (3 
May yg6—-18? Feb. ggg); great-grandson of OTTO 
I THe Great. The first pope of German origin, 
Gregory sought collaboration with Orro III. He 
found a rival in John Philagathos, the archbishop 
of Piacenza, a man of Greek ancestry who was 
close to THEOPHANO, the Byz. mother of Otto. 


GREGORY VII | 877 


Basil 11 supported the claims of Philagathos: when 
the latter arrived in Constantinople for diplomatic 
negotiations, the emperor sent him back with the 
Byz. emissary Leo or SyNADA. Philagathos was 
proclaimed pope in Rome in Feb. gg7 (as John 
XVI), but in Feb. g98 Otto HI reinstalled Gregory 
and severely punished the pope’s adversaries. 
uT. T.E. Mochs, Gregorius V (Stuttgart 1972). T. De- 
Luca, “Giovanni Filagato,” Almanacco calabrese (Rome 1955) 
81—92. -A.K. 


GREGORY VII (Hildebrand), pope (from 22 Apr. 
1073); born Tuscany between 1020 and 1025, 
died Salerno 25 May 1085. Continuing the policy 
of Leo IX, Gregory worked to establish a strong 
papacy supported by a reformed clergy. At the 
beginning of his pontificate Gregory was involved 
in military actions against the Norman ROBERT 
GUISCARD. He assembled certain southern Italian 
princes and was even in touch with North African 
Christians (C. Courtois, RH 195 [1945] 220-25) 
in expectation of an alliance against the Normans. 
Gregory also strove for an accommodation with 
Byz. He corresponded with Emp. Michael VII 
and dreamed of organizing a “crusade” to alle- 
viate the plight of Byz. (Cowdrey infra). Every- 
thing changed in 1080; as a result of Guiscard’s 
military success and the conflict with Henry IV of 
Germany, Gregory accepted Guiscard’s homage 
on 29 June and recognized his occupation of 
Amalfi, Salerno, and Fermo. When Guiscard waged 
war against Byz., Gregory insisted that the Vene- 
tians who opposed the Norman penetration into 
the Adriatic would not support the “excommun- 
icated” (Greeks), and he sent his congratulations 
to Guiscard after his victory over Alexios I. Sources 
concerning Gregory’s relations with Armenia, Kiev, 
and southern Slavs are vague. Matthew of Edessa 
even relates that the Armenian katholikos Gregory 
II traveled to Rome in 1075; the pope Gregory 
attempted to mediate the conflict between Poland 
and Rus’ and urged Zvonimir to recognize his 
vassalage to Rome. 

uit. J. Choux, DHGE 221 (1986) 1424-33. J. Gauss, Ost 
und West in der Kirchen- und Papstgeschichte des 11. Jahrhun- 
derts (Zurich 1967) 39-68. G. Hofmann, “Papst Gregor 
VII. und der christliche Osten,” StGreg 1 (1947) 169-81. 
J. Deér, Papsttum und Normannen (Cologne 1972) 51-136. 
W. Wiihr, Studien zu Gregor VI. Kirchenreform und Weltpolitik 


(Munich 1930). H.E.J. Cowdrey, “Pope Gregory VII's ‘Cru- 
sading’ Plans of 1074,” in Outremer 27-40. -A.K. 


878 | GREGORY IX 


GREGORY IX (Hugo, count of Segni), pope (from 
19 Mar. 1227); born Anagni ca.1170 (R. Aubert, 
DHGE 21 ({1986] 1437), died Rome 22 Aug. 1241. 
He was the nephew of Innocent IV. Gregory 
spent his pontificate primarily in the struggle with 
FREDERICK Il. At the same time he endeavored to 
strengthen the Latins’ position both in Palestine 
and in Constantinople. He collected money for 
the organization of new crusades and developed 
a new system of punishing heretics by sending 
them to Constantinople for several years (P. Segl, 
DA 32 [1976] 209-20). Gregory insisted that 
Frederick lead a crusade to Palestine—the pope 
wanted him to help the Latins and at the same 
time to divert Frederick from Italy, where he had 
been attacking papal territory. Gregory tried to 
increase the power of the Latin patriarch of Con- 
stantinople by making him a papal legate, whereas 
Innocent HI had sent an independent legate to 
check the power of the patriarch (R.L. Wolff, DOP 
8 11954] 285-90). Gregory initiated negotiations 
with the Greek patriarch Germanos II; Germa- 
nos’s letters of 1232 to Gregory and the cardinals 
(RegPatr, fase. 4, no.1256—-57) emphasize readi- 


ness for Union of the Churches on the basis of 


papal primacy but complain about the injustice 
perpetrated by the Latins, esp. on Cyprus. In 
1233 Gregory dispatched Haymo of Favershain 
to Nicaea, but negotiations failed. 
uT. J. Felten, Papst Gregor IX. (Freiburg 1886). J. van 
den Gheyn, “Lettre de Grégoire IX concernant l'empire 
Latin de Constantinople,” ROL y (1902) 230-34. V. Gru- 
mel, “L’authenticité de la lettre de Jean Vatatzés, empereur 
de Nicée, au Pape Grégoire IX” EO 29 (1930) 450-58. R. 
Spence, “Gregory LX’s Attempted Expeditions to the Latin 
Empire of Constantinople,” JMedHist 5 (1979) 163-76. 
-A.K. 


GREGORY X (Tedaldo Visconti), pope (from ı 
Sept. 1271); born Piacenza 1210, died Arezzo 10 
Jan. 1276. Gregory encouraged the organization 
of a new crusade to protect endangered Latin 
possessions in Palestine; he also planned to rid 
himself of CHARLES I] oF Anjou (who threatened 
papal lands) by having him lead the crusade. The 
newly restored Byz. Empire under Michael VIH 
was to play an essential role in the pope’s scheme: 
by recognizing Michael's right to Constantinople 
Gregory planned to make him sign a truce with 
Latin princes in the Peloponnesos and promise 
free passage for the Crusaders’ ariny and its sup- 


ply. The plan, in its general form, was announced 
at the Council of Lyons in 1274. Michael was 
interested in the project—both in diverting Charles 
I of Anjou and in restoring Byz. power in Asia 
Minor, then in the hands of the ‘Turks and the 
Mongols. To continue negotiations, George ME- 
TOCHITES was sent to Gregory in 1275, and it was 
agreed that at Easter of 1276 the emperor and 
the pontiff would meet either in Brindisi or in 
Valona. Anti-Unionist sentiments in Byz., how- 
ever, and the lack of means and energy in the 
West foiled the pope’s plans. 

LT. L. Gatto, Z pontificato di Gregorio X (Rome 1959). V. 
Laureni, “Grégoire X (1271—1276) et le projet dune ligue 
antiturque,” EO 37 (1938) 257-73. Idem, “La croisade et 
la question @Orient sous le pontificat de Grégoire X,” 
RHSEE 22 (1945) 105-37. C Giannelli, “Le récit d'une 
mission diplomatique de Georges le Métochite,” ST 12g 
(1947) 419-43- -A.K. 


GREGORY XI (Pierre Roger de Beaufort), pope 
(from 1370); born Limousin 1329, died Rome 27 
Mar. 1378. He was the last of the Avignon popes. 
His principal aim was to return the curia to Rome, 
a goal that he achieved in 1377 after an expensive 
war against Florence. Gregory devoted many 
words—but little money—to the East, where the 
position of the Christians was seriously threat- 
ened, esp. after the Turkish victory at MARICA in 
1371. The pope subsidized the garrison in SMYRNA 
but was unable to summon a new crusade since 
only the Hosprra.Lers were ready to offer money 
and manpower: Venice was at war with Genoa, 
while other Western states (including Hungary 
and Aragon) were indifferent or suspicious of the 
papal project. 

tir. A. Luttrell, “Gregory XI and the Turks: 1370- 
1378," OrChrP 46 (1980) 391-417. G. Mollat, “Grégoire 
XI et sa légende,” RHE 49 (1954) 873-77. -A.K. 


GREGORY ABU’L-FARAJ, Syriac scholar; known 
as Bar Hebracus in the West, a sobriquet that 
translates the name by which he is usually called 
in Syriac and Arabic texts; baptismal name John; 
born Melitene 1225, died Maragha, Azerbaijan 30 
July 1286. The son of a physician named Aaron, 
he took the name Gregory when he became a 
bishop in the Monophysite community. After oc- 
cupying several episcopal sees, in 1264 Gregory 
became the bishop of Tagrit, and thus the ma- 


phrian ov primate of the Monophysite community 
in the former Persian territories, with his official 
residence at the monastery of Mar Mattai, near 
present-day Mosul. Gregory was a polymath whose 
career and accomplishments represent the full 
flowering of intellectual life in the Syriac-speaking 
community in the 13th C. He composed major 
works in theology, philosophy, mysticism, law, 
and Syriae grammar. 

For the Byzantinist, however, his most relevant 
work is the Chronicle, a universal history that Gre- 
gory composed on the basis of the Chronicle of 
MICHAEL I THE SYRIAN. Gregory’s Chronicle pre- 
sents secular and ecclesiastical history in two sep- 
arate sections, often called the Chronicon syriacum 
and the Chronicon ecclesiasticum, respectively. ‘Fhe 
secular chronicle covers the period from Adain 
to the Mongol invasions; the ecclesiastical chron- 
icle begins with Aaron, the Israelite priest, and 
continues in the Chrisuan period following the 
succession of the patriarchs of Antioch, listing 
only the Monophysite holders of the office after 
the time of Severos of Antioch. In a second 
section of the ecclesiastical chronicle, however, 
Gregory also presents the history of the church 
in the Persian world, from the time of the apostle 
Thomas onward, on the basis of Nestorian sources. 
Gregory worked on the ecclesiastical chronicle 
until his death in 1286. His brother, Bar Sauma, 
brought it up to 1288. A later writer included a 
record of events to the year 1496. Gregory’s 
Chronicle is esp. valuable for the years after 1193, 
where the chronicle of Michael the Syrian ended, 
and for the period of the Mongol invasions, which 
Gregory witnessed. 

ED. Chronicon syriacum, ed. P. Bedjan (Paris 1890); Eng. 
w. E.A.W. Budge, 2 vols. (Oxford 1932). Chronicon eccle- 
stasticum, ed. J.B. Abbeloos, T.J. Lamy, 3 vols. (Louvain 
1872—77). 

tir. Baumstark, Literatur 312-20. W. Hage in Theolo- 
gische Realenzyklopädie 14 (1985) 158-64. J.-M. Fiey, “Es- 
quisse d'une bibliographie de Bar Hebraeus t1200," 
Parole de l'Orient 13 (1986) 279-312. S.R. Todu “Die syr- 
ische und dic arabische Weltgeschichte des Bar Hebracus— 
ein Vergleich,” Der Islam 65 (1988) 60—80. N.I. Serikov, 
“O pugach proniknovenija vizantijskoj duchoynoj kul tury 
ha musul'manskij Vostok: Grigorij Ioann Abu-l-Farad2 ibn- 
al-[bri (Bar Ebre}) i vizantijskaja istoriograhiéeskaja tradi- 
cya.” VieVrem 45 (1984) 230-41. -S.H.G. 


GREGORY DEGHA PAHLAVUNI. See GRE- 
GORY Tray. 


GREGORY OF AKRAGAS 879 


GREGORY MAGISTROS, prince of the Pahla- 
vuni family, lord of Bjni in the valley of the 
Hrazdan River; born Bjni (near Ant) ca.ggo, died 
‘Tarn ca.to58. He was important in the political 
and intellectual life of Armenia. After Constan- 
une [X occupied ANI in 1045 (ending the BAGRA- 
tim kingdom), Gregory went to live in Constan- 
tinople. He joined a Greek campaign against the 
Turks in 1048 and was appointed magistros and 
doux of Mesopotamia. ‘Thereafter he resided at 
his estates in Tarōn, devoted to literary studies 
and the repression of the ToONpRAKITES. His son 
Vahram became katholikos (1065-1105) as Gre- 
gory IH Vkayaser (“martyrophile”); his descen- 
dants included Nersés SNORHALI and NERSES OF 
LAMBRON. 

Widely read in Greek literature, Gregory trans- 
lated Plato’s Timaeus and Phaedo and part of Eu- 
clid’s Geometry and composed various theological 
works. His most notable legacy is a collection of 
88 letters written on public and private matters 
in a recondite style full of classical allusions. They 
are unique in Armenian as consclous imitations 
of Byz. EPISTOLOGRAPHY. 

ED. Grigor Magistrost Cere, ed. K’. Kostaneanc’ (Alex- 
andropol 1910). Tatasacutiwnk (Venice 1868). 

Lit. M. Leroy. “Grégoire Magistros ct les traductions 
armémennes d'auteurs grecs,” AIPHOS 3 (1935) 263-94. 
B. Tchukasizian, “Echos de légendes épiques irantennes 
dans les ‘Lettres’ de Grigor Magistros,“ REArm n.s. 1 (1964) 
321—2y. G.H. Grigorjan, “Gregory Magistros as Philoso- 
pher,” IFZ (1982) no.1, 28—38. A.K. Sanjian, A. Terian, 
“An Enigmatic Letter of Gregory Magistros,” Journal of the 
Society for Armenian Studies 2 (1985/6) 85-95. -R.T. 


GREGORY OF AKRAGAS, cxegete, bishop of 
Akragas, and saint; fl. ca.7007; feastday 24 Nov. 
Under his name is preserved a commentary on 
the Ecclesiastes of SOLOMON (G.H. Ettinger, $StP 
18.1 [1986] 317-20). Gregory's biography, writ- 
ten by a certain Leontios, hegoumenos of the mon- 
aslery OL St. Savas in RUNIC, 1 tuurusnig. E N E 
Gregory a contemporary of Justinian II and eye- 
witness to the struggle against the Monotheletes 
and at the same time a deacon under Patr. Ma- 
karios T1 of Jerusalem (552, 563/4-ca.575). The 
focal point of the vita of Leontios is Gregory's 
arrest in Akragas and Justinian’s intervention with 
an unnamed pope to release him; the Sicilian 
bishops are presented as supporting Gregory 
against the pope. The anti-Roman tendency of 


880 | GREGORY OF CORINTH 


Leontios (was he really a hegoumenos in Rome?) 
also reveals itself when he gives the list of Gre- 
gory’s works, one of which was dedicated to St. 
ANDREW who is titled the “chief (koryphaios) of the 
apostles,” an epithet usually reserved for the “Ro- 
man” apostles Peter and Paul. 

ED. PG 98:741-1181. 

SOURCE. Vita—PG 98:549-7 16. 

ur. BHG 707—708f. G. Stramondo, Gregorio d’Agrigento 
(Catania 1952). A. Christophilopoulos, “Pote ezesen ho 
Gregorios Akragantos?,” FEBS 1g (1949) 158-61. I. Croce, 
“Per la cronologia della vita di S. Gregorio Agrigentino,” 
BollBadGr 4 (1950) 189-207, 5 (1951) 77-91. -A.K. 


GREGORY OF CORINTH. See Parpos, GRE- 
GORY. 


GREGORY OF DEKAPOLIS, saint; born Eireno- 
polis, Isaurian Dekapolis, before 797, died 20 
Nov. 842 (Dvornik), 841, or even earlier (Mango). 
After finishing elementary school Gregory stayed 
14 years in a monastery, whose archimandrite was 
Symeon, Gregory’s maternal uncle. Thereafter he 
started his wanderings: he spent a winter in Ephe- 
sus, then set off for Constantinople, but landed 
in the Prokonnesos, passed through Ainos, Chris- 
toupolis, Thessalonike, and sailed to Sicily via 
Corinth; he stayed three months in a cell in Rome, 
lived as a recluse in Syracuse, and returned to 
Thessalonike, from where he visited Mt. Olympos 
and Constantinople. 

Gregory’s vita, written soon after 842/3, is as- 
signed by three MSS to IGNATIOS THE DEACON; 
this attribution was questioned by W. Wolska- 
Conus (7M 4 [1970] 340) but supported by Sev- 
cenko (“Hagiography” 123). Gregory lived through 
the second period of Iconoclasm but did not him- 
self suffer from persecution: the hagiographer 
accordingly calls him “a martyr without weals” 
(Dvornik, infra 70.3-4). Gregory enjoyed the vi- 
sion of divine light and worked miracles (a Sara- 
cen tried to kill Gregory, but his hand immedi- 
ately withered). The Life contains only vague 
information about a revolt of the exarchon of 
Sklavinia, but provides much evidence on admin- 
istrative and legal practice in Byz.: a conflict con- 
cerning the right of the “neighborhood” (geito- 
nema—p.63.22—26), the praktor of the state treasury 
seizing property not bequeathed by will (p.55.20-— 
24), etc. Images of Gregory, rare in MSS and even 


rarer in monumental painting, show the saint as 
a monk with a trim round white beard. 

sourck. F. Dvornik, La vie de St. Grégoire le Décupolite et 
les Slaves macédoniens au IX" siècle (Paris 1926). 

ut. BHG 711. C. Mango, “On Re-reading the Life of 
St. Gregory the Decapolite,” Byzantina 13 (1985) 633-46. 
Mercati, CollByz 1:454-56. J. Longton, DHGE 21 (1986) 
1498f. C. Nicolescu, LCI 6:429f. -A.K., N.P.Š. 


GREGORY OF NAZIANZOS, bishop of Con- 
stantinople (27 Nov. 380—381), bishop of Nazian- 
zos (382—84), and saint; born 329/30 in Arianzos, 
near Nazianzos, died Arianzos ca.390; feastday 25 
Jan. One of the Cappapocian FATHERS, he was a 
close friend of Basti THE Gretar, whose fellow- 
student he was in Cappadocian Caesarea and Ath- 
ens. Like Basil, he entered monastic life after 
completing his education. His homonymous fa- 
ther, bishop of Nazianzos, consecrated a reluctant 
Gregory as priest in 362; he assisted his father 
until the latter’s death in 374. In 379 Gregory 
went to Constantinople, where he was appointed 
as its bishop. A strong supporter of Nicene ortho- 
doxy, he fought against the adherents of Euno- 
MIOS at the Council of Constantinople in 381, over 
which he presided. He then abdicated and re- 
turned home where he died after some last years 
of writing and contemplation. 

Gregory was a prolific author, who wrote po- 
etry, including 254 epigrams collected as book 8 
of the Greek Anthology, orations, and many letters, 
to such friends as Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. 
Among his letters are attacks on the heresy of 
APOLLINARIS, the so-called Theological Letters. His 
homilies include sermons on specific feastdays, 
funeral orations for family and friends, a treatise 
(or.2) on the burden and duties of priesthood, a 
diatribe (or.20) against the mania at Constanti- 
nople for dogmatic controversy, arid two gloating 
accounts of the death of JULIAN. 

The authors of his vitae, the 7th-C. Gregory 
the Priest (PG 35:243-304) and NikETas Davip 
PaPHLAGON (ed. and tr. J. Rizzo, The Encomium of 
Gregory Nazianzen by Nicetas the Paphlagonian [Brus- 
sels 1976]), stress his role in the dogmatic struggle 
of the period; at the Council of Chalcedon he was 
granted the official epithet “the Theologian.” Un- 
like Basil and other contemporary dogmatists, 
however, Gregory was foremost a rhetorician and 
poet (H. Musurillo, Thought 45 [1970] 45-55) who 
considered poetic vocation a prophetic activity 





GreGcorY OF Nazianzos. Portrait of Gregory writing. 
Frontispiece of a manuscript of the liturgical homilies 
of Gregory (Sinai gr. 339, fol.4v); 12th C. Monastery 
of St. Catherine, Sinai. The manuscript was commis- 
sioned by Joseph Hagioglykerites, hegoumenos of the 
Pantokrator monastery in Constantinople. 


and his works as a sacrifice for God’s altar (S. 
Costanza in Lirica greca de Archiloco a Elitis [Padua 
1984] 235). If Basil’s asceticism was communal 
and monastic, Gregory’s centered on his own ex- 
perience as reflected in his poetic Autobiography; 
his vision of the world was personal and aristo- 
cratic and he stressed his distance from the “crowd” 
(B. Lorenz, VigChr 33 [1979] 240). Although his 
observations were personal and individuai, he often 
used conventional situations; for example, al- 
though he never married and had no son, he 
lamented in one of his moral poems the untimely 
death of a bridegroom and the grief of the par- 
ents. He had a sincere belief in the afterlife and 
Christianity gave him solace against death, so that 
Gregory treated the Christian paideia primarily as 
a preparation for the end of earthly existence. To 
express his experience Gregory often used anti- 
quated meters, albeit with certain modifications 


GREGORY OF NAZIANZOS 881 


(D. Sykes, BZ 72 [1979] 6-15), and exquisite vo- 
cabulary. His verses, full of classical themes and 
images (M. Kertsch, Bildersprache bei Gregor von 
Nazianz? [Graz 1980]), were not suited for litur- 
gical purposes; nevertheless, his poems were pop- 
ular among later literati: they were commented 
upon by KOSMAS THE HYMNOGRAPHER and imi- 
tated by ProproMmos, among others. 

Illustration of the Homilies of Gregory. Nu- 
merous illustrated copies of his homilies attest to 
Gregory’s significance in later periods. Beyond 
the Paris Grecory a smaller selection of 16 hom- 
ilies became popular in the 11th C. Arranged in 
the order of reading during the church year, this 
“liturgical edition” was illustrated with images ap- 
propriate to the individual feastdays. Among the 
more elaborate versions is Sinai gr. 339, a mid- 
12th-C. MS commissioned by the hegoumenos Jo- 
seph Hagioglykerites of the Pantokrator monas- 
tery in Constantinople; its ornament is related to 
MSS of JAMES OF KOKKINOBAPHOS (J.C. Anderson, 
ArtB 61 [1979] 167-85). 

Representation in Art. Gregory, as one of the 
three most important church fathers, was invari- 
ably included in the procession of bishops adorn- 
ing church apses, near the figures of John Chry- 
sostom and Basil the Great; he is distinguished by 
his balding head, healthy face, and squarish beard. 
The inclusion of Gregory the Priest’s biography 
of the saint into the Paris Gregory MS inspired a 
whole page of illustrations depicting events from 
his life (fol.452r), while the autobiographical ref- 
erences contained in various of Gregory’s sermons 
prompted the inclusion of narrative compositions 
(Gregory teaching, attending funerals and coun- 
cils, etc.) into many MSS of the liturgical edition 
of these sermons. Several of these latter MSS 
contain an author PORTRAIT of Gregory seated at 
his desk like an EVANGELIST. 


a aad o ec M 3. ar E er ad. D, 
tv. 1u 3973Y- Suc Crégvis ue Crain ater Ca, CG. a 


Gallay, 2 vols. (Paris 1964—67), with Fr. tr. Grégoire de 
Nazianze: Lettres théologiques, ed. P. Gallay (Paris 1974), with 
Fr. tr. Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours, ed. J. Mossay et al., 6 
vols. (Paris 1978—85), with Fr. tr. Gregor von Nazianz: De 
vita sua, ed. C. Jungck (Heidelberg 1974), with Germ. tr. 
Gregory of Nazianzus: Three Poems, tr. D.M. Meehan (Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1987). The Five Theological Orations of Gregory 
of Nazanzus, tr. A.J. Mason (Cambridge 1899). 

Lit. R. Ruether, Gregory of Naztanzus: Rhetor and Philos- 
opher (Oxford 1969). J. Mossay, La mort et l’au-dela dans 
saint Grégoire de Nazianze (Louvain 1966). I. Symposium 
Naztanzenum, Louvatn-la-Neuve, 25-28 août 1981, ed. J. 
Mossay (Paderborn 1983). S. Averincev in Kultura Vizantii, 


882 | GREGORY OF NYSSA 


vol. 1 (Moscow 1984) 302-06. G. Galavaris, The [Mlustrations 
of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus (Princeton 
1989). U. Knoben, LCI 6:444-50. H. Buchthal, “Some 
Notes on Byzantine Hagiographical Portraiture.” GBA 62 
(1963) 81-go. F. Trisogho, San Gregorio di Nazianzo in un 
quarantennio di studio (1925-1965) (Turin 1974). 

-B.B.. A.K.. R.S.N., N.PS. 


GREGORY OF NYSSA, theologian, the youngest 
of the CappADOCIAN FATHERS, and saint; born in 
the region of Neokaisareia between 335 and 340, 
died after 394; feastday 10 Jan. He was one of 
nine children, including an older brother Bast. 
THE GREAT and a sister, Makrina, whose vita he 
later wrote. Anagnostes by the age of 20, Gregory 
unexpectedly renounced his post, married a cer- 
tain Theosebeia, and turned to the study of rhet- 
oric. When his brother Basil received the metro- 
politan see of Caesarea, he ordained Gregory 
(ca.971) as bishop of Nyssa. Gregory, however, 
did not meet his brother’s expectations: Basil ac- 
cused him of “simplicity” and “lack of experience” 
in church administration (Basil, ep.100.27-29, 
215.16-17, ed. Y. Courtonne [Paris 1957~61]). 
Gregory became involved in a conflict with the 
civil government and was forced to leave his see 
temporarily (376-378); during his absence the 
pro-Arian party took the upper hand. He re- 
turned to Nyssa after the death of Valens. During 
Basil’s life Gregory felt restrained and wrote little 
(e.g., his essay On Virginity), but after his brother 
died in 379 Gregory’s political and literary activity 
flourished: he attended the synod of Antioch in 
379, served briefly as bishop of Sebasteia, sup- 
ported Gregory of Nazianzos at the Council of 
Constantinople in 381, delivered funeral orations 
for members of the imperial family in 383 and 
385, wrote hts major works (Against Eunomios, the 
Great Catechesis, On the Making of Man, homilies on 
the Song uf Songs, etc.), and participated in the 
synod convoked by Patr. NEKTARLOS in 394. 

Well read in classical literature, Gregory highly 
valued Plato and had more respect for Origen 
than did Basil. He was much interested in scien- 
tific problems, and often touched upon physical, 
physiological, and medical topics. He became in- 
volved in the Trinitarian discussions which dom- 
inated his era and followed in his brother's foot- 
steps, refining the views of Athanasios of 
Alexandria and polemicizing with the Arians. His 
personal interests, however, lay in the spheres of 


ANTHROPOLOGY and ESCHATOLOGY; he was esp. 
concerned with the problem of man’s perception 
of God (/heognosia—PG 44:773A); the contempla- 
tion of divine beauty, which is the most sublime 
end of our desires, is made possible by God’s 
creation of man according to His image, “in order 
that the similar (omotos) might see the similar” 
(PG 46:176A). At the same time man is a sensual 
being and therefore is in danger of substituting 
valuable material objects for the sublime princi- 
ple. Gregory saw in the Holy Writ and in the 
“tradition given to us by the fathers” the vehicle 
of discriminating between the divine and the ma- 
terial. Unlike Eunomios, who affirmed that a com- 
plete perception of God was possible through 
logical operations, Gregory asserted that our 
knowledge of God was restricted and could be 
achieved primarily through an eestasy, “a sober 
inebriation” (PG 44:992A). 

Gregory was respected by the Byz. and called 
“the father of fathers” at the Council of Nicaea 
in 787, but he always remained in the shadow of 
the two more prominent Cappadocian fathers. 
Some works of other theologians (e.g., Severos of 
Antioch—see M. Kugener, ROC g [1898] 435-51, 
or Anastasios of Sinai—Beck, Kirche 445) were 
ascribed to him; in the 14th C. Gregory’s concept 
that all beings, save God, had been created pro- 
voked a heated discussion between Neilos Kaba- 
silas and John Kyparissiotes; his statement was 
interpreted respectively as being a doctrine in 
support of or in opposition to Hesychasm. 

Representation in Art. Gregory’s association 
with Gregory of Nazianzos means that his portrait 
is included in illustrated MSS of the latter’s hom- 
ilies (Galavaris, Liturgical Homilies 46—48, 53—58, 
183-85). A dark-haired bishop with a pointed 
beard, Gregory of Nyssa is commonly included in 
the procession of bishops adorning church apses. 

CPG, nos. 3135-3226. PG 44-46. Opera, ed. W. 
ee et al., 10 vols. in 1g pts. (Berlin 1921, Leiden 1952- 
go). Ascetical Works, tr. V.W. Callahan (Washington, D.C., 
1967). The Easter Sermons of Gregory of Nyssa, ed. A. Spira, 
C. Klock (Cambridge, Mass.- Philadelphia 1981). Commen- 
tary on the Song of Songs, tr. C. McCambley (Brookline, 
Mass., 1987). The Life of Moses, tr. A.J. Malherbe, E. Fer- 
guson (New York 1978). 

utr. H.V. von Balthasar, Présence et pensée: essai a la 
philosophie religieuse de Grégoire de Nysse (Paris 1988). M 
Canévet, Grégoire de Nysse et lherméneutique biblique (Paris 
1983). J. Daniélou, Léire et le a chez Grégoire de Nysse 
(Leiden 1970). M. Altenburger, F. Mann, Bibliographie zu 


Gregor von Nyssa (Leiden-New York 1988). A.M. Ritter, 
LCI 6:45 0f. —A.K., B.B., N.P.S. 


GREGORY OF TOURS, bishop of Tours (from 
573); born C lermont-Ferrand c¢a.540, died 17 Nov. 
593 OF 594. An aristocrat of senatorial back- 
ground and adviser to Merovingian kings, Gre- 
gory was the most important historian ol Mero- 
vingian France. His gift of lively narrative in late 
Latin produced two works significant for Byz. The 
Historiarum libri X, or Histories in Ten Books, de- 
scribes the rising power of the Franks from the 
sth C. down to Gregory's own ume. For the early 
seriod Gregory used written sources (including 
valuable extracts from lost Gaulish historians on 
the usurper Maximus and general Arrius) and 
oral traditions of debated value. For Gregory, 
Byz. was simply res publica (bk.2, ch.g) and its 
activities in the West appear in connection with 
this main theme, from the alliance of ANASTASIOS 
I with Clovis (2.37-38—M. McCormick in E. 
Chrysos, Das Reich und die Barbaren [Vienna- 
Cologne 1989] 155-80), DIPLOMACY (6.2), and 
Byz. complicity in a Frankish usurpation (6.24, 
26-28) to the Franks’ role in Byz.’s war against 
the LOMBARDS (10.2, EPISTOLAE AUSTRASICAE) and 
the activities of Byz. merchants in Gaul (7.31). 
The Histories also provides independent evidence 
on the accessions of ‘Tiberios I (5.30—cf. Av. 
Cameron, /ThSt n.s. 26 [1975] 421-26) and Maur- 
ice (6.30); Gregory’s information on Justin II, the 
Persian pillage of a suburb of Antioch, and the 
defection of Persarmenia (4.40) probably came 
from Monophysite circles in Constantinople. 
The Libri VHI miraculorum, or Miracles in Eight 
Books (M. Heinzelmann in Hagiographie—cultures 
et sociétés [Paris 1981] 235-57), includes stories 
reported by travelers, e.g., on Justin II and Em- 
press SOPHIA (1 
St. PoLyeUKTos in Constantinople (1.102), and 
Byz. Italy (Virtutes S. Martini 1.13—16) as well as 
the development of the cult of icons (R.A. Mar- 
kus, JThSt n.s. 29 [1978] 151-57). Gregory also 
wrote the Miracles of Si. Andrew (BIL 440) and, 
with the help of a Syrian named John, a Latin 
translation of the account of the SEVEN SLEEPERS 
of Ephesus (B. Krusch, AB 12 [1893] 371-87). 


ED. B. Krusch, W. Levison, MGH SRM? 3.1 (1951). 
Krusch, MGH SRM 1.2. 

TR. The History of the Franks, ir. O.M. Dalon (Oxford 
1927). Life of the Fathers, w. E. James (Liverpool 1985). 

UT. A. Carrière, “Sur un chapitre de Grégoire de Tours 
relatif à l'histoire d'Orien,” Annuaire de (Ecole pratique des 
hautes études (1898) 5-23. Wattenbach, Levison, Lowe, 
Deutsch. Gesch. Vorzeit u. Karol. 1:99-107. —M.McC. 


.5), PATRAS (1.30), the building of 


GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR 883 


GREGORY SINAITES, hesychast monk and 
writer; born Koukoulos, near Klazomenai, ca.1255 
or 12657, died Paroria 27 Nov. after 1337 (the 
traditional date of 1346 cannot be confirmed). 
The exact chronology of his career is uncertain. 
Born to wealthy parents, Gregory was captured 
in his youth by Turks. After his release he fled to 
Cyprus, where he became a monk, and then went 
to Mt. Sinai. He left Sinai after disputes with 
other monks and made his way to Athos, via 


Jerusalem and Crete, where he studied with the 


ae 


monk Arsenios and learned the “Jesus prayer,” 
the repetition of the phrase “Lord Jesus Christ, 
Son of God, have mercy on me.” On Athos he 
reportedly introduced this “prayer of the heart,” 
a continuous and imageless form of prayer com- 
bined with control of the breathing (K.T. Ware, 
ECAR 4 [1972] 3-22), and was a forerunner of 
HESYCHASM. Turkish raids forced Gregory to flee 
from Athos and eventually to settle at PARORIA in 
Thrace. Here ca.1330 he founded a monastery 
on Mt. Katakekryomene, which attracted both 
Greek and Slavic monks and received financial 
support from the Bulgarian tsar IVAN ALEXANDER. 
Gregory’s disciples included Romy_os of Vidin, 
THEODOSIOS OF TURNOVO (died 1363), and the 
future patriarch KaLiistos, who composed his 
biography. 

His principal work was the Most Beneficial Chap- 
ters [Kephalaia] in Acrostic, 137 short essays on the 
contemplative life (see Vira CONTEMPLATIVA). 
Other cuHaprers treat the hesychastic method of 
prayer and breathing. Gregory’s Discourse on the 
Transfiguration identifies the light perceived by 
mystics with the light on Mt. TABOR. 

eD. PG 150:1240-1345. Partial Fr. tr. J. Gouillard in 
Petite Philocalie de la prière du coeur? (Paris 1968) 177-97. 
Discourse on the Transfiguration, ed. D. Balfour (Athens 1982), 
with Eng. tr. 

SOURCE. Vita by Kallistos—ed. 
FilFakSPetUniv 35 (1896) 1-64. 


p E ia LO oC MEN a OAT "Ea ahitnn 
LIT. UUR, roire Yyq a ast y havre ae bae Srv rae wrecereurecerTy 


“Gregory Sinaites’ Legacy to the Slavs,” Cyrillomethodianum 
7 (1983) 113-65. A.I. Jacimirskij, “Iz kritiko-literaturnych 
nabljudenij nad Zitiem Grigorija Sinaita,” VizVrem 15 (1908) 
300-31. D. Balfour, “Saint Gregory of Sinai’s Life Story 
and Spiritual Profile,” Theologia 53 (1982) 30-62. 


1. Pomjalovskij, Zap/st- 


-A.M.T. 


GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR (T pnyópios rs 
peyarns “Appevias, lit. “Gregory of Great Ar- 
menia”), considered the founder of the ARMENIAN 
CHURCH and its first bishop; saint; fl. first half of 


884 GREGORY TLAY 


the 4th C.: Byz. feastday 30 Sept. The two main 
recensions of his vita (A and V) differ in a number 
of details and each survives in several versions 
(Armenian. Greek, Arabic, Georgian, etc.). Ac- 
cording to the “received tradition” found in re- 


cension A (by AGATHANGELOS), Gregory was of 
Parthian origin and the son of the murderer of 


the Armenian king Xosrov I. Saved from the 
massacre that befell his family, he was educated 
as a Christian at Caesarea in Cappadocia. On his 
return to Armenia, he miraculously survived tor- 
ture for his beliefs by King TRDAT THE GREAT. 
Gregory preached the new faith to the king and 
his court and baptized them. He was consecrated 
bishop of Armenia at Caesarea. Though still oc- 
casionally disputed, P. Ananian’s proposed date 
of 314 for the conversion of Armenia now seems 
incontrovertible (Muséon 74 [1961] 43-73, 317- 
60). Gregory sent missionaries to the neighboring 
lands of Georgia and Caucasian ALBANIA. Near 
the end of his life, he consecrated his son Aris- 
takes as his successor and sent him to attend the 
First Council of Nicaea. Gregory is said to have 
then retired to a hermitage where he died, though 
accounts of the end of his life remain unclear. 
His mission marks the beginning of hellenizing 
influence in the Armenian church as opposed to 
the earlier Syrian influence found in the southern 
part of the country. 

Representation in Art. The earliest known Byz. 
portrait of Gregory is the mosaic (now destroyed) 
on the south tympanum of the nave of Hagia 
Sophia, perhaps connected with Emp. Basil I’s 
claims of Armenian ancestry (Mango, Materials, 
figs. 57-59). Gregory is depicted as an elderly 
bishop in many later church programs and in 
MENOLOGIA, where he may appear in the company 
of the virgin martyrs Hrip‘simé and Gayané. The 
scene of his beheading in a menologion (B.L. Add. 
11870, fol.242v) is without textual basis. Minia- 
tures in the PHEODORE PsaLrer show him being 
released from the pit and converting King Trdat 
(fol.q8r). His life was depicted in one of the 
churches dedicated to him at ANı (1215). 

cir, M. van Esbroeck, “Témoignages littéraires sur les 
sépultures de saint Grégoire l'Illuminateur,” AB 89 (1971) 
387-417. Garsotan, Epic Histories 375f. S. Der Nersessian, 
“Les portraits de Grégoire P'lluminateur dans l'art byzan- 
un.” Byzantion 36 (1966) 386-96. -N.G.G., N.P.S. 


GREGORY TŁAY (“youth”), a nephew of Nersés 
SNorHALL of the Pahlavuni family; katholikos in 


Armenian Cilicia (1173—93); born 1133, died 1193. 
Gregory pursued discussions with the Byz. au- 
thorities concerning union of the Greek and Ar- 
menian churches. In 117g he called a synod at 
Hrom-klay, the patriarchal see, where NERSES OF 
LaMBRON made an Oration in favor of compro- 
mise, but bishops from Greater Armenia were 
opposed. When Emp. Manuel I died in 1180, 
negotiations ended. Gregory also sought closer 
relations with the Syrian and Roman churches, 
and corresponded with Pope Lucius HI (1181— 
85). 

ED. Namakani Grigori Kat'otikosi (Venice 1865). E. Dulau- 
rier, “Elégie sur la prise de Jérusalem,“ RHC Arm. 1:269— 
307 (with Fr. tr.). 


LIT. Tekeyan, Controverses 35-54. -R.T. 


GRIFFIN (ypu, ypidos), mythological creature 
with the body of a lion, head of an eagle, winged, 
and sometimes having a serpent for its tail; Con- 
stantine VII Porphyrogennetos (De cer. 581.1) in- 
terpreted it as a hybrid of lion and vulture. Leg- 
end placed griffins in the land of the Scythians 
and Hyperboreans. Late Roman poets (Claudian, 
Sidonius Apollinaris) connected the griffin with 
Apollo, as did Servius, the 4th-C. commentator 
on Vergil, who lists three symbols of Apollo: the 
lyre, griffin, and arrows. Sidonius Apollinaris de- 
scribes the chariot of Dionysos as pulled by grif- 
fins. According to NONNOS OF PANOPOLIS (Diony- 
staka 48:382-83), a griffin, “a bird of vengeance,” 
winged and four-legged, flew round the throne 
of Nemesis. In the Alexander Romance the hero 
flies on griffins. Psellos (Sathas, MB 5:246.3—4) 
speaks with irony of writers who made Alexander 
yoke griffins and fly up from the earth. Lexicog- 
raphers (Hesychios, Photios) confused the griffin 
with the hzppalektryon (“horse-rooster”), another 
fabulous animal with four legs, wings, and a hooked 
beak. 

Associated in Rome with the light-bringing 
Apollo, the heads and bodies of griffins formed 
Christian lamps in the 4th C. (Age of Spirit., nos. 
560-61). But in Byz. the griffin’s presence, where 
not purely ornamental, may depend on a more 
ancient, Oriental tradition that saw it as apotro- 
paic. In this sense, perhaps, griffins flank the 
FOUNTAIN OF LIFE and decorate TEXTILES (as on 
the costume worn by Alexios V; Spatharakis, Por- 
trait, fig.gg). Griffins are found frequently on 
enamels, on the ornamental pages of illuminated 


MSS, and in a great variety of other media where 

they support the ascension of Alexander. 
tiv. K. Ziegler, RE 7 (1912) 1918—24. C. Setus-Frugoni, 
Historia Alexandri elevati per griphos ad aerem (Rome 1973). 
1. Michael, Alexander's Flying Machine: The History of a Legend 
(Southampton 1974). L. Bouras, The Griffin through the Ages 
(Athens 1983) 45-51. H. Brandenburg, RAC 12:977-95- 
-A.RK., AC. 


GROCER (caAdédapapios; in inscriptions usually 
gadyauapeos). According to the Book of the Eparch 
(ch.13), grocers were purveyors of preserved meat 
and fish (smoked, salted, or dried), cheese, butter, 
olive oil, honey, and pulses of all kinds as well as 
raw pitch, gypsum, nails, and other goods sold by 
weight. They were restricted, however, to selling 
goods weighed with a STEELYARD rather than with 
BALANCE SCALES. Furthermore, they were not al- 
lowed to sell products that were the responsibility 
of other guilds, such as soap, perfume, wine, fresh 
meat, or linen. Their shops or ergasteria could be 
located anywhere in Constantinople, on squares 
and streets, “so that the provisions necessary for 
life were readily available.” M. Sjuzjumov (VizVrem 
4 [1951] 32) hypothesized that saldamarioi were 
businessmen owning sizable storehouses, but this 
cannot be proven. The PouLoLocos (ed. S. Kraw- 
czynski, 110.445) accuses the crow of damaging 
both the grocer (samardares/sardamares) and the 
plownran, thus suggesting that the former dis- 
played his wares in the open air. In 1419 the 
Athonite monastery of Xenophon possessed five 
ergasteria sardamartka in the Grand Stoa of Thes- 
salonike (Xénoph., no.32.8—-g)—evidently they were 
not large stores. A chrysobull of 1342 notes that 
greengroceries (lachanopoleia) in Constantinople 
that had been recently acquired by the Lavra of 
St. Athanasios were transformed into two erga- 
steria—one for perfume (myrepskon), the other a 
sardamarikon (Lavra 3, n0.123.121—23). 

uri. Stockle, Zunfte qof. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 250i, 
Oikonomides, Hommes d'uffaires 95. L. Robert, “Epitaphes 
et acclamations byzantines à Corinthe,” Hellenica 11-12 
(1960) 39-46. -ALK. 


GROSSETESTE, ROBERT, bishop of Lincoln; 
English theologian, scholar, and statesman; born 
Stradbrook (Suffolk) ca.1168, died g Oct. 1253. 
An example of the new type of ecclesiastic trained 
in the universities. Grosseteste played an impor- 
tant role in the introduction of Aristotelian learn- 
ing at Oxford. Profoundly learned in Greek. he 


GROTTAFERRATA 885 


possibly knew some Hebrew as well. At Lincoln, 
he assembled a group of scholars (some from 
southern Italy) and with their assistance translated 
various Greek texts into Latin, including Aris- 
tole’s On the Heavens, with the commentary of 
Simplikios, and Nicomachean Ethics, with the com- 
mentarics of MICHAEL OF EPHESUS, EUSTRATIOS 
or Nicaga, and others; the pseudo-Dionysios cor- 
pus, with the scholia of MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR; 
On the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus; On the 
Passions, attributed to Andronikos of Rhodes: and 
other theological texts. 

ED. Pseudo-Andronicus de Rhodes “Pert pathon’, ed. A. 
Glibert-Thirry (Leiden 1977). The Greek Commentaries on the 
Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle in the Latin Translation of Robert 
Grosseleste, Bishop of Lincoln, ed. H. Mercken (Leiden 1973). 
For other works sec Thomson. 

uit. S.-H. Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste 
(Cambridge 1940). Robert Grosseteste: Scholar and Bishop”, 
ed. D.A. Callus (Oxford 198g). -M.W.T. 


GROSSOLANO, PETER, sometimes called Chry- 
solanus, theologian, bishop of Savona, then arch- 
bishop of Milan (from 1101 ọn); died in the nion- 
astery of St. Sabas in Rome 6 Aug. 1117. Entangled 
in the struggle of local parties, Peter was twice 
forced to leave Milan (1103, 1112). In 1312, en 
route to Jerusalem, he stopped at Constantinople, 
where he engaged in discussions with Byz. theo- 
logians, including Niketas SEIDES, “THEODORE OF 
Smyrna, and others, the major topic being the 
PRIMACY of Rome. Alexios I, according to a note 
in a MS of Montecassino, was very supportive of 
Grossolano. When the latter read his pamphlet 
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the emperor 
exclaimed that now wisdom came from the Occi- 
dent to the Orient and that Peter's treatise made 
the work of the Greek theologians superfluous 
(H. Block. DOP 3 [1946] 223f). It remains unclear 
whether Peter was on an official mission of Pope 
PASCHAL IT or went to Constantinople as a private 


indiidnal After hic remirn fa Rame Peter re. 


signed at the Lateran synod of 1116. 


ED. PG 127:911-19. 

uit. J. Darrouzeés, “Les documents byzantins du NIe 
siècle sur la primauté romaine,” REB 23 (1985) 51-59. V. 
Grumel, “Autour du vovage de Pierre Grossolanus arch- 
evéque de Milan, à Constantinople, en 1112,” EO 32 (1933) 
22-38. D. Masnovo, “Pier Grosolano e il suo epitafio.” 
Archivio storico tombardo” (1922) 1—28. -A.K. 


GROTTAFERRATA, site about 18 km southeast 
of Rome where the Greek monastery of S. Marta 
di Grottaferrata (Ths Kpvumropeppárns) was 


886 | GUARDIANSHIP 


founded in 1004 by NeEILos oF Rossano under 
the patronage of the counts of Tusculum. Though 
subject to the Holy See, the monastery followed 
the Byz. rite; therefore, in 1088, Pope Urban Il 
considered its abbot, Nicholas, a suitable inter- 
mediary to send to Constantinople to discuss the 


question of the azyMes. Most of the monks of 


Grottaferrata were of Calabrian origin. Some, fol- 
lowing the example of their learned founder, 
were able scribes, hagiographers, and hymnog- 
raphers, and the monastery still preserves an im- 
portant collection of Greek MSS. 

The monastery church, parts of which are 11th- 
C., was built and decorated according to Italian 
practice but with some use of Byz. iconography. 


Over the main entrance is a Deesis in mosaic of 


the early 12th C.; inside, on the apsidal arch, is a 
mosaic Pentecost that M. Andaloro (Roma l'anno 
1300 [Rome 1983] 253-73) and V. Pace (Boll- 


BadGr 41 [1987] 47-87) attribute to the time of 


InnocenT III. Three registers of frescoes on the 
nave walls are recorded but have mostly disap- 
peared. A 13th-C. Hodegetria on the altar shows 
traits of Cypriot painting. BESSARION was com- 
mendatory abbot of Grottaferrata from 1462 to 
1472. 

uit. A.Rocchi, De coenobio Cryptoferratensi eiusque biblio- 
theca et codicibus praesertim graecis commentarii (Tuscolo 1893). 
G. Tomassetti, La Campagna romana antica, medioevale e 
moderna? 4 (Roma 1976) 282-338. E. Follieri, “I crisobollo 
di Ruggero JI re di Sicilia per la Badia di Grottaferrata 
{Aprile 1131), BollBadGr 42 (1988) 49-81. -V.v.F.. D.K. 


GUARDIANSHIP (mırponsiæ. also èmiTrpomn). 
The prime duty of a guardian was to administer 
the ward’s property and to arrange the child’s 
marriage. In Roman law guardianship existed both 
for wards and for adult women, but imperial 
legislation later restricted it to wards. ‘The guard- 
ianship for minor orphans could be either testa- 
mentary or statutory (guardians appointed from 
among relatives, male or female); in the absence 
of a statutory or testamentary guardian an official 
guardian could be appointed. A papyrus of 336 
presents the petition of a bishop who wished to 
avoid the guardianship of some children (Tau- 
benschlag, Law of GRE 162, n.g5a). After the 8th- 
C. Ecloga, the term for guardian, epitropos, was 
replaced—although inconsistenuy—by kourator 
(Zacharia, Geschichte 162, 1.501), whereas epitropos 
referred primarily to an official representative 





and administrator (e.g., Lavra 3, no.160.1—2). The 
termination of the guardianship of minors was 
established in Roman law at 25 (still in Cod Just, 
V 30). Leo VIs novel 28 mentioned the age of 
18 (for girls) and go (for boys) but allowed local 
functionaries to decide the question in every con- 
crete case. His novels 26 and 27 extended to 
eunuchs and virgins the possibility of ADOPTION 
of children, and they thus became guardians. Sex- 
ual relationships between guardians and their 
charges were strictly prohibited. 

ur. Zhishman, Mherecht 634-37. J. Beaucamp, “La situ- 
ation juridique de la femme a Byzance.” CahCM 20 (1977) 
150, 152f. -A.K., J.-H. 


GUERCIO, BALDOVINO (BaaAdovivos l'éprýos), 
Genoese mercenary and ambassador; died before 
1201. Guercio entered Byz. military service and 
fought for John H against the prince of Antioch, 
probably in 1142-43. Subsequently, he served 
Manuel I. Fighting Roger H of Sicily (1147—49), 
he was taken prisoner. He was released, possibly 
by Wilham I of Sicily in 1158. Guercio became a 
Lizios of the empire and received a house and 
property that Genoese sources describe as a feu- 
dum (“hef”; A. Sanguineti, G. Bertolotto, Atti della 
Società ligure di storia patria 28 [1896—98] 471). In 
Genoa he pursued a distinguished career, while 
maintaining ties with Byz. In 1179 he escorted 
AGNES OF FRANCE to Constantinople. In 1188 Isaac 
If wrote Guercio about the approaching Third 
Crusade and recent negotiations with Genoa (ibid. 
406f). Following the depredations of the Genoese 
Guglielmo Grasso, Guercio in 1193 successfully 
served as an envoy conveying the excuses of his 
fellow citizens (ibid. 456-59). Because of the pi- 
racies of the Genoese Gafforio (1197), Guercio’s 
feudum was confiscated by the emperor. In May 
1201 the Genoese envoy was directed to seek its 
restitution for Guercio and his heirs. 

ur. G. Day, “Genoese Involvement with Byzantium 1155~ 
1204: A Diplomatic and Prosopographical Study” (Ph.D. 
diss., Univ. of IIL, 1978) 59. 6g, 72. -C.M.B. 


GUIBERT OF NOGENT, abbot of Nogent (from 
1104), Latin theologian and historian; born be- 
tween ¢€a.1053 and 1064, died ¢a.1124. Guibert’s 
works include a critique of relic cults (On the Saints 


and the Relics of Saints, ca.1119) and an Autobiog- 
raphy (De vita sua, ed. E.R. Labande [Paris 1981)). 
His History or God's Deeds Through the Franks of 
ca.1108, an account of the First Crusade (1095— 
1104), draws on the Gesta Francorum and 
FULCHER OF CHARTRES supplemented by oral 
sources. In its eight books of prose and verse (E. 
Burstein, CahCM 21 [1978] 247-63), Guibert’s 
obsessions triumph over critical acumen where 
Byz. is concerned. He discusses John the Baptist’s 
relics at Constantinople (Historia—bk.1, ch.5; cf. 
PL 156:624CD), paraphrases part of the contro- 
verted letter of Emp. Alexios I to ROBERT OF 
FLANDERS (Reg 2, no.1152), and criticizes Alexios 
(“that most filthy tyrant”) as a usurper who vaunted 
the beauty of Byz. women to lure the French to 
Byz. Guibert calls Anna Dalassene a witch and 
claims Alexios’s taxation required every Byz. fam- 
ily to prostitute one daughter and castrate one 
son, whence the shortage of virile Byz. soldiers 
(bk.1, ch.5). Books 2-3 describe the beginnings 
of the Crusade from Clermont through the cross- 
ing of the Byz. Empire, while the remainder refer 
frequently to Alexios’s relations with the Crusad- 
ers. 

ED. RHC Occid. 4 (1879) 117-263, including anon. con- 
tinuation to 1112, pp. 261-63. 

Lit. Wattenbach, Holzmann, Schmale, Deutsch. Gesch. 
Sachsen u. Salier 2:782f. RepFontHist 5:267—69. Zaborov, 
Krest. poch. 70-77- -M.McC. 


GUILDS (ovorýparta, also SOMATEIA); organiza- 
tions of craftsmen and merchants devoted to pro- 
moting the economic interests of their members. 
The late Roman state created various state work- 
shops, fabricae, to satisfy the needs of the army, 
bureaucracy, and court, and imposed certain re- 
quirements on free collegia, or guilds. The degree 
of state requirements could differ with regard to 
different guilds: those collegia that dealt with the 
supply of Rome, Constantincple, and other major 
cities (BAKERS [pistores], navicularu, swinemongers, 
etc.) were subject to greater government control 
than guilds involved in more “private” activity. 
The state tried to implant the principle of hered- 
itary professions, but there are serious doubts that 
it managed to achieve this aim—at least, Egyptian 
papyri contradict the principle (Fikhman, Egipet 
64-68). Membership in the guild of bakers or 
Swinemongers was considered an obstacle to social 
advancement. Compulsory association with a 


GUILDS 887 


profession and restriction to a place of origin is 
attested even by papyri. At the same ume, the 
members of guilds possessed various economic 
privileges and often exercised political pressure. 
The direction of the development of the late 
Roman guild system is under dispute: F. de Rob- 
ertis (Orpheus 2 [1955] 45—54) rejected the tradi- 
tional view concerning the continual strengthen- 
ing of the compulsory system in the late Roman 
Empire and surmised that coercion reached its 
peak under Theodosios II but ended by the reign 
of Justinian I. 

The 10th-C. guilds as reflected in the Book of 
the Eparch were privileged corporations protected 
from the competition of both landowners in- 
volved in trade activity and artisans and/or mer- 
chants who were not guild members. Admission 
to the guild was sought by those for whom mem- 
bership was not compulsory and expulsion frorn 
a guild was done as a punishment. Under the 
leadership of elders, guilds regulated—albeit un- 
der the supreme surveillance of the state—the 
quality and volume of production, prices of goods 
and salary of the MISTHIOI, and acquisition of 
wares from outside merchants. Direct services to 
the state existed but were insignificant. Guilds of 
1oth-C. Constantinople resembled Western me- 
dieval corporations (of the Parisian type) more 
than the compulsory collegia of the 4th C. 

Corporate organizations existed in the 11th C. 
(Kazhdan-Epstein, Change 51f), but the system 
seemed to become less rigid in the 12th C.: Nicholas 
of Methone (A. Demetrakopoulos, Bibliotheca ec- 
clesiastica [Leipzig 1866] 279.12-14) emphasized 
that the Byz. did not dictate the choice of living 
place or trade to people possessing the necessary 
skill; an ordinance of Manuel I (Reg 2, no.1384) 
permitted the sale of a money changer’s shop 
freely to any “worthy” person. Documents of the 
14th—15th C. mention the elders of various cor- 
purauois ereye-tt ics, buer 3, make! > vi pet Pume) 
in Constantinople. As for the protomaistores of con- 
struction workers in Constantinople and Thessa- 
lonike, they were, most likely, not the elders of 
guilds but leaders of teams of builders. 

ur. L.C. Ruggini, “Le associazioni professionali nel 
mondo Romano-Bizantino,” SettStu 18.1 (1971) 59—193. A. 
Graeber, Untersuchungen zum spätrömischen Korporationswesen 
(Frankfurt. 1983). G. Mickwitz, Die Kartellfunktionen der Zünfte 
(Helsingfors 1936) 198-235. E. Frances, “La disparition 
des corporations byzantines,” 12 CEB, vol. 2 (Ohrid 1964) 
g3—1o1. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires 108-14. —A.K. 


888 GUILLOCHE 


GUILLOCHE. See I NTERLACE. 


GULLU DERE, valley in Cappadocia near Ca- 
vusin. Among the ROCK-CUT CHURCHES found in 
this valley two are noteworthy. Güllü Dere HI, a 
rectangular church with a single large apse, is 
often said to have been carved before the 8th C. 
because of the three Jarge crosses in low relief on 
its ceiling. The apse is decorated with an elaborate 
Mayesras Domint ascribed on stylistic grounds to 
the gth or early ioth C. Güllü Dere IV, also 
known as Ayvalı Kilise or the Church of St. John, 
is a small, double-naved complex with an elabo- 
rate fresco program. A donor’s inscription men- 
tioning the emperor Constantine should probably 
be dated to the sole reign of Constantine VII 
between 913 and g20; the name of the monu- 
ment’s principal patron has been obliterated. In 
addition to a rich Christological cycle, the Lams 
or Gop and a number of Old Testament scenes 
are depicted. Güllü Dere IV, the Old Church of 
Tokalt Kilise (see GÖREME), and the Church of 
the Holy Apostles at Sinassos appear to have been 
decorated by the same atelier (Thierry, Bull- 
SocAntFr [1971] 170-78). 

ur. N. Thierry, Le haut Moyen-Age en Cappadoce, vol. 1 
(Paris 1983) 105-89. Jerphanion, Eglises rupestres 2:592- 
94. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, “L'église aux trois croix de 
Güllü dere en Cappadoce,” Byzantion 35 (1965) 175-207. 
N. and M. Thierry, “Ayvalt Kilise ou pigeonnier de Gilli 
dere,” CahArch 15 (1965) 97-154- -AJ.W. 


GUNTHER OF PAIRIS, Latin poet, historian, 
and theologian; born ca.1150, died after 1208 or 
1210. Gunther's epics show links with the court 
of FREDERICK 1: the fragmentary Crusader poem 
Solymarius (ed. W. Wattenbach, Archives de l'Orient 
Latin 1 [1881] 555-61) draws on Robert of St. 
Remy and is dedicated to Prince Conrad (died 
1196); Ligurinus (ca.1186/7; ed. PL 212:327—476), 
based on OTTO OF FREISING, celebrates Frederick's 
exploits in Italy. Circa 1204 Gunther became a 
Cistercian monk at Pairis (Alsace), where he com- 
posed (25 June 1205-ca.June 1208) the Historia 
Constantinopolitana, a polished account of the Fourth 
Crusade that mixes prose and verse but is marred 
by tendentious omissions, such as the transport 
contract with Venice (ch.6, p.71) and the resto- 
ration of Isaac II Angelos (ch.12, p.88). He min- 
imized the bloodshed during the capture of the 
Byz. capital and stated that Constantinople’s sack 


merely avenged Greek treatment of the Franks’ 
putative Trojan ancestors (ch.18, pp. 102f); he 
also exaggerates (c.g., the power of the Byz. fleet; 
ch.17, p.g8), particularly the role played by Mar- 
tin, his abbot and informant (cf. Longnon, Com- 
pagnons 249f). Gunther seems fundamentally hos- 
tile to the Byz., whom he calls “the dregs of the 
dregs,” ch.10, p.84), and focuses on Martin’s theft 
of relics from the burial church of Irene, wife of 


John II Komnenos (ch.1g, pp. 105f) and their 


translation to Pairis. Gunther may have written in 
part to defend Martin from charges levied by his 
order in 1206. Martin’s booty included relics of 
Christ, Sts. John and James, etc. (ch.24, pp. 120~ 
22) and a Crucifixion icon from the imperial in- 
signia (ch.25, p.125). 

ED. Riant, Exuviae 1:57—126. Die Geschichte der Eroberung 
von Konstantinopel, Germ. tr. E. Assemann (Weimar 1956), 

tir. F.R. Swietek, “Gunther of Pairis and the Historia 
Constantinopolitana,” Speculum 53 (1978) 49-79. AJ. An- 
drea, “The Historia Constantinopolitana,” Analecta Cister- 
clensia 36 (1981) 269—302. F.P. Knapp in Die deutsche Lit- 
eratur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, vol. 3 (Berlin 1981) 
316-25. —-M.McC, 


GYNAIKEION (yuvatketov, gynaeceum), in classi- 
cal Greek, a part of the house reserved for the 
women; in the late Roman Empire, a type of 
imperial textile FACTORY. ISIDORE OF SEVILLE 
(Etymol. 15.6.3) explains the word as “a gathering 
of women [Greek gyne means “woman”] working 
with wool.” The gynaeciarti of these workshops 
were men, however, not women (R.S. Lopez, Spe- 
culum 20 [1945] 6, n.3), and an edict of 365 
(Cod.Just. XI 8.3) regulates the status of a free 
woman who married a gynaeciarius. The Notitia 
dignitatum mentions procuratores gynaecei in Gallia 
as well as in the East (in the latter case without 
any precise localization). Constantine I’s edict of 
333 (Cod.Just. XI 8.2) refers to gynaecea and dyers’ 
workshops. Eusebios of Caesarea (Eusebios, VC 
2.34.1) considers workers in gynaikeia and linen 
workshops the slaves of the treasury. Sozomenos 
(Sozom. HE 1.8.3) includes gynatkeia among places 
such as mines and linen workshops to which peo- 
ple were sent to do forced labor. The use of the 
term in papyri is unclear (Fikhman, Egipet 37, 
n.218). 

In later centuries the word apparently disap- 
peared and its meaning was forgotten. In the title 
of Basil. 54.16 the Latin term procuratores gynaecet 


was rendered in Greek as “prokouratores of women,” 
while in paragraph g of the same chapter the 
legislator introduced a reference to “the woman 
assigned to a gynatkeion” who was seduced or cor- 
rupted—whcreas no woman had been mentioned 
in the original law of 385 (Cod.Just. XI 8.9). 

ur. A. d'Ors, “P. Ryl. 654 v el ‘anabolicum, ” in Studi 
in onore di ULE. Paoli (Florence 1956) 266f. M.A. Marzouk, 


History of Textile Industry in Alexandria (Alexandria 1955 
47749- ~ALK, 


GYPSIES (Atyv7zvot, inod. Gk. Tv@rot, i.e., Egyp- 
tians), from 1300 onward also called Katsibeloi, 
“wanderers” (cf. Russ. kočevnik, “nomad”—R. Volk, 
BZ 79 [1986] 1-16). In Greek and Georgian sources 
from the 11th—1 2th C. onward gypsies were called 
Athinganoi-Adsincant even though they had noth- 
ing in common with the 8th-C. ATHINGANOI. AC- 
cording to a Georgian legend, the Adsincani were 


GYPSIES 889 


invited by Constantine IX to destroy ferocious 
beasts that were devouring the game in an impe- 
rial hunting preserve. Balsamon describes the 
Athinganoi as magicians, snake charmers, and 
fortunetellers; the same characterization was given 
to them by later authors such as Patr. Athanasios 
I and Joseph Bryennios. They wandered in Crete 
(1323) as vagabonds, according to the Irish monk 
Symon Semeonis; in Corfu (1373) as refugees 
from Epiros; and in Nauplia (ca.1400) as an or- 
ganized Feudum Acinganorum whose gypsy leader 


John had the title drungarius Acinganorum. Ma- 


ZARIS satirized Aegyptioi as arrogant, beggars, 
liars, thieves, and practitioners of black magic. 
They were also sieve makers and blacksmiths. 
Numerous ruins in Greece are still popularly called 
(from the 14th C.) Gyphtekastra. 

Lit. G.C. Soulis, “The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire 


and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages,” DOP 15 (1961) 
141-65. -S.B.B.. A.K. 


seas ye Ay apui 





HADES, ancient ruler of the underworld and 
brother to Zeus and Poseidon. In Bvz. literature 
Hades connotes both (1) the underworld, as an 
equivalent to Christian Hell, as well as more gen- 
erally, in secular texts, the place where all the 
dead are, at least initially, congregated; and (2) 
the personification of Death as a symbol for the 
tyranny of human mortality. In hymns and hom- 
ilies from the 4th—6th C. onward Hades (along- 
side Thanatos, or Death) is portrayed with rav- 


enous jaws and an insatiable belly (cf. Andrew of 


Crete, PG 97:1048A), swallowing old and young 
alike, an elaboration of an idea found tn the Old 
Testament (Is 5:14, Pr 27:20). In the Resurrection 
hymns of Romanos THE MELODE (Hymnes, ed. J. 
Grosdidier de Matons [Paris 1967] 4:444, 462, 
466, 476-80), Christs redemption of Adam in- 
volves a physical combat with Hades, followed by 
humorous squabbling, as in EPHREM THE SYRIAN. 
References in 12th-C. secular literature are fre- 
quent, but mainly unspecific, suggesting the grad- 
ual replacement of Hades as personification/agent 
bv Hades as place. The ferryman CHARON be- 
comes a more concrete personification of death. 


In art Hades is usually depicted in the guise of 


a venerable pagan god; though often dark-skinned, 
he is not caricatured. In scenes of the Last Jups- 
MENT he sits in Hell, with a condemned soul on 
his knee as the antithesis of Abraham in paradise. 
He lies pierced in the stomach by the cross (on 
an ivory of the Crucifixion surely influenced by 
the hymms of Romanos the Melode, see M. Frazer, 
MM] 9 [1974] 153-61), or fettered like a defeated 
barbarian king in the dark pit of Hell, or trampled 
by the triumphant Christ in scenes of the Ana- 
STASIS, 

Lit. M.B. Alexiou, “Modern Greek Folklore and its Re- 
lation to the Past: The Evolution of Charos in Greek 
Tradition,” in Vryonis, Past 221-36. Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 
206. F.G. Schwartz, “A New Source for the Byzantine 
Anastasis,” Marsyas 16 (1972-3) 29-34.  ~M.B.A.. N.P.S. 


HADRIAN I, pope (1 Feb. 772-25 Dec. 795). 
Upon his election to the papacy Hadrian imme- 


diately solidified his position by delivering poten- 
tial opponents into imperial custody in Constan- 
tinople. The threat of the Lombard king Desiderius 
coincided with Constantine V's campaign against 
the Bulgarians and obliged Hadrian to appeal to 
CHARLEMAGNE for help. In 774 Desiderius capit- 
ulated to the Frankish army besieging Pavia, his 
son and co-ruler Adelgis fled to Constantinople, 
and the Franks took control of northern and 
central Italy. After long negotiations, Hadrian 
received considerable territory from Charle- 
magne. At first, Byz. countered the new Frankish 
regime by fostering the resistance of the Lombard 
duchies of Spoleto and BENEvENTO and the Lom- 
bard aristocracy in the north. Charlemagne re- 
acted by crushing the revolt of the latter, while 
Hadrian destroyed Greek ships at Civitavecchia. 
In 778 Hadrian organized the papacy’s first mil- 
itary offensive against the duchies of Nares and 
Benevento and the patrikios of Sicily. However, 
Hadrian’s efforts to incite a Frankish assault on 
the southern Italian patrimonies confiscated by 
Emp. Leo IIT failed. 

In 781, perhaps in connection with the revolt 
of Sicily, Constantinople came to terms with Char- 
lemagne, and Constantine VI became engaged to 
his daughter. The ensuing peace allowed Hadrian 
to cooperate with Byz. by encouraging and send- 
ing legates to the Second Council of Nicaxga in 
787 to end IconocLasm. ‘That same year, how- 
ever, the marriage arrangement and the peace 
collapsed; in 788 Byz., wrongly expecting support 
from Benevento, attempted an invasion of Italy 
to restore Adelgis but was detcated. A tew years 
later, however, Constantinople reestablished in- 
fluence in Benevento by offering the duke the 
dignity of patrikios and marriage into the imperial 
family; the Franks then attacked him without suc- 
cess. In the context of this pattern of alliances, 
the Frankish court at first reacted violently against 
the Council of Nicaea, but Hadrian managed to 
temper the reaction. At some point in his reign, 
Hadrian ceased to recognize Byz. sovereignty over 
Rome. 


891 


892 HADRIAN II 


LT. P. Classen, “Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und 
Byzanz,” in Karl der Grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, ed. 
H. Beumann, vol. 1 (Düsseldorf 1965) 537-608. J. Deér, 
“Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom (772—800), Zum Kai- 
sertum Karls des Grossen, ed. G. Wolf (Darmstadt 1972) 30- 
115. ZAK.. MMC. 


HADRIAN II, pope (from 14 Dec. 867); born 
Rome 792, died Rome Nov. or Dec. 872. Born to 
a noble family, Hadrian married before ordina- 
tion. His election was a compromise between sup- 
porters and opponents of the policy of NICHOLAS 
I. Since Rome was under the protection of the 
Frankish ruler Louis I1, Hadrian’s pontificate ex- 
perienced no serious internal crisis, and his dis- 
agreement with Anastasius BIBLIOTHECARIUS Was 
temporary. Although Hadrian had inherited from 
Nicholas a conflict with Byz., the Arab threat in 
southern Italy required an alliance involving Louis 
II, the pope, and the new Byz. emperor Basil I. 
Patr. PHorios became the first vicum of their 
concord, and at the council at Constantinople in 
869/70 the papacy’s position toward Photios was 
upheld. Hadrian supported new Slavic churches 
in Bulgaria and Moravia, however, against Byz., 
thus creating grounds for a new confrontation. 
In 870 Bulgaria recognized papal jurisdiction and 
was rewarded with the creation of an archbishop- 
ric. After the death of CONSTANTINE ‘TILE PHILOS- 
OPHER in Rome, Hadrian ordained METHODIOS 
archbishop of Pannonia and Moravia, hoping to 
include this territory in the Roman sphere of 
influence. Byz. reacted only after Hadrian’s de- 
mise: in the 870s Basil ] pursued an active policy 
in the northern Balkans, and the council at Con- 
stantinople (879-80), although in an obscure form, 
retained Byz. claims to ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
over Bulgaria. 

Lrt. H. Grotz, Erbe wider Willen. Hadrian H (867-872) 
und seine Zeit (Vienna-Cologne-Graz 1970). F. Dvornik, 


“Photius. Nicholas Fand Hadrian IT.” BS 34 (1973) 33-50. 
—A.K. 


HADRIAN IV (Nicholas Breakspear), pope (from 
4 Dec. 1154); born Abbot’s Langley, England, 
between 1110 and 1120, died Anagni 1 Sept. 


1159. Hadrian was confronted with the plans of 
FREDERICK | to subdue Italy and the growth of 
Norman power in the south. In the spring of 


1155 the barons of Apulia revolted against WIL- 
LIAM | of Sicily, and Frederick unexpectedly with- 


drew his support; Emp. Manuel I Komnenos dis- 
patched an army to aid the rebels. It is still not 
known whether Hadrian concluded a formal al- 
lance with Byz. William of Tvre presents the pope 
as the soul of the rebellion, while Kinnamos as- 
serts that Hadrian offered cooperation. ‘The re- 
bellion was a failure, and in 1153 Hadrian signed 
a treaty with William I in Benevento, followed in 
1157 by a Byz.-Norman agreement. The growing 
tensions with Frederick, however, pushed Had- 
rian toward Constantinople; the pope’s corre- 
spondence with Basi oF OHRID reveals that both 
parties viewed rapprochement as possible. 

ur. W. Ullmann, “The Pontificate of Adrian IV,” Cam- 
bridge Historical Journal 13 (1953-55) 233-52. J.-G. Rowe, 
“Hadrian TV, the Byzantine Empire, and the Latin Orient,” 
in Essays in Medieval History presented to Bertie Wilkinson, ed. 
T. Sandquist, M. Powicke (Toronto 1909) 3-16. Lamma, 
Comneni 1:149—230. ~ALK. 


HAGIA SOPHIA (‘Ayia Xodia, lit. “Holy Wis- 
dom”), name of numerous churches in the Byz. 
Empire and neighboring countries. Two of the 
most important were the cathedral church of 
Constantinople and that of Thessalonike. Others 
were to be found, for example, in MONEMyaSIA 
and Ounrip as well as at Kiev. 


HAGIA SOPHIA IN CONSTANTINOPLE. The first 
church on the site, of basilical form, was built 
near the Milion (sce Mest), that is, in the neigh- 
borhood of the Great Palace and Hippodrome, 
by Constantius II (not Constantine as often stated) 
and inaugurated in 360. It was known as the 
Great CHURCH (Megale Ekklesia)—the name Hagia 
Sophia is first attested ca.4go—and had the epis- 
copal palace attached to its south side. Burned 
down by the supporters of John Chrysostom in 
404, it was rebuilt, once again as a basilica, by 
Theodosios II and completed in 415. The only 
extant part of the Theodosian basilica is a colon- 
naded porch, probably the facade of the atrium 
rather than of the church itself (A.M. Schneider, 
Die Grabung im Westhof der Sophienkirche zu Istanbul 
[Berlin 1941]). 

The second Hagia Sophia was destroyed by fire 
during the Nika REvocr against Justinian I (Jan. 
532). Rebuilding was started immediately, under 
the direction of the architects ANTHEMIOS OF 
TRALLES and IsipoRE OF MILETOS, and the new 
cathedral was inaugurated on 27 Dec. 537. AN 


HAGIA SOPHIA: HAGIA SOPHIA IN CONSTANTINOPLE 893 


account of the construction and the technical dif- 
ficulties that had to be overcome is given by Pro- 
kopios (Buildings 1.1.21-78). In large part, Justi- 
nian’s church is still standing. It is a domed basilica, 
that is, a combination of longitudinal and cen- 
tralized planning, nearly square (78 xX 72 m ex- 
cluding the two narthexes), its nave covered by a 
dome 100 Byz. feet (31 m) in diameter and two 
semidomes, but at the same time clearly separated 
by rows of columns into three aisles, with galleries 
over the lateral aisles and narthex. The original 
dome collapsed in 558 and was rebuilt by ISIDORE 
THE YOUNGER some 7 m higher than the first one. 
The church, rededicated on 24 Dec. 562, was the 
subject of a descriptive poem by PauL SILENTIA- 
RIOS. 

The architectural conception of Anthemios and 
Isidore differed in some respects from the present 
form of the building. The dome, which may have 
continued the curvature of the pendentives, pro- 
duced a more overwhelming impression from in- 
side than the current steeper dome. The north 
and south tympanums appear to have been pierced 
by large windows, thus affording a more brilliant 
illumination. The exterior was unencumbered by 
buttresses. The liturgical fixtures are known in 
their post-562 form. They included a gold altar 
table surmounted by a ciborium; a projecting 
chancel screen of 12 coluinns; and, joined to the 
latter by an enclosed passage (solea), a lofty ambo. 


Most of these features as well as the top row of 


seats of the synthronon in the apse were sheathed 
in silver revetments. 

The church was surrounded by subsidiary 
structures. To the west lay a colonnaded atrium 
with a fountain at its center; to the north the 
larger of two baptisteries (the smaller, still extant, 
being at the southwest) and, at the northeast cor- 
ner, a circular sacristy (skeuophylakion); the south 
side was Hanked by the patriarchal palace (built 
565-77), a multstory building whose main apart- 
ments communicated with the south gallery of the 
cburch. The rooms situated at the south end of 
the west gallery, which preserve remnants of mo- 
saic decoration, served as offices (sekreta) attached 
to the patriarchal complex (R. Cormack, E.J.W. 
Hawkins, DOP 31 [1977] 175-251). At the south- 
east corner of the church a raised passage con- 
nected Hagia Sophia to the GREAT PALACE. 

Hagia Sophia was naturally the liturgical center 
of the capital. Administratively it was joined to 





Hacia SOPHIA IN CONSTANTINOPLE. Interior of the naos, 
looking southeast. 


three other nearby churches, namely St. IRENE, 
the Theotokos of the CHALKOPRATEIA, and St. 
Theodore of Sphorakios; all four churches were 
served by the same clergy, whose establishment 
was limited by Justinian to 425, but which in- 
creased to 525 in the next century. Hagia Sophia 
also played an essential part in imperial ceremo- 
nial and had two rooms (METATORIA) reserved for 
the emperor’s use. The itinerary of imperial 
processions in and out of Hagia Sophia is mi- 
nutely described in the DE CEREMONIIS. 

“Fhe most important structural alterations of the 
church during the Byz. period were the following. 
Repairs after the earthquake of 86g may have 
included the rebuilding of the tympanums in their 
present form (R.J. Mainstone, DOP 28—24 [1g69— 
70] 353-68). In g8g the main west arch collapsed 
together with the west semidome and a portion 
of the dome; they were rebuilt by the Armemian 
architect Frdat. In 1317 massive exterior but- 
tresses were added on the north and cast sides of 
the building. In 1346 the cast arch collapsed, 
bringing down the east semidome and one-third 
of the donme and destroying the ambo under- 


894 HAGIA SOPHIA: HAGIA SOPHIA IN CONSTANTINOPLE 





Hacia SOPHIA IN CONSTANTINOPLE. Exterior view from the northwest. In the back- 
ground, the Bosporos. 


neath; the damage was repaired by 1353 with the 
restricted means that were then available. 

The marble and opus sectile decoration of the 
vertical surface of the walls is relatively well pre- 
served. The mosaic decoration of Justinian’s church 
appears to have been largely nonfigural and much 
of it still survives in the vaulting of the narthex, 
side aisles, etc. Fhe summit of the dome was 
occupied by a huge cross in a medallion. After 
Iconoclasm a program of figural mosaics was un- 
dertaken and part of it is preserved: an enthroned 
Virgin in the apse (C. Mango, E.J.W. Hawkins, 
DOP 1g [1965] 113-52), two archangels in the 
bema arch, prophets and church fathers in the 
tympana (Eidem, DOP 26 [1972] 1-41). Narrative 
scenes are known to have existed in the gallery 
vaults (Baptism, Pentecost, Isaiah's vision). Other 
preserved mosaics mav be regarded as individual 


insets. They include a 10th-C. panel of the Virgin 
and Child flanked by Constantine I and Justinian 
I in the southwest vestibule; the enthroned Christ 
with a prostrate emperor (Basil I or Leo VI) at 
his feet in the lunette above the “Imperial Door”; 
the imperial portraits (ALEXANDER—P.A. Under- 
wood, E.J.W. Hawkins, DOP 15 [1961] 189-217, 
Constantine IX with Zoe, JOHN I1 Komnenos with 
Irene) and the Deresis (late 13th C.) in the gallery. 
The Pantokrator in the main dome (which was 
restored in 1355) has disappeared. In 1989 the 
mosaics on the eastern arch, comprising the fig- 
ures of John V Palaiologos, the Virgin Mary, and 


John the Baptist, as well as a Hetoimasia (cf. 


Mango, mfra 66—67) came to light. 

In 1453 Hagia Sophia was converted into a 
mosque (Ayasofya Camii). Apart from the addi- 
tion of four minarets, it underwent several re- 


pairs, the most important in 1573 and the follow- 
ing years, then in 1847—49, the latter carried out 
by the Swiss architects Gaspare and Giuseppe 
Fossati. 

wur. R.L. Van Nice, St. Sophia in Istanbul: An Architectural 
Survey (Washington, D.C., 1965-86). Janin, Eglises CP 455~ 
70. R. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture. Structure and 
Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church (London 1988). A.M. 
Schneider, “Die vorjustinianische Sophienkirche.” BZ 36 
(1436) 77-85. T. Whittemore, The Mosaics of St. Sophia at 
Istanbul, vols. 1-4 (Oxford 1993-52). C. Mango, Materials 
for the Study of the Mosates of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1962). R. Cormack, “Interpreting the Mosaics of 
S. Sophia at Istanbul,” Art History 4 (1981) 131-49. 

-C.M. 

HAGIA SOPHIA IN THESSALONIKE. The pres- 
ent building, located in the southeastern part of 
the city, was constructed over the remains of a 
large five-aisled basilica, incorporating, however, 
only the central portion of the latter. It is a cross- 
domed building with thick walls, narthex, well- 
defined aisles, heavy central piers, and galleries. 
The building does not fit easily into the history 
of Byz. architecture and has been variously as- 
signed to the 6th through the 8th C. 

Mosaic decoration of the interior can be as- 
signed to several phases. Monograms of Constan- 
tine VI and Irene provide a date of 780-97 for 
the original mosaic decoration of the sanctuary, 
which included a huge cross in the apse (behind 
later hgural decoration). In the dome is a mosaic 
of the Ascension, the oldest representation from 
any dome; the apostles stand on a multicolored 
rolling groundline, set off from each other by 
trees. An inscription in the dome states that the 
work was done under Archbp. Paul in November 
of the 4th indiction, but the precise year is not 
given; if Paul is to be identified with a correspon- 
dent of Photios, the composition should be as- 
signed to the 880s. In the half-dome of the apse 
is the Virgin and Child, either contemporary with 
the mosaic in the dome. or perhaps as late as the 
1ith C. (Cormack, infra 134). In the narthex are 
frescoes of the 11th C. (D. Mouriki, DOP 34 
[1982] g3 and fig.26). 

The church was the city’s cathedral from 1205 
(under Latin occupation), but it may have held 
this honor at an earlier date. Gregory PALAMAS 
was buried in the church in 1359. 

tir. K. Theoharidou, The Architecture of Hagia Sophia. 
Thessaloniki (Oxford 1988). R. Cormack, “The Apse Mosaics 


of St. Sophia at Thessaloniki,” DCRAE* 10 (1981) 111-35. 
Krautheimer, ECBArch 292-95. 495. 0.5. TLE. 


HAGIOGRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION 895 


HAGIOCHRISTOPHORITES, STEPHEN, pol- 
itician of lowly origin; died Constantinople 11 
Sept. 1185. The son of a tax collector, Hagio- 
christophorites (‘Aycoxyptotodopitns, “bearer of 
the holy Christ”) lost his nose as punishment for 
his attempt to marry a noblewoman. The staun- 
chest supporter of Andronikos I, he acquired 
great influence during Andronikos’s purges; he 
was labeled Antichristophorites by his adversaries. 
Andronikos rewarded him with the title of sebastos 
and the office of a logothetes. Hagiochristophorites 
helped organize the murder of Alexios If and 
many trials of aristocrats. He was killed by Isaac 
(II) Angelos, the future emperor, when he went 
to Isaac’s house to arrest him. 


Lir. Brand, Byzantium bot, Ggf. -A.K. 


HAGIOGRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION. The 
primary focus of Byz. hagiographical (see Ha- 
GIOGRAPHY) illustration was portraiture: the par- 
ticular deeds of individual saints played a com- 
paratively minor role in all but the very earliest 
period. 

The first works of this genre are scenes relating 
to the death of certain MARTYRS, located at their 
MARTYRION. Though for most of these monu- 
ments only written descriptions survive (see As- 
TERIOS OF AMASEIA On paintings at the martyrion 
of EurHEMIA OF CHALCEDON), it is clear that the 
scenes of martyrdom were often expanded into 
small “Passion” cycles comprising a routine se- 
quence of episodes: arrest, trial, torture, and ex- 
ecution. These sets of images were more closely 
attached to a particular place than to a specific 
text. 

Funcrary PORTRAITS, usually orans figures, were 
sct up at the tomb of the saint. These might be 
copied on liturgical objects (cf. the ivory MENAS 
pyxis), ON PILGRIM TOKENS and AMPULLAE, or even 
on votive panels crected elsewhere in the same 
sanctuary (€.g., those In St. DEMETRIOS at 1 hes- 
salonike). A few portable panels painted with por- 
traits of saints have survived from the late 6th to 
7th C., primarily at Sinai (Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, 
nos. B5, g, 11); their widespread use is attested 
in written sources, however, as is the assumption 
that such icons were capable of acting with many 
of the miraculous powers available to the saint 
during his lifetime (Kitzinger, Art of Byz. 91—156; 
R. Cormack, Writing in Gold [New York 1985] 17— 
94). 


896 HAGIOGRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION 


Venerated first at tombs in far-flung quarters 
of the empire, the RELICS of a great number of 
these saints were eventually translated to Constan- 
tinople and the cults absorbed by the capital. With 
the establishment of the calendar for the church 
of Constantinople (see SYNAXARION OF CONSTAN- 
‘TINOPLE), each saint found his particular place in 
the celebrations of the liturgical year and, at the 
same time, began to assume a specific physiog- 
nomy. A few saints (such as PETER and PauL) had 
already acquired fixed features before Icono- 
clasm, but the arguments raised during that pe- 
riod concerning the identity of an image with its 
prototype led over the course of the gth through 
1ith C. to a growing emphasis on consistency and 
on the clear definition of the physical features of 
dozens of other saints as well. 

A Byz. hagiographical portrait presents each 
saint in one of the three ages of man: the beard- 
less youth, the dark-bearded mature man, or the 
white-haired elder. His features are then further 
defined by his particular hairline and the shape 
of his beard. Of equal importance is the saint’s 
COSTUME, which indicates his profession, his rank 
in the secular or ecclesiastical hierarchy, and even 
his ethnic origin. Whether the saint is depicted 
on a large wall mosaic or inside a painted initial, 
his features and dress, esp. in the 11th C., are so 
precisely rendered as to be immediately recogniz- 
able. Only women are not so clearly distinguished 
one from another, partly because they usually 
appear veiled, so that there is no way of indicating 
the important differences in hairstyle (exceptions 
are princesses such as HELENA and CATHERINE OF 
ALEXANDRIA and the hermit Mary OF EGYPT). St. 
Peter carries his keys, the ANARGyROI their med- 
ical implements, but attributes referring to spe- 
cific events in a saint's life were never a common 
feature of Byz. hagiographical portraiture. 

The portrait type, often confirmed by literary 
tradition (¢.g., Outpios the Roman), generally 
claimed to reproduce an image of the saint painted 
while he was still alive. Once visual types were 
fixed they could be easily transmitted, even by 
means of written descriptions as succinct as those 
found in the later painter’s manuals (Dionysius of 
Fourna, Hermeneta tes zographikes technes, ed. A. 
Papadopoulos-Kerameus [St. Petersburg 190g] 
150-70). 

The innumerable saintly figures adorning Byz. 
churches are arranged in groups according to 


their professional category, following a generally 
accepted hierarchy in CHURCH PROGRAMS Or, More 
rarely, according to the date of their liturgical 
celebration. The precise situation and composi- 
uon of each group was, however, constantly ad- 


justed to suit the specific architectural design and 


purpose of the church it adorned. 

Narrative, such as there was, reemerged very 
slowly. The portraits of certain saints are regularly 
accompanied by specific narrative elements (the 
Miracle at CHoNAaI, Eustatiios and the stag, the 
two SYMEON THE STYLITES on their columns, and 
the Forry MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA in the freezing 
lake). These images, found already in the gth and 
10th C., probably go back to lost Constantinopol- 
itan originals, but they are essentially “expanded” 
portraits, rather than distilled narrative. CALEN- 
DAR CYCLES, best represented by the so-called 
MENOLOGION OF BasiL I], consist primarily of 
scenes of torture and execution, with each saint 
receiving exactly the same amount of space, re- 
gardless of his general importance or the com- 
plexity of his career. 

Narrative cycles devoted to a single saint rarely, 
in fact, appear in MS form, with the exception of 
a few brief sequerices in early MSS of the Homilies 
of GREGORY OF Nazianzos and the marginal Psat- 
TERS. Even the most important Byz. hagiograph- 
ical collection of all, the ten-volume menologion of 
SYMEON METAPHRASTES, was rarely accompanied 
by any illustration other than portraits. 

True biographical cycles are found primarily in 
icon and monumental painting. A few scenes from 
the lives of saints BASIL THE GREAT, GEORGE, and 
Symeon Stylites the Elder appear in the gth- and 
roth-C. churches of Cappavpocia. But compre- 
hensive narrative sequences beginning with the 
birth and ending with the death of the saint occur 
first in fresco in the 12th C. and on the so-called 
vita icons of the early 13th C. Searcely more than 
a dozen of these icons survive, most from Sinal 
and Cyprus; they present the bust or full-length 
figure of a saint surrounded, usually on all four 
sides, by a series of 6, 12, or even 16 compart- 
ments containing narrative episodes from his life. 
The form of these vita icons may derive from the 
practice, csp. popular in the 12th C., of surround- 
ing painted icons with costly inetal frames (N. 
Ševčenko, 14 BSC Abstracts [1988] 32f). The fresco 

cycles have no fixed place in the church but are 
most commonly found in secondary areas such as 


the NARTHEX or the PASTOPHORIA, Often in con- 
nection with donor tombs. The number of differ- 
ent saints whose vitae were illustrated in either 
medium was rather limited: before the 14th C., 
cycles of saints NicHoOLas OF Myra and George 
vastly outnumber all others. MiracLe cycles are 
rare, with the exception of that of Eustratios on 
Sinai (sce Five MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA). 

The formal connection of these narrative cycles 
with the structure of vrra texts suggests that, 
though their iconography cannot have derived 
from illustrated MS models (which apparently 
never existed in large numbers), they may none- 
theless have been a response to the prescribed 
reading of the Metaphrastian Lives at the or- 
THROS service In monastic comntunities, a practice 
that can be documented from at least the 12th C. 
(Ehrhard, Uberlieferung 2:314-18). Though nei- 
ther the monumental nor the icon cycles strictly 
follow the Metaphrastian or any other specific 


text, either with regard to the general choice of 


scenes or the details of any episode, they do have 
their own visual conventions comparable to the 
topoi of the hagiographers (H. Maguire, ArtB 70 
[1988] g8—gg), such as the conscious borrowing 
of a familiar biblical composition to illustrate an 
event in the life of the saint. 

No new genres of hagiographical illustration 
were introduced after the 12th C., though the 
number of cycles and variety of saints involved 
increased. In portraiture, there was a gradual loss 
of physiognomic precision but a gain in psycho- 
logical range. The vita cycles, esp. the frescoes, 
absorbed contemporary Palaiologan innovations 
in biblical iconography, showing an increased re- 
liance on drama and multifigured compositions. 
The growing programmatic thrust—whether po- 
litical, eremitical, episcopal, etc.—of church dec- 
oration in this period also frequently affected the 
content of the hagiographical cycles (e.g., Th. 
Gouma-Peterson, ArtB 58 [1976] 168-82; S. To- 
meković in Mileševa u istoriji srpsko naroda [Bel- 
grade 1987] 51—65). Resonances established be- 
tween biblical and hagiographical cycles grew ever 
more sophisticated as church decoration became 
more and more elaborate and various otherwise 
unrelated cycles had to be unrolled on a single 
wall (Maguire, supra 94-98). 

it. C. Belting-Thm, RAC 14:66-96. A. Chatzinikolaou. 
RBK 2:1034—98. P. Mijović, Menolog (Belgrade 1973). Sev- 
čenko, Nicholas 1553—73. K. Weitzmann, “Icon Programs of 


HAGIOGRAPHY 897 


the reth and 13th centuries at Sinai,” DCAAE* 12 (1984) 
63-116. Th. Gouma-Peterson, “Narrative Cycles of Saints’ 
Lives in Byzantine Churches from the Tenth to the Mid- 
Fourteenth Century.” GOrTAR 30 (1985) 31-44. —N.P.S. 


HAGIOGRAPHY, modern term for a genre of 
Byz. LITERATURE Whose aims were the veneration 
of the saint and the creation of an ideal of Chris- 
tian behavior as well as documentation and enter- 
tainment. As a portrayal of historical personages, 
hagiography overlaps with historiography, con- 
veying historical information, using chronicles as 
sources, and, in turn, serving as a source for 
chronicles; as an edifying genre, hagiography may 
bear resemblance to the SERMON. Three major 
types of hagiography already existed in the early 
centuries of the empire: MARTYRION, the account 
of a martyr’s trial and execution; vira, a saint’s 
biography; and APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM, a col- 
lection of wise sayings of hermits. Probably by the 
7th C. the description of posthumous MIRACLES 
was established as a separate type. 

Hagiography provides a variety of information 
to the Byzantinist (F. Halkin, 13 CEB, Main Papers 
XI [Oxford 1966] 1-10). First of all, saints’ lives 
convey data concerning their heroes and the mon- 
asteries and/or cities where they lived. Second, 
since a number of saints played important political 
roles, their biographies contain data, sometimes 
unique, about momentous events, although the 
reliability of the evidence may vary from one vita 
to the next. Some vitae are biased, others indif- 
ferent to reality and so concerned with their edi- 
fying or propagandizing purpose that chronology 
is distorted, events invented, suppressed, or trans- 
ferred from other vitae. More dependable are 
hagiographie data on EVERYDAY LIFE. The style of 
hagiographical works ranged from highly ele- 
vated to simple, inclining toward the vernacular. 
Sometimes they are full of vivid details, and ad- 
ventures or heroes are woven into a romance with 
such elements as travel, shipwreck, concealment, 
and pursuit. The account of miracles, including 
posthumous ones, is a typical element of hagiog- 
raphy. 

Early hagiography (4th—7th C.) tried to reject 
the ancient values of urban civilization: the holy 
man was liberated from his obligations toward 
society and authority and submitted exclusively to 
God, for whose sake he was ready to endure 
poverty, suffering, and tortures; accordingly, the 


898 HAGIOGRAPHY 


DESERT Was chosen as the most typical setting for 
the saint’s exploits (ANTONY ‘THE GREAT). When 
the saint entered the city gates, it was to reject the 
traditional norms of behavior (SYMEON OF EMESA). 
Family ties were renounced (ALEXtoS Homo Det). 
and the saint was closer to wild beasts than to his 
relatives. A shameful past, such as prostitution, 
was not an obstacle to holiness; neither were illit- 
eracy, ugliness, or poverty. Early hagiography em- 
phasized the collective nature of the body of saints: 
many martyrs met execution in groups, and the 
wise “fathers” of the apophthegmata were a faceless 
throng, who can hardly be distinguished as indi- 
viduals. On the other hand, the individuality of 
the hagiographer was maintained, and the most 
famous hagiographers of the period (ATHANASIOS 
of Alexandria, John MoscHos, LEonrios OF NEA- 
POLIS, SOPHRONIOS of Jerusalem) are well-known 
personalites. The main centers of hagiographic 
production were the cities and monasteries of 
Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. 

With the general decline of literary activity from 
the late 7th and through almost the entire 8th C., 
hagiography diminished; it regenerated slightly 
before 800, first in the eastern provinces, and 
flourished from the gth to 11th C. The passionate 
denial of ancient ideals that was typical of earlier 
saints’ lives lessened: the daring hermit gave way 
to the efficient builder of the monastic community 
(ATHANASIOS OF ATHOS, LAZAROS OF MT. GALE- 
sios), the wild holy roor made his way into the 
establishment (BASIL THE YOUNGER), prostitutes 
and women in disguise were replaced by the ideal 
matron (MARY THE YOUNGER). The sancuty of 
family tics was assumed as a virtue, although not 
consistently (A. Kazhdan, Byzantion 54 [1984] 188- 
92). The saint’s political role was highly esteemed, 
his connections with Constantinopolitan function- 
aries carefully stressed: some vitae (EUTHYMLOS, 
patriarch of Constantinople) avoid the miraculous 
elements, except for the saint’s foresight, and 
emphasize the saint’s role in political and ecclesi- 
astical struggles; the Life of IGNaTros, patriarch 
of Constantinople, ts a purely political pamphlet 
against Photios. The collectivity of martyrs begins 
to disappear; it is significant that the story of the 
FORTY-TWO MARTYRS OF AMORION was produced 
in several versions, some of which acquired indi- 
vidual heroes. We know little about individual 
hagtographers of this period, although some of 
them (Niketas, author of the Life of PHILARETOS 


THE MERCIFUL, and esp. Gregory, hagiographer 
of Basil the Younger) provide some personal in- 
formation. IGNATIOS THE DEACON was probably 
the only professional hagiographer of the period. 
On the other hand, the collection and editing of 
old vitae attracted distinguished writers, such as 
Nikeras DaviD PAPHLAGON and esp. SYMEON ME- 
TAPHRASTES. 

The Life of Lazaros of Galesios is the last great 
piece of 11th-C. hagiography. In the 12th C. 
intellectuals became critical of the image of the 
holy man: hagiographical production was scanty 
(P. Magdalino in Byz. Saint 52-54), and Eusta- 
THIOS OF THESSALONIKE Composed a spectacular 
“and-vita” of PHILOTHEOS OF OPSIKION. At the 
same time some evidence of popular hagiography 
is preserved: the Life of Paraskeve was reportedly 
burned by order of the patriarch because of its 
vernacular character, and the miracles of St 
GEORGE, some of which should be dated in the 
12th C., conjure up an image of the saint as a 
clever fellow, ready to bargain and conscious of 
his profit. The authors of “popular” vitae plunged 
into anonyinity, whereas we have the names of 
some professional writers, such as PRODROMOS 
and Tzerzes, who tried their skill at saints’ lives, 
although their hagiographical essays are not their 
best work. The interest in AUTOBIOGRAPHY aS a 
redeveloping genre, as well as the propagation of 
the military ideal, contributed to the decline of 
hagiography: PseLLos attempted to rewrite the 
Life of AUXENTIOS, permeating his work with 
autobiographical elements; BLEMMYDES wrote his 
own biography—he did not expect his disciples to 
culogize his virtues. 

Some hagiographers of the Palaiologan period 
(GREGORY II or Cyprus, Constantine AKROPOLI- 
res, Theodora Raoutaina) preferred the lauda- 
tion of saints from earlier periods, while others 
concentrated on the lives of contemporaries. Some 
vitae took the form of biographies of politicians 
(Emp. Jonn I Varatzes, patriarchs ARSENIOS 
AUTOREIANOS, JOSEPII I, ATHANASIOS l, ISIDORE l 
BOUCHEIRAS} and theologians, such as PALAMAS. 
Their anti-Palaiologan resistance or principles of 
church independence are the predominant rea- 
sons for the recognition of their sainthood (R. 
Macrides in Byz. Saint 68). Other writers empha- 
sized the ascetic life of the hermit (NipHON, RO- 
MYLOS, MAXIMOS KAUSOKALYBITES). 

The Bollandists laid the foundations of the study 


of hagiography (H. Delehaye, L'oeuvre des Bolland- 
ites à travers trow siècles (1615-1915) [Brussels 
1959]). In the 1gth C. a critical approach toward 
hagiography developed: H. Usener (Kleine Schrif- 
ten, vol. 3 [Leipzig-Berlin 1914] 74-104) attacked 
Christian legend from two points—as historical 
fraud and for the alleged construing of the image 
of the saint in terms of ancient mythology. Dele- 
haye limited Usener’s hypercriticism and tried to 
distinguish trustworthy and legendary texts. The 
Munich school (Ehrhard) and later Bollandists 
(Halkin) concentrated on collection and classifi- 
cation of hagiographical works, and vitae were 
broadly used as sources for historical information 
(Rudakov, Magoulias), but only recently has the 
tendency developed to use saints’ lives as docu- 
ments for ideology and social psychology (Brown, 
Patlagean, Magdalino). In this case the old prob- 
lem of reliability loses its significance: regardless 
of its legendary nature, hagiography is an impor- 
tant means of understanding how the Byz. per- 
ceived their world. 

ur. BHG, BHG Auct., BHG Nov.Auct. F. Halkin, Re- 
cherches et documents d’'hagiographie byzantine (Brussels 1971). 
R. Aigrain, L’hagiographie (Paris 1953). H. Delehaye, Cing 
leçons sur la méthode hagigraphique (Brussels 1934). A. Ehr- 
hard, Uberlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und 
homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, 3 vols. (Leipzig 
1937-52), with W. Abschlag, Theologische Literaturzeitung gı 
(1966) 797—800. A.P. Rudakov, Očerki vizantijskoj kuľ tury po 
dannym grečeskoj agiografii (Moscow 1917; rp. London 1970). 
E. Patlagean, P. Richi, Hagiographie, cultures et sociétés (IVe— 
XIe siècles) (Paris 1981). J-W. Nesbitt, “A Geographical and 
Chronological Guide to Greek Saint [sic] Lives,” OrChrP 35, 
(1969) 443-89. Ch. Loparev, Greceskije žitija sujatych VIH i 
1X vekov (Petrograd 1914). A. Laiou-Thomadakis, “Saints 
and Society in the Late Byzantine Empire,” in Charanis 
Studies 84-114. —A.K., A.M.T. 


HAGIOTHEODORITES (‘Aytodeodwpirns), a 
family of Byz. civil and ecclesiastical functionaries 
attested from the first half of the 12th C. The 
first known were Constantine, lawyer, philoso- 
pher, and rhetorician at Join Li's court, and Ni- 
cholas, protos of a monastery (named on a seal). 
They became esp. influential under Manuel I: 
John was his favorite but fell from imperial favor; 
later three brothers played important roles—the 
logothetes tou dromou Michael (from 11587), the 
eparch of Constantinople John (ca.1160); and Ni- 
cholas, metropolitan of Athens in the 1160s and 
70s. Konstas Hagiotheodorites served as logothetes 
ca.1258 and then as Theodore II’s private secre- 
tary. 


HAIR ORNAMENT 899 


uT. A. Kazhdan, “Bratja Ajoteodority pri dvore Man- 
uila Komnina,” ZRVI g (1906) 85-94. Laurent, Corpus 2, 
nos. 225—440. PLP, nos. 240-41. -ALK. 


HAIMORRHOISSA, HEALING OF. Sce Mirka- 
CLES OF CHRIST. 


HAIMOS, MOUNT. See BALKANS. 


HAIR (kóun). The Byz. church inherited from 
primitive Christianity a negative attitude toward 
hairstyling: “Flowing locks,” says St. Paul (1 Cor 
11:14), “disgrace a man,” and the image of the 
unkempt John the Baptist was an embodiment of 
the rejection of haircuts. This attitude prevailed 
more or less unchanged to the last centuries of 
Byz. Despite this clear-cut ecclesiastical position, 
the tendency to care about hairstyles emerged 
time and again. 

In the late Roman period, men were clean- 
shaven and generally wore their hair short; those 
who wore long hair in plaits or curled were re- 
garded as effeminate. In the 6th C. the youth of 
the circus factions styled their hair in the “Hunnic” 
fashion: long at the nape and shaved at the front 
of the head. By the roth C. men wore their hair 
longer, and even monks adopted longer hair- 
styles, to the dismay of the church. In the 12th 
C. moralists inveighed against excessive attention 
to hairstyling. On the other hand, both hair and 
BEARD were indicative of social status and depri- 
vation of either was considered a punishment. 
Hair color was also significant; the term xantha 
ethne (“blond tribes”) designated the peoples of 
central and eastern Europe, in contrast to the 
dark-haired peoples of the Mediterranean. 

The predominant hair fashion for women 
throughout the centuries was parted in the center 
and held in place with a comb or band. Combs 
made ot bone are often tound in archaeological 
excavations. Outside the house women were ex- 
pected to cover their head with veils. Both men 
and women were admonished not to wear wigs or 
to dye their hair. (See also BARBER.) 


LIT. Koukoules, Bios 4:342-72. H.G. Beck, “Orthodoxie 
und Alltag,” in Festschrift Stratos 2:33.4f. —Ap.K., A.K. 


HAIR ORNAMENT. Justinian’s Digest (34.2.25.10) 
classes as jewelry HEADGEAR such as “headdresses, 


900 HALABIYAH 


turbans and half-turbans, a head covering, a pearl 
hairpin that women are accustomed to possess, 
saffron-colored [hair] nets.” Only traces of such 
hair ornaments survive, but three main types are 
depicted in Byz. art. 

1. A jeweled band that is worn on the forehead 
at the hairline. Only the part from ear to ear can 
be seen; this part presumably continued around 
the back of the head, under the hair, as a band 
of fabric. 

2. A circlet, often jeweled, worn around a chi- 
gnon on the top of the head. A jeweled diadem, 
now in Baltimore ( Jewelery: Ancient to Modern, ed. 
A. Garside [New York 1980], no.420), has been 
interpreted as this second type, or as part of a 
jeweled collar. It could also be part of a jeweled 
band. 

3. An ornamented mesh or net, worn over the 
enure head, reaching to the forehead. 

All three types seem to be contemporary and 
appear in the Theodora panel at S. Vitale, Ra- 
VENNA. 


Liv. Koukoules, Bios 4:367£. -S.D.C. 


HALABIYAH. See ZENOBIA. 


HALMYROS (‘AAuvupos, name derived from the 
salt-flats in the area), commonly known as the 
“Two Halmyroi” because of its double fortified 
citadels, city in central Greece on the Pagasitic 
Gulf south of modern Volos. It is identified with 
modern Tsingeli and Kephalosis near ancient 
Halos. In late antiquity an agricultural settlement 
is attested at nearby Aidonion, with oil and wine 
presses (N. Nikonanos, ArchDelt 26 [1971] Chroni- 
kon 312f). In the 12th C. Halmyros played an 
important role as an entrepôt for Venice, Genoa, 
and Pisa, succeeding NEA ANCHIALOS and DEME- 
TRIAS as the primary port of Uhessaly. The Vene- 
tians attacked Halmyros in 1171 as retaliation for 
the massacre in Constantinople, and in 1198 its 
ports were again opened to them. In 1204 it was 
first given to the deposed Alexios III as a place 
of retirement but soon fell into the hands of the 
Latins; by 1246 it was under the control of Mi- 
chael II of Epiros and in 1249 it is attested as the 
center of a theme of the empire of Nicaea. Hal- 
mivros was attacked and occupied by the CATALAN 
GRAND Company between 1307 and 1310. The 


city had a significant Jewish community. The bishop 
of Halmyros was suffragan of Larissa. 

Little remains of the two fortified acropolises 
or the Byz. town between them, although several 
churches, many of them belonging to the Italian 
communities, are attested in documents from the 
12th C. onward. Some Byz. sculpture (N. Gian- 
nopoulos, BZ 25 [1925] 339—468). seals (Idein, BZ 
17 [1908] 131-40; 18 [1909] 502-10), and in- 
scriptions (Idem, BCH 14 [1890] 240-44; 15 [1891] 
562-71; 23 [1899] 396-400) have been found. 
The so-called Alonissos ship, whose wreckage was 
discovered on the seabed just off the island of 
Pelagos, was perhaps involved in trade with Hal- 
myros. It contained a large cargo of pottery of 
the 12th C. (Ch. Kritzas, Athens Annals of Archaeol- 
ogy 4 [1971] 176-82). 

uit. TIB 1:170f. Abramea, Thessalia 65f, 166-73. N. 
Giannopoulou, Ta Phthiotika (Athens 1891). -T.E.G. 


HALO. See Nimsus. 


HAMAH. See EPIPHANEIA. 


HAMAH TREASURES. Sec Kaper Koraon 
TREASURE; MA ARAT AL-NUSMAN TREASURE. 


HAMDANIDS, Muslim dynasty in Mosul and esp. 
at Aleppo, of Taghlibite Arab origin (ca.868— 
1015/16). The independent emirate was estab- 
lished at Mosul between 930 and 934, and under 
Nasir al-Dawla extended power over most of up- 
per Mesopotamia. Nasir was succeeded by his son 
Abū Taghlib, who resisted Byz. attack in 972 but 
infuriated John Tzimiskes by capturing the do- 
mestikos Melias, who died in captivity. In 976 Abū 
Taghlib supported the rebellion of Bardas SkLE- 
ros. The Hamdanid dynasty at Aleppo began in 
944 under Sayr aL-DawLa. Many Hamdanids left 
Aleppo because of the Byz. threat. The Hamdan- 
ids were forced to maneuver between FATIMIDS, 
Buwayhids, and Byz. Sa‘d al-Dawla, the son of 
Sayf al-Dawla, massacred many monks at Dayr 
Sem‘an, in response to the Byz. invasion of 985. 
The Byz. governor of Antioch, Michael BourTzes, 
helped the Hamdanids against the Fatimids, but 
Hamdanid power declined after the Byz. treaty 


with the Fatimids in 1001. A son of Sayf al-Dawla, 
Abu’l Hayja‘, fled to Basil IT and later probably 
converted to Christianity. Sa‘d’s minister Lulu 
and Sa‘d himself prostrated themselves before 
Basil IE in 995. Lu‘lu’s son Mansur fled to Byz. in 
1015/16 and received a castle for aiding Romanos 
IH in northern Syria in 1030. 

ur. M. Canard, EP 3:126-31. Idem, Histoire de la dy- 
nastie des H'amdanides de Jazira et de Syrie (Algiers-Paris 
1951). R.J. Bikhazi, “l'he Hamdanid Dynasty of Mesopo- 
tamia and North Syria 254—404/868-1914" (Ph.D. diss., 
Univ. of Mich., 1981). -W.E.K. 


HAMILTON PSALTER. See PsaLTER. 


HAND OF GOD. The image of a hand emanating 
from clouds or an arc of Heaven appears in both 
Christian and imperial art in the 4th C. Its Chris- 
tian use surely derives from earlier Jewish art, 
where it is an image of God’s voice or word, 
amplifying scriptural metaphors of God’s hand as 
his power or protection. In imperial art, the hand 
displaces fully embodied deities and functions dif- 
ferently and more actively. In medallions of Con- 
stantine I the Great, for example, a hand reaches 
out to crown the emperor or draw him upward 
at his APOTHEOSIS. The gesturing hand of Jewish 
tradition continues in later Christian art to signify 
the voice or approbation of God, appearing in 
such New Testament compositions as the Baptism 
and Ascension as well as in numerous Old Tes- 
tament scenes. Other 4th- through 6th-C. images, 
however, based on the imperial version, show the 
hand actually drawing Christ upward at his As- 
cension, or holding a crown over Christ, the Cross, 
the Virgin Mary, or a saint. This version vanishes 
in later Byz. art, where Christ himself confers 
crowns on rulers and performs concrete acts. 
Probably a distinct, later development is the huge 
hand holding souls in the Last JUDGMENT (cf. 
Wisdom of Solomon 3:1), seen in late Byz. monu- 
ments (CHORA). 


The theme of “the king’s heart in the hand of 


God” (Pr 21:1) that, for fathers of the church, 
had imposed limits on imperial authority, was 
reinterpreted in the Justinianic period to mean 
the all-embracing authority of the basileus (H. Hat- 
tenhauer, ZSavKan 67 [1981] 1-21). 

ur. Grabar, Fin Ant. 2:791-g4. M. Kirigin, La mano 


divina nelliconografia cristiana (Vatican 1976). 
A.W.C.. A.C. 


HARITH, AL- 901 


HAPLOUCHEIR, MICHAEL, member of the 
senate who eagerly supported ANDRONIKOS l in 
1183; EuSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE acrimoni- 
ously censured Haploucheir (‘AzrAovxetp) for his 
dishonest behavior (Eust. Thess., Capture 44.19- 
20). He probably belonged to the same family of 
civilian nobility as Thomas Haploucheir, judge of 
the velum under Manuel I. Haploucheir has been 
identified, on good grounds, with the poet of the 
same name, who wrote a short iambic dramation 
presenting a debate between a rustic who praises 
Fortune and a wise man (sophos) who laments his 
miserable fate and is ready to renounce his fame 
and become a craftsman. The theme of a poor 
intellectual’s envy of a well-to-do artisan is typical 
of 1ath-C. writers such as John Tzerzes and 
Theodore PRODROMOs. 

ED. P.L.M. Leone, “Michaelis Hapluchiris versus cum 
excerptis,” Byzantion 39 (1969) 268-79. 

uit. Q. Cataudella, “Michele Apluchiro e il ‘Pluto’ di 
Aristofane,” Dioniso 8 {1940-41) 88-93. -A.K. 


HARAWĪ, AL-, more fully Taqi al-Din Abd al- 
Hasan ‘Ali al-Harawi, Arab author, ascetic, and 
traveler; born Mosul, died Aleppo 1215. He had 
a varied career as preacher in Baghdad and Aleppo 
and as envoy and confidant of the Ayytibid sul- 
tans, including Saladin. In the course of his mis- 
sions he traveled widely, to Palestine and Egypt, 
and in 1175 to Norman Sicily. He also visited 
Constantinople, where he met Emp. Manuel I 
Komnenos. His vivid descriptions of the Hippo- 
drome and the statues of Constantinople are partly 
reproduced by YAQUrT, al-Qazwint, and other en- 
cyclopedists. His three principal works are the 
Guide to the Places of Pilgrimage, Memoir on the Ruses 
of War, and Last Counsels of al-Harawi. 

ED. Kitab al-Ishārāt ila ma'rifat al-ziyarat (Guide)—Guide 
des lieux de pèlerinage. ed. J. Sourdel-Thomine, 2 vols. (Da- 
mascus 1953-57). with Fr. tr. Al-Tadhkira al-Harawiyya frl- 

a E ` 75 A « % : ae. © i 


sanasak e n mn T 


TS. Ii ats aG SUR sas eke ee a 





ayyubide.” BEO 17 (1961-62) 205- 
66, with Fr. tr. ALWasiyya al-Harawiyya (Counsels—ed. eadem, 
“Le testament politique du shaikh ‘Ali al-Harawi,” in Arabic 
and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A.R. Gibb (Cam- 
bridge, Mass.— Leiden 1965) 609-18, with Fr. tr. 

ur. J. Sourdel-Thomine, £1? 3:178. ~-A.Sh., A.M.T. 


HARBAVILLE TRIPTYCH. See Triprycnu. 


HARITH, AL-. See ARETHAS. 


902 HARMENOPOULOS, CONSTANTINE 


HARMENOPOULOS, CONSTANTINE, 14th-C. 
jurist. Harmenopoulos (“Appevomovaos) signed a 
document of 1345 (Chil. 134) as sebastos and judge 
of Vhessalonike; by 1349 he was also a nomophylax, 
after 1359 krites katholikos. He compiled a “corpus” 
of secular and canon law. Secular law is repre- 
sented by the Hexabiblos (Six Books), also called 
the Procheiron nomon (Handbook of the Laws), of 
1345. This compilation grew out of the Pro- 
CHEIRON but adds excerpts from the Synopsis Ba- 
SILICORUM, the law book of Michael ATTALEIATES, 
the Synopsis MINOR, the Peira, and the work of 
JuLIAN oF ASKALON. Harmenopoulos organized 
the legal material into a new system, which made 
it easier to use and thus enormously popular; it 
is transmitted in almost 70 MSS. In practice it 
served as a law code (in Greece into the 2oth C.) 
and was adopted in several Slavic countries. At- 
tached to the Hexabiblos as a regular component 
is the FaRMER’s Law, presumably reorganized by 
Harmenopoulos (I. Medvedev in V2z0é [Moscow 
1982] 216-33). 

Canon law is represented by the Epitome ca- 
nonum of Harmenopoulos, which contains a selec- 
tion of canons with commentaries (PG 150:45—- 
168), a confession of faith (PG 150:29-32), and a 
treatise on heresies (19—29). Some shorter works 
of Harmenopoulos are also transmitted (lexika, an 
enkomion on St. Demetrios). 

ED. G.E. Heimbach, Constantini Harmenopuli: Manuale 
legum siwe Hexabiblos (Leipzig 1851; rp. Aalen 1969). Eng. 
tr. of book 6 by E.H. Freshfield (Cambridge 1930). 

LIT. K.G. Pitsakes, Konstantinou Armenopoulou Prochetron 
Nomon e Hexabiblos (Athens 1971) {'-pia’. Idem, “Gregoriou 
Akindynou: Anekdote Pragmateia peri (Konstantinou?) 
Harmenopoulou,” Epeteris Kentrou Historias Hellenikou Di- 
katou 19 (1972) 111-216. Idem, “Gyro apo tis peges tes 
‘Fpitomes Kanonon’ tou Konstantinou Armenopoulou,” 
ibid. 23 (1976) 85-122. M.Th. Fégen, “Die Scholien zur 
Hexabiblos im Codex Vetustissimus Vaticanus Ottoboni- 
anus gt. 440,” FM 4 (1981) 256-345. Eadem, “Hexabiblos 
aucta,” FM 7 (1986) 259-333. —M.Th.F. 


HARNESSMAKER. See Lororomos. 


HAROLD HARDRADA (or more properly Har- 
dradi, “Hard-Ruler”), king of Norway as Harold 
ITI (1046-66); born 1015, died Stamford Bridge, 
England, 25 Sept. 1066. In 1030 or 1031 Harold 
(C Apáàrtns) fled from Norway to JAROSLAV of Kiev 
and reached Byz. probably in 1034 (J. Shepard. 
JOB 22 [1973] 150). Harold and his Varangians 


participated in several Byz. military campaigns: 
in Sicily with Manıakes, in Bulgaria against Der- 


JAN, and probably against Muslims in the Ae- 


gean. The report in Norwegian sacas of his fight 
against Pechenegs—in 1036 according to K. Cig- 
gaar (BalkSt 21 ( 1980] 385—401)—and of his jour- 
ney to Jerusalem is questionable. He was granted 
the title of spathurokandidatos. A supporter of Mi- 
chael IV, Harold probably took part in the de- 
position and blinding of Michael V. Because Con- 
STANTINE LX changed the Byz. attitude toward the 
Rus’ and Varangians (G. Litavrin, VizVrem 27 
[1967] 83f) or because he suspected that Harold 
would join the rebellious Maniakes (A. Poppe, BS 
32 [1971] 28), the emperor imprisoned Harold. 
He escaped and reached Kiev probably in winter 
1042/3. In spring 1045 he married Jaroslav’s 
daughter Elizabeth and possibly incited Jaroslav 
to attack Constantinople. Byz. coins brought to 
Scandinavia by Harold in 1045 may have served 
as models for Danish mints (P. Grierson, ByzF 1 
[1966] 124-38; M. Hendy, NChron 10 [1970] 187- 
97). 


LIT. S. Blöndal, The Varangians of Byzantium, rev. and tr. 
B.S. Benedikz (Cambridge 1978) 54-102, 209-14. 
—A.K., C.M.B. 


HARROWING OF HELL. See ANASTASIS. 


HARUN AL-RASHID (Aapov), caliph of the 
‘ABBASIDS (789—809); born al-Rayy (near Tehran) 
Feb. 766, died Tis (Khurasan) 24 Mar. 80g. He 
was the son of Caliph Muhammad al-Mahdi (775- 
85). In 780 the young Hartin invaded the Ar- 
meniakon and took Semaluous, and in 782 he was 
enabled by the defection of the Byz. general 
TATZATES to advance to Chrysoupolis and force 
Empress Irene to make peace. During the nego- 
tiations he captured and held the eunuch Srau- 
RAKIOS until Irene signed a three-year treaty re- 
quiring the Byz. to release all prisoners, pay an 
annual tribute of 70,000 dinars, and make com- 
mercial concessions. As caliph, Hariin strength- 
ened his border with Byz. by building frontier 
fortresses linking up with Tarsos. He paid special 
attention to the fleet, which several times attacked 
Cyprus and Rhodes. In 790 Hariin’s navy de- 
feated a Byz. force off Attaleia; Theophilos the 
strategos of Kibyrrhaiotai was captured and exe- 


cuted after refusing Hartin’s order to turn traitor. 
In 798 Haran made Raqqa on the Euphrates his 
chief residence, probably anucipating sustained 
campaigns against Byz. and eastern Iran. In 798 
‘Abbasid forces invaded Byz. territory to Ephesus. 
Hariin initially refused Irene’s request for peace. 
but, after Khazar attacks on his northern flank, 
he signed a four-year treaty again requiring the 
Byz. to pay annual tribute to the Arabs. He per- 
sonally campaigned against Byz. in 803 and in 
806, when he captured Herakleia and Tyana and 
exacted a humiliating treaty stipulating that Emp. 
Nikephoros I annually pay 30,000 solidi and a 
head tax of 3 solidi for himself and his son Stau- 
rakios. Hartin destroyed churches in frontier areas 
to punish what he thought were pro-Byz. sym- 
pathies. He died campaigning in Khurasan. 

ur. M. Canard, “La prise d'Héraclée et les relations 
entre Hartin ar-Rashid et empereur Nicéphore fer,” By- 
zantion 32 (1962) 345-79. H. Kennedy, The Early Abbasid 


Caliphate (London 1981) 115-34. F. Omar, EI? 3:232-34. 
=P.A.H. 


HARUN IBN YAHYA, oth—1oth-C. Arab au- 
thor. Captured as a civilian (a fact usually ignored 
by scholars), Hardin was carried off from Askalon 
via Attaleia to Constantinople, where he lived for 
years, perhaps as a slave. His account, a valuable 
report on Byz. and other Christian nations, in- 
cludes a detailed description of Constantinople, 
its walls, gates, statues, relics, water supplies; the 
Palace, its decoration and furnishings; Hagia So- 
phia; Christmas festivities; banquets; imperial 
processions; chariot races in the Hippodrome; the 
conditions of Muslim prisoners; the route to Rome 
via Serbia; a description of Rome’s marvels: and 
a reference to Britain. This account survives in 
the Book of Precious Things by ibn Rusta (born 
Isfahan, fl. late gth-early 10th C.), an Arab an- 
thologist of Persian origin. 

Moderu scholars have dated Haims repor 
variously between 880 and 912, due to differences 
regarding internal clues, the possible date of his 
capture or release, whether ibn Rusta quotes him 
directly, and whether all the details are based 
on Hartin’s own observations. G. Ostrogorsky 
(SemKond 5 [1932] 251-57) has argued for g12— 
13, Alexander’s reign, as the date since no em- 
Press or co-emperor is mentioned. Actually, Ha- 
rün describes a typical procession, not necessarily 
a specific one, and the emperor is depicted as a 


HAWKING | 903 


co-emperor (wearing black and red boots). It is 
reasonable to date the account to ¢a.goo. 


ED. Precious Things—kuab al-Alag al-Nafisa, ed. M. de 
Goeje |= BGA 7 (1892) 1-2eg]. Les atours précieux, ir. G. 
Wiet (Cairo 1955). 

tir. ALA. Vasiliev, “Harun Ibn Yahya and His Descrip- 
tion of Constantinople,” SemKond 5 (1932) 149-63. Vasi- 
liev, Byz. Arabes 2.2:379-94. M. Izeddin, P. Vherriat, "Un 
prisonnier arabe à Byzance au IX® siècle: Hāroūn-ibn- 
Yahva,” REI 15 (1947) 41-62. ~A.Sh. 





HASAN DAG, site in Cappapocia. On the north 
slope of this volcanic cone are a number of 
churches, including Sarıgöl and basilicas IE and 
IJE near Viransehir of the first half of the 6th C. 
(7) and Kemer Kilise (Viranşehir 1) and Anatepe 
of the 7th C. (7). These solid, ashlar-faced mon- 
uments are most commonly cruciform in plan, 
although basilicas with both single and double 
naves also occur. To the north of Hasan Dag is 
the Peristrema Valley with a number of ROCK-CcUT 
CHURCHES still adorned with painted decoration. 
Several also retain datable dedicatory inscriptions. 
Direkli Kilise, a large cross-in-square church, bears 
an inscription mentioning the emperors Basil (II) 
and Constantine (VIIT) and is thus datable to 
976—1025. The single-naved chapel of St. Michael 
was decorated by the monk Arsenios and his son 
Theophylaktos, protuspatharios and axiarches (N. 
Thierry, /Sav [1968] 46, reads taxterchos) during 
the reign of a porphyrogennetos, most likely Con- 
stantine VIH (1025-28). A dedicatory inscription 
in Kirk Dam Alu Kilise dates its paintings to 
1283—95. The fresco decorations of several 
churches, including Yilanli Kilise, Ağaç Alu Kilise, 
Eğri Taş Kilisesi, and Kokar Kilise, are rendered 
with a vital primitivism that makes for difficult 
ascription on the basis of style and suggests the 
relative isolation of this valley from continuous 
metropolitan influence. 

rer Thierr Nouvelles folives M Restle Studien vur 


frühbyzantinischen Architektur Kappadokiens (Vienna 1979). 
-A].W. 


HATS. See HEADGEAR. 


HAWKING. The sport of hawking or falconry 
involved the use of hawks to hunt various BIRDS, 
such as cranes, wild geese, partridges, and pheas- 
ants. For this purpose the falconer (hierakarios) 


904 HEADGEAR 


trained young hawks; those imported from Geor- 
gia were esp. prized. Other species besides the 
hawk were also used. The Orneosophion (ed. R. 
Hereher, Claudii Aeliani Varia Historia, Epistolae, 
Fragmenta [Leipzig 1866] 577-79) mentions seven 
hawk-names, mostly obscure. There is evidence, 
however, that the falcon was known and used in 
this kind of HUNTING. 

Some evidence for the carly practice of hawking 
is found in the Oneirokritikon of ACHMET BEN SIRIN 
(232.16-17). From the 11th C. onward a growing 
number of references described hawking as a 
sport enjoyed by the ruling class and the emperor. 
Manuc} I Komnenos’s passion for this type of 
hunting is reflected in an ekphrasis by Constantine 
Manasses. Another contemporary description was 
composed by Constantine PANTECHNES. The 
growth of interest in hawking is evinced by the 
practical manuals that circulated at that ume. Such 
a Hierakosophion is attributed to Demetrios Pepa- 
GOMENOS and deals with the breeding and training 
of the hawk and treatment of its diseases (Hercher, 
supra, 335-516). (See also PROTOIERAKARIOS.) 


uit. Koukoules, Bios 5:395—-98. —Ap.K. 


HEADGEAR (kadvarpa). Until the 11th C. a 
headcovering was not a usual part of either official 
or ecclesiastical costume, with the exception of the 
monastic hood, or koukoullion, and the traditional 
veils of women. 

Only the patriarch of Alexandria was entitled 
to cover his head for the celebration of the Eu- 
charist; thus the Alexandrian patriarchs Athanasios 
and Cyril are depicted wearing a small black or 
white cap. In the 14th C. the patriarch of Con- 
stantinople wore a white MITRA, not a mitre but a 
gold-embroidered veil. St. Spyridon is shown 
wearing a small straw bonnet (perhaps a pun on 
his name, which derives from the word for a small 
basket), Patr. Methodios a headdress knotted un- 
der the chin, an allusion to the story that his jaws 
were dislocated by Theophilos. 

Two of the protoproedrot depicted in Paris, B.N. 
Coisl. gr. 79 wear low red boxlike hats with a tip 
that ops down over one ear, while two others 
wear higher white beehive-shaped ones; the latter 
may be an early form of the skrapion. Another 
form of lay headgear is the turban, the phakeolis 
or phakiolion, which by the reth C. was no mere 
orientalism typical of Arabs, Ethiopians, and Pal- 


estinians but common garb, esp. for women, The 
women depicted with Miriam in a circular dance 
in a Psalter in the Vatican (Val. gr. 752, fol.449v; 
Spatharakis, Corpus, fig.123) wear huge head- 
dresses that must reflect court fashions of the 11th 
C. Shepherds wear broad-brimmed straw hats, 
sailors a Western-inspired tight black cap tied 
under the chin. Israelites wear hoods identical to 
the MAPHORION. 

In the Palaiologan period, hats proliferated; the 
emperor and other officials wore the skiadion and 
another squarish hat rather like a mitre, whose 
name is unknown (the SKARANIKON, which is 
sometimes presumed to be a kind of hat, was most 
likely a garment). Women wore the maphorion, 
though the empress apparently went unveiled. 
Young relatives of the emperor wore either noth- 
ing on their heads at all, at least while inside the 
palace and until adolescence (pseudo-Kod. 145.15- 
18), or a purple headband called a taimia (DOC 
2.1281, n.158). 

ur. Bernadakis, “Ornements liturgiques” 134f. C. Mango, 
“Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium,” in 
Classical Tradition 51f. —N.P.S. 


HEADPIECE, the decorated frame or panel at 
the beginning of a text. Pre-lconoclastic illumi- 
nators generally devoted little attention to the 
embellishment of a book’s title and framed it with 
only a series of dashes and corner flourishes. But 
in the Paris GREGORY broad borders with classical 
patterns surround the titles, as do gold CIBORIA 
and pi-shaped brackets in 10th-C. MSS. Occasion- 
ally, medallion portraits were added to the pi or 
rectangle, and, in the 11th C., the headpiece dis- 
played increasingly complex figural programs, in- 
spired in part by the decorated rEMPLON. Many 
12th-C. headpieces incorporate the subject matter 
of frontispieces (e.g., author PORTRAITS, EVANGE- 
LIST SYMBOLS, narrative scenes), or contain only 
ornament. As a result, the title, the original pre- 
text for the headpiece, was relegated to a subsid- 
iary status above or below the panel. Complex 
ornament fills the headpieces of MSS of the DEC- 
ORATIVE StyLe. Palaiologan versions rarely in- 
clude figural elements, but revive Komnenian de- 
signs or create more elaborate patterns based on 
the Islamic arabesque. 

Lit. S. Tsuji, “The Headpiece Miniatures and Geneal- 
ogy Pictures in Paris. Gr. 74.” DOP 29 (1975) 170-87. R-S. 





Heappiece. Headpiece for the Gospel of St. Luke (Pat- 
mos, 81, fol.153r); manuscript dated 1334/5. Monas- 
tery of St. John, Patmos. 


Nelson, “Palaeologan Iuminated Ornament and the Ara- 
besque.” Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte 41 (1988) 1— 
21. -R.S.N. 


HEALING. Byz. turned to two different sources 
when seeking cures from illness: to the PHYSICIAN 
trained in the Greco-Roman tradition and to faith 
healing; miraculous cures might be provided by 
a holy man (in imitation of the healing MIRACLES 
oF CHRIST), by the RELICS of a saint, or by a shrine 
ala LOCUS SANCTUS. A standard topos of hagio- 
graphical descriptions of healing miracies i» the 
failure of the physician to effect a cure (even 
though he received a substantial fee), contrasted 


with the “free” healing available at the tombs of 


saints, esp. the ANARGYROI, those who took no 
payment for their services. Among the methods 
of faith healing were incUBATION, kissing the tomb, 
anointing oneself with oil from the lamp sus- 
pended above a saint's tomb, drinking oil or water 
that had come into contact with the relics, or, in 
the case of the shrine of St. Symeon the Stylite 


HEART | 905 


the Younger, rubbing oneself with holy dust or a 
Symeon token (sce PILGRIM Tokens) made from 
the earth of the Wondrous Mountain where the 
stylite’s pillar stood. AMULETS were commonly used 
as prophylactic devices. Supplicants whose pray- 
ers for healing were answered left vorive offer- 
ings at the shrines in thanksgiving. 

Representation in Art. Three categories of de- 
pictions of healing may be identified: Christolog- 
ical healing scenes (e.g., in the FRIEZE GOSPELS 
such as Florence, Laur. Plut. VI 23); ilustrated 
miracula of “doctor saints” such as KOSMAS AND 
DaAMIANOS (e.g., in the Lectionary, Athos, Pantel. 
2—Treasures 2, fig.278); and deluxe ulustrated 
compendia of pre-Byz. medical treatises such as 
the 10th-C, edition of Apollonios of Kition, On 
the Setting of Dislocated Bones, and Soranos of Ephe- 
sus, On Bandaging. Unfortunately, the latter gen- 
erally reveal less about contemporary Byz. MEDI- 
CINE than about ancient prototypes (Weitzmann, 
Ancient Book Ilum. 18-23). Again, the saint's mèr- 
acula are iconographically much less explicit con- 
cerning both syniptoms and treatments than are 
the texts upon which they draw, being based, tor 
the most part, on even more “generic” healing 
scenes developed for illustrated Gospels. 

ur. A-M. Talbot, Faih Healing imn Late Byzantium 
(Brookline, Mass., 1983) 16-20. Vikan, “Art, Medicine, & 
Magic” 65f. -A.M E, G.V. 


HEART (kapia). The starting point for Chris- 
tian theology and mystical belief with regard to 
the heart is the Old Testament command to love 
God with one’s heart, soul, and body (Dt 6:5). In 
his commentary on John 18:23-25, Origen ex- 
plains the heart of Christ as the inner meaning 
of his teaching, as the divine sense that one can 
discern more deeply with one’s heart (PG 13:87AB; 
see also PG 11:129BC—130A). In passages such 
as diest, “ucar 1s a niciapuui fur rus (ove IN: 
TELLECT). However, in view of many different 
opinions among Greek philosophers, Gregory of 
Nyssa (PG 44:156C-164D) expressed his doubt 
concerning this definition of kardia. While Eva- 
GRIOS PonTIKOS alternated between biblical and 
philosophical usages, later monastic mystics of 
experience, such as Diadochos of Photike, pseudo- 
MakKARIOS/SYMEON, and Hesychios Sinaites (6th— 
7th C.), show a great preference for the term 
heart in the sense of psyche, conscience. the seat 


906 HEARTH TAX 


of passion and feeling, but also the remembrance 
of God. For Diapocros (Cap. gnost. 56), for ex- 
ample, the heart is the organ for sensing God. 
Hesychios (PG 93:1481CD, 1509D) emphasized 
the need to guard the heart in order to maintain 
HESYCHIA and to call upon Jesus Christ alone. 
Pseudo-Makarios (PG 34:573C) saw the spirit as 
the (vigilant) “eyes of the heart.” Nikephoros 
Athonites (or Sinaites) in the 14th C. defined the 
Jesus prayer for HESYCHASM (PG 147:963B~—964A) 
in conjunction with the heart: “Settle yourself, 
collect your mind, breathe in through the nose 
whence the breath enters the heart. Let the mind 
with the inhaling breath enter into the heart.” 
wr. A. Guillaumont, “Les sens des noins du cocur dans 
PAntiquité,” Etudes Carmélitaines 29 (1950) 41—81. F. Neyt, 
“Précisions sur le vocabulaire de Barsanuphe et de Jean de 
Gaza,” StP 12 (1975) 247-53- -G.P. 


HEARTH TAX, conventional name for any tax 
levied by househoid or “hearth” (kapnos), such as 
the KANONIKON. [t appears first as a supplemen- 
tary levy: Malalas (Malal. 246.16—19) relates that 
the guilds in Antioch, allegedly in the ist C., had 
to fulfill a leuourgia from each hearth for the 
repair of city porticoes. According to [bn Khur- 
dadhbeh, a tax based on hearths was collected in 
Byz. for military purposes. The KAPNIKON was 
probably a tax on households. Even though the 
kapnikon is not mentioned explicitly after the 12th 
C., some scholars maintain that it had simply 
become a component of the TELOs. On the basis 
of a mathematical analysis of the telos of 14th-C. 
parotkoi, Lefort (“Fiscalité” 342f) concludes that 
only paroikoi without taxable property paid a hearth 
tax, usually amounting to 1/6 hyperpyron. K. 
Chvostova (VizVrem 39 [1978] 63-71) rejects Le- 
fort’s method of caleulation and assumes that the 
telos of every 14th-C. paroikos contained, in a latent 
form, the hearth tax, but it was esp. significant in 
poorer households. I'he verb kapnologeo (lit. “to 
count hearths”) was used in a vague sense to 
describe the activity of tax collectors (Zepos, Jus 
1:384.1g—20; Mich. Akom. ¢:106.2g) but not in the 
specific sense of “levying the kapnikon (or kapno- 
logion).” 

ur. Dölger, Beltrage 51-54. Treadgold, Byz. State Fi- 
nances 52—58. —M.B. 


HEAVEN (otpavos). Two traditions merged in 
the Byz. perception of heaven—one popular 


(Eastern and late Jewish) transferred via the Bible, 
the other inherited from Greek physics and aş- 
tronomy. In the Bible, heaven is located beyond 
the firmament (slereoma), a solid vault resting firmly 
on foundation pillars over the earth and dividing 
the water into two domains, one above and an. 
other below it. When “the windows of heaven” 
open, the upper water falls on the earth as rain, 
hail, or snow. The stars are suspended from the 
firmament. Heaven also meant the SPACE (air) 
between the firmament and the earth—“the middle 
distance (chora)? in Byz. terminology. Since the 
Old Testament often used the word in plural 
form, it enhanced speculauon concerning the 
number of heavens, the favorite number being 
seven. Both the imagery and the perception orig- 
inating in apocalyptic literature of heaven as the 
place of salvation and of a heavenly Jerusalem 
(the earthly PARADISE In the third heaven) were 
developed in Byz., esp. in the exegesis of the 
ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL as well as in sermons on 
Lent, in the HEXAEMERON, and in commentaries 
on Job. Heaven is the handiwork of God, al- 
though some Gnostics and Dualists ascribed the 
creation of heaven to the demiurge. Although 
distinct from God, heaven was nevertheless per- 
ceived as the sphere of the eternal and divine; 
God’s throne is there, and it is the abode of Christ 
(whence he will come for the second PAROUSIA) 
and of the Virgin and angels. Metaphorically, “the 
kingdom of heaven” was construed as the realm 
of God. 

Byz. COSMOLOGY was divided with regard to the 
form of heaven—whether the ancient model of a 
spherical heaven was to be retained or whether 
heaven was a flat roof over the cubic world (as in 
KOSMAS INDIKOPLEUSTES); alternatively John 
Philoponos conceived heaven as “the all- 
encompassing space beyond” the spherical fir- 
mament that divided it from the realm of the 
corrupuble. Much discussion ensued as to whether 
heaven is self-limiting and surrounded by the void 
(PsELLOS, De omnifaria doclrina, par.120.1—6), Or 
whether heaven, as the place of fixed stars and 
moving planets, is of a different substance from 
the corporeal world, which is composed of four 
elements; whether it is eternal in its movement 
and finally, whether the assertion of the physicists 
(according to JOHN ITaLos, Quaestiones quodlibe- 
tales, par.11, ed. Joannou, p.13.22-23) that the 
“heavenly body” occupies no physical space is 
valid, since otherwise the concept of the corporeal 


world would come to a regressus in infinitum, the 
idea of an unmeasurable infinite space. 


ur. H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum 
und Spatjudentum (Tübingen 1951). ~K.-H.U. 


HEBDOMON (‘Efdopor, lit. “seventh”; Turk. 
Bakırköy), suburb of Constantinople situated on 
Sea of Marmara and astride the Via EGNATIA 
seven Roman miles west of the Milion (Milliari- 
um). The site of an army camp, it possessed a 
Tribunal, facing a plain called Kampos (Campus), 
on which several emperors were proclaimed, 
starting with Valens (364). Valens resided at Heb- 
domon in a villa or palace and built a harbor 
there. A little later churches were erected of St. 
John the Evangelist (before 400); of St. John the 
Baptist (391), to receive the relic of his head; and 
of the Prophet Samuel (411), also to receive his 
relics. Justinian I rebuilt the palace (called Jucun- 
dianae) and the Church of the Baptist. Hebdo- 
mon was probably devastated in the 7th—8th C. 
Arab fleets put in there in 673 and 717. Basil I 
rebuilt the churches of St. John the Evangelist 
and St. John the Baptist, which had fallen into 
ruin. The former, transformed into a monastery, 
was the burial place of Basil II and was later ceded 
to Nikephoritzes and, after him, to Empress Ma- 
ria, wite of Michael VII. By 1260 it was in ruins. 

Archaeological remains include a vast open-air 
cistern to the north of the suburb (Fil Damı), a 
gigantic granite column, an inscribed statue base 
of Theodosios II, a circular mausoleum, and parts 
of the church of St. John the Baptist, similar in 
plan to S. Vitale, Ravenna. 

ur. A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople (London 
1899) 316-41. Th.K. Makrides, “To Byzantinon Hebdo- 
mon,” Thrakika 10 (1938) 137-98; 12 (1939) 35-80. R. 
Demangel, Contribution à la topographie de ' Hebdomon (Paris 
1945). -C.M. 


HEBROS (“Efpos), or Marica, river in Thrace, 
flowing into the Aegean Sea near Arnos. The 
Hebros is the largest of the north Aegean rivers, 
draining the Haimos and Rhodope massifs, 
through the plains of Serpica, PHILIPPOPOLIS, 
and AprIANOPLE. It was navigable as far as Adri- 
anople, and there were no fords south of the city. 
In 1205 the Latins under Henry of Flanders, who 
were besieging DiDYMOTEICHON, were swept away 
by a sudden flood of the river (Nik.Chon. 624.6- 
10); the next year Kalojan tried to divert the 


HEGOUMENOS 907 


Hebros at Didymoteichon in an attempt to take 
the city (Nik.Chon. 632.23—25). The Hebros val- 
ley was the site of the battle of MARICA In 1371. 


uit. S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (Groningen 
1968) 23. -T.E.G. 


HEGOUMENOS (jyyovpevos, fem. ryoupévicca), 
the superior of a monastery; related terms were 
abbas, ARCHIMANDRITE, proestos, or koinobiarches. A 
kathegoumenos was a hegoumenos who had been or- 
dained, a prohegoumenos was a retired or dismissed 
hegoumenos. Hegouwmenoi were responsible for the 
administration, economic management, and spir- 
itual leadership of a monastic community. They 
were most often selected from within the mon- 
astery, theoretically from among those monks or 
nuns most revered for their wisdom and piety. 
The office of orkonomos was frequently a step- 
ping stone to the hegoumenate. In the case of an 
imperial foundation, the hegoumenos might be ap- 
pointed by the emperor, but most often he or she 
was designated by a predecessor or elected by the 
monks or nuns. The procedure of election, which 
varied considerably from one monastery to an- 
other, was regulated by the monastery’s TYPIKON. 

In theory, the hegoumenos possessed autocratic 
power over the brethren: he would admit new 
monks, expel dissidents, impose epitimia, appoint 
monastic officials, and supervise their activity. He 
also ensured the regular and proper observance 
of the daily offices and all special feastdays and 
supervised and maintained the monastic proper- 
ties. He was assisted by a number of officials, such 
as the oikonomos and EKKLESIARCHES. In his spiri- 
tual role, the hegoumenos usually served as the 
PATER PNEUMATIKOS or confessor of the monks, 
even if he was not a priest. His tenure was not 
limited by any term or checked by any institution; 
the hegoumenos was said to give an accounting only 
in the hereafter. In tact, however, he was re- 
stricted by tradition and by a group of “select 
brethren”; if caught in malfeasance, he could be 
deposed (A. Kazhdan, VizVrem 31 [1971] 65-67). 

The hegoumenos often had special privileges (e.g., 
better food and drink), had much greater contact 
with the outside world, and sometimes had influ- 
ence at the imperial court and patriarchate. A 
number of patriarchs were former hegoumenoi. 
Some hegoumeno: abused the prerogatives of their 
rank and were criticized for dining on expensive 
delicacies and rare vintage wines, for frequent 


908 HEIR 


bathing, wearing silken garments, and being 
worldly businessmen. Hegoumenot were, for ex- 
ample, the target of a saure by ProcHopRODRO- 
Mos (ed. Hesseling-Pernot, 48-71) and were at- 
tacked by Eusrariios OF “VHESSALONIKE in his 
treatise On the Improvement of Monastic Life (pp. 
258.57-259.11). 

tir. R. Janin, “Le monachisme byzantin au moyen age. 
Commende et typica (Xc-NLVe siècle), REB 22 (1964) 
25-28. Konidares, Nomike theorese 193-205. Meester, De 


monachico statu 16-21, 202-63. Galatariotou, “PT ypika” 102— 
Of. 110-143. AM. T. A.K. 


HEIR (xAnpovopyos), the one to whom the estate 
of a deceased person falls, be it alone or with 
others (syvkleronomo?), either on the basis of a WILL 
or by way of INTESTATE SUCCESSION. The heir 
entered into the legal position of the deceased 
and was accordingly responsible for the obliga- 
tions of the testator, just as he, conversely, could 
put forward the testator’s claims. The heir was 
also considered a debtor of the legacies be- 
queathed (LEGATON, FIDEICOMMISSUM) by the tes- 
tator. The entrance into the inheritance took place 
informally; the possibility of declining it evidently 
plaved no role in practice, since its purpose— 
keeping one’s own property from being liable for 
the debts of the deceased—was, from the time of 
Justinian I, achievable by establishing an inven- 
tory (beneficium inventarit) that documented the 
size of the inheritance. The Lex Fatcipia guar- 
anteed a limitation on the heir’s responsibility for 
paying out the bequests made by the testator. All 
natural persons (including slaves, minors, and the 
unborn) could inherit, as could corporate bodies, 
communities, the church, or pious foundations. 
In addition to the limitations that intestate succes- 
sion brought with it through its system of pref- 
erence, there was a set of punishable offenses 
(e.g., lése-majesté, heresy) and other factors (e.g., 
second marriage, status as a concubine [pallake] 
or illegitimate child [nothos]) that precluded or 
lessened the right to inherit. (See also suc- 
CESSION.) -DS. 


HEIRMOLOGION (cippodoytov), a liturgical MS 
with or without musical notation, comprised of 
the Aeirmoi, the model stanzas referred to at the 
beginning of each of the nine odes of a KANON 


and on which the ode’s melody and rhythm are 
based; heirmot are also listed in a similar way at 
the beginning of a KONTAKION. Since normally 
only the opening words of an heirmos are given, 
the hetrmologion was a necessary reference tool 
from which the singer learned the full melody 
and thus was able to adapt it to any text. The 
heirmot, like TROPARIA and STICHERA, are either 
sung to a unique melody (édiomela) or are based 
on another (prosomoia). In comparison with other 
liturgical books, relatively few heermologia survive, 
perhaps because of the heavy use to which they 
were subjected. 

There are two types of herrmologia, both divided 
into eight. sections, one for cach musical MODF. 
The first, more common type lists the heirmoi 
kanon by kanon, giving the heirmoi for each ode 
within a complete kanon before listing the next 
kanors heirmoi. The other type, mainly found in 
Slavonic MSS, gives the Aeirmoi by ode, that is, it 
lists the heirmoi for all the first odes for every 
kanon within that mode before moving on to the 
second ode. The earliest MSS date from the mid- 
1oth C. The texts of the heirmoi are paraphrases 
of the biblical canticles originally sung during the 
ORTHROS, but later replaced by the kanones. 

ED. C. Høeg., Hirmologium Athoum (Ath. Iber. 470) (Co- 
penhagen 1938). Idem, The Hymns of the Hirmalogium, vol. 
1 (Copenhagen 1952). L. Tardo, Hirmologium e codice Cryp- 
tensi Evy. (Rome 1950). H.W. Tillyard, Twenty Canons 
from the Trinity Hirmologium (Boston 1952). A. Ayoutanti, 
ILJ.W. Tillyard, The Hymns of the Hirmologium 3.2 (Copen- 
hagen 1956). J. Raasted, Hirmologium Sabbaiticum (Sab. 83), 
2 vols. (Copenhagen 1968-70). 

uit. M. Velimirović, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music 
and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie (London 1980) 8:447f. 

-E.M J. 


HEKATE, Greek goddess of the netherworld, 
associated with dead souls and evil dreams. Pseudo- 
Nonnos, in his commentary on Gregory of Na- 
zianzos, states that the Greeks believed her to be 
a goddess identical to ARTEMIS or to Selene or a 
deity in her own right accompanied by big dragon- 
headed men. In this company, images of Hekate’s 
cult statue appear in 11th-C. MSS of the com- 
mentary (Weitzmann, infra, figs. 70—72). In the 
late Roman period her cult was celebrated in 
hidden places, often connected with Dionysos or 
Mithra. Malalas (Malal. 307.17-18) ascribes to 
Diocletian the construction of a subterranean 
temple of Hekate that had 365 steps leading down 
to it from ground level. 


ur. J. Heckenbach, RE 7 (1g1z) 276g—-8e. Weitvmann, 
-ARAC 


Gr. Myth. 58-60. 


HELENA, augusta (from ca.325) and saint; born 
Drepanon, Bithynia, between ca.250 and 257°, 
died Rome, between 330 (PLRE 1:410f) and 336 
(O. Sceck, RE 7 [1912] 2822); feastday 21 May, 
together with Constantine I. Born of humble sta- 
tus, possibly of Jewish stock (J. Vogt, Classical Folia 
31 [1977] 148), she was an innkeeper when she 
met CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS Whose concubine (or 
wife?) she became and to whom she bore the 
future CONSTANTINE I. Separated from Constan- 
uus after his marriage to Theodora, the step- 
daughter of Maxrmtan, Helena returned to the 
court only after Constantius had died and Con- 
stantine had become emperor. She was no less 
influential than Constantine’s wife Fausta. On the 
portrait in the palace at Trier, executed in 321, 
Helena, crowned, is represented together with 
Fausta, Constantine’s half-sister Constantia, and 


the younger Helena, the newly wed spouse of 


Helena’s favorite, Crispus. In ber honor Drepa- 
non was renamed Helenoupolis, and the province 
of Helenopontus was created. Circa 325 both Hel- 
ena and Fausta received the title of augusta. After 
the execution of Crispus in 326, Helena may have 
played a role in the murder of Fausta. 

Helena was apparently inclined to Arianism, 


venerating LUCIAN OF ANTIOCH, the teacher of 


Arius and Eusesios OF NIKOMEDEIA. In 326 she 
set out on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where 
she founded and generously endowed churches 
of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Ascension 
in Jerusalem. She sponsored churches in Constan- 
tinople and other places, but spent the end of her 
life in Rome and not at Constantine’s court. She 
was buried in a splendid mausoleum on the Via 
Labicana {F.W. Deichmann, A. Tschira, /DAI 72 
[1957] 44-110). 

Helena’s memory was surrounded with legends, 
the most important of which was her alleged dis- 


covery of the True Cross, in the company of 


which she is often represented, together with 
Constantine 1. Her cult developed by the 8th C., 
when the imperial pair of Irene and Constantine 
VI was compared to Helena and Constantine I. 
It was sometimes alleged that Helena was a pros- 
ttute when she conceived Constantine. 

tt. Barnes, New Empire 36. A. Amore, E. Croce. Biblsanct. 
4:988-g5. A. Wankenne, “Constantin et Hélène à Frèves ” 
Etudes classiques 52 (1984) 313-16. ~TLEG. 


HELIOPOLIS 909 


HELIODOROS (‘HaAidéwpos), dated by scholars 
from 2nd to 4th C.. from Emesa; author of the 
Aithiopika, the longest and structurally most com- 
plex of the surviving Greek RoMANCES. ‘That He- 
liodoros was a Christian bishop, as the church 
historian SOKRATES claimed, is unlikely. The Aithi- 
opika opens in medias res on a scene depicting the 
debris of a drunken brawl on the seashore and 
continues with a series of retrospective narratives 
that disclose the previous history of the heroine, 
Charikleia, the white-skinned daughter of the rul- 
ers of Ermopia, and the hero, Theagenes, a Thes- 
salian nobleman. After enduring further hazards 
appropriate to this genre—attacks by robbers, at- 
tempted murder by fire, abductions, etc.—the 
couple are finally united in marriage and become 
priest and priestess of the Sun. The novel’s tone 
is restrained, both linguistically and morally, and 
perhaps for this reason met with qualified ap- 
proval in the Greek Middle Ages (see Photios, 
Bibl., cod.73; Psellos, De Chariclea et Leucippe iudici- 
um), esp. in comparison with the psychologically 
more venturesome ACHILLES Tarius. Of the 12th- 
C. novelists, Theodore PRopRomMos and Niketas 
EUGENIANOS seem to have been particularly aware 
of Heliodoros’s work. Byz. commentators, such as 
an unidentified Philip the Philosopher and John 
EuGENIKOS, interpreted the romance’s love affair 
as an allegory of the soul’s pursuit of a virtuous 
life. 

ED. Les Ethiopiques”, ed. R.M. Rattenbury, T.W. Lumb, 
J. Maillon (Paris 1960), with Fr. tr. An Ethiopian Romance, 
tr. M. Hadas (Ann Arbor. Mich., 1957). 

ut. J.J. Winkler, “The Mendacity of Kalasiris and the 
Narrative Strategy of Heliodoros’ Aithiopika,” YCS 27 (1982) 
93—158. Hunger, Lit, 2:121-25,. —-E.M.J.. M.J.J. 


HELIOPOLIS (‘HaAcézoAts, now Baalbek [Ba‘la- 
bakk] in Lebanon), Syrian city located in a valley 
between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon moun- 
tain ranges. Jt was a center of paganism with 
grandiose temples of Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, 
and Dionysos. Constantine I closed these temples, 
prohibited the veneration of Aphrodite, and built 
a church there. Christianity continued to meet 
resistance, however, and RasgsuLa of Edessa (died 
436) was beaten by heathens when he arrived at 
Heliopolis to demolish the idols. Emp. Julian per- 
secuted Christians in Heliopolis, and the elite of 
the city remained predominantly pagan until the 
late 6th C. (Jonn or Epnesus, HE 3.27). In the 
meantime the government tried to adapt the gi- 


910 HELIOS 


gantic shrines for Christian use. Theodosios I 
reportedly destroyed the temple of Zeus; he tore 
down the altar and the tower in the Great Court 
and replaced them with a basilica of St. Peter; 
ancient sculptures were consistently destroyed. A 
baptistery was added, and the Hexagonal Court 
was probably covered in wood in order to create 
additional interior space. Heliopolis was a bish- 
opric of the province of Phoenician Syria subject 
to Emesa until 400, when it became part of the 
newly formed Phoenicia Libanensis under Da- 
mascus. Inscriptions (/GLSyr 6 [1967] nos. 2827— 
31, 2882, 2888) record secular construction: ca- 
nals in the 4th C. and 430/1 and ramparts in 
ca.440 and 635/6, on the eve of the Arab con- 
quest. KALLINIKOS, the inventor of Greek fire, 
originated from Heliopolis. 

The Arabs took Heliopolis in 637 and trans- 
formed the sanctuary into a stronghold. In 761 
in the district of Heliopolis there was a rebellion 
under the leadership of a Syrian named Theo- 
dore; all the rebels were slain (Theoph. 431.23- 
26). The city passed to the FATrmIps in 972 but 
was temporarily occupied by John I Tzimiskes in 
974. Eventually Saladin established his control 
over Heliopolis. After changing hands many times 
it became the chief town of a district under the 
MAMLOKS. 

LIT. J. Sourdel-Thomine, EI 1:970f. F. Ragette, Baalbek 


(Park Ridge, N.J., 1980) 68—76. Laurent, Corpus 5.2:384f. 
—M.M.M. 


HELIOS ("HaAvos), the solar god of Greek my- 
thology, often identified in late antiquity with 
Mithra and AroLLo. In Neoplatonist cosmology, 
Helios played a significant role. JULIAN dedicated 
to him a hymn in which Helios appears as the 
nous (mind or reason) that contains within itself 
all the highest ideas; the nous reveals itself as the 
sun, the visible world’s creator and keeper, which 
implants the ideas into preexisting but dead mat- 
ter; man is also the creation of Helios and after 
his death he returns to Helios, who accepts and 
stores the souls. The soL invicrus, or invincible 
sun, was the symbol of Helios as protector of the 
emperor in the late Roman period. It is unclear 
whether Constantine I the Great supported the 
cult of Helios: T. Preger (Hermes 36 [1901] 457- 
6g) asserted that Constantine erected his own 
statue as Helios, but J. Karayannopoulos (Historia 
5 [1956] 341-57) attempted to reject Preger’s 


thesis. Christians interpreted Helios euhemeristj- 
cally as the king of Egypt, the son of Hephaistos, 
MALALAS connected two legendary episodes with 
“King Helios”: as the protector of morality Helios 
discovered the shameful liaison of Ares and 
Aphrodite; Romans introduced horse races in 
honor of Helios, who was to supervise the races 
between the Earth (the Greens) and the Sea (the 
Blues). Elements of the veneration of Helios were 
retained in the popular worldview (H. Grégoire, 
M. Letocart, REA 42 [1940] 161-64). On the 
other hand, Christianity also used solar symbol- 
ism, presenting Christ as sol salutis (see SoL Jus- 
TITIAE) and accepting SuNDAy as a holy day. In 
the 15th C. George Gemistos PLETHON addressed 
Helios as “hegemon of heaven and of every created 
being” (Alexandre, Pléthon 136). The image of the 
sun remained the focal point of Byz. imperial 
PROPAGANDA. 

LIT. Dagron, Naissance 37—41. E. Hérling, Mythos und 
Pistis (Lund 1980) 65f. P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and 


Hellenism (Oxford 1981) 113f, 150, 173f, 197f. I Med- 
vedev, “Solar Cult in Plethon’s Philosophy?” Byzantina 13.2 


(1985) 737-49- -AK. 


HELIOU BOMON MONASTERY. A monastery 
of Heliou Bomon (‘HALov Bwper, “altars of the 
sun”) is first mentioned in the ioth C.; Janin 
suggests that it is the same as Elaiobomoi (“olive 
altars”), known in the oth C. By the 12th C. Heliou 
Bomon had fallen into decline and was rebuilt by 
Nikephoros the Mystikos, who also recovered the 
monastery’s confiscated estates. At this time He- 
liou Bomon changed its status from a patriarchal 
to an independent monastery (RegPair, fasc. 3, 
no.1044). Emp. Manuel I helped support the costs 
of restoration. Nikephoros’s typikon of 1162 lim- 
ited to 20 the number of monks at Heliou Bomon 
and at its metochion in Constantinople, which was 
dedicated to St. Bassianos. The typikon is closely 
modeled on those of EUERGETIS and St. MAMAS. 
It appears that Heliou Bomon was identical with 
or was united with the monastery of Elegmoi, 
since the typikon refers to the monastery as “He- 
liou Bomon or Elegmoi.” The Elegmoi monastery 
first appears in 10th-C. sources. In 1042 Emp. 
Michael V was confined there after his deposition 
from the throne. In the late 12th C. the hegou- 
menos of Elegmoi became archimandrite of all 
monasteries in the Mt. OLympos region. The Eleg- 
moi monastery was located at modern Kurşunlu 


in Bithynia, 12 km east of Mudanya. C. Mango 
(DOP 22 [1968] 16g—76) has identified the 12th- 
C. Church of St. Aberkios, which still stands there, 
as the building constructed by Nikephoros. The 
church has distinctive recessed brickwork, a single 
nave with dome (now collapsed), an apse with a 
tripte window, and a vaulted narthex. 
souRCE. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie 12715—69. 


LIT. Janin, Églises centres 142-48. -A.M.T. 


HELL was often designated with the classical terms 
Habes or, more rarely, Tartaros, and also with 
the biblical word Gehenna. The netherworld of 
the Byz. was located deep beneath the earth and 
construed as the realm of the Devi, and DEMONS 
where sinners would be punished after death or 
afier the Last JupGMENT. The damned under- 
went different kinds of punishment. The image 
of Hell was contrasted with that of PARADISE and 
originated from the concept of a reward or pun- 
ishment in the afterlife for a virtuous or sinful 
existence on earth. 

ORIGEN considered the suffering in Hell as tem- 
porary; his Es;CHATOLOGY was dominated by the 
idea of the apokatastasis panton, the cyclical resto- 
ration of all spiritual beings and their final return 
to God. Some traces of this concept are to be 
found in pseudo-Dionysios THE AREOPAGITE, who 
taught the epistrophe, or return to God. The church 
fathers, however, rejected the Origenist teach- 
ing—both John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alex- 
andria (PG 77:1072B—1089B) defended the idea 
of eternal punishment in Hell. This latter doctrine 
was finally accepted at the council of Constanti- 
nople in 553. 

The Byz. sometimes distinguished several un- 
derworlds. Hades could be cast as an intermediate 
state for the souls of people who lived before the 
Christian era and who were liberated by the de- 
scent of Christ. Hades was also an intermediate 
place for all souls until the Last Judgment, and, 
often inhabited by a personification of its ruler, 
the domain represented in images of the Anas- 
Tasis. Hades and Gehenna were names for the 
place of punishment for sinners. In Gehenna there 
was no possibility for repentance and love of God. 
The Byz. created special genres of vision and 
Journeys to Hell in which perceptions of the neth- 
€rworld varied drastically, from a place of torture 
and suffering (in the vita of BASIL THE YOUNGER), 


HELLENES 911 


to a murky area full of animals symbolizing sins 
(the vita of Andrew the Fool, PG 111:772A- 
773B), toa site of rest, conversation, and litigation 
(Timarion). 

Lit. M. Richard, DTC 5 (1924) 47—83. H. Crouzel, 
“L’Hadés et la Géhenne selon Origéne,” Gregorianum 59 
(1978) 291-331. S. Lampsakes, Hoi katabaseis ston kato kosmo 


ste byzantine kai metabyzantine logotechnia (Athens 1982). 
—G.P., R.S. 


HELLAS (‘EAAds), Greece, as a generic term usu- 
ally applied to central Greece south of Ther- 
mopylai and the PeLoronnesos but excluding EPI- 
ROS; its inhabitants were sometimes called 
Helladikoi (Charanis, Demography, pt.X VII [1953], 
615-20). The Synekdemos of HIEROKLES equates 
Hellas with the province of AcHata. The theme 
of Hellas was created between 687 and 695 but 
debate continues about its original extent. Chara- 
nis (Demography, pt.X VIII [1955], 172-76) argues 
that only the eastern parts of central Greece were 
included, while Zakythinos (infra 54) thinks that 
‘THESSALY and the Peloponnesos were also part of 
the theme. By the end of the 8th C. Hellas was 
restricted to east central Greece, with THEBES as 
residence of the strategos or krites. In the gth-10th 
C., among the western themes, the strategos of 
Hellas ranked below those of the Peloponnesos, 
NIKOPOLIs, and KIBYRRHAIOTAIL (Oikonomides, 
Listes 105.12—15). Perhaps as early as the 10th C. 
the administration of Hellas was occasionally com- 
bined with that of the Peloponnesos, probably for 
military reasons. After 1205 most of Hellas fell 
under the authority of the duke of Athens. The 
church of Hellas was generally under the author- 
ity of the bishop of ATHeENs, thus under the pa- 
pacy until 732/3. 

uit. D. Zakythinos, He Byzantine Hellas 392-1204 (Ath- 
ens 1965). TIB 1:50-78. J. Koder, RBK 2:10g9—118g. G. 
Ostrogorsky, “Postanak tema Helada i Peloponez,” ZRVI 1 
(1952) 64-77. -T.E.G. 


HELLENES (“EdAnves). The expression Hellen 
and its derivatives had in the late Roman period 
two principal meanings: hellenizo meant first of all 
“to speak Greek” and to Hellentkon denoted the 
Greek language, whereas the noun Hellen with 
corresponding adjectives and adverbs designated 
“gentile, pagan” and had a pejorative meaning in 
the writings of the church fathers; accordingly 
Justinian I speaks of “the fallacy of impious and 


912 | HELLENISM 


foul Hellenes” (Cod Just. XV 18.10); on the other 
hand, Julian (c.g., ep.22 [ed. Wright] to Arsakios, 
high priest of Galatia) praises Hellenic “liturgy” 
and Hellenic good works. The positive self-respect 
of the Hellenes disappeared after the victory of 
Christianity, but the ambiguity (Greek language— 
pagan rite) persisted. Thus ARETHAS OF CAESAREA 
speaks of both “Hellenic language” (e.g... Scripta 
minora 1:96.25—26) and of hellenizontes as opposed 
to Christians (1:62.24-5), and in Anna Komnene 
(An.Komn. 2:34.12) the wisdom of Hellenes and 
Chaldaeans is contrasted with real knowledge. 
More complicated is the position of Niketas Chon- 
iates, for whom “Hellenic” designates not only 
language or adherence to paganism, but also Byz. 
allegiance—the Hellen aner is identical with the 
Rhomaios (Nik.Chon, 301.18), and Hellenic poleis 
are Byz. cities (496.50). From the 13th C. onward, 
the Byz. saw themselves not only as Romans but 
also as Hellenes (see HELLENISM). 

wir. K. Lechner, Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild der 
Byzantiner (Munich 1954) 16-37. A. Garzya, “Visages de 
lHellénisme dans le monde byzantin,” Byzantion 55 (1985) 
463-82. j. Irmscher, “'Griechischer Patriousmus im 
14.Jabrhundert,” 14 CEB 2 (Bucharest 1975) 133-37- P. 
Gounaridis, “Grecs, ‘Hellenes’ et ‘Romains dans létat de 
Nicée,” in Aphicroma Svoronos 248-57. -A.K. 


HELLENISM. Two meanings of the term Hellen- 
ism are of concern to scholars of Byz. The first 
designates the consciousness among medieval and 
modern Greeks of their identity with the inhabi- 
tants of ancient Greece and an emphasis on their 
position as heirs to Greek classical civilization. The 
second meaning, modeled on the German usage 
of the word Hellenismus, refers to the period in 
the historv of the region of the eastern Mediter- 
ranean between Alexander the Great (356-323 
B.C.) and the Roman conquest of the region in 
the late end and ist C. B.C., also called the Hel- 
lenistic period. 

1. Devotion to Greek civilization. Throughout 
the millennium of their empire, Byz. scholars 
expressed their links with ancient Greek culture 
through the conservatism of their archaizing lit- 
erary LANGUAGE, which attempted to “atticize” or 


imitate the Greek written in the Golden Age of 


Athens. The system of EDUCATION in Byz. also 


used a curriculum based heavily on the study of 


a limited selection of ancient authors; a familiar- 
ity, often superficial, with classical Greek litera- 


ture was presumed amoug the literati, who made 
frequent allusions to ANTIQUITY in their writings, 

A greater emphasis on Hellenism began to 
manifest itself in the course of the 1eth C. and 
became more marked in the late Byz. period, in 
the face of continuing conflict with the Westerners 
and the growing threat from the Turks. More- 
over, as the empire shrank, it lost its multiethnic 
composition and by the 13th C. was limited, for 
the most part, to Greek-speaking lands. The Greeks 
began to call themseives HELLENES as well as RHO- 
Maro and to think of themselves as a genos, or 
“nation.” Intense interest in ancient Greek culture 
was a characteristic of the Palaiologan period, 
culminating in George Gemistos PLETHON, who 
advocated a return to a somewhat philosophical 
version of ancient Greek paganism, utopian social 
reforms based on Plato’s Republic, and the estab- 
lishment of an independent Greek state m the 
Peloponnesos. 

2. Historical period. In the Byz. era, the histo- 
rians MALALAS, GEORGE THE SYNKELLOS, KED- 
RENOS, and Zonaras were particularly interested 
in Hellenism. They emphasized, among other 
themes, the internal strife in which the teparchiai 
(the realms of the dadochoi or successors of Alex- 
ander) were involved unul they were engulfed by 
the Romans; they were also concerned with Jewish 
history under Hellenistic monarchs and with the 
mission of Jesus. As for the Hellenistic cultural 
heritage, the Byz. paid special attention to scien- 
ufic writings (c.g., ProLeMy), works on grammar 
(Dionysios THRAX), didactic poetry (Aratos, grd 
C. B.c.), and epic {Apollonios of Rhodes, grd C. 
B.C.). 

Lit. 1. ALE. Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Nation 
(New Brunswick, N.J.. 1970), esp. 27-45. Idem, “Byzantin- 
ism and Hellenism,” BalkSt g Q908) 101-26. C. Mango, 
“Byzantinism and Romantic Hellenism,” JWarb 28 (1965) 
29-43. A. Garzya, “Visages de lhellénisme dans le monde 
byzantin (LVe-NI Te siècles)” Byzantion 55 (1985) 463-82. 

tir. 2. J. Irmscher, “Der Hellenismus im Geschichisver- 
siandnis der Byzantiner,” Soziale Probleme im Hellenismus 
und im rimischen Reich (Prague 1978) 37-62. 

-A.M.T., A.K. 


HELLESPONT (‘EAAno7ovrros), a term designat- 
ing both a strait and a province. 

1. Also called “the Stenon,” the Hellespont was 
the strait between the Aegean Sea and the Sea of 
Marmara, with the cities of ABybos and LAM- 
PSAKOS on the Asian shore and KALLIPOLIS on the 
European shore. The Hellespont was of obvious 


strategic and commercial importance as a major 
approach to Constantinople by sea. In the th- 
jth C. it was under the command of the archon 
of the Stenon, who was stauoned in Abydos and 
provided with a flotilla of 5 dromones. Justinian I, 
according to Prokopios, established there a state 
customs post (telonecon). Seals from the end of the 
yth and the early 8th mention the apotheke 
(storehouse) of Hellespont and its KOMMERKI- 
ARIOL, it usually appears as a joint apotheke of 
“Hellespont and Constantinople” (Zacos, Seals 1, 
10.190), or of “Hellespont and Asia, Caria, Lydia, 
and islands” (nos. 226, 236). Thereafter the term 
Hellespont disappears from administrative nomen- 
clature, although the strategos of the Stenon is 
mentioned (Oikonomides, Listes 358, 1.394)—this, 
however, could refer to the Bosporos. In 1204 
the Venetians gained control of Hellespont and 
the Latin Empire held most of the land on either 
side. By 1235, however, John IH Vatatzes re- 
covered the area. In the 14th C. the Hellespont 
was occupied by the Turks. 

2. Hellespont also designated a late Roman 
province in northwest Asia Minor, originally part 
of the province of Asia, but a distinct entity in the 
VERONA List and in an inseriplion quoted by 
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (De them. 1.32- 
33, ed. Pertusi 61); its capital was Kyzikos, and 
Hicrokles (Hierokl. 661.14-15) assigned to it 30 
cities. The civil province disappeared in the 7th 
C., but the ecclesiastical diocese survived, with 
Kyzikos as metropolis (Notittae CP 1:10) and suf- 
fragan bishoprics including Abydos, Germe, Ilion, 
Lampsakos, and Troas (ibid. 1:131). At the end 
of the 7th C. Justinian II resettled a large number 
of Cypriots in the region. The city of New Justi- 
nianopohis was granted the rights of the diocese 
of Constantia in Cyprus so that its bishop presided 
over all the bishops of the province of Hellespont 
(De adm. imp. 48.11—15). The measure, although 
conhrmed by the Council in f rullo, lett no trace 
in the notitiae. 

ure. Ahrweiler, Structures, pt II (1961) 239-43. Eadem, 


Mer 313-27. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes 76-80. 
-T.E.G. 


HENOTIKON ('Evøorikóv, edict of “unity”), theo- 
logical formula issued by the emperor Zeno in 
482 in an attempt to secure reconciliation between 
Chalcedonians and Monopuystres. ‘Fhe text (Eva- 


HENRI DE VALENCIENNES 913 


grios Scholasukos, HE 3.14) was apparently the 
work of AKAKIOS, patriarch of Constantinople, 
with the assistance of PErER MonGos. The Heno- 
thon sought to end theological controversy by 
glossing over the decisions of the Council of 
CHALCEDON and ignoring the critical issue of the 
natures of Christ. It condemned both NESTORIOS 
and Euvrycues and demanded adherence only to 
the first three ecumenical councils. The Henotikon 
proved acceptable to neither side, however; fur- 
thermore, it was condemned by Pope Ferix IT] 
in 484 and gave rise to the AKAKIAN ScHism. The 
Henotikon was a notable attempt by an emperor to 
solve a theological difficulty by imperial fiat. The 
Henotikon remained in force during the reign of 
Anastasios I but was abrogated by Justin I in 519. 
ep. E. Schwartz, “Der Codex Vaticanus graecus 1431. 
eme antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser 
Zenos,” ABAW, philos.-hist. Abt. 32 (1g27), no.6, 52-54. 
irr. S. Salaville, “L’Affaire de PHénotique™ and “L'Héno- 
tique de Zénon,” EO 18 (1916—19) 255-65. 389-97. W.T. 
Townsend, “The Henotikon Schism and the Roman 
Church,” Journal of Religion 16 (1936) 78—86. -TLE.G, 





HENRI DE VALENCIENNES, French contin- 
uator of Geoffrey VILLEHARDOUIN for events in 
the Larin Empire of Constanunople from May 
1208 to July 1209. Henri is possibly identical with 
a cleric who authored a verse Vie de S. Jean 
(Evangéliste ca.1200 and apparently accompanied 
the future Latin emperor BALDWIN OF FLANDERS 
on the Fourth Crusade; he may also be the Master 
Henry sent to the pope in 1205, who evidently 
became a canon of Hagia Sophia and witnessed 
the Concordat of 1210. His History, which was 
intended as an independent work, was probably 
composed in 1208 and 1209, and certainly before 
1216, It treats the Latin campaigns against the 
Bulgarians, relations with David Komnenos and 
Theodore I Laskaris, and rmp: Henry’s struggle 
against ihe L viua d Keng lito UL uae hinguun vi 
Thessalonike. Although Henri lacks the balance 
and vision of Villehardouin and delights in 
speeches and fictitious dialogue, he offers abun- 
dant details on historical topography, costume, 
climate, and other matters. 

Ep. J. Longnon, Histoire de empereur Henri de Constanti- 
nople (Paris 1948). Fr. ir. N. de Wailly, La conquête de 
Constantinople par Geoffroi de Villehardouin avec la continuation 
de Henri de Valenciennes” (Paris 1882) 98—421. 

nee. J. Longnon, “Sur histoire de empereur Henri de 
Constantinople par Henri de Valenciennes.” Romania 6g 


914 HENRY VI 


(1946-47) 198—241. J. Dufournet, “Robert de Clari, Vil- 
lehardouin et Henri de Valenciennes, juges de l’empereur 
Henri de Constantinople,” in Mélanges Jeanne Lods (Paris 
1978) 183—202. —M.McC. 


HENRY VI, Western emperor (1191—97); born 
Nijmegen, Netherlands 1165, died Messina 28 
Sept. 1197. Son of FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA, Henry 
was crowned king of Germany in 1169. In 1185 
Henry married Constance, daughter of Roger II 
of Sicily. The death of WiLitam II of Sicily al- 
lowed him to claim that throne. In 1194 Henry 
overcame Norman resistance, led by TANCRED OF 
Lecce. In Palermo, he found Irene Angelina, 
widow of Tancred’s son, whom he married to 
PHILIP OF SwaBiA. At Easter 1195, Henry pro- 
claimed a Crusade, partly to levy tribute on Byz. 
His envoys made harsh financial demands on Isaac 
II early in 1195 and renewed them to ALEXIOS 
III at Christmas 1196. To meet these, Alexios 
tried to levy the ALAMANIKON, but Henry’s unex- 
pected death forestalled dispatch of the money. 
LIT. K. Hampe, Germany under the Salian and Hohenstauf- 


en Emperors (Oxford 1973) 220-31. E.N. Johnson, HC 
2:116-22. Brand, Byzantium 189-94. -C.M.B. 


HENRY OF BABENBERG, called “Jasomirgott,” 
first duke of Austria; born ca.1114, died Vienna 
13 Jan. 1177. A half-brother of Conrap III and 
margrave of Austria after 1141, Henry accom- 
panied Conrad on the Second Crusade. To ce- 
ment the pact between Conrad and Manuel I, he 
married (1148 or 1149) Theodora Komnene, 
daughter of Manuel’s brother Andronikos and 
Irene KoOMNENE (Barzos, Genealogia 2:171—89). 
Officially, the court poets hailed the marriage, but 
Theodore PRoDROMOS, putting words in Irene’s 
mouth, makes her lament Theodora’s union with 
a “Western beast” (RHC Grecs 2:768.122). After 
disputes with FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA Over pos- 
session of Bavaria, in 1156 Henry received Aus- 
tria as a separate duchy. In 1166 he went to 
Serdica to try to make peace between Frederick 
and Manuel. Theodora survived her husband and 
died 3 Jan. 1183. Their son, Leopold V (born 
1157, duke 1177—94), visited Constantinople in 
1181 or early 1182 on his way to the Holy Land. 

tir. K.J. Heilig, “Ostrom und das Deutsche Reich um 
die Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts,” in T. Mayer, K. Heilig, 
C. Erdmann, Kaisertum und Herzogsgewalt im Zeitalter Fried- 


richs I. (Leipzig 1944) 1-271. F. Délger, “Byzanz und das 
Westreich,” DA 8 (1951) 238-49. —C.M.B. 


HENRY OF HAINAULT, emperor of the Latin 
Empire (1206-16); younger brother of BALDWIN 
OF FLANDERS; born Valenciennes ca.1174, died 
Thessalonike 11 June 1216. Having joined the 
Fourth Crusade, in 1204 Henry (Epp7js) defeated 
an ambush by Alexios V. When Baldwin was cap- 
tured in 1205, Henry became regent; after Bald- 
win’s death he was crowned (20 Aug. 1206). Fol- 
lowing the death of Karojan, Henry exploited 
discords among BorıL of Bulgaria, Slav in Rho- 
dope, Strez at Prosek, the Serbs, and Eprros to 
his own advantage (G. Cankova-Petkova, BHR 4.4 
[1976] 51-61). Because of the hostility of the 
Lombard barons of THESSALONIKE and northern 
Greece, in 1208—09 Henry marched to establish 
Demetrios, son of BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT, on 
the throne in Thessalonike. Henry received the 
homage of ATHENS and the Morea, In 1211 Henry 
defeated Theodore I Laskaris at the RHYNDAKOos 
River and regained the Anatolian coast from Ni- 
komedeia to Atramyttion. He conciliated his Byz. 
subjects by welcoming Theodore Branas into his 
service, offering fair treatment, and preventing 
the imposition of Western ecclesiastical usages. A 
1g3th-C. historian (Akrop. 1:28.12—19) testifies to 
the good reputation Henry gained. 

Lurr. Gerland, Geschichte 1:51-251. Prinzing, “Brief 


Heinrichs” 395—431. Longnon, Compagnons 140-45. 
—C.M.B. 


HEPHAISTION OF THEBES, astrologer; born 
Thebes in Egypt 26 Nov. 380. Hephaistion com- 
piled in ca.415 one of the most important sum- 
maries of classical ASTROLOGY available to the Byz., 
the Apotelesmatika, or Astrological Effects. This con- 
sists of three books: the first on definitions and 
celestial omens, the second on genethlialogy, and 
the third on catarchic astrology. Hephaistion is in 
no sense original but rather copies or summarizes 
earlier texts. Some of these we still possess in 
Greek (e.g., Ptolemy), some also survive in Arabic 
translations (most importantly Dorotheos of Si- 
don), but most are known only from other cita- 
tions in the astrological literature (e.g., by Peto- 
siris, Hipparchus, Critodemus, Thrasyllus, and 
Antigonus of Nicaea). 

The importance that the Byz. accorded to He- 
phaistion’s work is demonstrated by the existence 
of four epitomes, two of which were made in 
ca.1000 and the last in the School of John ABRA- 
Mios in the late 14th C. 


ED. Apotelesmatica, ed. D. Pingree, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1973- 
74) LDP. 


HEPTAPEGON (Ar. Ain et-Tabgha, from ér- 
tánnyov [xwpiov], Hebrew En ha-Shiv'ah, “Seven 
Springs”), PILGRIMAGE site on the northeastern 
shore of the Sea of Galilee. Six springs still fow 
near the remains of three early Christian churches, 
each with New Testament associations. A small 
4th-C. church directly on the shore (beneath the 
modern chapel of the Primacy of Peter) incor- 
porated a stone table (altar) where, according to 
tradition, Christ served breakfast to the disciples 
after the Resurrection (Jn 21:12-13). Pilgrims 
chipped small pieces froin this table “for their 
well-being” (Egérie, Journal de Voyage, ed. P. Mara- 
val [Paris 1982] 95f). Nearby, a 5th-C. basilica 
(with a smaller 4th-C. precursor beneath it) com- 
memorated Christ’s Feeding the Five Thousand 
(Mk 6:32—44). Its exceptional mosaic pavements, 
among the earliest figural mosaics in Christian 
Palestine, depict the loaves and fishes as well as 
marsh plants, fowl, and buildings. The third church 
(6th C.) rose above a small grotto where Christ 
was thought to have uttered the Beatitudes (Mt 
511-12). These associations were sull alive during 
the Crusades. 

LIT. A.M. Schneider, The Church of the Multiplying of the 


Loaves and Fishes (London 1937). S. Loffreda, Scavi di et- 
Tabgha (Jerusalem 1970). ~K.G.H. 


HERACLEOPOLIS MAGNA. See AKHNAS. 


HERAKLEIA (‘HpeéxdXera). Three cities with this 
name figured prominently in Byz. history. 


HERAKLEIA IN THRACE (anc. Perinthos, mod. 
Marmara Ereğli), city on the north shore of the 
Sea of Marmara, at the junction of the Via Ec- 
NATIA and the main Balkan road to Naissus. Re- 
named Herakleia by Diocletian (who was Hercu- 
lius in official terminology), it continued to be 
called Pe(i)rinthos by antiquarians up to the mid- 
15th C. (e.g., Kritob. 35.24). According to Pro- 
kopios (Buildings 4.9.14), it had been the most 
important city in the province of Europa, but was 
replaced by Constantinople, which was originally 
its suffragan. A bishopric in 325, Herakleia ap- 
peared as a metropolis in notitiae; the numbei of 
its suffragans increased, but Constantinople be- 


HERAKLEIA: HERAKLEIA PONTIKE 915 


came independent of Herakleia in 330 or 381 
(Dagron, Naissance 4186). 

Herakleia was attacked by the Goths after the 
batde of Adrianople in 378, then by Attila, by the 
Avars, and the Bulgars. The city is mentioned by 
many later authors, among others Nicno.as I 
Mys1ikos (ep.19.42), Skylitzes, Gregoras, and 
Kantakouzenos, mostly as a geographical site or 
an ecclesiastical center. The citizens of Herakleia 
supported Thomas the Slav against Michael II 
(TheophCont 71.5—6). In the Parritto ROMANIAE 
(A. Carile, SiVen 7 [1965] 249) “Yraclec” was 
assigned to the Venetians. The city played an 
important role during the civil wars of the 14th 
C. In 1382, together with RHatbesros and some 
other Thracian towns, Herakleia was given ovet 
to Andronikos IV. Little is known about the in- 
ternal life of the city: a seal of the gth-1oth C. 
(Zacos, Seals 1, no.1974) belonged to a spatharios 
and archon of Herakleia, but it is not certain that 
the Thracian Herakleia was meant. The remains 
of an aqueduct and at least one church—perhaps 
that of St. Glykeria, damaged by the Avars in 591 
and rebuilt by Maurice—have been preserved. 

LT. E. Oberhummer, RE 1g (1938) 810-12. Laurent, 
Corpus 5.1:212—-18. —T.E.G. 

HERAKLEIA IN CAPPADOCIA (anc. Kybistra), a 
city of ANATOLIKON at the southern edge of the 
Anatolian plateau and the beginning of the pass 
to the Cucian Gates; now Tont Kalesi near 
Ereğli. Herakleia gained importance during the 
wars with the Arabs, who first attacked it in 708 
and destroyed it in 806; it was soon restored. 
Herakleia was the scene of fighting into the 10th 
C. and consequently appears in the epic of Di- 
GENES Axriras. As a bishopric of Cappapocia H, 
it was always known by its ancient name; it became 
autocephalous ca.1060,. The site contains no sig- 
nificant remains. 


omen eves 
Lit. £40) £.8OO7~ YY. bah TTT aes 


HERAKLEIA PONTIKE (mod. Ereğli), a city, 
bishopric, and excellent harbor on the Black Sea 
coast of Anatolia; it was in PAPHLAGONIA after 
Diocletian and then was joined to Honorias ca.385. 
Theodosios II visited Herakleia Pontike and re- 
built it ca.440 after an earthquake. The Pontic 
Mountains protected Herakleia Pontike from Arab 
attack, so that Basil [ could draw population from 
it for his new foundation, Kallipolis. Turks, how- 
ever, ravaged the area after the battle of Man- 


916 HERAKLEIOS 


David Komnenos, brother of the 
ruler of TRepizonp, took Herakleia Pontike in 
1205 and made it capital of his domain, called 
Paphlagonia; he lost it in 1214 to Theodore I 
Laskaris, who made it a major frontier bulwark. 
Thereafter it was usually called Pontoherakleia. 
The Genoese had a colony there after 1261 and 
bought the city from the weakening empire in 
1360; they held it unul the Ottomans captured it 
after 1453. 

Late antique Herakleia Pontike occupied a high 
hill by the sea and spread into the adjacent plain; 
it withdrew to the hill after the 7th C. The city’s 
walls, rebuilt by David Komnenos, and its Las- 
karid citadel, are preserved as well as a basilical 
church perhaps built by Theodosios 11. 

(For Herakleia Lynkestis, see PELAGONIA.) 


TZIKERT IN 1071. 


uT. W. Hoeptner, Herakleia Pontike (Vienna 1966). Foss- 
Wintield, Fortifications 150f. -C.F. 


HERAKLEIOS ('Hpárňsıos), emperor (from 5 
Oct. 610); son of the exarch of Carthage; born 
ca.575, died Constantinople Feb. 641. Herakleios 
seized power when he arrived with an African 
fleet to overthrow the “tyrannical” PHoxas (G. 
Rösch, JOB 28 [1979] 51-62). The Greens and 
Patr. SerGios I supported the overthrow. Hera- 
kleios found the empire in trouble: the Slavs and 
Avars were invading the northern Balkans; the 


Persians exerted severe pressure on the eastern 
frontier. The general KOMENTIOLOS revolted 
against Herakleios in Ankvra, and in Antioch the 
partisans of Phokas were still at the helm (Kaegi, 
“New Evidence” 308-30). The first years of Hera. 
kleios’s reign witnessed a new Persian offensive, 
commanded by SHAHRBARAZ and SHAHIN, which 
resulted in the Persian capture of Jerusalem in 
614 and occupation of Egypt from ca. 61g to 629, 
Herakleios entertained the idea of transferring 
the capital to Carthage but gave up the plan at 
the request of Sergios and the population of Con- 
stantinople. 

Unable to fight on two fronts, in 619 Herakleios 
concluded a truce with the Avars. After reorgan- 
izing the army (reinforcement of cavalry and light- 
armored archers), in 622 he mobilized his forces 
in Asia Minor, won several victories, and invaded 
Armenia. The crucial battle took place in 626, 
when SHAHRBARAZ reached the Bosporos and to- 
gether with the khan of the Avars besieged Con- 
stantinople. Fhe attack on 7 Aug. failed; both the 
Avars and the Persians retreated. In 627 Hera- 
kleios was able to invade Persia, inducing panic: 
CHOSROES I] was overthrown and Kavab-SHirtya 
signed a peace treaty. This victory has been seen 
as the occasion celebrated in the series of Davip 
Piares. As a result Herakleios was able to recover 
the True Cross, which had been captured by the 
Persians. The success was but temporary: in 634 


SELECTED GENEALOGY OF THE FAMILY OF HERAKLEIOS 


Herakleios 


m. Epiphania 


poe o 


HERAKLEIOS 


m. (1) Fabia- Eudokia 


m. (2) MARTINA 


HERAKLEIOS CONSTANTINE Flavius Fabius (?) 


m, Gregoria 


Eudokia 


Constantine 


CONSTANS II Theodosios 


CONSTANTINE IV m. Anastasia 


JUSTINIAN II Herakleios 


m. (1) Eudokia 
m. (2) Theodora 


Tiberios 


Based on Grumel, Chronolugte 362. 


Theodore 


THEODORE, 
kouropalates 


HERAK1.ONAS Marinos Martina daughter Theodore 


David Augoustinos Febronia 





the ARABS invaded Syria and in 636 crushed the 
Byz. at YARMUK. They seized Mesopotamia ancl 
attacked Armenia and Egypt. 

Herakleios was an able general, one of the few 
Jate Roman emperors who commanded the army 
in person. It is, however, questionable whether he 
was a great administrator. Ostrogorsky (History 
95-100) ascribed to Herakleios a series of admin- 
istrative, fiscal, and military reforms, esp. the in- 
troducuon of the system of THEMES, but this the- 
ory has been rejected (R.-J. Lilie, BS 45 [1984] 
27-39, 190—201). Herakleios proved unable to 
resolve religious disputes: MONOENERGISM seemed 
to be only a middle way between the Chalcedon- 
iaus and Monophysites and only exacerbated the 
problem in both West and East. 

Herakleios was twice married, to Fabia, who 
took the Greek name Eudokia, and to his niece 
MARTINA. (See genealogical table.) 

iv. Stratos, Byzantium, vols. 1-2. W. Kaegi, “Heraclius 
and the Arabs,” GOrTRR 27 (1982) 109-33. 1. Cigurov. “O 
kavkazskom pochode imperatora Iraklija.” Vostoénaja Ev- 
ropa v drevnosti i srednevekow'e (Moscow 1978) 261—608. I. 


Shahid, “Heraclius meoròs èv Xpioro Bariieús. AOIL 34- 
35 (1980-81) 225-37. -W.E.K.. A.K. ALC. 


HERAKLEIOS CONSTANTINE (also called 
Constantine HI; Stratos, infra, calls him Constan- 
tine II), emperor (from i1 Jan. [?] 641); born 
Constantinople 3 May 612, died Constantinople 
20 Apr. or 24 or 26 May 641. Son of HERAKLEIOS 
and Fabia/Eudokia, Herakleios Constantine was 
proclaimed co-emperor 22 Jan. 618, consul in 
632. In 629 or 630 he married his cousin Gre- 
goria, daughter of the general Nixetas. After 
Herakleios died, Herakleios Constantine and his 
half-brother HERAKLONAS inherited the throne as 
co-rulers. From the beginning of Herakleios Con- 
stantine’s rule, his stepmother MARTINA opposed 
him. Bad health (probably tuberculosis) and fears 
for the succession of his young son (the future 
Constans I], whom Stratos prefers to call Con- 
Stantine IIL) made Herakleios Constantine’s situ- 
ation even worse. He tried to gratify the army by 
giving 50,000 nomismata to the treasurer Phila- 
grios to buy military support. Short of money, 
Herakleios Constantine had the tomb of his father 


opened and the crown removed. The defense of 


Egypt against the Arabs failed; Herakleios Con- 
stantine recalled ‘Theodore, doux of Egypt, and 
replaced him with the augustalios Anastasios. 


HERAKLES 917 


Herakleios Constantine’s death left the empire in 
a predicament. Rumor had it that Martina had 
poisoned him. Little is known of Herakleios Con- 
stanune’s personality, but he was popular among 
the people of Constantinople. 

uit. Stratos, Byzantium 2:175-85. Kaegi, Unrest 154. H. 
Gelzer, Leontios’ von Neapolis Leben des heiligen Johannes des 


Barmherzigen (Freiburg im Breisgau-Leipzig 1893) 125-27. 
-WERK ALK. 


HERAKLES, son of Zecs and Alkmene, the most 
famous hero of Greek mythology. The Latin Her- 
cules is connected with the emperor and the ini- 
perial cult well into late antiquity (cf. MAXIMIAN 
Herculius). In Byz. literature Herakles appears as 
a standard part of imperial imagery, the defender 
(Theodore Prodromos, ed. Hérandner, no.16.78) 
and accomplisher of wondrous deeds (An.Komn. 
1:36.11-16). Traces of Prodikos’s allegorical 
interpretation (Herakles at the crossroads) are 
found in Basil the Great (PG 31:573AB, ch.5.14). 
In the Souda (2:584) Herakles becomes an alle- 
gory of the philosopher, who, protected by the 
lionskin of wisdom, kills the Hydra of desire with 
the club of rationality. According to K, Weitz- 
mann (SemKond 8 [1936] 88f), Herakles dragging 
Kerberos from Hades provided a model for Christ’s 
raising of Adam in ANastrasis scenes. Various 
anecdotal material survives as well: for example, 
Herakles as high priest (mystikos, telestes), who be- 
comes king of Italy after a childhood spent in 
Spain (Malal. 86.12—17). Most of all, Herakles and 
his labors are used throughout Byz. literature as 
a symbol of physical power or prodigious achieve- 
ment, for emperors in particular (Leo Diac. 48.171; 
TheophCont 332.20f). As a symbol of fortitude for 
both pagans and Christians, he appears fre- 
quently on 6th-C. textiles, silver, and ivory (Age 
of Spirit. nos. 136, 139, 206). Some elements of 
this imagery survive in popular literature. ‘The 
death bawie Of Digenes Akritas witi Gharos, ror 
example, reflects the struggle of Herakles and 
Thanatos (D.A. Notopoulos, Laographia 17 [1958] 
451-53). Widely and often comically, Herakles’ 
labors are represented on ivory and bone CASKETS 
AND BOXES. PROKOPIOS oF Gaza describes their 
depiction on a clock. Herakles could symbolize 
lust and servitude to women (Nik.Chon. 139.39— 
43). Sometimes the first night of lovers is com- 
pared to a “Herculean labor” (Theodore Daph- 
nopates, ed. Darrouzés-Westerink, 17.15). 


918 HERAKLONAS 


tir. R. Peter in W.H. Roscher. Ausführliches Lexikon der 
griechischen und römischen Mythologie, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1886— 
go) 299773002. P. Monat, “La polémique de Lactance 
contre Hercule,” in Hommages à L. Lerat, vol. 2 (Paris 1984) 
575-83. =P.A.A. AC. 


HERAKLONAS ('Hpakiwrvâs), or Herakleios I, 
eniperor (Apr./May—Sept. 641 [until July 642, 
according to Stratos]); son of Martina and Hera- 
kleios; born Constantinople 626, died probably 
Rhodes, date unknown. Co-ruler with his half- 
brother HERAKLEIOS CONSTANTINE, Heraklonas 
ascended the throne at the latter’s death, but 


Martina ruled de facto. Supported by the army of 


Thrace, she attempted to remove Herakleios Con- 
stantine’s supporters and primarily the treasurer 
Philagrios; Patr. PYRRHOS became her main ad- 
viser and she pursued a policy of MONOTHELE- 
rismM. This internal friction coincided with Arab 
successes in Egypt. Martina sent Patr. Kyros back 
to Alexandrta; he assuined the civil administration 
while generals fled to save their lives. The oppo- 
sition of the senate and of the troops in Asia 
Minor compelled the emperor to surrender: 
Herakleios Constantine’s son CoNnsTANs IT was 
proclaimed co-emperor, and to balance this short- 
coming Martina made her son, David-Tiberios, 
the third basileus. The compromise was tempo- 
rary, and the revolt of VALENTINOS ARSAKUNI 
overthrew Heraklonas and his family. After his 
nose was slit, Heraklonas, with his mother and 
brothers, was exiled to Rhodes. 

tir. Stratos, Byzantium 2:186-205. Kaegi, Unrest 155- 
57. Dieten, Patriarchen 70-73. -W.E.K.. A.K. 


HERALDRY. See Coats OF ARMS. 


HERBALS. See Dioskoripes; SCIENTIFIC MANU- 
SCRIPTS, ILLUSTRATION OF. 


HERESY (aipecis, lit. “sect, school”), a term used 
by the church fathers to designate a sectarian or 
dissident teaching, sometimes that of pagans or 
Jews (including MANICHAEANISM) but mainly within 
Christianity. There was a double terminological 


difficulty. First. each party accused the other of 


heresy—thus, the emperor Julian (quoted by Cyril 
of Alexandria, PG 76:565C) asserted that the ten- 
ets of the “Galilaeans,” not those of the Hellenes 
or Jews, were hairesis, and conflicung Christian 


communities tended to call themselves “orthodox” 
and their adversaries “heretics.” Second, it is nec. 
essary to distinguish heresy, a division on doc. 
tinal grounds, from SCHISM, a split caused by 
disagreement on church policy and questions “ca. 
pable of adjustment” (although sometimes doc- 
trinal issues were also involved). 

Basil the Great (ep.188.1, ed. Y. Courtonne, 
vol. 2 [Paris 1961] 121-24) makes the following 
distinctions between hazresis, schisma, and parasyna- 
goge: hereucs are those who are completely sev- 
ered from the faith, while schism encompasses 
those unable to find a common solution to certain 
ecclesiastical problems, and parasynagogai are as- 
semblies of rebellious bishops and priests and of 
disobedient laymen. As examples of heretics Basil 
mentions Manichaeans, Gnostics (both Valentini- 
ans and Marcionites—see GNOSTICISM), and Mon- 
tanists (“Pepouzenoi”—see MONTANISM), while an- 
cient Katharoi, Enkratitai, and Hydroparastatai 
were schismatics. This theoretically clear distinc- 
tion was muddied in later usage: when the Latin 
and Byz. churches severed communion both par- 
ues employed the terms heretics and schismatics 
for their adversaries. Works on heresies devel- 
oped into a common genre of Byz. theological 
literature (e.g., the Panarion of EpirHanios of 
Cyprus and Panoplia dogmatike of Euthymios Zi- 
GABENOS). The SYNODIKON OF ORTHODOXY was a 
regular liturgical condemnation of heresies. 

With the conversion of Constantine I the state 
became involved in the definition of and struggle 
against heresy, and the legal codes contain various 
penalties for heretical groups, frequently in ranked 
order, with more pernicious heresies treated more 
harshly. Church councixs, both local and ecu- 
menical, were commonly called to define faith and 
combat heresy. The idea of doctrinal error as 
dissent and a crime resulted from the concept of 
“political orthodoxy,” that is, an obligatory uni- 
formity on major points of the creed. The prolif-- 
eration of sects and philosophical schools in anti- 
quity was singled out as a shortcoming of paganism. 

The late Roman period witnessed a rich blend 
of heresies. In the 4th-7th C. the question of 
SALVATION was of preeminent importance: in the 
West it acquired a moral and juristic flavor, fo- 
cusing on the concept of free will (PELAGIANISM), 
whereas in the East ontological problems (the 
substance of the Trinity, the natures and wills of 
Christ in his divinity and humanity) were the 


major subject of discussion (ARiaNISM, NESTORI- 
antsM, and Monovuysitism). These “heresies” be- 
came entrenched outside the empire, while within, 
by the end of the 7th C., the Chaleedonian view 
became dominant; the terms Arian, Manichaean, 
etc, were, however, often applied to various later 
heresics. 

John of Damascus, in his work On Heresies, lists 
besides the principal heresies a series of propo- 
nents of false doctrines rarely menuoned in or 
completely unknown from other sources, such as 
the Eutvchianistoi, who denied that Christ re- 
ceived his flesh from the Virgin and asserted that 
it came from a divine source (ch.82.1-4, ed. Kot- 
ter, Schriften 4:49); the Vheokatagnostoi, who dared 
to censure some words and actions of the Lord 
and holy persons (ch.gz.1-3, p.57); the Thneto- 
psychitai, who drew no distinction between the 
human soul and body and believed that the soul 
perished with the body (ch.go.1—2, p.57); the He- 
liotropital, who worshiped the heliotrope flower, 
seeing in ita symbol of the soul ascending to God 
(ch.89.1-5, p.57); the Gnosiomachoi, who re- 
jected any Christian doctrine (gnoszs) since God 
allegedly did not require anything but good deeds 
(ch.88. 1—4, p-57); the Heiketai, ascetics who were 
Orthodox in their belief but gathered together 
with female ascetics in the nude in order to wor- 
ship God with dancing and singing (ch.87.1-4, 
p.56f); and the Ethnophrones, who accepted pa- 
gan habits such as astrology, divination, incanta- 
tions, and Hellenic feasts (ch.g4.1-8, p.58). 

The major religious dissent of the 8th—gth C. 
was connected with the theological interpretation 
of the 1con—was it an idol that impaired the 


proper worship of God (the view of adherents of 


ICONOGLASM) or a mysterious link between man- 
kind and the Godhead, instrumental in the mys- 
terv of salvation? After the cult of icons was re- 
stored, dualism in the form of BOGOMILISM came 
to the fore, while from the gth C. onward, the 
schism with the West, based on theological and 
liturgical differences (esp. problems of the FILI- 
OQUE and AzyMES) developed. In later centuries 
indigenous Byz. heresies evolved from differing 
interpretations of the role of institutional and 
Individual paths to salvation: ¢a.1000 SYMEON THE 
THEOLOGIAN came under suspicion because he 
emphasized the significance of the vision of the 
divine light and the personal links between teacher 
and disciple to the detriment of the sacraments; 


HERESY 919 


in the 14th C. Hesycnasm developed Symeon’s 
individualistic or mystical approach. 

The origins and exact nature of Byz. heresy 
have been much debated. Some scholars have 
suggested that heresy was caused by social and 
economic factors and that the poor and powerless 
of the empire expressed their dissatisfaction 
through adherence to heresy. Others have seen 
heresy as a reflection of otherwise suppressed 
national aspirations on the part of North Africans, 
Syrians, Egyptians, Armenians, Slavs, and other 
peoples of the empire. A third approach is to 
suggest that heresy reflects the reemergence of 
earlier pagan philosophical systems or native re- 
ligions. Economic, political, nauonal, and cultural 
phenomena may indeed have had an impact on 
the development and preservation of certain her- 
esies (rivalry between Constantinople and Alex- 
andria, Svrian adherence to Monophysitism, Pla- 
tonic traditions in Origenism, urban-oriented Arian 
propaganda, social protest in Bogomilism, ctc.), 
but the essence of Byz. heresies emerged from 
dynamic forces within Christianity, primarily from 
attempts to understand the nature of the God- 
head and of the world, to comprehend the con- 
cepts of evil (including social evil) and good, and 
to find the best way to salvation. 

Representation of Heretics in Art. Heretics, 
usually shown in poses of submission to church 
authority, appear in MSS from the oth C. onward. 
‘The heretic Makedonios is depicted groveling be- 
fore the First Council of Constantinople in the 
Paris Grecory (Omont, Miniatures, pl.L), while 
the defeat of another heretic, probably to be iden- 
ufied as Arius, is represented in the MENOLOGION 
oF BasıL Il (p.108). Arius and Nestorios appear 
in LECTIONARIES prostrate before church fathers, 
while Iconoclasts are shown in marginal PSALTER 
illustration whitewashing icons and being tram- 
pled by their adversaries. The vision of PETER OF 
ALEXANDRIA, as in the Metropolis at Misra, be- 
came an emblem of the Arian disruption of the 
church and is often found in the decoration of 
PASTOPHORIA. The representation of heretics in 
narthexes and monastic refectories seems to be a 
post-Byz. phenomenon. 

tir. J. Gouillard, “L’hérésie dans Empire byzantin des 
origines au Xile siècle,” TM 1 (1965) 299-324. N.G. Gar- 
soian, “Byzantine Heresy. A Reinterpretation,” DOP 25 
(1971) 85-113. F. Winkelmann, “Einige Aspekte der Ent- 
wicklung der Begritfe Häresie und Schisma in der Spät- 
antike,” Koinonia 6 (1982) 89- 10g. W.H.C. Frend. “Heresy 


920 HERMES 


and Schism as Social and National Movements,” in Schism, 
Heresy and Religious Protest (Cambridge 1981) 37~—56. K.L. 
Noetliches, Div gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen der christlichen 
Kaiser des 4. Jhs. gegen Hiiretiker, Heiden und Juden (Cologne 
1971). C. Walter, “Heretics in Byzantine Art,” ECAR 3 
(1979) 40-49. -T.E.G., AJR. AC. 


HERMES, ancient Greek divinity. Although the 
myths of Hermes were criticized and ridiculed by 
Christians, there were some attempts to reconcile 
his image with the new religion. Early apologists 
compared his role as the messenger of the gods 
with that of the Christian Logos. On the other 
hand, Hermes was considered to be the greatest 
of Hellenic philosophers, one who “prophesied” 
the idea of the Trinity and otkonomia; he was 
allegedly a contemporary of Moses, together with 
whom he studied Egyptian wisdom; some people 
even identified him as Moses. Kosmas the Hym- 
nographer (PG 38:496.21—32) says that Gregory 
of Nazianzos rejected this identification; Kosmas, 
however, assumes that Hermes was the first to 
call God “triune.” 


Lurr. P. Stockmeier, RAC 14:776-80. —-A.K. 


HERMES TRISMEGISTOS (‘Eppijs Tptope- 
yoros, lit. “Thrice-Greatest”) is the Greek name 
given to the Egyptian god Thoth, who, as the 
divinity of wisdom, was believed to be the author 
of a number of religious texts. The Greeks adopted 
these documents, known as the Hermetica, between 
the ist and grd C. and regarded them as the 
revelation of Hermes Trismegistos. They combine 
elements of magic, astrology, alchemy, philoso- 
phy, and theology. They were much read in late 
antiquity, esp. in the 4th C. They were excerpted 
by Srowaios for his anthology in the 5th C., but 
between the 6th and 11th C. they practically dis- 
appeared from sight in Byz. This must have been 
partly due to the fact that the occult was never a 
safe subject in the Christian empire. In the 11th 
C. PseLLos was familiar with parts of the Herme- 
tica, but the next signs of real interest do not 
appear until the 14th C. The four earliest surviv- 
ing MSS of the collection date from that century, 
and there are some references to it in Nikephoros 
GREGORAS. 

ED. Corpus hermelicum, eds. A.D. Nock, A.J. Festugière. 


4 vols. (Paris 1945-54). 
uT. G. Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (Cambridge 1986). 


A.-J. Festugière, La révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, 4 vols, 
(Paris 1944—54). J.D. 


HERMIT (àvaxwpnThs, ÈPNLITNS, HOVXATTHS), a 
monk or nun who retired from the world to live 
a solitary life of prayer and asceticism. The her- 
mits like ANTONY THE GREAT who withdrew to the 
DESERT of Egypt in the grd and 4th C. were the 
earliest Christian monks; eremitism continued to 
be a prominent form of Byz. MONASTICISM until 
the 15th C. Later hermits were more likely to live 
on holy mountains such as OLYMPOS, AUXENTIOs, 
ATHOS, Ganos, and METEORA. There were women 
hermits until the 11th C.; thereafter nuns were 
found only in cenobitic convents (A.M. Talbot, 
GOrThR 30 [1985] 16-18). Particularly rigorous 
asceticism was practiced by the sTyLITE saints and 
recluses (ENKLEISTOI). 

Eremitism was generally considered to be su- 
perior to cenobitic monasticism because of the 
greater hardships associated with the solitary life 
and the greater opportunities for spiritual im- 
provement. In art (e.g., Der Nersessian, L’illustra- 
tion II, fig-245) anchorites like St. Onouphrios 
illustrate the physical self-denial of those who are 
fed by God. Usually a monk had to spend three 
years In a KOINOBION before he could receive 
permission from the hegowmenos to become a her- 
mit. A number of monks moved back and forth 
between the cenobitic and eremitic life, ignoring 
the principle of monastic sraBILIry; most holy 
men spent at least part of their careers in solitude. 
Still there was tension between cenobitism and 
eremitism throughout the centuries. BASIL THE 
Great, who espoused cenobitism, attacked the 
eremitic way of life because of the impossibility 
of material self-sufficiency, excessive concern with 
the self, and the lack of opportunity to practice 
charity. EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE criticized 
the self-centeredness of the hermit who hid away 
in a cave, likening him to Homer’s Cyclops. An- 
other problem for the hermit was his lack of access 
to the liturgy and sacraments, if he were not a 
priest (A. Kazhdan, BZ 78 [1985] 53-55). Some 
hermits solved this problem by attending services 
on the weekend at a nearby monastery. 

uit. A. Kazhdan, “Hermitic, Cenobitic, and Secular 
Ideals in Byzantine Hagiography of the Ninth through the 
‘Twelfth Centuries.” GOrThR 30 (1985) 473-87. D. Papa- 
chryssanthou, “La vie monastique dans les campagnes by- 


gantines du Ville au XIe siecle” Byzantion 43 (1974) 158- 
go. K. Bosl, “"Epnwos-Eremus.” ByzF 2 (1967) 73—90. 
-A.M. T., A.C. 


HERMOGENES (‘Eppoyévns), ancient rhetori- 
cian, author of handbooks on RHETORIC; born 
Tarsos ca.160, died before 230. The corpus at- 
tached to his name (probably assembled in the 
late 5th or early 6th C.) consists of five books, of 
which two (Progymnasmata, On Invention) are spu- 
rious, and a third (On Method) of doubtful au- 
thenticity; the two others are On Staseis, that is, 
issues presented in court, and On “Ideas” [or Forms]. 
Hermogenes systematically described the seven 
stylistic features, or literary virtues, of a successful 
speech: clarity, grandeur, elegance, conciseness, 
ethos (i.e., simplicity, pleasantness, sharpness, 
comeliness), truth, and force. He distinguished 
between rhetoric and philosophy, emphasizing the 
irrelevance of rhetoric to moral problems (Hun- 
ger, Lit. 1:76). Despite this ethical indifference, 
Hermogenes became a canon of Byz. (and Re- 
naissance) school rhetoric. The orators could find 
in Hermogenes, as necessary, the aesthetic of 
grandeur and force or the aesthetic of clarity and 
simplicity. From the 5th C. onward, commentaries 
on Hermogenes were produced (P.H. Richter, 
Byzantion 3 [1926] 163-66); Syrianos, in the 5th 
C., did not yet know the whole corpus. Among 
his later commentators were John Sikeliotes and 
Planoudes; knowledge of Hermogenes can be 
traced in Germanos I, John Geometres, Psellos, 
Eustathios of Thessalonike, Tzetzes, Plethon, etc. 

ED. Opera, ed. H. Rabe (Leipzig 1913; rp. Stuttgart 1985). 
De statibus, ed. G. Kowalski (Bratislava 1947). 

LIT. Kustas, Studies 5-22. D.A. Russell, Greek Declamation 
(Cambridge 1983) 40-73. D. Hagedorn, Zur Ideenlehre des 


Hermogenes (Gottingen 1964). G. Lindberg, Studies in Her- 
mogenes and Eustathios (Lund 1977). —-E.M.J., A.K. 


HERMONIAKOS, CONSTANTINE, eariy 14th- 
C. poet. His life is obscure. Hermoniakos 
(‘Eppoviakds) wrote an account (Metaphrasis, i.e., 
transcription) of the Trojan War, in 24 books of 
unrhymed octosyllables, covering the war’s ante- 
cedents and aftermath as well as its actual course. 
The Italian despotes of Epiros, John (Orsini) II 
Komnenos Angelos Doukas (1323-35), and his 
wife Anna Palaiologina commissioned the work. 
Hermoniakos drew partly on the ILa (probably 


HERODIAN 921 


a copy with scholia), but more extensively on the 
Allegories to the Iliad by John Tzetrzes. His intent 
was to make Homer clear for his contemporaries. 
In some places he transcribes Homer almost word 
for word, elsewhere he gives little more than the 
bare outlines of the plot, avoiding most of the 
scenes involving the Olympian gods though widely 
using Homeric similes. He also uses the Chronike 
Synopsis of Constantine Manasses and shows a 
slight acquaintance with one play each of Eurip- 
IDES and SopHoc es. His own contributions are 
largely confined to occasional moralizing com- 
ments, passages of alliteration and anachronisms; 
e.g., Achilles appears as the ruler of the Bulgari- 
ans and Hungarians. 

ED. La guerre de Troie, ed. E. Legrand (Paris 1890). 

tir. Beck, Volkslteratur 168-69. Jeffreys, Popular Liter- 
ature, pt.IX (1975), 81-109. T.V. Popova, “Vizanujskaja 


‘Hada’, Antičnost i sovremennost’ (Moscow 1972) 395-409. 
—E.M.J.. M.J.J. 


HERMOPOLIS MAGNA (‘Eppov mós 7) pe- 
yakn, Ar. Ashmunayn), town in Upper Egypt, 
metropolis of the Hermopolite nome, an episco- 
pal see from the second half of the grd C. (Eu- 
sebios, HE 6.46.2). Hermopolis Magna is well 
known from Greek and Coptic papyri as a flour- 
ishing cultural and administrative center. Of the 
two surviving 5th-C. churches, the larger, which 
was probably the cathedral, is a transept-basilica, 
with each arm of the transept ending in a large 
conch. Many of its columns (spolia from earlier 
Roman buildings) are still standing. It was part of 
a large ecclesiastical complex, which was sur- 
rounded by porticoes and had two richly adorned 
propylaea. 

The other church, a more ordinary basilica, is 
much less well preserved. Along its south side are 
vestiges of an underground burial and the foun- 
dations of a baptistery. 

ur. A.J.B. Wace et al., Hermopolis Magna, Ashmunein 
(Alexandria 1959). ‘Timm, Agypten 1:198—-220. G. Roeder, 


Hermopolis, 1929—1931 (Hildesheim 1959). M. Drew-Bear, 
Le nome Hermopolite (Missoula, Mont., 1979). -P.G. 


HERODIAN (Ailios Herodianos), gnd-C. Greek 
gramunarian who wrote on all aspects of grammar 
other than syntax, but concerned himself princi- 
pally with prosody and MoRPHOLOGY. His Univer- 
sal Prosody (Katholike prosodia), now lost, gave in- 


922 | HERODOTUS 


formation on the accentuation of approximately 
60,000 words. The Philetairos, a short Atticist lexi- 
kon attributed to him, is certainly a much later 
compilauon. His only work to survive entirely is 
a short treatise uded On Singular Words (Peri mo- 
nerous lexeos). His rich and carefully ordered col- 
lections were sources, direct or indirect, for all 
later grammarians, not least those of Byz. Prob- 
ably Theodosios of Alexandria (4th—sth C.) wrote 
an epitome of the Universal Prosody. The treatise 
of THEOGNOSTOS, On Orthography, was based largely 
on Herodian, as was the unpublished On Breath- 
ings by Theodoretos (date uncertain). Many Byz. 
commentaries and grammatical writings draw on 
Herodian, and in this way enable fragments of 
his lost works to be reconstructed. 

ED. Reliquiae, ed. A. Lentz, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1867-70: rp. 
Hildeshcim 1965). Le “Philétaeros” attribué à Hérodien, ed. 
A. Dain (Paris 1954). 

LIT. P. Egenolff, Dre orthoepischen Stücke der byzantinischen 
Litteralur (Leipzig 1887). Egenolff. Orthog. -R.B. 


HERODOTUS, Greek historian; born Halicar- 
nassus ca.485 B.C., died 425. Herodotus was known 
in 4th-C. Egypt (P.Oxy. VI 857), and papyri of his 
work are found as far away as Dura-Europos (C.B. 


Welles, TAPA 70 [1939] 203-12). The extent of 


the direct familiarity of the Byz. with Herodotus 
is debatable. Malalas (Malal. 161.5—9) included 
him in a list of poets and philosophers who were 
contemporaries of Philip Il of Macedon, and in 
the PARASTASEIS SYNTOMOL CHRONIKAI (p.66.1) 
“the chronographer Herodotus” appears as a 
source for Constantine I the Great’s murder of 
his son. Photios (Bibl., cod.60) characterized Her- 
odotus in a few words as a historian of the Persian 
kings and the usurper Smerdis—a very Byz. per- 
ception (or misperception?) of the book. 

Interest in Herodotus awakened in the roth C. 
The earliest preserved MS dates from this time; 
the Souda includes Herodotus’s biography, and 
the Excerpta of Constantine VII contain pas- 
sages from him. Herodotus’s Persians were con- 
sidered to be ancestors of the Arabs. Psellos (Mayer, 
“Psellos’ Rede” 53.208—09) praised Herodotus as 
the most eloquent writer. In the 12th C. chroni- 
clers such as Zonaras and Manasses had studied 
his text (E. Jeffreys, Byzantion 49 [1979] 213f, 
234), and other scholars (Gregory Pardos, John 
Tzetzes, Eustathios of ‘Thessalonike) referred to 
him. Many authors must have been familiar with 


Herodotus through reference works, but it seems 
plausible that CHALKOKONDYLES, in describing the 
Turks, imitated Herodotus’s legends and tales 
(Gy. Moravesik in Polychronton 369f). 

ur. B. Hemmerdinger, Les manuscrits Hérodote et la 
critique verbale (Genoa 1981). -A.C.H., ALK. 


HERVE FRANKOPOULOS § (‘EpBéBus & 
Ppayyorwhos), mid-11th-C. commander of Nor. 
man mercenaries in Byz. service. He may have 
been the founder of the Byz. family of PHRAN- 
GopouLos. Hervé fought in Sicily under George 
MaNIAKES (1038—40), allegedly with great success, 
In Byz. service by 1050, he commanded the Nor- 
mans on the eastern frontier; transferred west- 
ward in that year, Hervé and KATAKALON KeExau- 
MENOS were defeated by the Pechenegs near the 
Danube. In 1056, Hervé demanded the title of 
magistros from MICHAEL VI; rejected, he withdrew 
to his estate at Dagarabe in the Armeniakon theme, 
During the winter of 1056-57, he won the sup- 
port of 300 Franks and led them toward Lake 
Van (1057). After an initial success over Turks, 
Hervé and his followers were enticed into Chiat, 
where he was seized and many of his followers 
slain. Apparently Hervé gained his liberty and 
supported Isaac I, for a seal indicates he received 
the title magistros as well as the office of vestiarites 
and stratelates of the East (Schlumberger, Sig. 659f). 
According to Matthew of Edessa, ca.1063 Turks 
in Amida bribed a “Frankabol” (possibly Hervé) 
to hold back from battle; subsequently Constan- 
tine X executed him. 

uv. G. Schlumberger, Récits de Byzance ef des Croisades, 
vol. 2 (Paris 1g22) 71—77- R. Janin, “Les Francs au service 
des ‘Byzantins, ” EO 29 (1930) 63-65. -C.M.B. 


HESIOD (‘Hotoéos), early Greek poet popular in 
Byz.; born Ascra, Boeotia ca.750 B.C. According 
to M. West (CQ 24 [1974] 161), the Works and Days 
is preserved in more than 260 MSS (more than 
100 of them later than 1480), the Theogony in 
approximately 70, and the Shield of Herakles in 
about 60. The oldest MS of the Works (Paris, B.N. 
gr. 2771) dates from the second half of the 10th 
C. PLanouves and his circle prepared an edition 
of Hesiod, providing corrections of minor metri- 
cal faults. A subsequent edition was issued by 
TRIKLINIOS, who made grammatical and ortho- 
graphical improvements in the text. The Souda 


attributes to Hesiod other works now lost or sur- 
viving only m fragments. Quotations from He- 
siod, many of them extensive and sometimes not 
pased on the extant MSS, are found in the Ery- 
MOLOGIKA. Scholia to Hesiod derive from an orig- 
inal of ca.goo; ARETHAS OF CAESAREA may have 
layed some role in the annotation of the text. 

The Neoplatonist PRoKLOS wrote a commentary 
on the Works based on earlier comments by Plu- 
tarch. He read the poem not as literature but as 
a textbook for moral and practical guidance (C. 
Faraggiana di Sarzana, Aevum 55 [1981] 27; eadem 
in Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens [Paris 1987] 
21—41). Tzetzes attacked Proklos’s exegesis, esp. 
for its lack of a broad introduction characterizing 
the metrics and providing an allegorical interpre- 
tation of the myths; he also criticized Proklos’s 
prolixity and obscurity. The commentary of Man- 
uel MoSCHOPOULOS is an unpretentious para- 
phrase. An allegorical commentary by the deacon 
John Galenos (12th C.) also survives (Hunger, Lit. 
2:61, n.27). The anonymous exegesis of the Theo- 
gony in two Naples MSS is probably of the 13th 
or 14th C. (M. Capone Ciollaro, Atti dell’ Accademia 
Pontaniana 30 [1981] 1 13—28) and not of the 11th 
or 12th C. as formerly thought. 

Seventeen illustrated MSS of Hesiod are pre- 
served, the earliest of the 11th C.; one example, 
Venice, Marc. gr. 464, was completed in two stages 
by Demetrios TRIKLINIOS on 20 Aug. 1316 and 
16 Nov. 1319 and belonged to Bessarion (Furlan, 
Marciana 4:25—29). Copies of the Works and Days 
contain a varying number of images of PLows and 
other AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. 

ED. Scholia velera in Hesiodi Opera et Dies, ed. A. Pertusi 
(Milan 1955). Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Theogoniam, ed. L. Di 
Gregorio (Milan 1975). -K.S.. A.K.. ALC. 


HESPERINOS. See VESPERS. 


HESYCHASM (from hovyáčew, “to be quiet, at 
rest”), conventional term for the method of mo- 
Nastic prayer and contemplation (HxESYCH1A) de- 
signed to achieve communion with God through 
interior quietude. The practice centered on the 
perpetual “prayer of the heart,” the constant re- 
citation of the short Jesus Prayer, “Lord Jesus 
Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me” (for an 
early Byz. commentary on this prayer, see R.E. 
Sinkewicz, MedSt 49 [1987] 208-20). This spiri- 


HESYCHASM 923 


tuality of contemplative monasticism can be traced 
back to the desert fathers. The monastery of St. 
CATHERINE on Mt. Sinai was an important center 
for the diffusion of this prayer. Descriptions of 
such prayer are mentioned in Diapocnos of Pho- 
uke and JOHN Kumax. The terms hesychastes and 
hesychia, however, are earlier, even common, in 
4th-C. monastic and patristic literature. Typically, 
hesychastes was often used as a synonym for a 
HERMIT or anchorite. Late Byz. writers often at- 
tached to the prayer physical exercises designed 
to achieve concentration (prosoche). These psycho- 
somatic methods (cf. Hausherr, infra g [1927] 
164) were viewed as tools and not as an end. 
Finally, the entire tradition was unified in Para- 
MIsM, the doctrinal synthesis of Gregory PALAMAS. 

In addition to its original technical meaning, 
the term hesychasm is often used to describe 14th- 
through 15th-C. political, social, and religious 
movements. Clearly hesychasin became a social 
and political phenomenon once it was drawn into 
the 14th-C. social struggle and the Cıvıl War OF 
1341—47, but those who joined the opposing camps 
did not do so on the basis of any inherent rela- 
tionship or opposition between Palamism and the 
sociopolitical conflict. Palamites and anti-Pala- 
mites could be found in both camps. In sum, any 
connection between hesychasm and the feudal 
nobility associated with Kantakouzenos’s forces 
has never been demonstrated. The familiar 
“Palamas-Kantakouzenos” identification was ulti- 
mately political in essence. 

A hnk has also been suggested between the 
“withered” art of the late 14th C. and the victory 
of hesychasm with its supposed Iconoclasm, mo- 
nastic rigorism, and opposition to the Hellenistic 
traditions of the Palaiologan “renaissance.” This 
impoverishment, however, was probably caused 
by economic factors. Besides, the argument fails 
to account for the unusual extension of Palaiolo- 
gan art m the Slavic world, supported by Palamite 
monastic circles. Although the use of the term 
hesychasm to describe the different currents of the 
14th C. is convenient, it is misleading if only 
because these currents were far more complex 
and sweeping than those of hesychast spirituality, 
which was concerned primarily with contempla- 
tive prayer (J. Meyendorff in Okeanos, 447-57). 

ur. L. Hausherr, “La méthode d'oraison des hésy- 


chastes,” OrChrAn g (1927) 97—209. Idem, “Hésychasme et 
prière,” OrChrAn 176 (1966) 1-306. G. Podskalsky, “Zur 


924 | HESYCHIA 


Gestalt und Geschichte des Hesychasmus,” OstkSt 16 (1967) 
15-32. J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theo- 
logical, and Social Problems (London 1974). D. Angelov, 
“Isihazmtt—sts¢cnost i rolja,” Palaeobulgarica 5.4 (1981) 
no.4, 56-78. —A.P. 


HESYCHIA (jovxta, lit. “tranquility”), the key 
concept in Byz., esp. monastic, spirituality through 
which man ascends to God. Hesychia involves the 
stilling of the normal human senses and passions 
in order to perceive the transcendent God. Inner 
and outer hesychia were not normally to be found 
in ordinary society, and hesychia became the par- 
ticular goal of solitary eremitic or hesychastic monks 
(Justinian I, nov.5.3). The “philosophy” of HESY- 
CHASM consists of three essential points: (1) re- 
nouncing the importance of family and the world, 
(2) renouncing one’s own will and attaining com- 
plete obedience, and (3) a life of single-minded, 
pure devotion to God. The prophets Elijah and 
John the Baptist were seen as biblical prototypes 
of hesychia, or silent absorption in God. The he- 
sychast leads a life like the angels, he is the anti- 
type of the angels on earth. His virtues are soli- 
tude, ascetic tears (penthos), FEAR of God, humility, 
LOVE, and the capacity to suffer. He avoids phys- 
ical hearing, seeing, and speaking and dedicates 
himself entirely to the purification of the HEART 
through watchfuiness (nepszs, prosoche; cf. pseudo- 
Makarios/Symeon, PG 34:517C). A life filled with 
the pursuit of uniting hesychia and learning per- 
meates the autobiography of Nikephoros BLem- 
MYDES. In the 14th C., the concept of hesychia is 
central to the psychosomatic method of prayer of 
Nikephoros Sinaites and the doctrine of ENERGIES 
of Gregory PALAMAS. 

LIT. 1. Hausherr, “L'hésychasme,” OrChrP 22 (1956) 5- 
40, 241-85. J. Meyendorff, “L’hésychasme: Problèmes de 
sémantique,” in Mélanges d'histoire des religions offerts à Henri- 
Charles Puech (Paris 1974) 543~47- Idem, Introduction à 
l'étude de Grégoire Palamas (Paris 1959) 195-222. G. Pod- 
skalsky, “Zur Gestalt und Geschichte des Hesychasmus,” 
OstkSt 16 (1967) 15-32. -G.P. 


HESYCHIOS (‘Hovyxios), pagan historian; born 
at Miletos, died after 582. Son of a lawyer, He- 
sychios is always described as idloustrios. He wrote 
a world history in six sections (surviving only in 
fragments), from the Assyrian king Bel to the 
death of Emp. Anastasios I in 518; PHoTios (Bibl., 
cod.6g9), who still had access to the entire work, 
says Hesychios added a (now lost) supplement on 


the early reign of Justinian I. The PATRIA op 
CONSTANTINOPLE (Preger, Scriptores 1:1—18) pre- 
serves a revised fragment from his account of the 
history of the city of Byzantion up to the time of 
Constantine I, which is an imaginative blend of 
fact and fancy. Hesychios also assembled a collec. 
tion (Pinax or Onomatologos) of biographies of pa- 
gan men of letters, exploited by Photios and ac. 
knowledged as a prime source by the Souda, but 
now lost; a work of similar title and scope surviv- 
ing under his name (ed. J. Flach [Leipzig 1880)) 
is spurious and late. 

ep. FHG 4:143-77. Onomatologi quae supersunt, ed. J, 
Flach (Leipzig 1882). Biagraphi Graeci, ed. J. Flach (Berlin 
1883). 

re Hunger, Lit. 1:250. H. Schultz, RE 8 (1913) 1929~ 
27. Dagron, CP imaginaire 29—29. H. Flach, “Untersuchun- 
gen über Hesychius Milesius,” RAM 35 (1880) 191-235. 

—B.B. 


HESYCHIOS OF ALEXANDRIA, 5th- or 6th-C. 
Greek lexicographer who compiled a lengthy, al- 
phabetically arranged list of rare words, mainly 
from poetry and local dialects, with their expla- 
nations, occasionally supported by brief quota- 
tions. Very many of these words are not attested 
in surviving literature. Hesychios’s main source 
was the lost Periergopenetes of Diogenianos of Hera- 
kleia (2nd C.), itself an epitome of a longer 
lexikon by Pamphilos (ist C.). His Lexikon, which 
survives in a single 15th-C. MS, is both abbrevi- 
ated and interpolated with biblical and other glosses 
from Byz. lexika. ARETHAS OF CAESAREA may have 
had access to a longer version of the text and 
perhaps helped transmit it. Though not much 
used by Byz. literati because its recondite vocab- 
ulary was of little use to the rhetorician, Hesy- 
chios’s Lexikon was probably used by THEOGNOs- 
Tos in his treatise on ORTHOGRAPHY (K. Alpers, 
Theognostos Peri Orthographias [Hamburg 1964] 27- 
60), and by EusTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE in his 
Homeric commentaries. . 

ED. Lexicon, ed. M. Schmidt, 5 vols. (Jena 1858-68). 
(Partial) Lexicon, ed. K. Latte, 2 vols. (Copenhagen 1953; 
1966). 

LIT. R. Reitzenstein, “Die Überarbeitung des Lexikons 


des Hesychios,” RAM 43 (1888) 443-60. A. von Blumen- 
thal, Hesychstudien (Stuttgart 1930). -R.B. 


HESYCHIOS OF JERUSALEM, theologian and 
saint; died after 451; feastday 28 March. Hesy- 


chios lived as a monk near the Egyptian frontier; 
by 412, according to Theophanes (Theoph. 83.6— 
7), Hesychios was a well-known presbyter and 
preacher in Jerusalem. Circa 428/g he was present 
at the consecration of the church of Euthymios’s 
monastery with JUVENAL, patriarch of Jerusalem. 
The many fragments, scattered and translated 
into Armenian, Georgian, and Latin, tend to con- 
firm the Byz. claim that he wrote a commentary 
on the entire Bible. Hesychios’s exegetical method 
is entirely allegorical, also evincing hostility to 
philosophy as the source of heretical error. His 
Christology follows that of CYRIL of Alexandria, 
albeit expressed in less technical language. He 
attacks ARIANISM and the heresy of APOLLINARIOS 
and was himself accused (posthumously) of Mon- 
ophysite leanings in a letter of Pope Pelagius I 
(555-61). In addition to biblical exegesis and his 
various homilies and sermons, not yet all pub- 
lished, he wrote a Church History, lost save for the 
Latin translation of an anti-Nestorian chapter read 
at the Council of Constantinople in 553 in denun- 
ciation of THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. 


ED. PG g3:781—1560. Homélies pascales, ed. M. Aubineau 
(Paris 1972), with Fr. tr. Idem, Les homélies festales, 2 vols. 
(Brussels 1978-80), with Fr. tr. For list of works, see J. 
Kirchmeyer, DictSpir 7 (1969) 399-498. 

uit. K. Jiissen, Die dogmatischen Anschauungen des Hesy- 
chius von Jerusalem, 2 vols. (Münster 1931-34). Idem, “Die 
Mariologie des Hesychius von Jerusalem,” in Theologie in 
Geschichte und Gegenwart: Michael Schmaus zum sechzigsten 
Geburtstag, ed. J. Auer, H. Volk (Munich 1957) 651-70. 

—B.B. 


HETAIREIA (ératpeta), a unit of the emperor's 
bodyguard, whose function is uncertain. Litayrin 
(VizObséestvo 47) surmised that protection of the 
emperor was only occasionally the responsibility 
of the hetaireia, its major function being the ad- 
ministration of a special category of estates. Bury 
(Adm. System 107) identified the hetaireca with the 
FOEDERATI of the gth C., an unlikely suggestion 
(Haldon, Praetorians 246). There were several he- 
taireiai—three or even four (Oikonomides, TM 6 
[1976] 130); they consisted largely of foreigners— 
Khazars, Pharganoi, probably Rus’, and Hungar- 
ians. Bury identified the Pharganoi as Turks from 
Central Asia, esp. Ferghana; however, a chryso- 
bull of 1079 uses the term Pharangot for Varan- 
glans (Lavra 1, 10.38.30), and the term could have 
been an altered form of this ethnic designation. 


HETAIREIARCHES | 925 


P. Karlin-Hayter (JOB 23 [1974] 116, n.66) sug- 
gested that the epi megales hetaireias (commander 
of the grand hetaireia) was a subordinate of the 
HETAIREIARCHES. 

By the end of the 11th C. the structure of the 
hetaireia changed. Bryennios (Bryen. 77.5—8) says 
the hetaireia was customarily made up of noble 
youths. The various hetaireiat were probably con- 
solidated into a single unit; Anna Komnene 
(An.Komn. 1.20.8) speaks of hetaireia in the sin- 
gular in a scene where Bryennios (269.12-13) 
used the plural form. Already in the 12th C. and 
more often in the 14th C. the term hetaireia was 
employed generically to describe the private reti- 
nue of a magnate bound together by an OATH. 


Lit. Guilland, Topographie 1:196f. Ahrweiler, “Admin- 
istration” 27. Weiss, Kantakuzenos 138-43. Seibt, Bleisiegel 
241-18. -A.K. 


HETAIREIARCHES (ératpecapxns), also megas 
hetaireiarches, commander of the HETAIRELA, a semi- 
military official (STRATARCHES) responsible for the 
security of the imperial palace; he also carried 
out delicate assignments for the emperor and 
could be placed at the head of an army. Unknown 
at the time of the mid-gth-C. TAKTIKON of Uspen- 
skij, the hetatreiarches (and megas hetaireiarches) ap- 
pears in the Kletorologion of PHILOTHEOS at the 
end of the gth C. Narrative sources first mention 
the hetairecarches under Michael III. The post ac- 
quired particular significance at the beginning of 
the 10th C. when the future emperor Romanos I 
Lekapenos held this office; he was succeeded by 
his son Christopher. The militant emperors of the 
second half of the 10th C. pushed the hetaireiarches 
into the background, but the post regained influ- 
ence in the 11th C. when some court eunuchs 
held it. Under the Komnenoi hetairetarches was not 
a high position and was occupied primarily by 
nobles of the second echeion, even tnougn we 
find among the hetaireiarchai some relatives of the 
ruling dynasty, such as George Palaiologos (O. 
Lampsides, Byzantion 40 [1970-71] 403-06). In 
the 14th C. pseudo-Kodinos stressed the hetazrei- 
arches’s functions of control over foreigners rather 
than his duty as the guardian of the emperor. 
Under Andronikos IT members of some great 
families (MouzaLon, NesToNGoS-Doukas) held this 
post and the hetaireiarches often functioned on 
missions far from the palace. 


926 HETOIMASIA 


Ler, P. Karlin-Hayter, “L’Hétériarque.” JOB 23 (1974) 
101-43. Bury, Adm. System 1o6—08. Hohlweg, Beiträge yf. 
-A.R. 


HETOIMASIA (é7o.pacia, lit. “preparation”), the 
prepared throne for Christs Second Coming or 
Parousia (Ps 9:7). Hetormasia is the name conven- 
tionally given to images of a richly appointed 
THRONE bearing—in some combination—Gospel 
book, Cross, crown, dove, and Passion instru- 
ments. The name is not coeval with the image. 
Initially, in the 5th—7th C., the image signifies not 
the empty throne awaiting God, but—in accord 
with antique use of the throne to represent the 
presence ofa god or emperor—God’s mystic pres- 
ence upon the throne. Similarly, in apses and 
cupolas from the 12th C. onward, the hetotmasia 
is flanked by officiating bishops or angels and 
bears the objects of their devotion: the Passion 


instruments, which signal the saving power of 


Christ’s appearance and sacrifice, both in life and 
in the liturgy, and the dove, which indicates the 
role of the Trinity in the Eucnarist. By the 11th 
C., however, the hetotmasia is also found in com- 
positions, above all the Last JUDGMENT, that in- 
cluded Christ himself enthroned. In such cases 
the hetormasia displays the Cross and Passion in- 
struments just as the True Cross was displayed 
upon a throne in court rituals; here it represents 
not Christ himself mystically enthroned, but the 
sign of his Second Coming. It carried this mean- 
ing into its many independent appearances on 
reliquaries, icons, MSS, and sanctuary arches. In 
such instances it acquired, from the 12th C. on- 
ward, the label of the “prepared throne” of the 
Second Coming. 

uT. T. von Bogyay, “Zur Geschichte der Hetoimasie,” 
11 CEB (Munich 1960) 58-61. A.L. Townsley, “Eucharistic 
Doctrine and the Liturgy in Late Byzantine Painting,” 
OrChr 58 (1974) 140-47- -A.W.C. 


HET'UMIDS, second dynasty to rule Armenian 
Cinicia (1226-1341). The Het’umids were origi- 
nally lords of Lambron and Barbaron near the 
southern approaches to the CiLictaAN Garters, and 
as such first pursued a pro-Byz. policy at odds 
with that of the ruling RusBeNins. The theologian 
NERSES OF LAMBRON was a member of this family. 
After the death of Leo INI, the regent Constan- 
tine of Lambron arranged the marriage of his 
own son, Het‘um I (1226—69) to the Rubenid 


princess Zabel, thus placing his family on the 
Cilician throne. 

After achieving roval power, the policies of the 
Hetumids then shifted toward recognition of 
Mongol suzerainty, and Het‘um I himself jour- 
neyed to the court of the khan in 1253. Cilicia 
prospered under his rule, and under that of his 
immediate successor, Leo IMIJI (1269-89). The 
latter was helped by Het'um’s brother SMBAT THE 
CONSTABLE. Serious difficulties arose, however, 
with the accession of Het‘um LH (1289—1301) who 
faced simultaneously the conversion of the Mon- 
gols to Islam and the advance of the Mamluks. In 
1307 the Mongols executed the new king Leo ILI/ 
IV together with his uncle, the former king Het’um 
II, who had abdicated in favor of Leo. Internal 
quarrels between pro- and anti-Latin parties 
weakened the realm still further. Ošin I (1308~ 
20) was murdered by his relatives; his heir Leo 
IV/V (1320-41) was killed by the Latinophiles, 
who then offered the crown to the LUSIGNANS. 

uit. S. Der Nersessian, HC 2:651-59. Boase, Cilician 
Armenia, esp. 23—28. —N.G.G. 


HEXAEMERON (lit. “six days”), a term denoting 
the account in Genesis 1 of the creation of the 
universe in six days, also connotes the patristic 
commentaries and other writings on this narrative 
that form a distinctive literary genre both in Byz. 
and in the West. Though preceded by Theophilos 
of Antioch (died after 181), apparently the first 
Christian user of the word, the nine homilies of 
BasıL THE GREAT on the Hexaemeron are the first 
patristic landmark. Rejecting pagan theories as 
self-contradictory, Basil presents a firm Christian 
view based on Moses’ supposed authorship of 
Genesis. The universe is not eternal but has a 
moral purpose. Concerned to show the active role 
of God as creator, Basil rejects allegory for sci- 
ence, presenting the elements and beauty of the 
world in a literal way. His sensibly eclectic philos- 
ophy and science draw heavily on Aristotle, Plato, 
and Poseidonios. 

Basil’s homilies were immediately and endur- 
ingly influential. GREGORY oF Nyssa supple- 
mented them with his On the Making of Man, an 
anthropological disputation on man’s creation, and 
the Apologetic Explication on the Hexacmeron, which 
conunues Basil’s rejection of allegory. Other pa- 
tristic contributors mclude THEODORE or Mop- 


suesfia (fragments concerning Gen 1—3 survive) 
and SEVERIANOS OF GaABALA. An outstanding (al- 
peit rare) Byz. poetic treatment is the iambic Hex- 
gemeron by GEORGE OF Pisipia (G. Bianchi, Aevum 
40 [1966] 35-52). In the West, Basil’s homilies 
were exploited by AMBrose of Milan and trans- 
lated into Latin ca.440 by the African Eustathios; 
they were also translated into Church Slavonie by 
JOHN tHE Exarcn. The Hexaemeron of Robert 
GROSSETESTE (written ca. 1232/3) was greatly influ- 
enced by the Hexaemeron of Basil (R.W. Southern, 
Robert Grosseteste [Oxford 1986] 204-10). 

gp. Homélies sur VHexaéméron?, ed. S. Giet (Paris 1968), 
with Fr. ir. PG 92:1383- 1424. 

Lir. F.E. Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature (Chicago 
1912). -B.B. 


HEXAFOLLON. Sce PARAKOLOUTHEMATA. 


HEXAGRAM (ééaypappa, lit. “six-grams”), a sil- 
ver coin of the 7th C. weighing 6.82 g, that is, six 
grammata or scruples, and probably reckoned 12 
to the SOLIDUS. Introduced by Herakleios in 615, 
it was struck in huge quantities throughout his 
reign and that of Constans IJ. Specimens of Con- 
stantine IV are rare, however, and under his 
successors it became a ceremonial coin only oc- 
casionally struck, ceasing entirely under Anasta- 
sios Il. 


um. P. Yannopoulos, L'hexagramme (Louvain-la-Neuve 
1978). —Ph.G. 


HEXAMETER, the meter of Homer, enjoyed great 
prestige throughout the Byz. period. In the 4th— 
early 7th C. the hexameter was the vehicle of a 
widespread group of professional poets radiating 
from Egypt (e.g., PAMPREPIOS, CHRISTODOROS, 
KOLLOUTHOS, NONNoS, and TRIPHIODOROS), Many 
of them reaching high civic positions, who con- 
centiated on mythology, ehphrasis, and local his 
tory. Their use of the hexameter was extremely 
complex, adding many rules to those of the Al- 
exandrian poets, which themselves were more strict 
than those of Homer. It is generally assumed that 
this complexity was a self-conscious refinement, 
but some features of their rules plainly relate to 
the final disappearance of the sense of sytlable 
quantity in Greek, which probably took place within 
this period. Until the end of the 6th C., the writing 
of hexameter, though an archaic feature, appears 


HEXAMILION | 927 


to have remained a living means of artistic expres- 
sion, rather than the revival of a dead form. 
Normally, poetry written in hexameter preserves 
an archaic lexical pattern. 

The last poem of this tradition is credibly at- 
tributed to GeorGe OF Pisipia and its form has 
suggested a possible link to the POLITICAL VERSE. 
Subsequent hexameters are clearly antiquarian 
exercises, based (with greater or less success) on 
ancient models, rather than following the devel- 
opment of a live form of expression. Some of the 
ceremonial verse of Theodore PRopROMOs, how- 
ever, is in the hexameter, perhaps implying public 
recitation in the 12th C. Later, this meter was 
used by Nikephoros BLEMMybEs and esp. Theo- 
dore METOCHITES. Surviving treatises on hexa- 
meter include one ascribed to Plutarch, another 
to Herodian (Krumbacher, GBL 596f). 

tir. A.D.E. Cameron, “Wandering Poets: A Literary 


Movement in Byzantine Egypt.” Historia 14 (1965) 470- 
50g, esp. 482f. Hunger, Lit. 2:91. —M.J.J., A.K. 


HEXAMILION (‘Eéapidcov, “six-miler”), bar- 
rier-wall across the Isthmus of Corinth, from the 
Saronic Gulf to the Gulf of Corinth (an actual 
distance of about five miles), designed to defend 
the Peloponnesos against an attack from the north. 
Literary and archaeological evidence show that 
the isthmus was defended at various times in 
antiquity and plans were made to fortify it during 
the crisis of the grd C. The devastation of the 
Peloponnesos by Axaric led to the realization of 
this plan in the early years of the 5th C., at about 
the same time as construction of the Land Walls 
of Theodosios II in Constantinople. The wall was 
10 Roman feet (nearly 3 m) thick, approximately 
8 mn high, with towers that were primarily rectan- 
gular; a large fortress was located near the former 
Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia. The fortifica- 
and were restored by Justinian 1. The Hexamilion 
was defended during the time of the Slavic inva- 
sions, but it seems not to have been an effective 
barrier. Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 610.5—-7) 
reports that the isthmus was unsuccessfully de- 
fended against the Crusaders in 1205. 

In 1415 Manuel II rebuilt the Hexamilion, and 
during the next half-century it served as the pri- 
mary defense of the Peloponnesos. The Turks 
breached the walls in May of 1423 and the future 


928 | HEXAPTERYGA 


emperor Constantine XI rebuilt it in 1443; sub- 
sequently a prophecy (perhaps inscribed on the 
wall itself) was circulated to the effect that the 
Hexamilion would protect a revived empire (E.W. 
Bodnar, AJA 64 [1960] 165-72). The Hexamilion 
fell again to the Turks on 10 Dec. 1446 despite a 
spirited defense. The Venetians restored the for- 
tifications in 1462. Another Hexamilia, ancient 
Lysimachia, was a bishopric suffragan to HERA- 
KLEIA in Thrace (Laurent, Corpus 5.1:229-31). 
ur, P.A. Clement, “The Date of the Hexamilion,” in 
Meletemata ste mneme Basileiou Laourda (Thessalonike 1975) 


1539-64. R.L. Hohlfelder, “Trans-Isthmian Walls in the 
Age of Justinian,” GRBS 18 (1977) 173-79. -T.EG. 


HEXAPTERYGA. See SERAPHIM. 


HEXAPTERYGOS, THEODORE, teacher and 
writer; born ca.1180, died Nicaea ca.1296. Edu- 
cated at the Patriarchal School of Constantinople, 
Hexapterygos (‘Eéamrépvyos) was evidently the 
student of George Tornikes and Constantine 
Stilbes. He became a teacher of poetry and rhet- 
oric in Nicaea and taught George AKROPOLITES 
and four other students sent to him by Emp. John 
III Vatatzes in 1234 (Akrop. 1:49.24—-50.3). Six 
tales (diegemata) and a funeral oration on a certain 
Stephanos, one of his relatives, are extant in a 
Vienna MS (ONB, philol. gr. 254). His seal, bear- 
ing a dodecasyllabic legend, is preserved in 
the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (acquisition 
no.58. 106.4608). 

ED. W. Hörandner, “Die Progymnastnata des Theodo- 
ros Hexapterygos,” in Byzantios 147—6862. 


tir. Hunger, Lit. 1:442. Constantinides, Education 9—11. 
-O.N.C. 


HIERAPOLIS (‘lepazoadts, “holy city”), name of 
two cities in the late Roman Empire, one in Phry- 
gia, the other in Syria. 


HIERAPOLIS IN PHRYGIA (now Pamukkale) 
rarely appears in historical sources, but excava- 
tions have revealed significant Byz. remains. No- 
table among them is the richly decorated octago- 
nal Church of St. Philip, built on the site of the 
apostle’s alleged tomb and surrounded by a large 
rectangular colonnade in the late 4th/early 5th C. 
It was never rebuilt after its destruction by fire in 
the mid-6th C. The site also contains four other 


large basilical churches of the 5th—6th C.; one of 
them was built into a Roman bath. The churches, 
large and numerous for a relatively small city, 
indicate that Hierapolis was considered a partic- 
ularly holy site. Secular buildings are poorly known; 
the city walls have been assigned to the 4th/s5th C. 
By the 10th C. Hierapolis was in decline: churches 
had been replaced by small chapels; squatters 
occupied the shrine of St. Philip; and the city 
came to resemble a village. By 1190 it was ruined 
and abandoned. Originally a suffragan bishopric 
of LaoptkEIA, Hierapolis became a metropolis be- 
fore 553. 

urr, P. Verzone, RBK 2:1203-23. T. Ritti, Hierapolis, 
Scavi e ricerche, vol. 1 (Rome 1985). -C.F, 


HIERAPOLIS IN SYRIA (Méuzrerle in Leo Diac. 
165.22, Syr. Mabbug, Ar. Manbij), city in north- 
ern Syria, northeast of Brrroia (Aleppo); prob- 
ably under Constantius I] it became the capital of 
EUPHRATENSIS. Hierapolis was a military head- 
quarters during the wars with Persia: in 363 Julian 
assembled his army there. In 540 Chosroes | 
imposed tribute on the city, and in 590 KOMEN- 
TIOLOS welcomed Chosroes I] near Hierapolis and 
started his expedition from there into the Persian 
interior. Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm.Marc. 
14.8.7) calls Hierapolis an “ample city.” Justinian 
1 had to shorten the extent of its walls since by 
his time they encompassed abandoned areas and 
were difficult to defend (Prokopios, Buildings 
2.y.13); he also tried to improve the city’s water 
supply. 

A religious center in antiquity, Hierapolis be- 
came an ecclesiastical metropolis subject to Anti- 
och. The 6th-C. rhetorician PROKOPIOS OF GAZA 
relates that Indians, Phoenicians, Scythians, Hel- 
lenes, and inhabitants of Asia Minor congregated 
in Hierapolis to hear panegyrics. Hierapolis de- 
veloped into a Monophysite center; PHILOXENOS 
oF MasBsuc was bishop there in the early 6th C., 
and Thomas of Hargel in the early 7th. 

Taken by the Arabs in 637, Hierapolis became 
a part of the jund of Qinnasrin yet retained Chris- 
tian churches and relics, perhaps including the 
Holy Tile, or KERAMION (its original location is 
also assigned to Emesa). ABU Firas, governor of 
Manbij, was captured by the Byz. in g62 and taken 
to Constantinople, where he wrote poems about 
his longing for his city. According to Yahya of 
Antioch, in 966 Nikephoros II Phokas forced the 


people of Manbij to surrender the Holy Tile to 
him. Leo the Deacon, however, says that when 
John I Tzimiskes seized Hierapolis in 974, he 
found other relics: Christ’s sandals and the bloody 
hair of John the Baptist (Leo Diac. 165.21—166.3). 
In 1025 Hierapolis was taken once more by the 
Muslims but was again recovered by the Byz. in 
1068, when Romanos IV captured the city and 
fortified its citadel. The Byz. then retained it until 
1086, when it was taken by MALIKSHAH. The Cru- 
saders occupied Hierapolis in 1110/11. John II 
Komnenos passed the city by without attacking it, 
and the Greeks never reestablished their rule over 
Hierapolis. 

ur. E. Honigmann, RE supp. 4 (1924) 733-42. N. Elis- 
séeff, EI” 6:377-83. G. Goossens, Hiérapolis de Syrie (Lou- 
vain 1943) 145-85. —M.M.M. 


HIERIA (Turk. Fenerbahce). The name (spelling 
varies, ‘lepia, ‘lepeta, ‘Hpia) is derived from He- 
raia Akra. Hieria, an Asiatic suburb of Constan- 
tinople, is a promontory, terminating in a little 
peninsula and situated opposite CHALCEDON to 
the east. Here Justinian I built a palace with a 
harbor and a Church of St. Mary (Prokopios, 
Buildings 1.3.10, 1.11.16—22). Hieria was the res- 
idence of Herakleios (611, ca.636) and the seat of 
the Iconoclastic council of 754 (see HIFRIA, LOCAL 
CounciL oF). A chapel of the Prophet Elijah was 
added by Basil I, who also resided there. Further 
buildings were put up by Constantine VII 
(TheophCont 451). Site of one of the emperor’s 
summer palaces, Hieria often served as a recep- 
tion point of triumphal returns from campaigns 
in the East. The existence of the palace is docu- 
mented until 1203, but the archaeological remains 
(cistern, harbor breakwater, funerary inscrip- 
tions) are meager. 


LIT. J. Pargoire, “Hiéria,” JRAIK 4.2-3 (1899) 9-78. 
Janin, CP byz. 148-50, 498f. -C.M. 


HIERIA, LOCAL COUNCIL OF. CONSTANTINE 
V summoned this council (10 Feb.—8 Aug. 754) 
at the palace of Hieria in Chalcedon to condemn 
the veneration and production of images as idol- 
atrous and pagan. The council regarded itself as 
having ecumenical authority, a claim subsequently 
rejected by the church because four of the five 
patriarchs had refused to participate. Actually, 
the see of Constantinople was itself vacant at the 


HIERISSOS 929 


time. The 338 bishops in attendance were guided 
primarily by the emperor's own theology and de- 
votion to IcoNocLASM. Their dogmatic definition 
insisted that a pictorial representation of God in 
any form was impossible. ‘They argued that an 
ICON of Christ either depicted his humanity alone, 
or both his humanity and divinity. That is, it 
either separated Christ’s human nature from his 
divine, which was NESTORIANISM, or it confused 
the two, which was MonopuysitTism (Mansi 
13:252A). Indeed, the only true image of Christ, 
representing him in his totality, was the EUCHA- 
RIST. ‘This ingenious Christological argument, later 
condemned as heretical by Nicaea II, was clearly 
intended to go beyond the purely scriptural pro- 
hibition of images used previously by Iconoclasts. 
The council’s definition survives solely in the acts 
of Nicaea IT. 


sources. Mansi 13:204—364. Ostrogorsky, Balderstr. 7— 


5. 
uit. M.V. Anastos, “lhe Argument for Iconoclasm as 
Presented by the Iconoclastic Council of 754," LEMS vie 
88. Idem, “The Ethical Theory of Images Formulated by 
the Iconoclasts in 754 and 815,” DOP 8 (1954) 151-60. S. 


Gero, “The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Byzantine Icono- 
clasts and its Sources,” BZ 68 (1975) 4-22. RegPair, fase. 
1, NO.345. -A.P. 


HIERISSOS (‘Ieptoods, also Erisso), town (kas- 
tron) in the Macedonian CHALKIDIKE near the neck 
of the Athonite peninsula; it was founded on the 
site of the insignificant ancient city of Akanthos 
and is known from the gth C. It formed an urban 
community that possessed common land (koznoto- 
pion), bought and rented lands collectively, was 
responsible as a whole for paying rent and taxes, 
and collectively defended its rights in court. A 
unique act of g8g (/vir., no.4) bears crosses indi- 
cating signatures of 74 notable inhabitants (ozke- 
tores) of the kastron, of whom at least 14 had Slavic 
names (OMe baving sigucd i Giaguuury, <i ui 
more of them were clerics (priests, lectors, dea- 
cons, etc.), three or five had low secular offices 
(komes, archon, kouboukleisios as well as exarch and 
domestikos who may have been either secular or 
ecclesiastic), two were described as owners (oiko- 
despotai), and only one was a craftman—a chalkeus 
(smith). The importance of Hierissos grew as Mt. 
Athos became a major monastic center—it served 
as a stopping place on the way to the peninsula. 
Around 883 John Kolobos founded the KoLoBou 


930 HIEROKLES 


MONASTERY near Hierissos that subsequently ac- 
commodated travelling Athonite monks; later still 
several Athonite monasteries acquired properties 
in Hierissos. 

Hierissos formed a district, enoria, later katepa- 
nikion, under ‘Thessalonike; nevertheless, docu- 
ments of the 14th C. speak of the village (chorion) 
of Hierissos (¢.g., Xénoph., no.12.12). The fate of 
the bishopric of Hierissos is obscure: it seems that 
there was no bishop before 943 and that Theo- 
dotos, mentioned in g82, was the first incumbent 
(M. Živojinović, ZRVI 14-15 [1973] 155-58); on 
the other hand, a notitia (Notitiae CP 7.305) dated 
by J. Darrouzès to the early roth C. lists the bishop 
of Hierissos as suffragan of Thessalonike. After 
1204 the bishops of Hierissos added to their title 
“and of the Holy Mountain.” In ca.1341—-65, Bishop 
Jacob obtained temporarily the title of metropol- 
itan of Hierissos (D. Papachryssanthou, TM 4 
[1970] 395-410). Hierissos was occupied by the 
Turks probably in 1425. 

tir. Paysages de Macédoine, ed. J. Lefort (Paris 1986) 
157f. J. Letort et al. in Ivir. 1:191. N. Svoronos in Lavra 
4:68-78. D. Papachryssanthou, “Histoire d'un éveché by- 
zantin: Hierissos en Chalcidique,” TM 8 (1981) 373-96. 

-T.E-G., A.K. 


HIEROKLES ('Iepokàĝs), 5th-C. philosopher. A 
student of the Neoplatonist Płutarch of Athens 
(died 431 or 432), Hierokles taught at Alexandria, 
where his lectures on PLato, esp. the Gorgias, 
attracted much attention and admiration. A mil- 
itant pagan, he was fogged for his beliefs during 
a visit to Constantinople but did not recant. He 
may be the Neoplatonist Hierokles warmly de- 
scribed by Arnes OF Gaza (PG 85:873A). His 
commentary on the Golden Words of the Pythag- 
oreans survives, as do extracts from his collected 
studies On Providence and Fate, preserved only by 
Photios (Bibl, cods. 214, 251), who commends 
him for a clarity of style appropriate to philoso- 
phy. On Providence was dedicated to a certain 
Olympiodoros, perhaps the pagan poet-historian 
OLYMPIODOROS OF THEBES. 

ED. In Aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius, ed. 
F.W. Koehler (Stuttgart 1974). 

UT. I. Hadot, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin. 
Hiérocles et Simplicius (Paris 1978). N. Aujoulat, “Sur la vic 
et les ocuvres de Hiéroclès: Problèmes de chronologie,” 
Pallas 23, (1976) 19-30. -B.B. 


HIEROKLES, presumed author of the Synekde- 
mos, a geographical list of the cities of the Eastern 
Empire, dated before 535. Nothing else ts known 
of the man. As preserved, the Syrekdemos is a bare 
list of cities, arranged according to provinces and 
in rough geographical order within the provinces, 
The document undoubtedly owes its preservation 
to confusion with episcopal notitias, which it su- 
perficially reseinbles. The Synekdemos, however, 
seems to have been based on secular administra- 
tive documents from the mid-sth C., although 
additions to the list were made through the reign 
of Justinian 1, at which ime Hierokles presumably 
wrote. It has been suggested that the present text 
of the Synekdemos is an epitome of a fuller, geo- 
graphically oriented guidebook, but the list of 
cities is very different from the ineraria and it 
contains information different from what one 
would expect in a work of merely antiquarian 
interest. In format the Synekdemos can be com- 
pared to the Description of GEORGE OF CYPRUS and 
to the Paris MS, B.N. gr. 1115A (the so-called 
“Iconoclast notitia”), to which it is certainly re- 
lated. Although there are many errors and la- 
cunae in the text, its reliability as a guide to the 
overall municipal structure of the empire seems 
sound. 

ED. A. Burckhardt, Hirroclis synecdemus (Leipzig 1893). 
E. Honigmann, Le Synekdémos d’Hiéroklés et Vopuscule géo- 
graphique de Georges de Chypre (Brussels 1939). 
ooer, AHM. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces? 
(Oxford 1971) 514-21. T.E. Gregory, “Roman Inscriptions 
from Aidepsos,” GRBS 20 (1979) 273-76. -T.EG. 


HIEROMONACHOS (ispopovayos), or hiero- 
monk, a monk ordained as a priest. Justinian I 
(nov. 133.2) decreed that four or five priests were 
sufficient for each monastery; the typzkon for the 
Perrirzos monastery (ed. Gautier, 59—63) pre- 
scribed six priests for a community of 50 monks. 
The hieromonachos was charged with conducting 
the services in the monastic church. 


urr. Meester, De monachico statu 24, 95f, 279, 389-91. 
M.T. 


HIERON (‘lepov), name of two places in Asia 
Minor. 


HIERON ON THE BOSPOROS, a fortress guard- 
ing the approach to Constantinople, now Anadolu 


Kavak. Justinian I replaced its archon with a comes 
Stenon Pontikes thalasses whose duties included sur- 
veillance of shipping and collection of customs at 
the local demoszon teloneion. By the gth C. a PaRa- 
THALASSITES took the place of this official. The 
customs revenues of Hicron increased from the 
gth C. onward, as traffic with the north grew; 
they were considered a valuable source of income 
during the revolt of John (VI) Kantakouzenos in 
1345, When both the government and the rebel 
attempted to increase them. Hicron was attacked 
in 822 by THomas THE Slav and in g41 by the 
Rus’, whose fleet was destroyed there. It was taken 
by the Genoese in 1350 and by Mrumep II in 
1452. Hieron contains a powerful fortress (Yoros 
kalesi), perhaps the work of Manuel E Komnenos, 
with Genoese rebuilding. 

wr. H, Ahrweiler, “Fonctionnaires ct burcaux mari- 
times a Byzance,” REB 19 (1961) 246f. S. Toy, “The Castles 
of the Bosporus,” Archaeologia 80 (1930) 215~28. A. Ga- 
bricl, Chateaux tures du Bosphore (Paris 1943) 79—81. 

-C.F. 

HIERON NEAR MILETOS. Hieron was also the 
Bvz. name for ancient Didyma whose famous tem- 
ple of Apollo, fortified against Gothic attack in 
the late grd C., was repaired by Diocletian and 
Julian; subsequently a church was installed in it. 
The fortress was strengthened in the 7th C. and 
became the nucleus of a new bishopric, Hieron 
or “the Temple,” a suffragan of Miletos attested 
through the 12th C. Alexios I Komnenos en- 
larged the fort (C. Foss, GOrTAR 27 [1982] 157f) 
and used it as a base for his reconquest of western 
Asia Minor. Hieron, which consisted only of one 
ancient building and a surrounding village, is 
important for illustrating the nature of a small 
Byz. city and bishopric. 

LIT. L. Robert, “Didymes à l'époque byzantine,” Hellen- 
wa 11-12 (1960) 495-502. W. Miiller-Wiener, “Mittelalter- 
liche Befestigungen im südlichen Jonien,” ZstMitt 11 (1961) 
38—41. -C.F. 


HIERONYMUS. Sce JEROME. 


HIKANATOI. See DOMESTIKOS TON HIKANATON. 


HIKANOSIS (ixkavwors, lit. “equalization”), a fs- 
cal term used in a treatise on TAXATION (Délger, 
Beiträge 122.41) to designate the operation by 


HILANDAR MONASTERY 931 


which the surveyor ensured that each taxpayer 
held no more Jand than the quantity correspond- 
ing to the tax that he was paying. The process ts 
also described (ibid. 121.31~32) as assessing “the 
land that corresponds to the figure (of tax) due 
by the s1icHos.” The term Azkanosis and its deriv- 
auves are found in a number of documents. A 
chrysobull of Alexios I of 1089 (Xénoph., n0.2.14- 
2g) explains that the emperor had established a 
“norm” (metron) in view of assessing how much 
land should correspond to each noniisma (of tax 
paid by the landowner). Also in 108g Anna Da- 
lassene ordered that the land “imposed” on the 
monastery of Docheiariou be “equalized in ac- 
cordance with its payment [teloumenon] to the fisc” 
(Docheiar., no.z.23—-24). In the 14th C. the verb 
hikanopotetsthai (“perform an equalization”) was 
applied to the assessment of land in accordance 
with the granted posores (Dochetar., no.26.3-4, 
Dionys., 10.2.32—-33). If, after the Aikanoses, it ap- 
peared that the taxpayer held more land than he 
was entitled to (according to the amount of tax 
that he paid), this “superfluous” land (perite ge or 
perisseta) could be taken away trom him. 

LIT. Svoronos, Cadastre 124f. Dolger, Beurdge tgef. Le- 


merle, Agr.Hist. 80, n.1. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 140. 
-A.K. 


HILANDAR MONASTERY, Serbian monastery 
on Mt. Arnos, located near Esphigmenou, 2 km 
inland from the northeastern coast of the penin- 
sula. Originally a Greek foundation, Hilandar 
(XeAavdaptov) may have been established in the 
late 10th C. by George Chelandarios (“the Boat- 
man”); by 1015 it was deserted and had been 
handed over to the KASTAMONITOU MONASTERY. 
The plan of the main church and possibly its opus 
sectile floor date from the monastery’s foundation, 
as do portions of the eastern enclosure wall and 
a lal ge dl Cd lO the SUULLIEADL, Including uie Tower 
of St. George. 

In 1198—99 the monastery was restored as a 
Serbian koinobion by STEFAN NEMANJA (died 1199), 
who took the monastic name Symeon, and by his 
son Sava, who composed in 1199 a typikon based 
on the rule of the EUERGETIS MONASTERY in Con- 
stantinople. They constructed a new church and 
added a refectory, which was later partly rebuilt. 
By the early 13th C. Hilandar was inhabited by 


932 HIMATION 


go monks. A chapel in an upper story of the 
‘Tower of St. George contains wall paintings dated 
by Bogdanović et al. (infra 64) to the mid-13th C. 
The next great benefactor of Hilandar was STE- 
FAN UroS II Mitutin, who in 1303 replaced the 
late 12th-C. katholikon with a new triconch church 
with narthex (S. Nenadović, HilZb 3 [1974] 85- 
208; P. Mylonas, HilZb 6 [1986] 7-45) and also 
restored the refectory; he strengthened the mon- 
astery’s fortifications and added a tower at the 
harbor. Originally endowed by Nemanja with 15 
Serbian villages, Hilandar became very wealthy 
and, by the mid-iqth C., owned one-fifth of the 
Athos peninsula, plus lands from Macedonia (esp. 
Strymon and Chalkidike regions) to Serbia, 360 
villages or parts of villages in all. At this time it 
held fourth place in the Athonite hierarchy. Hi- 
landar was completely independent of the au- 
thority of both the proros and Byz. emperor. 
The hegoumenoi of Hilandar frequently became 
archbishops of Serbia. 

Hilandar became an important Serbian Ortho- 
dox religious and cultural center (see SERBIAN 
LITERATURE): the Serbian writers DOMENTIAN, 
Teoposye, and Danilo were all monks of Hi- 
landar. It was also a treasurehouse of Serbian art. 
It contains an important collection of icons, no- 
tably a mosaic icon of the Hodegetria (Furlan, 
icone a mosaico, no.7); it is ascribed by V. Djuri¢ 
to the end of the 12th C. Djurić (BZ 53 [1960] 
333-51) argued that in the 14th C. Hilandar was 
a center of icon production, and dated the Cin 
(an icon row from the church’s templon) to ca.1360, 
seeing there the same hand that painted a Gospel 
book (cod.g) in the monastery’s library. The Ser- 
bian variant of Old CHurcH Siavonic developed 
at the monastery, which housed a scriptorium, a 
center for translation, and bilingual library. Most 
of the approximately 1200 MSS preserved at Hi- 
landar are in Slavic; esp. notable are the numer- 
ous illuminated MSS of the 13th C. The archives, 
which include 172 Greek and 154 Serbian docu- 
ments from the medieval period, provide infor- 
mation on the structure of the countryside, pro- 
noia, taxation, and the economic inequality of the 
peasants. 


sources. I. Mirković, Hilandarski tipik svetoga Save (Bel- 
grade 1935). Actes de Chilandar, Part 1, ed. L. Petit, VizVrem 
17 (1910 [1911]), supp. 1. Part IH, ed. B. Korablev, VizVrem 
1g (1912 [1915]), supp. 1. V. Mošin, A. Sovre, Dodatki h 
grškim listinam Hilandarja (Llubljana 1948). 


ur. D. Bogdanović, V.J. Djurić, D. Medaković, Hilandar 
(Belgrade 1978). Ostrogorsky, Féodalité 271-73. V. Moiin, 
M. Purkovié, Chilandarski igumeni srednjega veka (Skopje 
1940). Hilandarski zbornik, vols. 1— (1966-). M. Živojinović, 
“The Spiritual Father of the Monastery of Chilandar,” JOB 
32.2 (1982) 247-56. D. Bogdanović, D. Medaković, Katalog 
cirilskih rukopisa Manastira Hilandara, 2 vols. (Belgrade 1978), 
S. Ćurčić, Hilandar Monastery: An Archive of Architectural 
Drawings, Sketches, and Photographs (Princeton 1988). Trea- 
sures 2:258—87, 387-94. -A.M.T., A.C. 


HIMATION (iuáriov), a mantle, the Greek 
equivalent of the Roman pallium. It was originally 
an oblong outer garment of wool or linen, worn 
over the TUNIC, and draped over the left shoulder 
and body in such a way as to leave the right 
shoulder free. In this specific form it survives in 
all Byz. representations of figures in antique garb, 
such as Christ, the apostles, and prophets, but it 
was apparently not in daily use after late antiquity. 

In the Byz. monastic typika, the word himation 
refers to a different garment, namely the dark 
cotton mantle worn by monks (e.g., P. Gautier, 
REB 32 [1974] 65.609) and nuns. When used in 
the plural (e.g., P. Gautier, REB 40 [1982] 67.930), 
it has the more general meaning of clothing. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 2.2:20. Idem, “Symbole eis to peri 


byzantinon phorematon kephalaion,” EEBS 24 (1954) 9- 
12. -N.P.S. 


HIMERIOS, teacher and orator; born Prusias, 
Bithynia, between ca.3o00 and 310, died after 380. 
Himerios (‘luépios) spent most of his life at Ath- 
ens, first as a student, then (probably) in an official 
teaching post. Though his pagan memorialist Eu- 
NAPIOS would not think so, his most distinguished 
students were BASIL THE GREAT and GREGORY OF 
Nazianzos. He died old, rich, blind, and epileptic. 
He produced at least 75 speeches and declama- 
tions; time has spared only 24, with excerpts and 
fragments from ten or so others. I hematically, 
they are the traditional mélange of the old-style 
sophist: reworkings of great moments in Athenian ` 
history, school lectures, addresses to high off- 
clals—clegant nothings, for the most part. Yet 
Puorios (cf. A. Colonna, Miscellanea Giovanni Gal- 
biati, vol. 2 [Milan 1956] 95—106), a great admirer 
of their style, compares his pagan stance to the 
“secret yappings of dogs amongst us” (Bibl. 
cod.165), which may suggest he had read items 
more detectably pagan than anything now extant. 


ED. Declamationes et orationes, ed. A. Colonna (Rome 1951). 
S. Eitrem and L. Amundsen, “Fragments from the Speeches 
of Himerios,” ClMed 17 (1956) 23-30. 

ur. Kennedy, Rhetoric 141-49. D. Serruys, “Les procédés 
toniques d’Flimérius et les origines du ‘cursus’ byzantin,” 
in Philologie et linguistique. Mélanges Louis Havet (Paris 190g: 
rp. Geneva 1972) 475-99. —B.B. 


HIMERIOS (‘Iépeos), admiral under Lro VI; 
died Constantinople? 912/13. A relative of Zoe 
KARBONOPSINA, Himerios belonged to the ranks 
of civil officials and was given, by chroniclers, the 
offices of protasekretis and logothetes tou dromou; he 
had the title of patrikios. Leo VI sent Himerios in 
goq to prevent Leo or TRIPOLI from besieging 
Thessalonike, but Himerios did not dare attack 
the Arab fleet; later, however, he won a brilliant 
victory over the Arab fleet “on the day of the 
apostle Thomas” (6 Oct.). The exact year of this 
battle is questionable: Grumel assumes that it oc- 
curred in go8, but 905 or go6 are more plausible 
dates (Vasiliev, Byz. Arabes, 2.1:185, n.1); report- 
edly sent with Himerios, Andronikos Doukas un- 
expectedly defected. ARETHAS OF CAESAREA praised 
Himerios’s victory (P. Karlin-Hayter, Byzantion 29— 
30 [1959—60] 300.28). In g11 Himerios, as droun- 
garios of the fleet, commanded a fleet sent against 
the Cretan Arabs but was defeated by the Arab 
admirals Damian and Leo of Tripoli off Chios in 
April giz (R. Jenkins, Hellenika supp. 4 [1953] 
277-81). After his return to Constantinople, Hi- 
merios was imprisoned by the emperor ALEXAN- 
DER and died six months later. 


LIT. V. Grumel, “Notes chronologiques,” EO 36 (1937) 
202-07. - A.K. 


HIMS. See Emesa. 


HIMYAR, the land of the Himyarites (‘Ounpi- 
Tat), a state in South Arabia (now Yemen) that 
included the littoral on the Red Sea and Indian 
Ocean (with cities such as NayrAN and Zafar) and 
inland territory inhabited by Bedouins. Himyar 
played an important role in late Roman trade 
with Axum and Ino1a, bringing to the Mediter- 
ranean spices, myrrh, silk, etc. For a short time 
in the 4th C. Himyar was under Axumite domi- 
Nation, as it was to be again in the 6th C. An 
attempt in the early 6th C. to establish indepen- 
dence under a native ruler, DHt-NuwaAs, was sup- 


HIPPIATRICA 933 


pressed by the Axumites supported by a navy sent 
by Justin I. The new ruler, ABRAHA, however, 
while continuing tribute payments to Axum, con- 
ducted an independent policy and managed to 
consolidate his kingdom and to expand its borders 
northward. Justinian I tried to involve Himyar in 
active warfare against Persia but the Himvyarites 
avoided direct confrontation with the Persians. 
Circa 570 some Himyarite chiefs invited the Per- 
sians into their country, and King Masruq, the 
last member of Abraha’s dynasty, fell in battle; 
Himyar was placed under Persian governors with 
their residence in San‘a’. 

Christianity penetrated Himyar in the 4th C. 
(ace. to Philostorgios), although Theodore Lector 
dates its appearance in the area much later, in 
the reign of Anastasios I. The country became a 
battlefield between Christianity and Judaism, which 
had had a strong tradition in Himyar. Christian- 
ity, in its Monophysite version, triumphed with 
military support from Axum and Constantinople; 
local bishops acknowledged the jurisdiction of Al- 
exandria. When Muhammad sent his first em- 
bassy to South Arabia, the eniissaries did not meet 
any serious opposition from the local population, 
and the Himyarites converted to Islam. 

uit. J.H. Mordtmann, FI 2:310-12. N. Pigulevskaja, 
Vizantija na putjach v Indiju (Moscow-Leningrad 1951) 215- 
384. H. von Wissmann, Zur Geschichte und Landeskunde von 
Alt-Siidarabien (Vienna 1965). P. Marrassini, “Bisanzio e il 
Mar Rosso: Cristianesimo e giudaismo in Arabia fino al VI 
secolo,” 28 CorsiRav (1981) 177-91. I. Shahid, “Byzantium 
in South Arabia.” DOP 33 (1979) 25-87. -A.K. 


HINCMAR. See ANNALES BERTINIANI. 


HIPPIATRICA, or “horse medicine,” was highly 
developed in the Byz. Empire. The shift to de- 
pendence upon CavaLry in the late Roman army 
ensured the high honor accorded to hippiatric 
writings; the extant colecuon UL vewiniary med- 
ical writings in Greek, compiled on orders from 
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, compacts the 
works of Apsyrtos (f. ca.330?), Hierokles (fl. 
ca.3607), and many other military veterinarians 
whose task it was to maintain the health of cavalry 
horses. A 1oth-C. luxury edition of the Hippiatrika 
is preserved in Berlin (Staatsbibl. Phillips 1538), 
decorated with ornaments and headpicces imitat- 
ing the form of cloisonné ENAMEL. A more utili- 
tarian 14th-C. version in Paris (B.N. gr. 2244) 


934 HIPPOCAMP 


contains miniatures depicting the treatment of 


sick horses and a portrait of Hicrokles (Weitz- 
mann, Grundlagen 24). 

Byz. veterinarians were forced to invent fresh 
words to describe the ailments of animals, quite 
often viewed as analogous to human diseases, and 
the drugs prescribed and theories assumed are 
similar to comparable matters in Byz. medicine as 
a whole. Farm lore is prominent in the hippiatric 
literature, much as it is for the simple veterinary 
care suggested for HORSES, DOGS, domestic BIRDS, 
pigs, and even bees as listed in the GROPONIKA. 

uit, A.-M. Doven-Higuet, “The Hippiatrica and Byz- 
anune Veterinary Medicine,” DOP 38 (1984) 111-20. K.D. 
Fischer, “Pelagonius on Horse Medicine,” ed. F. Cairns in 
Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3 (1981) 285-303. R.F. 
Walker, “Roman Veterinary Medicine,” appendix in J.M.C. 
Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (London—Ithaca, 
N.Y., 1973) 303-34, 404-14. —J.S., A.C. 


HIPPOCAMP (immókauros), seahorse, a fabu- 
lous monster with a horse’s body and fish's tail on 
which sea deities would ride. The hippocamp is 
infrequently mentioned in literary texts and plays 
no role in mythology; the church fathers ignore 
it. The image does often appear, however, in both 
classical and Byz. art, notably on bone CASKETS 
AND BOXES. -A.K. 


HIPPODROMES, arenas for horse and chariot 
races as well as other events. 

Hippodrome of Constantinople. According to 
unverified tradition, the Hippodrome was built 
by Septimius Severus (shortly after 196) and com- 
pleted by Constantine I, who provided it with an 
imperial box (KATHISMA) and built the GREAT 
PALACE next to it. It served not only as a sports 
arena, but also as a setting for the proclamation 
of emperors and the celebration of TRIUMPHS and 
as a focus for the public life of the city’s popula- 
uon. 

As a building the Hippodrome was a typical 
Roman circus of the period of the Tetrarchy. It 
was hairpin-shaped, with its gates (Lat. carceres; 
Gr. kankella, thyrai) toward the northeast and its 
curved end (SPHENDONE) pointing southwest. The 
arena was divided into two tracks by a slightly 
oblique barrier (Lat. spina, Gr. euripos), upon which 
were placed obelisks, statues, and other ornamen- 
tal features. Rising tiers of seats supported on 


vaulted passages surrounded the arena except for 
the side occupied by the carceres. Above the seat- 
ing ran a continuous colonnaded passage. The 
Kathisma rose along the east side, probably some- 
what south of center, while the west side, as in 
some other Roman circuses, followed a somewhat 
irregular line. The exact length of the Hippo- 
drome is unknown, but must have been about 450 
m. The outer width measured at the base of the 
Sphendone is 117.5 m and the inner width 79.5 
m. The seating capacity may be tentatively esti- 
mated as somewhat above 100,000. 

The 12 gates were equipped with a mechanism 
that enabled them to be opened simultaneously, 
At their center rose a tower surmounted by a 
quadriga of four gilded horses (which at the time 
of the Fourth Crusade were transported to Ven- 
ice, where they remained until recently on the 
facade of S. Marco). Starting from the gates, the 
competing chariots made for the turning post 
(Lat. meta, Gr. kampter) marking the north termi- 
nation of the spina, then went round the course 
seven times in a counterclockwise direction. The 
finishing line was probably in the western track, 
directly in front of the grandstands (Gr. demot) 
occupied by the partisans of the two main Fac- 
TIONS. Opposite these grandstands was the im- 
perial Kathisma, corresponding to the pulvinar of 
the Circus Maximus. It was built into the seating 
and appears to have been a two-storied structure, 
with the imperial loge and a reception hall on the 
first floor. It communicated with the palace by 
means of a spiral staircase (Gr. kochlias) and was 
protected at the rear by bronze doors, which barred 
access to the palace in the event the Kathisma was 
occupied by insurgents, as happened during the 
Nika Revolt (532). 

In the late Roman period CHARIOT RACES were 
held frequently, but by the gth C. they were 
reduced to about three a year, not counting those 
for special occasions such as imperial triumphs or 
the reception of foreign potentates. These special 
races went on until the Latin occupation. The 
conduct of the games is minutely described in the 
De CEREMONIIS (bk.1, chs. 68-73). A schematic 
representation of the games has survived among 
the frescoes of St. Sophia, Kiev. 

The structure of the Hippodrome was kept up 
until ca.1200. In 1203 the west wing was burnt 
down and soon thereafter the Crusaders melted 


down the bronze statues that had decorated the 
spina, as Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 647-55) 
records. In the Palaiologan period the Hippo- 
drome, now partly in ruins, was used for jousts. 
A view, published by O. Panvinio (1600), illus- 
trates its condition in ca.1480. Surviving portions 
include the tall substructure of the Sphendone, 
the substructure of part of the east wing, and 
three monuments of the spina, namely: (1) the 
Egyptian obelisk of Thutmosis III set on a marble 
base bearing reliefs and bilingual inscriptions of 
Theodosios 1 from 390 (see OBELISK OF THEO- 
postos); (2) the Serpent Column, the central shaft 
of the Delphic tripod dedicated by the victorious 
Greeks after the battle of Plataea (479 B.c.); and 
(3) the masonry obelisk or Colossus, bearing an 
inscription of Constantine VII recording its re- 
decoration with bronze plaques. Two marble bases 
(out of seven), which had supported the statues 
of the CHARIOTEER Porphyrios, have been 
unearthed in the Turkish Seraglio. In 1952 part 
of the scating of the west wing of the Hippodrome 
was excavated. 

The Hippodrome was a monument rich in leg- 
ends. Its Roman origins and pagan associations 
with the Dioskouroi, Poseidon, Helios, etc., were 
still remembered in the 6th C. (Jonn Lypos, De 
mensibus 1:12; 4:90, 73; Malal. 173-77). Various 
features of it received a cosmic interpretation: the 
12 gates denoted the signs of the zodiac, the seven 
races run round the spina signified the spheres of 
the planets, the colors of the four factions stood 
for the four elements, etc. Confused historical 
memories, esp. the slaughter of the Nika riot, 
were woven into the earlier mythology. 

Hippodromes outside of Constantinople. Hip- 
podromes existed in many other cities of the em- 
pire, but all of them went out of use after the 
6th—7th C. The old Circus Maximus in Rome was 
reconstructed in the 4th C., and at the beginning 
of the same century Maxenuus built a circus 520 
m long and g2 m wide; an obelisk was erected on 
its spina or barrier (A. Frazer, ArtB 48 [1966] 385— 
g2). The circus of Maxentius had space for 10,000 
spectators. Private hippodromes in Rome are also 
mentioned (A. Manodori, Anfiteatri, circhi e stadi 
di Roma [Rome 1982] 225-29). The circus in 
Carthage, cleared by excavation, seems to have 
been active through the 5th C.—the area was later 
used for a rubbish dump (The Circus and a Byz- 


HIPPODROMES 935 


antine Cemetery at Carthage, ed. J.H. Humphrey, 
vol. 1 [Ann Arbor 1988] 114-16). 

The existence of hippodromes in the East is 
attested to primarily by written sources. Papyri, 
inscriptions, and occasional references in histori- 
cal works describe the organization of circus fac- 
tions (Blues and Greens) rather than the physical 
structure of the buildings. Data concerning fac- 
tions survives from Alexandria, Oxyrhynchus, 
Caesarea Maritima, Antioch, Emesa, Helioupolis, 
Kyzikos, Ephesus, Priene, Stratonikeia in Caria, 
and several other cities (A. Christophilopoulou in 
Chanisterion eis Anastaston K. Orlandon, vol. 2 [Athens 
1966] 358-60). Hagiographical texts describe horse 
races in Gaza, the factions of the hippodrome in 
Emesa, and the hippodrome in Damascus (Ru- 
dakov, Kul’tura 87f). It is plausible to assume that 
chariot racing declined after the 6th C. and pro- 
vincial hippodromes are scarcely ever mentioned 
in later centuries: Eustathios of Thessalonike (Eust. 
Thess., Capture 106.30) speaks of a politikos (mu- 
nicipal) hippodrome in Thessalonike, but Ruda- 
kov is wrong in asserting that the vita of Lazaros 
of Mt. Galesios (AASS, Nov. 3:580B) mentions 
horse races in Magnesia; the hagiographer is re- 
ferring to heppodromia in Constantinople. 

The average hippodrome took about five years 
to build and, when complete, measured about 450 
x 70 m. The omission of an upper colonnade, 
sull present at the Circus Maximus, could be be- 
cause of the lack of a local tradition tn equestrian 
sports or a perceived need for haste in construc- 
uon. In the late Roman world hippodromes played 
an essential role as a setting both for court cere- 
monial and the ruler’s appearance before his sub- 


jects. Hence they were frequently built in a city 


that an emperor determined as his chief resi- 
dence. Rejecting the pattern that had prevailed 
down to the time of Constantine 1—when hip- 
podromes were built outside the city—most such 
structures of the 4th ©. and arter were built whhin 
the walls and often next to the imperial residence. 
Apsidal! buildings adjacent to the hippodromes of 
Sirmium, Milan, and Thessalonike suggest pro- 
vision for an imperial loge. As at Constanunople, 
therefore, hippodromes became in effect an in- 
tegral part of the palace. 

uit. Muller-Wiener, Bildlexikon 64-71. Guilland, Topo- 
graphie 1:369-595. G. Dagron, Naissance Cune capitale 
(Paris 1974) 320-64. C. Mango, “Daily Life in Byzantium,” 


936 | HIPPOKRATES 


JOB 31.1 (1980) 344-53. J- Humphrey, Roman Circuses 
(London 1986). J. Gascou, “Les institutions de Hippodrome 
en Egypte byzantine,” BIFAO 76 (1976) 185-212. Y. Dan, 
“Circus Factions (Blues and Greens) in Byzantine Pales- 
tine,” The Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981) 105-19. 

~C.M., A.R. AC. 


HIPPOKRATES. See SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS, 
ILLUSTRATION OF. 


HIPPOLYTOS, in Greek mythology the son of 
‘THeseus and the Amazon Hippolyte, a victim of 
his stepmother Phaedra’s passionate love for him. 
When Hippolytos repulsed her advances, Phaedra 
accused him of seducing her, and Theseus asked 
Poseidon to kill Hippolytos. Phaedra’s attempted 
seduction appears on a silver plate of the 5th or 
6th C. (DOCat 1, no.7) and again, half a millen- 
nium later, in bone carving (Goldschmidt- 
Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt. 1, no.30). In literature 
Hippolytos becomes a symbol of chastity: thus 
“THEMISTIOS returns several times to the legend of 
Hippolytos, emphasizing his suphrosyne (e.g., 
or.1:88.g—10, 2:202.11—12). Malalas describes at 
length the story of Hippolytos, with the intenuon 
of exonerating Phaedra and showing that both 
she and Hippolytos were innocent and that The- 
scus was fully responsible for their deaths. Di- 
verging from ancient sources, Malalas presents 
Hippolytos as a man of dark complexion, short- 
haired, snub-nosed, broad-faced, with sparse beard 
and large teeth; he also stresses that Hippolytos 
was a mature and strong hunter and calls him 
“Theseus’s son by a concubine (patlake)” (Malal. 
88.13). It is impossible to judge to what extent 
Malalas’s story may have been influenced by the 
“triangle” of Constantine I-Fausta—Crispus; the 
latter was Constantine's son by the concubine Mi- 
nervina (Zosim. 2:20.2), a young but talented mil- 
itary commander, who perished (along with his 
stepmother Fausta) as a victim of his father’s jeal- 
ousy. 

Hippolytos is depicted in art as a hunter in a 
MS of pseudo-Oppian in Venice (Marc. gr. 479; 
Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 115, fig.130). 

uT. Reinert, Myth 555-66. Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 175— 
FF -A.K., A.C. 


HIRA, Arab city on the lower Euphrates, the 
capital of the LAKHMiDs prior to the rise of Islam. 
Nestorian Christians exiled from Byz. fled to Hira, 


from which Christianity spread in the Arabian 
peninsula; the city became officially Nestorian with 
the conversion of the last Lakhmid king al-Nu‘man 
(580—602). After his death the city received a 
Persian governor and in 633 it capitulated to 
Muslim arms. Hira was eclipsed by Islamic Kūfa, 
but in the gth C. it produced the most important 
figure in the transmission of Greek science to the 
Arabs, Hunayn ibn-Ishaq. 

uit. G. Rothstein, Die Dynastie der Lahmiden in al-Hira 
(Berlin 1899; rp. Hildesheim 1968) 12-40. M.J. Kister, 
“Al-Hira, Some Notes on its Relations with Arabia,” Arabica 
15 (1968) 143-69. ~L.A.Sh. 


HISTAMENON (voputopa iorapevor, lit. “stan- 
dard”), a term commonly applied tn the 11th C. 
to the gold Nomisma of full weight in order to 
distinguish it from the substandard TETARTERON. 
Because the histamena of the mid-11th C. were 
concave, the term passed, in the shortened form 
of stamena (first attested 1030), to the Byz. billon 
and copper TRACHEA of the 12th—1i3th C., used 
particularly by the Latins in a variety of spellings 
(stamina, stanmini, etc.). Its exact meaning in any 
particular case has to be deduced from the con- 
text. 


Lurr. Hendy, Coinage 28. —-Ph.G. 


HISTORIA AUGUSTA (4th C.?), a conventional 
ude for a collection of Lives of Roman emperors 
and pretenders from 117 to 284, with a real or 
faked lacuna for 244~—59. It was ostensibly written 
in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine by six 
otherwise unknown biographers: Aelius Lampri- 
dius, Aelius Spartianus, Flavius Vopiscus, Julius 
Capitolinus, Trebellius Pollio, Wuleacius Galli- 
canus. If it had a preface and Lives of Nerva and 
Trajan, its emulation of Suetonius would be com- 
plete, but too much logic on its part cannot be 
assumed. In content and form, the Lives are a 
poor man’s Suetonius, crammed with exotic and 
erotic details and written in a sometimes remark- 
able Latin. Much of its documentation and infor- 
mation is demonstrably false and wrong, though 
it still has to be used when other sources are 
lacking. The collection parades conventional views 
of good emperors and senatorial virtues; efforts 
to equip it with any consistent philosophy have 
foundered. "Fhe current fashion is to follow H. 
Dessau's thesis (Hermes 24 [1889] 337-92; 27 [1892] 


361-605) of a single author writing for fraud or 
literary fun sometime in the late 4th C. A recent 
computer study of its language (I. Marriott, JRS 
6y [1979] 65-77) suggests single authorship. The 
only known use of it by the consular historian 
Symmachus in 485 might conceivably suggest a 
later date, or even that this Symmachus wrote it. 

ED. Scriptores historiae augustae, ed. E. Hohl, revised C. 
Samberger, W. Seyfarth, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1965). The Scrip- 
tores Historiae Augustae, ed. D. Magie, 3 vols. (London—New 
York 1921-32), with Eng. tr. 

uit. R. Syme, Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford 1983). 
T.D. Barnes, The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels 
1978). A. Momigliano, “An Unsolved Problem of Historical 
Forgery: The Seriptores Historiae Augustae,” JWarb 17 (1954) 
22-40. C. Lessing, Scriptorum historiae augustae lexicon (Leipzig 
1g06). —B.B. 


HISTORIA DE EXPEDITIONE FRIDERICI 
(History of the Expedition of Frederick), an ac- 
count of the Crusade of FREDERICK 1, compiled 
in Austria ca.1200, possibly by a priest Ansbert. 
The Historia expanded an earlier record (partially 
preserved, but misassessed by Chroust) by adding 


a prologue, documents, and annals (1190—97) of 


events in the Holy Land. The earlier record seems 
to derive from ‘TacENno and another participant, 
probably in Frederick’s entourage. The Historia 
attests diplomatic contacts with Constantinople and 
IKoNION before Frederick’s departure (pp. 15f) 
and quarrels over imperial titles (pp. 49—51). It 
offers a list of Crusaders (pp. 18-22), a detailed 
description of their trip and the state of the em- 
pire (pp. 26-75), and several Byz. documents 
(p.29, Reg 2, no.1592; p.51.13-18, Reg 2, n0.1598; 
pp. 64.15-66.22, Reg 2, no.1603). Further knowl- 
edge of the lost earlier record comes from an 
anonymous History of the Pilgrims (Historia peregri- 
norum), compiled in the 1190s (ed. Chroust, pp. 
116-72). 

Both histories overlap somewhat with the brief, 
factual account ef the Gesta Federici Needs of 
Frederick (on the Holy Expedition], ed. O. Holder- 
Egger, MGH SRG 27 [Hannover 1892] 78—96), 
which may also derive from Frederick’s entou- 
rage. It adds new, vivid details to the crossing of 
the empire (e.g., the Byz. felled trees to block the 
road through Bulgaria, p.80). 

Fp. A. Chroust, Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kai- 
ser Friedrichs 1. (= MGH SRG n.s. 5] (Berlin 1928} 1-115. 

ur. Wattenbach-Schmale, Deutsch. Gesch. Heinr. V 1:99- 


104. Karayannopulos-Weiss, Quellenkunde 2:438. 
-M.McC. 


HISTORIOGRAPHY 937 


HISTORIA LANGOBARDUM BENEVEN- 
TANORUM. See ERCHEMPERT. 


HISTORIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL. See ECCLE- 
SIASTICAL HISTORIANS. 


HISTORIOGRAPHY, one of the primary genres 
of Byz. literature. Theophanes the Confessor 
(Theoph. 3.11—12) used the terms chronographoi 
and histortographoi to designate historians; this di- 
vision into history and CHRONICLE, sanctioned by 
K. Krumbacher, became traditional, although re- 
cently serious doubts have been expressed as to 
its validity. Fhe Byz. themselves did not clearly 
distinguish between historia and chronikon: the late 
Roman historians preferred the title History tor 
their works, but from MaLraras onward “Chroni- 
cle” became the typical heading, not only of George 
Synkellos, Theophanes, or George Hamartolos, 
but even of some unquestionably “historical” works 
such as those by Psellos, Niketas Choniates, or 
George Akropolites. On the other hand, some 
authors like Patr. Nikephoros I, Skylitzes, Ke- 
drenos, and Zonaras, who wrote in a chronicle 
style, used the title History. Eustathios of Thessa- 
lonike distinguished between the terms historein 
(“to write of the past”) and syngraphein (“to write 
of contemporary events”). 

The Byz. contrasted historiography and ENKO- 
MION, emphasizing that historiography’s objective 
was pursuit of the truth. Indeed the element of 
criticism was substantial in historians. This overt 
or implied criticism, directed against deceased 01 
living emperors and courtiers, was usually juxta- 
posed with praise for an ideal figure from the 
past (Constantine I for Theophanes), from con- 
temporary society (Nikephoros HHI Botaneiates for 
Attaleiates), or even from the “barbaric” world 
(Mehmed II for Kritaboulos). 

Tink was conccived as Uncar, mot circular, both 
by late Roman pagan historians with their concept 
of eternal Rome (F. Vittinghoff, HistZ 198 [1964] 
573) and by Christians according to whom history 
was moving toward Christ’s paROusIA or Second 
Coming. This perception of time as a continuum 
is obvious in the so-called “world chronicles” that 
begin with Adam or Creation and treat at length 
both the biblical and Roman past, whereas ancient 
Greek history is poorly represented (Jeffreys, 
“Chroniclers” 237f). It is less evident in works on 


938 | HISTORY PAINTING 


limited periods that nonetheless implicitly or ex- 
plicidy continue each other, so that Theophanes 
and his continuators, Leo the Deacon, Psellos, 
Anna Komnene, Niketas Choniates, Akropolites, 
Pachymeres, and Gregoras present an uninter- 
rupted account of events. The geographic scope 
was wide for late Roman historians who were very 


interested in ethnography and the problem of 


barbarians; after Theophanes, the Byz. otkoumene 
shrank, and with rare exceptions (e.g., Chalko- 
kondyles) historians dealt with territory under 
Byz. control. 

The philosophy of history is providenual, God 
or PRONOIA being considered as the ultimate cause 
of events. Providence could be conceived as in a 
perpetual dialogue with mankind, sending mes- 
sages in the form of portents, earthquakes, vi- 
sions, or miracles, and reacting to humankind’s 
piety or sinfulness; or it could be removed to the 
background, while TycHr or human activity proved 
to be the decisive factors in historical develop- 
ment. In the Palaiologan period historiography 
had to attempt to explain why God had forsaken 
his “chosen people” and granted victory to bar- 
barians (C.I.G. Turner, BZ 57 [1964] 346-73). 
The idea that economic or social causes could 
influence history does appear in historiography, 
if rarely (A. Kazhdan, VizVrem 19 [1961] 80f). 

Politically and religiously biased, historians ex- 
pressed their prejudices by direct praise or invec- 
tive (esp. George Hamartolos) or by tendentious 
choice of facts and selective omission of undesir- 
able events. The application of elements of his- 
torical criticism is infrequent, although occasion- 
ally historians present two contradictory versions 
and appeal to the reader to resolve the contradic- 
tion. More often than not historians uncritically 
copied their sources and thus created confusion 
and inconsistency. Documents are infrequently 
cited, but sometimes letters, treaties, or laws are 
reproduced, whereas speeches are usually artifi- 
cial creations, modeled upon earlier examples. 
Statistical information is rarely dependable. 

In addition to the truth, “delight” or “entertain- 
ment” was a goal of historiography. This purpose 
was served by anecdotes, jokes, sensational stories, 
mirabilia, miracles, love affairs, and murder scenes. 
On the other hand, the authors used rhetorical 
techniques, embedding into their story ekphraseis 
and enkomia, tropes and figures, metaphors and 
suniles. ARCHAISM formed a link with the past: by 


imitation, clichés, and citations from earlicr models, 
the historian established his place in the tradition, 
The structure of the narrative varied between two 
extremes—thc strictly chronological, annalistic 
method elaborated primarily by Malalas, Synkel- 
los, and Theophanes, and the biographical ap- 
proach (“by reigns”), which was already used by 
the continuators of Theophanes. Very few histor- 
ical works were dedicated to specific events (e.g,, 
EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE, John KANANOS), 
Although written primarily in prose, poetry was 
not excluded as a form of historiography, both 
for world history and specific historical reigns/ 
events. 

ur. Hunger, Lit. 1:257—504. J. Karayannopulos, G. Weiss, 
Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324-1453) (Wiesba- 
den 1982). R. Dostálová, “Vizantijskaja istoriografija,” VizVrem 
43 (1982) 22-34. Croke-Emmett, Historians. F. Tinnefeld, 
Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie 
(Munich 1971). B. Baldwin, “Greek Historiography in Late 
Rome and Early Byzantium,” Hellentka 33 (1981) 51—65. 
Ja.N. Ljubarskij, “Neue Tendenzen in der Erforschung 
der byzantinischen Historiographie,” Klo 6g (1987) 560- 
66. ~ALK. 


HISTORY PAINTING. ln Byz., as in ancient 
Rome, history painting normally depicted climac- 
tic events in the lives of emperors, such as acts of 
courage, victories, and the subjugation of barbar- 
ians (cf. Mansi 13:356B). A 1eth-C. historian (Kinn. 
266.7—9) describes the sponsorship of pictorial 
celebrations of imperial triumphs as “customary 
among men placed in authority.” Thus John Ly- 
dos (De magistratibus, ed. A. Bandy, p.114.14-15) 
reports pictures of the rise of Leo I set up by a 
praetorian prefect, and ZACHARIAS OF MYTILENE 
(HE, ed. E.W. Brooks, CSCO 88, p.41.27—29) 
mentions a similar tribute to Justin [ commis- 
sioned by a chartoularios. These pictures were dis- 
played in public places, an agora, and a public 
bath, respectively. But from the 6th C. onward, 
history painting is found primarily in the pre- 
cincts of imperial PALACES. A mosaic showing Be- 
lisarios’s victories over the Vandals and Goths and 
the reception of their tribute by the augusti cov- 
ered the ceiling of the CHaLkre. The emperor 
Maurice had the story of his life up to his acces- 
sion displayed in the Karianos portico at BLa- 
CHERNAI (Theoph. 261.13-15), and Basil I’s “toils 
on behalf of his subjects, his warlike exertions and 
the prize of victory bestowed by God” (TheophCont 
332.19—22) were depicted in his Kainourgion in 


the GREAT PALACE. ROBERT DE Clari (Conquête, 
p-28) describes pictures above the doors of churches 
in Constantinople depicting the overthrow of An- 
dronikos I by Isaac IT Angelos. Lesser men also 


commissioned this genre of painting: scenes of 


ancient history appeared among many others in 
the palace of DIGENES Akrrras: Alexios AXOUCH 
was criticized for displaying victories of the sultan 
rather than the emperor. 

Eusebios of Caesarea (VC 3.3) and later writers 
read such pictures alleyorically. Euthymios Ma- 
LAKES drew an analogy between depictions of the 
deeds of Manuel I and the Miracles and Passion 
of Christ. An anonymous text, preserved in Ven- 
ice, Marc. gr. Z 524, draws parallels between the 


same emperor's victories, Shown in the house of 


Leo Sikountenas in Thessalonike, and the con- 
quests of Moses and Joshua. The only Palaiologan 
works known are the paintings of Michael VIIs 
victory over the Angevins in the vestibule of the 
palace, described by Pachymeres (Pachym., ed. 
Failler 2:651.1-4). The propagandistic or allegor- 
ical nature of such images differentiates them 
from both the narrative pictures of the Madrid 
MS of John SkKyLrrzes and the historical episodes 
in the Paris Gregory (Paris, B.N. gr. 510). 

LIT. Grabar, L'empereur 36, 40f, 83f, 93. Magdalino- 
Nelson, “Emp. in 12th C.” -AC. 


HISTRIA (anc. “Iorpia), a Greek colony on Lake 
Sinoe, in ScyrHtA MINOR, near the shore of the 
Black Sea, north of Constanta in Rumania. The 
city prospered in the 4th—6th C., when its ram- 
parts were rebuilt three times, some bricks bear- 
ing stamps of the time of Anastasios I. Excayations 
have uncovered a commercial district, with var- 
ious workshops and private habitations that usu- 
ally form clusters, and several public buildings, 
including a basilical edifice of the 6th C. (E. Con- 
durachı in Charisterton es Anastasion K. Uriandon, 
vol. 4 [Athens 1967-68] 161-68). The sector con- 
taining two Roman baths of the and C. was a 
commercial region in the 4th C. and later the 
location of a basilica and a cemetery; it was aban- 
doned in the 7th C. (A. Suceveanu, Histria 6 
[1982] 85-92). In the eastern sector was a large 
palacelike house. 

The period of prosperous activity ended ca.580; 
the last excavated layer contains humbler habita- 
tions. Numerous coins of Maurice (H. Nubar, 


HODEGON MONASTERY 939 


Histria 3 [1973] 84) are connected with that em- 
peror’s attempt to protect the area against Avar 
attacks; then the number of Byz. coins decreases 
and stops after Herakleios. Sporadic coin finds of 
the late 1oth-1eath C. (ibid. 227f) indicate a Byz. 
presence in the region, but Histria did not regain 
its former significance. In the sector of the Roman 
baths, an 1ith-C. [Pecheneg?] tomb was found, 
containing jewelry of a type also known from 
DinoGetia and the steppe north of the Black Sea 
(A. Suceveanu, SCIV 24 [1973] 495--502). 
urn. E. Condurachi, “Histria à l'époque du Bas-Empire 
d'après les dernières fouilles archéologiques,” Dacia 1 (1957) 
245-63. H. Nubar, “Contribuții la topografia cetății Histria 
in epoca romano-bizantinã.” SCIV 22 (1971) 199-215. 
-A.K 


HOARDS, NUMISMATIC. See Coin Finps. 


HODEGON MONASTERY, located in Constan- 
tinople east of Hagia Sophia near the sea walls. 
Hodegon (Odnyer, “of guides, conductors”) ap- 
parently took its name from the monks who led 
blind pilgrims to a miraculous spring that was 
able to restore sight. The church was allegedly 
founded in the 5th C. by the empress PULCHERIA 
to house precious relics, which later included St. 
Luke’s portrait of the VirGin HODEGETRIA. In late 
Byz. this icon was removed trom the church every 
Tuesday and carried in procession through the 
streets, attended by large crowds hoping for mi- 
raculous cures. 

The monastic complex was built by the gth C., 
perhaps by MicHarn HI, and restored again in 
the 12th C. In the Palaiologan period a SCRIPTO- 
RIUM flourished there, specializing in the produc- 
tion of deluxe liturgical MSS (L. Polites, BZ 51 
[1958] 17-36, 261-87). Among its scribes were 
Chariton (H. 1319-46) and loasaph (f. 1360— 
1405/6). The Palaiologan emperors had close ties 
with the monastery and visited it frequently; 
ANDRONIKOS III died there in 1341. During the 
late 13th and 14th C. the monastery was granted 
to the patriarchate of Antioch as a mefochion, and 
served as a residence for Syrian monks visiting 
Constantinople. 

tit. Majeska, Russian Travelers 362-66. Janin, Églises CP 
199-207. R.L. Wolff, “Footnote to an Incident of the Latin 


Occupation of Constantinople: the Church and the Icon 
of the Hodegetria,” Traditio 6 (1948) 319-28. -A M.T. 


940 HOLOBOLOS, MANUEL 


HOLOBOLOS, MANUEL, teacher, orator, and 
active anti-Unionist; born ca.1245, died Constan- 
tinople between 1310 and 1314. In the service of 
Michael VIII as a grammatikos from an early age, 
Holobolos (‘OdA6Bodos) suffered repeatedly at the 
hands of the emperor. In 1261 his lips and nose 
were mutilated because he showed distress at the 
blinding of Jonn IV Laskaris. Holobolos there- 
upon entered the Prodromos monastery in Con- 
stantinople with the monastic name Maximos (W. 
Horandner, JOB 19 [1970] 116-19). In 1265-66, 
through an appeal of Patr. Germanos III, he was 
appointed rhetor and assigned to teach, possibly 
at the school attached to the orphanage of the 
Church of St. Paul (Pachym., ed. Failler 2:369.5— 
371.5). Again in disgrace in 1273 because of his 
anti-Union stance, Holobolos was exiled to the 
monastery tou Megalou Agrou on the Sea of 
Marmara. He returned to Constantinople after 
Michael’s death and was active in condemning the 
Unionists both in 1283 and at the Council of 1285 
in BLACHERNAI (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, 
Councixs oF). In addition to regaining the title 
of rhetor, he was protosynkellos, according to a 
letter addressed to him by the Dominican Simon 
(1299). A monody written for Holobolos by a 
student and relation, George GaLESIOTES, states 
that he was teaching until the end of his life (S.I. 
Kourouses, Athena 75 [1974-75] 335-74). 

As rhetor, Holobolos composed several orations 
for Michael VIII that are important sources for 
the early years of his reign (1259—61) and for the 
restoration of Constantinople after 1261. Holo- 
bolos also wrote verses for the emperor and his 
son Andronikos II to accompany the Epiphany 
PROKYPSIS Ceremony, Commentaries on Theokri- 
tos’s Technopaignia, and a logos katechetikos for Ger- 
manos III. 

ED. Orationes—ed. M. Treu, Programm des königlichen 
Victoria-Gymnasitums zu Potsdam (1906). L. Previale, “Un pa- 
negirico inedito per Michele VIH Paleologo,” BZ 42 (1943 
g) 1-49. Verses for Epiphany—Boissonade, AnecGr 5:159- 
82. Commentaries—C. Wendel, “Die Yechnopagnien- 
Ausgabe des Rhetors Holobolos,” BZ 16 (1907) 460-67. 

irr. R. Macrides, “The New Constantine and the New 
Constantinople—1261?” BMGS 6 (1980) 13-41. Constan- 
tinides, Education 55—59. C. Hannick, Maximos Holobolos in 


der kirchenslavischen homiletischen Literatur (Vienna 1981). 
-R.J.M. 


HOLY APOSTLES, CHURCH OF THE, name 
of numerous churches in Byz. territory, the most 


famous of which were those in Constantinople 
and Thessalonike. 


HoLY APOSTLES IN CONSTANTINOPLE. The 
first building on the site in Constantinople was a 
circular mausoleum erected by Constantine I for 
his own burial. Next to it a cruciform basilica was 
built by Constantius I, who deposited in it relics 
of the apostles Timothy (356) and Luke and An- 
drew (357—G. Downey, DOP 6 [1951] 72). In 550 
the church was rebuilt, again in the shape of a 
cross, by Justinian I, who added a second mau- 
soleum. The two mausolea served as the burial 
place of emperors until 1028. After Iconoclasm 
the church was restored by Basil I and decorated 
with a cycle of mosaics described in ca.g40 by 
CONSTANTINE OF RHODES. The mosaics appear to 
have been partly redone in the 12th C. and were 
described once again by Nicholas MESARITES. After 
the Turkish conquest the church was ceded to 
Gennadios II Scholarios as the seat of the patriar- 
chate, but he found it unsuitable and moved in- 
stead to the Church of St. Mary PAMMAKAaRISTOS. 
The church was demolished and the mosque of 
Mehmed II Fatih built on its site. Several of the 
imperial sarcophagi were salvaged (P. Grierson, 
DOP 16 [1962] 1-63). The Church of the Holy 
Apostles resembled that of St. John at EpHesus in 
its cruciform plan and five-domed elevation, a 
scheme later replicated at S. Marco in Venice. 

LIT. A. Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche, vol. 2 
(Leipzig 1908). J. Ebersolt, Mission archéologique de Constan- 
tinople (Paris 1921) 1-27. N. Malickij, “Remarques sur la 
date des mosaïques de l'église des saints Apétres,” Byzantion 
3 (1926) 129-51. A. Epstein, “The Rebuilding and Redec- 
oration of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople: Reconsid- 
eration,” GRBS 23 (1982) 79-92. ~C.M. 


HoLy APOSTLES IN THESSALONIKE. The 
Church of the Holy Apostles (originally the Church 
of the Virgin) in the western part of the city is a 
fine example of Palaiologan monastic architec- 
ture. On the west and south facades are brickwork 
monograms and carved inscriptions naming the 
patriarch NiPHon of Constantinople as founder, 
which would date the church to the period 1310- 
14; recent carbon-14 analysis of the fabric of the 
church shows that all of the building was con- 
structed at the same time, but suggests a date of 
ca.1329. The monk Paul is named as a second 
ktetor. The exterior of the church is richly deco- 
rated with brickwork patterns of all kinds: zigzags, 
hook patterns, cross-stitch designs, pendant tri- 


angles, grill patterns, and hexagon stars. The west 
facade of the outer narthex was an open arcade. 
The church is effectively divided into two parts: 
a naos with central dome on four columns, plus 
a narthex, is surrounded by a U-shaped ambula- 
tory with galleries and domes at each of the four 
corners. The interior is dominated by verticality; 
the proporuon of height to width of the central 
bay is 5:1. The interior was once adorned with 
mosaics, on the upper levels only, and with fres- 
coes, presumably executed by a Constantinopoli- 
tan workshop, perhaps the same that decorated 
the Church of the CHORA. 

ur. P.I. Kuntholm, C.L. Striker, “Dendrochronology 
and the Architectural History of the Holy Apostles in 
Thessaloniki,” Architectura 20 (1990) 1—26. N. Nikonanos, 
The Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki (Thessalonike 
1986). C. Stephen, Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble: Die Mo- 
saiken und Fresken der Apostelkirche (Worms 1986). M. Raut- 
man, “The Church of the Holy Apostles at Thessaloniki” 
(Ph.D. diss., Indiana Univ., 1984). Krautheimer, ECBArch 
431f. C. Diehl, N. Letourneau, H. Saladin, Les monuments 
chrétiens de Salonique (Paris 1918) 189—200. G. Velenis, “Hoi 
Hagioi Apostoloi Thessalonikes kai he schole tes Konstan- 
tinoupoles,” JOB 32.4 (1982) 457-67. -T.E.G. 


HOLY FACE. See MANDYLION. 


HOLY FOOLS. See Foo is, Hoty. 


HOLY MOUNTAIN (@ycov pos). A number of 
mountains (with their environs) in the Balkans, 
Anatolia, and the Levant attracted substantial 
numbers of monks and acquired reputations as 
“holy mountains.” Among the earliest were Mt. 
AUXENTIOS, Mt. Sinat, and the WonpRous Moun- 
TAIN, first settled in the 4th and 5th C. Larros 
probably received its first monks in the 7th C., 
OLymros and ATHos in the 8th—gth C. Until the 
first half of the 10th C. Olympos was considered 
the Holy Mountain par excelience; subsequentiy 
Athos took pride of place. Mounts Ganos and 
GaLesios became flourishing monastic commu- 
nities in the 10th and 11th C. MeTEoRA was the 
last to be founded, in the 14th C. 

Holy mountains are usually characterized by 
relative isolation and rugged terrain, and ap- 
pealed to the desire of many monks to reside in 
a remote wilderness area (see DESERT). They 
housed both hermits and koinobia; a number of 
holy men moved from one holy mountain to an- 


HOLY SPIRIT 941 


other in the course of their careers. Holy moun- 
tains often tended to be centers of Orthodox 
monastic resistance to such unpopular develop- 
ments as IconocLASM (Olympos) or the UNION OF 
THE CHURCHES (Athos, Ganos); at the same time, 
new spiritual trends (e.g., PALAMISM) might begin 
in such a monastic center. Holy mountains tended 
to limit the access of women, whether as visitors 
or as nuns in permanent residence. Two of them 
(Athos and Meteora) strictly prohibited the ad- 
mission of women to the mountain for any pur- 
pose; Latros had no nunneries at all; Galesios, 
Auxentios, and Olympos each had one, which 
functioned in part to house female relatives of 
monks who lived on the mountain (A.-M. Talbot, 
GOrThR 30 [1985] 2f). -A.M.T. 


HOLY RIDER, a modern term encompassing a 
variety of 5th- through 7th-C. amuletic images 
distinguished by a mounted figure. Following a 
well-established Antique iconographic tradition, 
most examples show the horse at full gallop and 
the figure, in military garb, impaling a beast or 
demon beneath the animal’s hooves. In some cases, 
the warrior is identified as Solomon or, more 
rarely, as St. Sisinnios; the victim is often a semi- 
nude female, the she-devil Gyllou (or Alabastria). 
The intent was not to portray a specific figure or 
historical event, but rather to evoke virtuous power 
and, more generally, the triumph of good over 
evil. Most Holy Rider amuLrers take the form of 
bronze pendants or haematite intaglio tokens, al- 
though the motif is found as well on amuletic 
rings, armbands, fibulae, belt fittings, and earthen 
tokens. 


LIT. Bonner, Studies, nos. 294—320. Vikan, “Art, Medi- 
cine, & Magic” 79-82, n.59. -G.V. 


tAr C Cacia meee 
ULULI G. JUU CEPULUIIAE, 


HOLY SPIRIT (zvedpa &yıov), third person of 
the Trinity. The Holy Spirit appears in early 
Christian literature as a primary experience of 
the community and the individual Christian. His 
activity is manifested in his gifts, esp. the gift of 
prophecy which thrived in Syro-Palestine and Asia 
Minor, particularly in Monranism. In Christian 
experience, the Holy Spirit is encountered in the 


942 HOLY SPIRIT 


baptismal liturgy, in the Trinitarian confession of 


faith, and in the doxology of the Church. 

In the 4th C., the Council of Nicaka set forth 
a simple confession concerning the Holy Spirit: 
“We believe . . . also in the Holy Spirit.” But at 
the Synod of Antioch of 341 this simple formula 
was expanded and the Holy Spirit presented as 
the eschatological gift and “paraclete” promised 
by Jesus. These elaborations reveal that the doc- 
trine of the Holy Spirit was developed in con- 
junction with the concept of Homoousios, the 
consubstantiality of the Logos with the Father. 

The PNEUMATOMACHOI were those who denied 
the deity of the Holy Spirit and depicted him as 
a created gift of God. Their most significant op- 
ponents were ATHANASIOS of Alexandria and Basir 


THE GREAT. In his four letters to SERAPION of 


Thmuis, Athanasios unites the Holy Spirit to God 
himself. The Father effects all things through His 
Logos in the Holy Spirit, involving not only sal- 
vation, but creation as well. ‘This ‘Trinity, more- 
over, is indivisible, constituting one God. At the 
Synod of Alexandria held in 362, Athanasios ar- 
gued for an expansion to the Nicaean Creed by 
condemning those who said that “the Holy Spirit 
is a creature separate from the essence of Christ” 
(PG 26:800A). To contemporaries such language 
approached Sabellianism (see MONARCHIANISM); 
MaRKELLOS OF ANkKyRA, for example, had been 
misunderstood earlier when he said something 
similar. 


A confession concerning the divine nature of 


the Holy Spirit was formulated for the first time 
in the theology of Basil and incorporated into the 
creed of the First Council of Constantinople (see 
under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF). The Holy 
Spirit is “the Lord, the Giver of Life.” In other 
words, he stands at the side of God the creator 
and redeemer. ‘The formula, “He proceeds from 
the Father,” describes how he is distinguished 
trom the Son within the inner relationships of the 
Godhead. The unity of worship expressed in the 
formula, “He is worshiped and glorified together 
with the Father and the Son,” confirms that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in essence. 
“He spoke through the prophets,” does not ex- 
plain the significance of prophecy, but the unity 
of Old Testament and New Testament and their 
divine testimonies. The term homoousios, after the 
controversies it provoked in the 4th C., was con- 
sciously avoided, but, inasmuch as the Spirit is 


introduced as the third hypostasis of the one 
divine essence, it was not retracted. 

A major issue in Byz. theology concerned the 
FILIOQUE and the Procession of the Holy Spirit 
“trom the Father.” That the Son or Logos partic- 
ipates in the Procession of the Holy Spivit was not 
called into question in either the Byz. or patristic 
traditions. Apart from some polemical formulas 
found in the writings of PHorios, no one main- 
tained that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the 
Father alone”; rather, the Father is the single 
“uncaused Cause (aitia)” with respect to whom the 
Son can hold but a mediating position, a concept 
wholly in line with Greek speculation on first 
principles. ‘This was expressed in the popular Byz. 
formula, “from the Father, through the Son” (ek 
tou patros dia tou hyiou). In precisely this sense, 
MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR interpreted the formula 
used by Pope MARTIN I: the Spirit proceeds from 
the Father and the Son. As the uncaused aitia, 
the Father is seen to be the “Ultimate Principle” 
which does not preclude a mediator (PG 
g1:136AB). 

For Byz. theologians the cause of the contro- 
versy was not the coordinating formulas used in 
Western tradition as much as the addition of the 
filioque to the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan creed 
by Western theologians m the 7th C. The first 
polemical discussion on this point took place at 
the Council of Gentilly (767). The prelude to the 
controversy was set up in the LIBRI CAROLINI, and 
in the dispute that erupted in 808 over the use of 
the filogue in the liturgy of the Benedictine monks 
of Jerusalem. When Photios in his encyclical of 
867 put forth the view that the filioque introduces 
two principles into the Godhead, thereby dissolv- 
ing the unity of God (“The monarchy,” he says, 
“is dissolved into a ‘dyotheism’ ”), what had been 
an ecclesiastical question was now made a dog- 
matic issue. 

‘The Photian Synod of 879/80 (see under Con- 
STANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF) expressly declared that 
the filioque introduced a new heresy. Photios and 
his followers saw in the Procession (probole) of the 
Spirit a unique property that distinguishes the 
Spirit as a hypostasis in the Trinity. Both the Son 
and the Spirit come forth (proodoi) from a single 
principle: the Son in the manner of generation; 
the Spirit in the manner of procession, but apart 
from any mediation. Only in terms of the econ- 
omy (vikonomia) of salvation does the Son partici- 


pate in the sending of the Spirit. Strict Photans, 
therefore, distinguished between the “economic” 
and “immanent” models of the Trinity: the Spirit 
comes forth ek tou patros, communicates with man- 
kind dia tou hyiou (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, PG 
123:1224D). This theme is evident in the Byz. 
theological controversies with, for example, Peter 
GROSSOLANO or ANSELM of Havelberg, or the con- 
troversy with Rome over UNION OF THE CHURCHES, 

articularly under Michael VIL Palaiologos, or 
at the Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE. 

The compromise that the Greek doctrine of 
mediation expressed by the formula dra tou hyiou, 
“through the Son,” has the same meaning as the 
Latin filioque is found already in the teaching of 
NIKETAS “OF MARONEIA.” Some Byz. theologians 
even held views that approached the Latin posi- 
tion. Nikephoros BLEMMyDEs, for example, was 
originally a strict Phouan, but in two of his later 
writings he maintained that the Son’s generation 
and the Spirit’s procession can be differentiated 
only if the Son participates in the latter. These 
writings prompted JOHN XI BEKKOs to undertake 
a detailed study of patristic texts, which led to the 
Union of Lyons (1274). The study of Bekkos, 
however, had no impact on Byz. theology, which 
remained essentially Photian. 

ur. J. Slipyi, “Die Trinitatslehre des byzanunischen Pa- 
triarchen Photios,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 44 (1920) 


538-62; 45 (1921) 66—95, 370—404. Beck, Kirche 306-17. 
-K.H.-U. 


HOLY TILE. See KERAMION. 
HOLY TOWEL. See MANDYLION. 


HOLY WEEK (7 peyadn éBSouds), the week 
before EASTER, called “great” in Byz. usage, as are 
its days (“Great Monday,” etc.). It originated in 
the extension to six days of the variable paschal 
period of FASTING that ended at the Easter VIGIL, 
a development first seen ca.z260 in Dionysios of 
Alexandria, Ep. ad Basilidem 1 (The Letters and Other 
Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, ed. C.L. Feltoe 
[Cambridge 1904] go—105). Fhe Easter vigil was 
at first the only liturgical service of Easter Week, 
but Eusebios (HE, bk.2, ch.17.21-22) and Epi- 
Phanios of Salamis (Panarion, ed. Holl, 3:523.23) 
already bear witness to the existence of other vigils 


HOMER | 943 


during the week, and in 384 Ecrerta (Diary 30- 
38) describes a full cycle of stational services in 
Jerusalem commemorating the Passion week (sce 
Goop Fribay), a cycle confirmed in detail by the 
sth-C. Armenian LECTIONARY of Jerusalem. 

The Holy Week services in Constantinople dif- 
fer little from those of other weeks in the 7ypikon 
of the Great Church (Mateos, Typicon 2:66—91). But 
by the gth C. the more dramatic Jerusalem ser- 
vices had already begun to influence Constantin- 
opolitan usage and were to predominate with the 
decline of the cathedral liturgy of Constantinople 
after 1204. 

Imperial participation in the services of Holy 
Week was most evident on Holy Thursday. ‘The 
emperor assisted at the liturgy, after which he 
distributed cinnamon and two apples to the dig- 
nitaries, then dined with guests (De cer. 33). Phere 
is no mention here of his participation cither in 
the adoration of the Passion relics or in the WASH- 
ING OF THE FEET. According to the Typikon, it is 
the patriarch who washes the feet of 12 clergymen 
after vespers (Mateos, Typicon 2:72f) as the New 
Testament account (Jn 13) of the event is read 
aloud. But in a 14th-C. ceremonial book (pseudo- 
Kod. 228.10—22g.20) the emperor himself washes 
the feet of 12 poor people before the start of the 
liturgy. 

LIT. Talley, Liturgical Year 27-31, 40-47. A.A. Dmitriev- 
skij, Bogosluzenie strastnoj i paschaťnoj sedmic vo sv. Lerusalime 
IX-X v. (Kazan 1894). -R.F.T. 


HOMER (“Oxunpos), “the Poet,” was the most 
widely read and studied ancient author in Byz. 
For example, Niketas Choniates’ History contains 
134 quotations from the Fiad (some used several 
times) and 58 from the Odyssey, whereas the next 
most popular writer, Lucian, is represented by 
only 24 passages. Byz. schoolmasters and students 
were constantly occupied with the Homeric poems, 
esp. the fad, which became a basic text in the 
curriculum; students memorized much of it. Thus 
citations from the Homeric epics are found 
throughout late antique and Byz. literature, al- 
though analysis of papyrological data suggests a 
decrease of interest in Homer in late antiquity. P. 
Mazon (Introduction à ['Ihade [Paris 1967} 64f) 
registers 75 fragments of the Iliad from the grd 
C., 17 from the 4th. 16 from the 5th, five from 
the 6th, and one from the 7th (uncertain papyri 


944 HOMILY 


such as the 2nd/grd C. are here omitted). Never- 
theless, educated church fathers quoted Homer: 
thus, Cyril of Alexandria, who barely mentions 
Homer’s name, was influenced by Stoic tradition 
and saw in Homeric gods symbols of vices and 
virtues or metonymies of the elements of the 
cosmos; he rarely polemicized against Homeric 
polytheism (G. Bartelink, WS n.s. 17 [1983] 62- 
68). Probably in the 6th C. an otherwise unknown 
female writer, Demo, wrote a commentary, pri- 
marily allegorical, on Homer. Dioskoros oF 
APHRODITO in 6th-C. Egypt owned the famous 
Cairo codex of Homer and called him “the best 
poet.” 

Interest in Homer revived in the gth-1oth C. 
The oldest complete MS of the Ziad, Venetus A 
[= Venice, Marc. gr. 454], which was formerly 
attributed to the scribe Ephraim and dated before 
947 (B. Hemmerdinger, REGr 69 [1956] 433f), is 
probably from the last quarter of the ioth C. (E. 
Mioni, Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia 
dell’Università di Padova 1 [1976] 185-93). The 
oldest copy of the Odyssey (Florence, Laur. 32.24) 
is also of the 10th C. The EPIMERISMS, commen- 
taries of the most elementary nature, were dated 
by Ch. Theodoridis (BZ 72 [1979] 1-5) to the 
beginning of the gth C., but A. Dyck (infra 7) 
places them in the goth—1oth C. At the same time 
collecting of scholia began; many of them are 
contained in Venetus A, but they derive mostly 
from Hellenistic and Roman sources (N. Richard- 
son, CQ 30 [1980] 265). From Constantinople the 
knowledge of Homer expanded to Baghdad in 
the oth C. (G. Strohmaier, BS 41 [1980] 196- 
200). 

The most important Homeric scholarship dates 
from the 12th C.—the massive commentaries by 
EUSTATHIOS OF THESSALONIKE and two long com- 
mentaries by Tzretzres. Eustathios used the ver- 
nacular Greek of his time and drew on the cus- 
toms of peasants and townsmen and recent events 
to explain the epic. He felt that Homer belonged 
to this world, sensing no distance between the 
Homeric past and his own day. Tzetzes’ interpre- 
tation was more antiquarian (he tried to fill in the 
gaps in Homer’s narrative) and allegorical, aimed 
at revealing historical, moral, and cosmological 
ALLEGORY. Among other commentators on Homer 
were Isaac KOMNENOS the Porphyrogennetos and 
George LEKAPENOS. Manuel MoscHOPOULOS com- 


posed a paraphrase of the first two books of the 
Iliad, omitting the “Catalog of Ships.” The story 
of the Trojan War excited the imagination of 
vernacular authors such as Constantine HERMO- 
NIAKOS. 

In an utterly unclassical manner, Homer is de- 
picted as a young man with long hair in a gth-C, 
MS of the homilies of Grecory OF NAZIANZOS 
(Weitzmann, Gr. Myth., fig.g6). Together with Or- 
PHEUS and Hesiop he appears among the “theo- 
logians” attacked by the church fathers. 

ED. Epimerismi Homerici, ed. A.R. Dyck (Berlin 1983). H. 
Erbse, Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem, 7 vols. (Berlin 1969- 
88). W. Dindorf, Scholia graeca in Homeri Odysseam, 2 vols. 
(Oxford 1855; rp. Amsterdam 1962). 

ut. Browning, “Homer.” A. Basilikopoulou-Ioannidou, 
He anagennesis ton grammaton kata ton 1B’ atona eis to Byzan- 
tion kat ho Homeros (Athens 1971-72). G. Morgan, “Homer 
in Byzantium: John Tzetzes,” in Approaches to Homer, ed. 
C. Rubino, C. Shelmerdine (Austin, Texas, 1983) 165-88, 
Wilson, Scholars 161, 197-99. R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Hel- 
lenistic-Byzantine Miniatures of the liad (Olten 1955), rev. K. 
Weitzmann, Gnomon 29 (1957) 606-16. —A.K., K.S., A.C. 


HOMILY. Sce SERMON. 


HOMOIOUSIANS (from 6jovovetos, “of like 
substance”), a group, often called “semi-Arians,” 
who refused to accept the term HOMOOUSIOS but 
who believed in the perfect divinity of Christ and 
the similarity of his divine nature to that of the 
Father. Although these beliefs may be traced back 
to ORIGEN, the Homoiousians as a “party” came 
into existence ca.356 in an attempt to find a com- 
promise between Orthodoxy and ARIANISM. 
Leading members of the Homoiousians were BASIL 
oF ANKyRA, Makedonios of Constantinople, and 
George of Laodikeia; they are to be distinguished 
from the Homoians, who maintained closer ties 
to strict Arianism. The movement met opposition 
on philosophical grounds since nothing can be 
“like” God’s nature; moreover, the assertion of 
“likeness” also implies difference, leading on the 
one hand to charges of polytheism and on the 
other to identification with Arianism (Wolfson, 
Philosophy 336f). The Homoiousians did, how- 
ever, influence the theology of the CAPPADOCIAN 
FATHERS. 

ur. J. Gummerus, Die homéusianische Partei bis zum Tode 


Konstantius (Leipzig 1900). G. Rasneur, “L’'Homoiousian- 
isme dans ses rapports avec l'orthodoxie,” RHE 4 (1903) 


189—206. A. Spasskij, /stortja dogmaticeskich dviženij v epochu 
uselenskich soborou? (Sergiev-Posad 1914; rp. Westmead 1970) 
365-474. ~TLEG. 


HOMOOUSIOS (600vc 10s, lit. “consubstantial,” 
“of the same SUBSTANCE”), term crucial for the 
understanding of the relationship among the PER- 
sons within the Trinity. Not used in the Bible, 
it was introduced by the grd C. in Gnostic inter- 
pretation of emanation and probably also in the 
Sabellian view of God’s epiphanies in history as 
Father, Son, and Spirit. ORIGEN and his disciples 
seem not to have applied the term to the Son (R. 
Hanson in Epektasis: Mélanges Jean Daniélou [Paris 
1972] 293—303), but the Council of Antioch against 
Paul of Samosata (268) condemned the consub- 
stantiality of the Father and Son. Paul probably 
understood consubstantiality in a sense of Mon- 
ARCHIANISM, perceiving the Son only as an at- 
tribute (LoGos=reason) of the Father, and the 
accusation was nothing but a dialectic argument 
against him. The further discussion of the term 
was provoked by the teaching of Arius that the 
Logos was a creation of the Father, his interme- 
diary in the act of salvation and therefore subor- 
dinate to him. The teaching was rejected by the 
creed of the First Council of Nicara that formu- 
lated the belief in the Son of God, born, not 
created, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Fa- 
ther. The idea of consubstantiality was to protect 
MONOTHEISM against the concept of a separate 
God-mediator. The tendency to identify the sub- 
stance of the persons, however, introduced the 
danger of Monarchianism that was interpreted as 
applying the notions of monoousios and tautoousios 
instead of homoousios and thus removing the hy- 
postatic difference of the persons. 

The term homoousios was under attack during 
the 4th C.; the semi-Arians wanted to replace it 
with homoios (“similar”) as representing a looser 
relationship or a recourse to Scripture (ct. Jn 
5:19). It was the interpretation of the Cappapo- 
CIAN FATHERS that brought forth a synthesis and 
produced the canonical formula “one ousia (sub- 
stance), three HyPosTasEs.” This formulation pre- 
served the concept of substantial identity as well 
as numerical difference of Godhead and provided 
Byz. theology with a weapon against the accusa- 
tion of TRITHEISM (Anastasios I, patriarch of 
Antioch, ed. K.-H. Uthemann, Traditio 37 [1981] 


HOMOSEXUALITY 945 


105-08). Despite the opposition of the PNEUMA- 
TOMACHOI, the term was also applied to the Holy 
Spirit. Through the definition of CHALCEDON (451) 
the term entered Christology. 

LIT. H. de Riedmatten, Les Actes du procès de Paul de 
Samosate (Fribourg 1952), rev. P. Nautin in Ecole des Hautes 
Etudes, Section des sciences religieuses: Annuaire (1953—54) 54— 
58. M. Simonetti, “Ancora su Homvousios a proposito di due 
recenti studi,” VetChr 17 (1980) 85—98. Kelly, Doctrines 252— 
63. G.C. Stead, “The Significance of the Homoousios,” SUP 
3 [= TU 78] (Berlin 1961) 397-412. J.M. Dalmau, “El 
homoousios y el concilio de Antioquia de 268,” Miscelánea 
Comillas 34-35 (1960) 323-40. —K.-H.U. 


HOMOSEXUALITY (zaidepactia, &ppevopt- 
éta, &ppevoxorria), also called the “sin of sodomy” 
(e.g., Makarios the Great, PG 34:224B), was pro- 
hibited by the Old Testament (Lev 18:22) and 
continued to be condemned in Byz. It was com- 
mon in the late Roman Empire when an abun- 
dance of young slaves and EUNUCHS created fa- 
vorable circumstances for its practice. Many church 
fathers, esp. John Chrysostom, inveighed against 
this form of sexual activity. Denounced by the 
church as criminal and contrary to Holy Scrip- 
ture, homosexuality was prohibited by Justinian 
I's novels 77 and 141, which repeated the punish- 
ment of death by the sword decreed by Cod. Theod. 
IX 7.3. The same punishment was imposed by 
the Ecloga (17.38) and Ecloga aucta (17.6); the 
latter exempted youths under 15 from the death 
penalty, sentencing them instead to flogging and 
confinement in a monastery. Ecclesiastical law 
punished the sin with two or three years of EPI- 
TIMION. The Penitential of pseudo-John IV Nes- 
teutes instructed the confessor to inquire about 
the sin of arrenokoitia (PG 88:1893C) and detailed 
different forms of homosexuality. 

Malalas (Malal. 436.6—15) describes the trial of 
two bishops accused of homosexuality, Isaiah of 
Rhodes and Alexander of Diospolis in Thrace. 
l'he tormer was exiled atter cruel tortures, the 
latter castrated and dragged along the streets in 
an ignominious procession. 

Accusations of homosexual behavior sometimes 
appear in Byz. polemics: thus Theophanes the 
Confessor (Theoph. 443.15) lists “the impious lust 
for men” among Constantine V’s vices. Such ac- 
cusations became less common after the gth C., 
probably as a result of the consolidation of FAMILY 
values and developing masculine ideals; in the last 


946 | HOMS 


centuries of Byz., however, complaints about ho- 
mosexuality (e.g. in the writings of Patr. ATHANA- 
sios | and Joseph Bryennios) were again heard. 
Homosexuality was found in both male and te- 
male monasteries (<ypekon of PHOBEROU MONAS- 
TERY, 80.31~82.g); several typika denied access to 
beardless youths and/or eunuchs in an attempt to 
protect monks from temptation (C. Galatariotou, 
REB 45 [1987] 121f). 

ure. Troianos, Poinalioy 16—19. Koukoules, Bios 6:506— 
15. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality 
(Chicago-London 1980) 137-66, 335-53, 359-65. D.S. 
Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 
(London 1955). D. Dalla, “ . Ubi Venus mutator”: Omoses- 
sualita e diritio nel mondo romano (Milan 1987). E. Cantarella, 
“Etica sessuale e diritto: L’omosessualita maschile a Roma,” 
RJ 6 (1987) 277-92. S. Troianos, “Kirchliche und weltliche 
Rechtsquellen zur Homosexualität in Byzanz,” JOB 39 (1989) 
29-48. ~J.H. 


HOMS. See Emesa. 


HONORIUS ('Ovopos), Western emperor (from 
393), younger son of Theodosios I; born Con- 
stantinople g Sept. 384, died Ravenna 15 Aug. 
423. He was summoned to the West by Theodo- 
sios in 394 and assumed power after his father’s 
death in 395. His elder brother Axxabtos ruled 
the East and the whole empire was never again 
united. Because of Honorius’s youth the court 
was dominated by the magister militum STILICHO, 
whose two daughters, Maria and Thermantia, were 
married to Honorius ca.398 and 408, respectively. 
The double portrait of Honorius on a consular 
diptych of 401 has persuaded most scholars that 
he is represented, together with Maria, on a camco 
in Paris (Delbrück, Consilardiplychen, nos. 1, 66). 
In fear of ALaric, he moved his residence from 
Milan to Ravenna, which hencetorth became the 
primary Western capital. After the death of Stili- 
cho in 408 the patrician Constantius became the 
power behind the throne and married the em- 
peror’s sister GALLA PLacipia. In 421 Constantius 
was made emperor, but his claims were rejected 
by Theodosios 11, perhaps because Honorius was 
childless and the Eastern court had ambitions in 
the West. During the reign of Honorius, Rome 
was sacked by Alaric. Much of Gaul and Spain 
fell into barbarian hands. Honorius and his brother 
Arkadios were represented as consuls on the lat- 
ter’s honorific column in Constantinople. 


ur. Bury. LRE 1106-211. Demougeot, Undé 119-570. 
A. Pabst, Divisio regni (Bonn 1986). A. De Veer, “Une 
mesure de tolérance de Tempereur Honorius,” REB 24 
(1966) 189-95. W.N. Bayless, “The Visigothic Invasion of 
Italy in 401," Classical Journal 72 (1976) 65-67. 

-—TLE.G.. A.C, 


HORISMOS (6picpos, lit. “definition”), term for 
an imperial decree, known from the late 11th C. 
onward; it was synonymous with the PROSTAGMA. 
The rare term chrysoboullios horismos designated a 
less solemn form of the CHRYSOBULL, which had 
no words written in red ink except for the em- 
peror’s signature. The term could be applied to 
the charters of an empress (e.g., Koutloum., no.8.34), 
a doux (Lavra 1, 10.64.99), a despotes, or a metro- 
politan (despotikos horismos—Xénoph. 10.32.42). 


trv. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundentlehre 109, 1278. 
-A.K. 


HORMISDAS, pope (from 20 July 514); born 
Frosinone, Campania, died Rome 6 Aug. 523. 
Hormisdas inherited the problem of the AKAKIAN 
ScHisM but sought reconciliation with Byz. After 
the revolt of ViraLian, Emp. Anastasios | was 
forced to seek accommodation with supporters of 
the Council of CuaLtcepon and addressed the 
pope as mediator; Hormisdas sent his emissaries to 
Constantinople with a libellus—conventionally called 
the formula of Hormisdas—which required the 
full acceptance of Chalcedon and the condemna- 
tion of both the Nestorians and the Monophysites. 
The negotiations failed, but in 519 under Emp. 


Justin I a new papal embassy and Patr. John H 


(518-20) signed an agreement stating that the 
names of AKAKIOS and his four successors on the 
patriarchal throne, as well as those of Zeno and 
Anastasios I, were to be deleted from the DIP- 
TYCHS. the personal and ideological victory was, 
however, Pyrrhic (Caspar, infra 130), and in fact 
the pope’s influence over the eastern part of the 
empire (including ‘hessalonike) was drastically 
restricted; this is in contrast to Hormisdas’s fu- 
neral inscription (by his son, Pope Silverius) not- 
ing “Graecia’s obedience to your command.” 

urr. Caspar, Papsthem 2:129-83. W. Haacke, Die Glau- 
bensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma (Rome 
1939). C. Capizzi, “Sul fallimento di un negoziato di pace 
ecclesiastica fra il papa Ormisda ¢ l'imperatore Anastasio 
L” Storia critica 17 (1989) 23-54. -A.K. 


HOROLOGION (q@podoyiov) a term that means 
both a liturgical book and a timepicce. 

Liturgical Book. Such a book contains the “or- 
dinary” or invariable clements of the Byz. monas- 
tic HOURS, beginning with mesonyktikon and ending 
with compline (APODEfPNON). Other material var- 
ies from MS to MS. Originally the horologion was 
designed for the monastic office in Palestine; the 
two earliest surviving MSS of this original horolo- 
gion date from the gth C. (J. Mateos in Mélanges 
Eugène Tisserant, vol. 3 [Vatican 1964] 47-76). 
The Byz. horologion, however, is a hybrid devel- 
oped in Constantinople gradually from the 8th C. 
onward; it fuses the early monastic horologion with 
the prayers and praKONIka of the cathedral rite 
(see ASMATIKE AKOLOUTHIA) contained in the EU- 
CHOLOGION. The final synthesis of the two was 
completed only in the 14th C. 

ur. Taft, “Bibl. of Hours” 361-65. Idem, “Mount Athos.” 
La prière des heures: Horologion (Chevetogne 1975)- 

-R.F.T. 

Clock. Any device used to measure the passage 
of TIME or to mark a specific hour was called a 
horologion. As elsewhere in the medieval world, 
the Byz. needed timepieces primarily for the 
scheduling of religious services. In addition to 
SUNDIALS, which were limited to use in the day- 
time and in sunny weather, the Byz. continued to 
use the waterclock (klepsydra) devised in antiquity 
(e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, PG 45:969B), a vessel 
from which water drained through small holes at 
a steady rate. It was superior to the sundial be- 
cause it could be used at night and was not af- 
fected by changes in the sun's path due to season 
or latitude, although it was susceptible to frost. 
The monastic rule of Theodore of Stoudios (PG 
gg:1704C) mentions a waterclock (hydrologion) fit- 
ted with some sort of alarm device to rouse the 
aphypnistes, the monk in charge of awakening his 
brethren for nocturnal services. At monasteries 
and churches, both BELLS and wooden gongs (SE- 
MANTRA) were used to summon the faithful to 
Services. 

There were several public korologia in Constan- 
unople, including the one erected by Justinian | 
at the Milion (Theoph. 216.25) and the magnifi- 
cent structure at Hagia Sophia, with 24 doors that 
opened and shut according to the hours of the 
day. Prokorios oF Gaza has left a detailed de- 
scription of the elaborate water-driven horologion 
in early 6th-C. Gaza; it was adorned with AUTO- 


HOROSCOPE | 947 


MATA, Including the 12 Labors of Herakles (for 
the 12 hours of daytime). Unfortunately, Proko- 
pios says virtually nothing about the mechanics of 
the horologion. Pseudo-SYMEON MAGISTROS (ed. 
Bekker, 681.21—682.15) states that LEO THE 
MATHEMATICIAN gave Emp. Theophilos the idea 
of constructing two synchronized horologta, one at 
each end of a chain of Beacons (P. Pattenden, 
Byzantion 53 [1983] 274-76). There is no evidence 
that the Byz. ever used the mechanical clocks that 
began to appear in western Europe in the second 
half of the igth C. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 5:89f. H. Diels, Uber die von Prokop 
beschriebene Kunstuhr von Gaza (Berlin 1917). W.L. Milham, 
Time and Timekeepers (New York 1944) 48-54. -A.M.T. 


HOROSCOPE (éa, @epariov, or ĝikðeua; 
wpooKoT0s [wpooKoTrEtoy, wpooKOT lor] is the as- 
cendant), the representauon of the positions in 
the zodiac at a certain moment of the planets, of 
the cusps of the 12 astrological places (topoi), and 
sometimes of other astrological entities such as 
lots (Alero). They may be either diagrams, in which 
case they are usually squares, or simple lists of 
longitudes. The latter is the normal method of 
presentation in documentary horoscopes (e.g., on 
papyri), which also usually are without any inter- 
pretation; diagrams are often used in literary 
sources, esp. astrological treatises, where they are 
normally accompanied by an interpretation. 

Horoscopes may be east for any significant mo- 
ment in any of the branches of asTROLOGy, and, 
if interpreted, may provide information on social, 
economic, and political as well as biographical 
aspects of life in Byz. Since the seven planets move 
at different velocities, each horoscope generally 
represents a situation that is unique within the 
two millennia that astrology has flourished. They 
are, therefore, easily datable. Most interesting are 
the political horoscopes. which include the follow- 
ing: 

1. The horoscope of Constantinople for 11 May 
330, cast by Demophilos in ca.ggo (D. Pingree 
in Prismata 305-15) 

2. The birth of Valentinian II] on 2 July 419 (D. 
Pingree, Vetti Valentis Anthologiae [Leipzig 1986] 
351) 

3. The horoscopes cast by the astrologer of Zeno, 
dated between 440 and 486 (D. Pingree, DOP 


30 [1976] 135-50) 


948 HORSE FITTINGS 


4. The horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyro- 
gennetos, dated 2 Sept. gos (D. Pingree. DOP 
27 [1973] 219-31) 

5. The horoscopes of the coronations of Alexios 
I Komnenos (on ı Apr. 1081) and Manuel | 
(on 31 March 1143) (Pingree, “Chioniades & 
Astronomy” 138f, n.29) 

6. The horoscope for the year prefixed to his 
almanac for 1336 by Andrew LigapEenos (CCAG 
7:152-160) 

. The horoscopes cast by John ABRAMIOS for 
Andronikos IV between 1373 and 1376 (Pin- 
gree, “Astrological School” 191-96) ~D.P. 


~I 


HORSE FITTINGS. See CHaRIor MOUNTS AND 
Horse Frriincs. 


HORSES (inro, also aloga). Horses were not 
common in the Roman Empire, where the prin- 
cipal BEASTS OF BURDEN Were oxen and mules, and 
the army relied primarily on foot soldiers. The 
role of CAVALRY increased in the 4th—6th C. due 
to the conflict with mounted barbarians, and by 
the beginning of the 7th C. the cavalry was the 
most mumerous of the Byz. elite woop formations 
(D.R. Hill in War, Technology and Society in the 
Middle East, ed. VJ. Parry, M.E. Yapp [London 
1975] 37); ats role became crucial with the intro- 
duction of the KATAPHRAKTOS. It is plausible to 


hypothesize that the invention of a new system of 


harnessing animals to a CART and PLOW increased 
the use of horses in everyday life. Late Byz. prak- 
tika suggest that only the richest peasants could 
afford horses, although two horses in one house- 
hold are attested (Lavra 2. n0.gg.135); less well- 
to-do villagers might have “half of a horse” 
(no.gg.126,139). Great landowners like Joun VI 
KANTAKOUZENOS Owned large numbers of horses: 
Kantakouzenos complained that he lost 1,500 
mares when his property was confiscated in 13.41/ 
2 (Kantak. 2:185.5—6). In the 11th C. the Athon- 
ite monastery of Xenophon (Xénoph.. n0.1.154f) 
possessed 100 dray horses and donkeys. Vhe Byz. 
appreciated “Arab” horses; it is unclear whether 
the term: refers to a breed or to animals imported 
from the caliphate. Thessaly was famous for its 
horses (e.g, An.Komn. 1:20.14), and imperial 
herds of horses were raised in MALAGINA. 

As CHARIOT RACES declined in significance after 


the 7th C.. equestrian sports like polo and tour- 
naments became popular in the higher echelons 
of society; horses were also used for HUNTING by 
nobles who chased deer and boar on horseback: 
the mounted knight, whether the emperor or St. 
George, was a symbol of manliness. Clergymen 
and women, on the other hand, were supposed 
to ride mules, and Jews in 1eth-C. Byz. were 
forbidden to ride horses. Vhe Byz. cared about 
their horses, and HipprarRica or “horse medicine” 
was a field of special study. The Greopronika dis- 
cussed their diseases in book 16, and Opprran’s 
book on horses was popular. 

The main elements of the harness of a saddle 
horse were the leather saddle attached by the 
girth strap (P. Connolly in Roman Military Equip- 
ment ed. M. Dawson [Oxford 1987] 11), the bridle 
with snaffle bit (Davidson, Minor Objects 337, 
no.2887), and the iron STIRRUP. (Sce also CHARIOT 
MOUNTS AND HORSE FITTINGS.) 

Ler. P. Vigneron, Le cheval dans Cantiquité Gréco-Romaine, 


2 vols. (Nancy 1988). M. Kretschmar, Pferd und Reiter im 


Orient (Hildesheini—New York 1980). -A.K J-W.N, 


HORTICULTURE, including arboriculture, was 
practiced extensively throughout the empire. In 
addition to FRUIT, the Byz. grew a wide variety of 
vegetables. Onions and cabbage were esp. impor- 
tant: NicHoLas I Mysrikos (ep.152.3~5) relates 
that a village had to supply Hagia Sophia with 
cabbage (krambe) and was therefore exempted from 
other state taxes. Legumes or pulses (ospria) of 
different kinds were also a mainstay of the DIET. 
A donation of 1191 (MM 4:202.17—21) describes 
a household that possessed 120 modiot of grain 
and 3g medioi of three varieties of legumes—beans 
(phabata) and two sorts of peas (erebinthia). In the 
proasteion of Baris in 1073 the ratio was different 
(Patmou Engrapha 2, n0.50.119): 410 modiot of 
wheat and barley and only 5 modiot of beans. A 


judicial decision of 1421 incorporates a fist of 


vegetables raised on a garden farm in Thessalo- 
nike (Délger, Schatz., no.102.23—24), including 
leeks, carrots, onions, garlic, lettuce, cucumbers, 
and gourds. 

The Geoponika (bk.12.2.3) advises the farmer 
that three elements are necessary for the success- 
ful production of vegetables: fertile soil, water, 
and manure. The same text prescribes remedies 
for ridding GARDENS of grubs and insects (bk.12.8). 


ur. P. Skok, “De horticulture byzantine en pays you- 
goslaves,” in Eis mnemen Spyridonos Lamprou (Athens 1935) 
4803789. M. Comşa, “Gradinaritul in mileniul } e.n., pe 

teritoriul Romànieci,” Pontica 193 (1980) 164-84. 
[SN A.K. 


HOSIOS. See SAINT. 


HOSIOS DAVID, church in Thessalonike. Lo- 
cated in the northern part of the city, Hosios 
David is the earliest surviving example of a domed 
cross plan, dating to the last third of the 5th C. 
The church, which until 1921 was dedicated to 
Christ, is 14.75 m on a side; the dome has van- 
ished but the pendentives survive. All but the 
eastern arm of the cross are accessible from the 
exterior through doors. In the conch of the apse 
is a mosaic of the young beardless Christ, seated 
on a cloud, in a rainbow mandorla over the Four 
Rivers of Paradise, flanked by the EVANGELIST 
SYMBOLS and figures thought to represent the 
prophets Ezekiel and Habakkuk or Isaiah. An 
inscription below invokes Christ as the source of 
living waters. The mosaic is now generally dated 
to the late 5th C., although alternatives as late as 
the 7th C. have been proposed (Kitzinger, Making 
141, n.41). Frescoes illustrating four Great Feasts 
have been discovered in and below the south 
vault; these date from the third or last quarter of 
the 2th C. and provide a transition between the 
style of Nerezi and that of the 13th C., for ex- 
ample, MiLeseva (E. Tsigaridas, Hoi totchographies 
tes mones Latomou Thessalontkes kai he byzantine zo- 
graphtke tou 120u aiona [Thessalonike 1986]). Other 
frescoes from the late 13th to early 14th C. have 
been found elsewhere in the church. 

The church served as the katholikon of the La- 
tomou monastery, which is first attested in the 
first half of the goth C. when Joseren THE HYM- 
NOGRAPHER took up residence there; it is not men- 
tioned again in historicai sources unui the Paiaio- 
logan period. After the Ottoman conquest of 
Thessalonike in 1430, it was transformed into a 
mosque, the Murad Camii. 

A legendary tale by the monk Ignatios, hegou- 
menos of the Akapniou monastery in the 11th C., 
recounts that the daughter of the emperor Max- 
imian secretly converted to Christianity and com- 
missioned a picture of the Virgin. After it was 
mysteriously transformed into an image of Christ, 
she had it concealed under a layer of bricks; 


HOSIOS LOUKAS 949 


subsequently the Latomou monastery was built on 
the site. Under the Iconoclastic emperor Leo V, 
the revetment suddenly fell off, revealing the 
image beneath (Janin, Eglises centres 392-94). A 
14th-C. icon in Sofia bears the image of Christ, 
identified by inscription as “Jesus Christ of the 
miracle of Latomos” (A. Grabar, CahArch 10 [1959] 
2809—99); it clearly seems to be a copy of the 
mosaic in Thessalonike. 

irr. Krautheimer, ECBArch 239-41. A. Xyngopoulos, 
“To katholikon tes Mones tou Latomou en Thessalonike 
kai to en auto psephedoton,” ArchDell 12 (1929) 142-80. 
P. Grossmann, “Zur typologischen Stellung der Kirche von 
Hosios David in Thessalonike,” FelRav? 127-30 (1984-85) 
253-60. S. Pelekanides, Palaiochristianika mnemeia Thessalo- 


nikes. Acheiropoietos. Mone Latomou? (Uhessalonike 1973) 45— 
68. -N.P AME. TEG. 


HOSIOS LOUKAS, monastery and pilgrimage 
site in Phokis (Greece), known for the wonder- 
working tomb of its eponymous saint, LOUKAS THE 
YOUNGER, in the larger of its two churches. The 
smaller, cross-in-square church, now dedicated to 
the Theotokos, may be the same as the Church 
of St. Barbara mentioned in the vita of Loukas. 
According to Stikas (¿zfra), the smaller church was 
built between 946 and 955 by Krinites Arotras, 
strategos of the theme of Hellas, who was resident 
in Thebes. Bouras (infra), on the other hand, 
attributed the Theotokos church to the patronage 
of Romanos I], dating it shortly after 960 on the 
basis of the marble reliefs of its drum revetment, 
templon screen, etc. While the Theotokos lacks 
painted decoration, that of the adjacent katholikon 
is the oldest mosaic prograin from the period of 
the 10th—1a2th C. 

The plan of the larger church, which replaced 
a little martyrion built after Loukas’s death (953), 
is complicated by a domed octagonal core allowing 
squinches to support the main dome. This fell 
after an earthquake in 1593. but most of the 
GHULCHs mosaic», higudiug more Uran tyv Huag 
of saints, are preserved. D. Mouriki (CorsiRav 31 
[1984] 397) has dated them to the 1020s. The 
Christological mosaies in the narthex are notable 
for their severe symmetry, as are the iconlike 
panels in the naos; in the same style and probably 
contemporary are frescoes in the northwest, 
southeast, and northeast chapels (this last specifi- 
cally connected with Loukas’s cult), as are those 
in the narthex gallery and in the crypt around his 
tomb, No document survives relating directly to 


950 HOSIOS MELETIOS 





Hosios Loukas. The two churches of the Hosios Loukas monastery, seen from the 
east. The katholikon is on the lett, the Church of the Theotokos is on the right. 


the foundation of the katholikon. Bouras argues 
that it was built between g97 and 1031; M. Chatz- 
idakis (CahArch 19 [1969] 127-50) suggested the 
date of 1011, while Sukas proposed that the KTE- 
TOR was Constantine IX. Similar reliefs are found 
at a metochion of Hosios Loukas at Aliveri in Eu- 
boia, dated 1014 by inscription (not 1010, as in 
A. Grabar, Sculptures IL, pls. XX VII-XXVIII, pp. 
6ot). 

Local interest in the monastery in Phokis is 
indicated in the typekon of a CONFRATERNITY of the 
Virgin in Naupaktos, ca.1048 (ed. J. Nesbitt, J. 
Wiita, BZ 68 [1975] 365.42, 373f), signed by the 
monastery’s hegoumenos Theodore Leobachys, scion 
of a family of Theban dynatoi. In March 1436 the 
monastery was visited by Cyriacus OF ANCONA 
(who ascribed its construction to Constantine IX). 
Sukas restored Hosios Loukas in a campaign con- 
cluded in 1964. 


ur. J. Koder, F. Hild, TIB 1:205f. E. Stikas, To etkodo- 
mikon chronikon tes mones Hosiou Louka Phokidos (Athens 
1970). Idem, Ho ktitor tou katholikou tes mones Hosiou Louka 
(Athens 1974). Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends” 81—86. L. Bouras, 
Ho glyptos diakosmos tou naou tes Panagias sto monasteri tou 
Hosiou Louka (Athens 1980). Fh. Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les 
peintures murales de Hosios Loukas (Athens 1982). -AC. 


HOSIOS MELETIOS, monastery on the south 
side of Mt. Kithairon (Myoupolis), on the border 
between Attica and Boeotia, founded ca.1081 by 
MELETIOS THE YOUNGER. The monastery flour- 
ished in the 12th to early 13th C.; its hegoumenos 
Ioannikios corresponded with Michael CHONI- 
ATES. Initially after 1204 Hosios Meletios re- 
mained in Greek hands, but in 1218 it was con- 
trolled by the Latins and was plundered, perhaps 
by Theodore Komnenos Doukas of Epiros. The 
monastery is surrounded by a rectangular forti- 
fication. The katholikon is a cross-in-square of Con- 


stantinopolitan type with four columns, perhaps 
dating to the 11th C.; an exonarthex was added 
ca.1150. The surviving frescoes are post-Byz. Out- 
side the monastery several chapels associated with 
it have been found. 

grr. TIB 1:217f. A.K. Orlandos, “Ife mone tou Hosiou 
Meletiou kai ta paralavria autes,” ABME 5 (1939-40) 34- 
118. H. Deliyanni-Dori, Die Wandmalereien der Lite der Klos- 
terkirche von Hosios Meletios (Munich 1975). -T.E.G. 


HOSPITAL (fevwv, vocokopetov). One of the 
early Christian customs that impressed pagans 
was the care of the infirm, ill, and the elderly; by 
the 4th through 6th C., institutions were estab- 
jished that functioned as combinations of hostels 
and sick bays. Documentation is controversial for 
hospitals in the early centuries of the Byz. Empire, 
and scholars define the term hospital differently, 
but it seems certain that fully operational institu- 
tions for health care of the sick were founded by 
the gth or ioth C. in the major cities; Miller (infra) 
argues for a date as early as the 6th C. The most 
meticulously documented hospital is that of the 
PANTOKRATOR MONASTERY in Constantinople 
(1136). The monastery’s typikon describes in detail 
the institution’s use of specialist PHYSICIANS and 
five pharmacists who compounded drugs on or- 
ders from the attending doctors; the 50 beds were 
divided among five wards separated by diagnosis 
of various illnesses. The women’s ward had a 
female physician (atraina); two surgeons and two 
physicians staffed an outpatient clinic. The med- 
ical staff included an ophthalmologist, a specialist 
surgeon for hernia repair, and an attendant who 
kept the SURGICAL INSTRUMEN'IS Sharp and clean. 
Other known hospitals include that at the Great 
Lavra on Athos (10th C.), and in Constantinople 
the 10th-C. Xenon of Sampson (PG 115:300B— 
304B) and the Lips MONASTERY (14th C.). Victims 
of LEPROSY were treated in specialized hospitals. 
ur. ‘T.S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine 
Empire (Baltimore, Md., 1985); rev. V. Nutton, Medical 
History 30 (1986) 218-21. T.S. Miller, “Byzantine Hospi- 
tals,” DOP 38 (1984) 53-63. R. Volk, Gesundheitswesen und 


Wohltdtigheit im Spiegel der byzantinischen Klostertypika (Mun- 
ich 1983). —J.S.. A.M.T. 


HOSPITALITY (diA0€evia), an aspect of PHILAN- 
THROpY, which pious Byz. practiced both on a 
private basis (subject to state approval—cf. vita of 
GREGORY OF DEKAPOLIS 54.2—7) and institution- 


HOSPITALLERS | 951 


alized in the form of hospices (XENODOCHEIA) for 
passing travelers in the provinces and for needy 
provincials who had to stay in Constantinople. 
Most information on such hospitality comes from 
monastic sources. Most xenodocheia built after the 
gth C. were attached to monasteries. Two late 
1ith-C. typika indicate the type of food and shelter 
provided. At Rhaidestos, Michael ATTALEIATES 
arranged for pilgrims to the Holy Land and other 
poor waytfarers to be fed and lodged in an annex 
to his PrOCHOTROPHEION, where two modioi of 
bread and a measure of wine were to be allocated 
weekly for their sustenance (ed. P. Gautier, REB 
39 [1981] 49). Gregory PAKoURIANOS established 
three xenodocheia on the estates of his monastery 
of Perrirzos (Backovo), one at SVENIMACHOS near 
Philippopolis, and two on the coast road near the 
mouth of the Strymon. The first, equipped with 
“many beds,” a stove, and a portable brazier, 
provided warm accommodation where sick trav- 
elers could stay for three nights, or longer in 
critical cases. This hostel had a daily allocation of 
two modiot of wheat and two measures of wine— 
double the amount allocated to each of the other 
two hostels. In all three, the basic diet of bread 
and wine was supplemented by a variable cooked 
dish (prosphagion) prepared from dried and fresh 
vegetables (ed. P. Gautier, REB 42 [1984] 110— 
15). 


ur. Constantelos, Philanthropy 98-110, 144f, 185-221. 
-P.M. 


HOSPITALLERS, or Order of the Hospital of 
St. John of Jerusalem, a military-monastic order 
founded in the Holy Land in the early 12th C. 
The predominantly French order played a vital 
role in the Crusader kingdoms, providing military 
and medical services. After the expulsion of the 
Crusaders from Acre in 1291, the Hospitallers 


ambarhkad wanan tha canauace af Drennan raah 
Granta UPON MO CON GUCS. Cr all 1300 


10), following a brief interlude on Cyprus. Rhodes 
remained their base until 1522 when the island 
was captured by the Ottomans. The Hospitallers 
exercised a benevolent rule over the local Greek 
populace, who regarded them as protectors. 
Despite their limited numbers and small fleet, 
the Hospitallers continued their crusading efforts 
in the 14th and 15th C., primarily against the 
Turkish emirates on the west coast of Asia Minor, 
like MENTESHE and Aypin. In 1344 they were 


952 HOUR 


involved in the Latin recovery of the port of 


SMYRNA from Umur Bec and defended the lower 
fortress until 1402 when it was destroyed by Ti- 
mur. The Hospitallers had few direct relations 
with Byz. except during the reign of Manuel II. 
In 1390 they sent two galleys to Constantinople 
to help Manuel depose his usurper nephew John 
VII. In desperation after the Christian defeat by 
the Ottomans at Nikopolis in 1396 (Zakythinos, 
Despotat 1:347), ‘THEODORE I PaLaloLocos sold 
CorinvH to the Hospitallers in 1397 and the rest 
of the despotate in 1400. The Hospitallers suc- 
cessfully defended the Isthmus of Corinth against 
the Turks, but withdrew by 1403, at least in part 
because of the hostility of the local Greeks. By 
1404 Theodore had recovered all of the despotate 
from the Hospitallers. 

Lit. HC 9:278-321. A. Luurell, The Hospitallers im Cy- 
prus, Rhodes, Greece and the West 1291—1440 (London 1978). 
Idem, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, 1291- 


1440 (London 1982). Barker, Manuel 1] 76f, 146, 232f. 
-A.M. I. 


HOUR (pa). The Byz. divided both night and 
DAY into 12 hours each (numbered 1 through 12) 
so one referred to the “seventh hour of the night” 
(Theoph. 31g.10-11) or the “fourth hour of the 
day” (ibid. 493.30). Such hours inevitably varied 
in length according to both latitude and season. 
The “first hour” (prote hora) was at sunrise; the 
“third hour” (trite hora) midmorning; the “sixth 
hour” (hekate hora) noon; the “ninth hour” (henate 
hora) midafternoon. Hespera (evening) was one 
hour before sunset, and apodeipnon the period 
after sunset. In addition to its division into hours, 
the night could also be divided in accordance with 
Roman custom into four vigiliae or “watches.” The 
hours were measured by a SUNDIAL Or HOROLO- 
GION such as a waterclock. 

‘The unequal length of hours made their fur- 
ther partition into smaller components rather dif- 
ficult and quite theoretical. For everyday life it 
was usual to refer to the “half hour” and “quarter 
hour.” A period of time-—a “point” or “mo- 
ment”—was defined as stigme (= Lat. punctum). 
One of the rare sources to mention it is the vita 
of Loukas the Stylite (ed. Delehaye, Saints stylites 
229.15—17). For astronomical purposes, however, 
Byz. compuusts divided the day into 24 equal 
hours but employed different systems of division. 
According to that of Psellos, for example, 1 hour 


= 5 lepta; 1 lepton = 4 stigmai; 1 stigme = 19 
rhopai (G. Redl, Byzantion 5 [1929-30] 257.14- 
15). On the other hand, an anonymous computist 
of the 11th—1e2th C. (ed. F. Karnthaler, BNJbb 19 
[1934] 5-24-26) measures one hour as equivalent 
to 5 stagmai, 10 lepta, 150 moirai, 1,200 ripai, ete. 


tir. Grumel, Chronologie 163-65. W. Sontheimer, RE 
2.R. 4 (1932) 2011—23. -B.C. 


HOURS, LITURGICAL (pa), often called the 
“Divine Office,” a schedule of daily PRAYER com- 
prising, with variations depending on the tradi- 
tion, ORTHROS, the “Little Hours” (First, Third, 
Sixth, and Ninth, or prime, terce, sext, and none), 
VESPERS, APODEIPNON, mesonyktzkon (nocturns), and 
occasional viciLs. To these are sometimes added 
“intermediate” and “Great” or “Imperial” Hours. 
The Byz. intermediate hours, or monastic mesoria, 
are said after each of the Little Hours only during 
the Lent preceding the feasts of the Nativity and 
Sts. Peter and Paul. The “Great Hours,” also called 
“Imperial,” a form of Little Hours characterized 
by three scripture LECTIONS, a prophecy, an apos- 
tle, and a gospel, are celebrated on Goop FRIDAY 
and the vigils of Nativrry and EPIPHANY. Great 
Hours were first created from elements originally 
found in a single Palestinian Good Friday vigil 
service at the ninth hour. Great Hours are not 
found in the HOROLOGION but in the triedion and 
the menaion for the days indicated. 

‘The hours are a formalization of early Christian 
private prayer at set times, based on the New 
‘Testament command to pray without ceasing. The 
full cursus results from monastic developments of 
the 4th C. when the two original hours (orthros 
and vespers) were filled in with services at the 
other traditional times of private prayers (third, 
sixth, and ninth hours and at night). 

Most Divine Offices are hybrids resulting from 
a synthesis of cathedral and monastic usages. One 
such office was created under the aegis of St. 
Theodore of Stoudios (see StrouprrE Typika). This 
“Stoudite” office combined the prayers and dia- 
konika of the cathedral office of Constantinople, 
contained in the EUCHOLOGION, with the psalmody 
and hymns of the monastic ofhce used in Jeru- 
salem, contained in the horologion. By the 12th C. 
this hybrid Stoudite office had spread throughout 
the Orthodox world, even back to Palestine; there, 
at the Lavra of St. Sabas, it was somewhat altered 


to suit the more austere, less rigidly cenobitic 
lifestyle of the Palestinian anachorctes, and a fur- 
ther synthesis was made (see SaBartic ‘Typtka), 
which eventually took over the field (see Byz- 
ANTINE Rrre). Its rubrics were codified by Patr. 
PHILOTHEOS Kokkinos (PG 154:745-66). There 
are two extant 15th-C. commentaries on the hours: 
the Treatise on Prayer by Symeon of Thessalonike 
(PG 155:535-670; tr. H.L.N. Simmons [Brook- 
line, Mass., 1g84]) and one by Mark Eugenikos 
(PG 160:1 163-93). 

ure. Taft, “Bibl. of Hours.” R.F. Tafi, Liturgy of the Hours 


in bast and West (Collegeville, Minn., 1986). Taft, "Mount 
Athos.” —R.F.T. 


HOUSES (sing. oikia). In the late Roman Empire 
houses took two main forms: the ¿insula or apart- 
ment house, and the domus or private residence. 
Descriptions of the regions of Rome in the mid- 
4th C. list 46,602 insulae and 1,797 domus. The 
excavations at Ephesus unearthed two insula-type 
buildings that were constructed in the ist C., but 
underwent numerous remodelings up to the 7th 
C. The ground floor contained vaulted shops above 
which were situated modest rectangular rooms. 
The two-story mansion of a wealthy citizen formed 
a component of one insula. There is no archaeo- 
logical evidence concerning later insulae, but writ- 
ten sources attest their existence in Constantino- 
ple, mentioning “five-roofed” (pentorophoi) houses 
and containing complaints about neighbors who 


kept pigs on upper floors. The ground plan of 


the domus was a peristyle type, containing an inner 
courtvard (ATRIUM) surrounded by rooms that 
formed the outer walls of the house. The domus 
was usually a one-story dwelling with many con- 
veniences, including a bath, kitchen, LATRINES, 
PLUMBING AND HEATING Systems, and storage rooms. 
By the 7th C. the focal point of the house shifted 
from the atrium to the second f 
(hyperoon), where guests were received (E. Mioni, 
OrChrP 17 [1951] 83.2425). 

A series of laws (Cod.Just. VIH 10.12) regulated 
the construction of a new house or the remodeling 
of an old one. The law ordained that a distance 
of at least 12 Greek feet had to be maintained 
between houses. Repairs to an old house were 
allowed, but not changes to its original plan. 
Neighbors’ access to daylight and a view of the 
sea (esp. in Constantinople) were protected. A 


TAS St i et avr 
Ua Onrubia 


HOUSES 953 


sds. w 3 4 
Tiat ZOR pao Ea tt a 
ORN dat ~ 
n 





At ste 


a A 
f $ 
ae Fk EEE iae ó gerer An 
Tia ae Pee OWE we ETEA 
wie ` ‘ Mr fae ce te EVM yo 


Houses. House of Eglon, king of Moab, Miniature in 
an Octateuch manuscript (Vat. gr. 746, fol.473v); 12th 
C. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 


balcony could not be built over a street less than 
12 feet wide. Furthermore, a staircase leading 
from the street to the balcony was not permitted 
because it presented a fire hazard or could ob- 
struct traffic in the street. 

The Byz. town houses that have been unearthed 
in excavations and that date from 1000 onward 
present several building types. One common plan 
of a private residence (e.g., at Corinth, Athens, 
Pergamon, Thebes) was a rectangular building 
with a central open space that had no peristyle, 
but perhaps an open-fronted Roor; the courtyard 
and the surrounding rooms on the ground floor 
served as storerooms for agricultural products 
(with pithoi placed in the pseudo-atrium), stables, 
etc. Workshops (ERGASTERIA) were also situated 
on the ground floor; living quarters were upstairs. 
Another common plan was a house without a 
courtyard or with a narrow courtyard in front of 
the main façade (e.g., at Pergamon and Euripos). 
Construction was of poor quality, with frequent 
veuse GE aandient GPCHC Cat vical. The UUD 
were small and irregular in shape, and the houses 
were erected along narrow alleys without any ob- 
vious planning. 

Written sources demonstrate the same irregu- 
larity of the house even in Constantinople. In his 
foundation charter of 1077 (ed. P. Gautier, REB 
39 [1981] 27.159—29.181) Attaleiates describes his 
mansion in the capital, which consisted of several 
buildings connected by a common courtyard; the 
buildings had a ground floor (katogeon) and an 


954 | HRABUR CERNORIZEC 


upper floor (heliakos) that projected over the 
courtyard; the mansion also included a chapel 
and a three-story dwelling with a donkey-driven 
mill on the ground floor. Another important de- 
scription is found in a purchase deed of 1320 for 
a house in Thessalonike (Dölger, Schatz., 
no.111.16—26): it was made of stone and BRICK- 
work covered with TILES; adjacent was a two-story 
building with a thatched roof. The houses of the 
wealthy provided separate quarters for women, 
usually in the inner part of the building. 

Houses in the countryside were usually modest: 
built of wood, unbaked bricks, or even reeds, they 
were rectangular in plan and consisted of small 
rooms and a porch (e.g., at Armatova in Elis 
[Peloponnesos]); some had only one or two rooms, 
with earthen FLOORS, open hearths, and a timber 
roof (e.g., at Luni in northern Italy—B. Ward- 
Perkins, BSR 49 [1981] 91—98). Nicholas Mesa- 
RITES describes village houses made of reeds plas- 
tered with mud and covered with thatched roofs. 
In sharp contrast were the mansions of wealthy 
landowners (like Digenes Akritas), surrounded by 
GARDENS and defended by walls and towers (PYR- 
GOI). 

‘The architectural decoration of houses was usu- 
ally simple, but noble mansions and PALACES might 
be ornamented with polychrome facades, arcades, 
and balconies as at TEKFUR Sarayı in Constanti- 
nople, or with a columned front as on the site of 
the Seraglio, or with niches and blind arcades as 
in Mistra (A. Orlandos, ABME g [1937] 1-114). 
The winpow openings, wide on the upper stories 
and narrower on the ground floor level, were 
mostly semicircular. 

LIT. Ch. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium.” DCAAE* 11 
(1983) 1-26. T. Kirova, “Il problema della casa bizantina,” 
FelRav 102 (1971) 263-302. Koukoules, Bios 4:249-317. 
A.G. McKay, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World 
(Ithaca, N.Y.~London 1975). G. Velenis, “Wohnyviertel und 
Wohnungsbau in den byzantinischen Städten,” in Wohn- 
ungsbau im Altertum (Berlin 1978) 197—238. J.P. Sodini, 
“L'habitat urbain en Grèce à la veille des invasions,” in 
Villes et peuplement dans lIllyricum protobyzantin (Rome 1984) 


341-97. S.P. Ellis, “The End of rhe Roman House,” AJA 
gz (1988) 565-76. —S.M.-P., Ap.K., A.K. 


HRABUR CERNORIZEC (“militant monk”), 
Slavic monk who wrote a brief and enigmatic 
treatise, On the Alphabet; fl. ca.880. The author- 
ship, date, and purpose of the work have been 
much debated since it first came to the attention 


of scholars in 1824. The text opens with a short 
discussion of the history of the Greek alphabet, 
drawing on both classical and Christian sources, 
and of the invention of the Slavonic alphabet by 
St. CONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER. It then goes 
on to a vigorous and passionate defense of the 
religious use of the CHURCH SLAVONIC language 
and alphabet against the proponents of the trilin- 
gual dogma, who believed that the liturgy could 
be celebrated only in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, 
The consensus today is that the author was a 
Bulgarian, probably a member of the circle of 
Tsar SYMEON OF BULGARIA before his accession, 
and that the treatise was written between 885, 
when the pupils of Constantine the Philosopher 
and Methodios reached Bulgaria, and 893, when 
Symeon succeeded his father. During this period 
there was conflict in Bulgaria between users of 
the new Slavonic liturgy and Byz. clergy using the 
Greek liturgy. The treatise shows considerable 
linguistic discernment. 


ED. O  pismenech, ed. A. Giambelluca-Kossova (Sofia 
1980). -R.B. 


HRIP'SIMĒ. See VAŁARŠAPAT. 


HUDUD AL-‘ALAM (The Regions of the World), 
an anonymous Persian geographical treatise writ- 
ten in 982/3, and one of the earliest surviving 
Persian prose texts. A comprehensive descriptive 
analysis of the world as known to 10th-C. Mus- 
lims, it was composed by an armchair scholar 
utilizing other books (primarily those by IBN 
KHURDADHBEH, Jayhant, and al-IsTakuri) and oral 
traditions. The early geographical sources for 
knowledge of Byz. have been identified as the two 
Byz. prisoners, Abi Muslim al-JaArmr (redeemed 
845-46) and HARUN IBN YAHYA (late gth C.). The 
dates of their information are quite relevant to 
the anachronistic description that the Hudid al- 
‘Alam presents of Byz., including 14 Byz. prov- 
inces (three in Europe and 11 in Anatolia), thus 
repeating Ibn Khurdadhbeh and QupDAMA IBN 
Jafar. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, on 
the other hand, who wrote earlier than the Hudid 
al-‘Alam, lists 12 provinces in the west and 18 in 
Anatolia. Furthermore, the treatise’s evidence on 
Byz. cities is inconsistent. Of the land of Rum it 
says, “It has many towns and villages,” and “Each 
of these provinces . . . has nuinerous towns, vil- 


lages, castles, fortresses . .” only to contradict 
itself: “In the days of old, cities were numerous 
in Ruin, but now they have become few.” By the 
late roth C. it would seem that the number and 
size of cities were in fact on the increase. 

yr. Hudid al-‘Alam. “The Regions of the World.” A Persian 


Geography 372 AH-982 AD}? tr. V. Minorsky (London 1970). 
tir. Miquel, Géographie 2:381-481. -S.V. 


HUGEBURG, 8th-C. Anglo-Saxon nun in the 
Franconian abbey of Heidenheim who composed 
the stylistically ambitious but grammatically shaky 
Lives (BHL 8966, 8931) of two brothers who were 
her relatives: Wynnebald, first abbot of Heiden- 
heim (ca.751—61), and Willibald, bishop of Eich- 
stätt (741-24 Sept. 787), collaborators with St. 
Boniface in the evangelization of Germany. Wil- 
libald dictated his account to Hugeburc on 23 
June 778; her retelling of his travels (723-29) in 
Byz. Italy, western Asia Minor, the Holy Land, 
and Constantinople displays linguistic character- 
istics distinct from Hugeburc’s diction and seems 
to follow closely Willibald’s own words. It focuses 
on pilgrimage shrines but also sheds light on 
shipping routes and conditions (via Monemvasia 
“in Slawinia” and the Aegean, 93.1—94.8, 101.16— 
102.13), towns (Ephesus, “Strobrolis” [= Strobi- 
los?]), stylites at Miletos (g3.15—24), Monuments 
(Jerusalem; tombs of Sts. Andrew, Timothy, Luke, 
and John Chrysostom in Constantinople; the 
church in Nicaea, seat of Nicaea I, 101.18—28), 
general historical conditions (Cyprus’s neutrality 
and peace between Byz. and the Arabs, 95.14—- 
17; plague in Syria, 100.3-9; cf. Theoph. 
1:410.19—20), water buffaloes in Palestine (g6.10-— 
11), the embassy of Emp. Leo I1 to Pope Gregory 
II (100.28—30), and the contemporary state of 
legends (e.g., an anti-Jewish anecdote about the 
Virgin's funeral, 97.32—98.5) in one of the most 
obscure periods of Byz. histarv. There is no ap- 
parent reference to Iconoclasm. 

Ep. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15.1 (Leipzig 1887; rp. 
1925) 86-106. Tr. Rev. Canon Brownlow, The Hodoeporicon 
of Saint Willibald [= PPTS, 3, no.2} (London 1895). 


ur. E. Gottschaller, Hugebure von Heidenheim (Munich 
1973). —M.McC. 


HUGH OF VERMANDOIS, brother of King 
Philip I of France; died Tarsos 18 Oct. 1101. 
Leading a magnificently equipped group of French 


HUMANISM | 955 


nobles on the First Crusade, Hugh (OvBos) gran- 
diloquently announced his forthcoming arrival to 
Alexios I, then suffered shipwreck near Dyrra- 
chion. Reequipped by its governor John Komne- 
nos, Hugh reached Constantinople in autumn 
1096. Welcomed by Alexios, he was placed under 
some duress until he swore fealty to the emperor. 
Rumors that he was imprisoned disturbed the 
followers of GopFREY OF BovulLLON. When the 
latter reached Constantinople, Hugh attempted 
mediation between him and the emperor. Later, 
after fighting at DoryLaion and against Ker- 
bogha, Hugh was sent by the other leaders to 
Alexios (July 1098) to offer him Antioch if he 
would join the Crusade (J. France, Byzantion 40 
[1970] 281-84). But Alexios’s retreat to Constan- 
tinople. where Hugh found him, voided the mes- 
sage, and Hugh returned to France. In 1100, 
possibly blamed for desertion, he enlisted in a 
new Crusade. Apparently he accompanied Duke 
William IX of Aquitaine, was wounded, and es- 


caped with him, only to die of the wound. 
—C.M.B. 


HUMANISM, a scholarly term often used to des- 
ignate a certain period of cultural development 
and, in this sense, identical or similar to the con- 
cept of RENAISSANCE. Thus, for I.P. Medvedev 
(Vizantijskij gumanizm XIV-XV vv. [Leningrad 1976] 
4) humanism is the “philosophical and literary 
stream of the Renaissance period.” All the cau- 
tionary statements applied to the concept of Byz. 
renaissance(s) remain valid with respect to Byz. 
humanism, although we can safely assume the 
existence of individual humanists in Byz. (e.g., 
PLETHON) or of certain humanistic features in late 
Byz. culture. It is doubtful, however, that Byz. 
ever had a humanistic milieu resembling that of 
Italy in the 14th and 15th C. 

From a different perspective, Hunger (Reich 
455-0y) Gesuiives “Cinvisuian humanism” as a 
phenomenon distinct from the Western Renais- 
sance; the core of this humanism is the confluence 
of Christian and classical elements, a conciliatory 
attitude toward the ancient heritage. The concept 
of perpetual humanism meshes better with the 
idea of Byz. continuity than that of perpetual 
renaissance since it does not require revivals and 
their counterpart—cultural gaps or dark ages. 
Humanism has also been identified with Christian 
philanthropy and active efforts to alleviate human 


956 | HUMBERT 


misery (Constantelos, Philanthropy 66). Lemerle 
(Humanism xi) speaks of two Byz. humanisms, the 
first of which, in the oth—1oth C., “corresponds” 
(chronologically) to the obscure centuries in the 
West, whereas the second humanism, that of the 
Palaiologoi, having been prepared already during 
the Komnenian period, developed through con- 
tacts with the West. Lemerle, however, does not 
define the notion of humanism. 

ur. V.L. da Nóbrega, “L’humanisme dans la compila- 
ton de Justinien,” Actes du VIe Congrès de la Fédération 
internationale des associations d'études classiques (Budapest 1984) 
315-20. J. Meyendorft, “Humanisme nominaliste et mys- 
uque chrétienne à Byzance au XIVe siècle,” Nouvelle revue 
théologique 79 (1957) 905-14. E. de Vries-van der Velden, 
Théodore Métochite: Une réévaluation (Amsterdam 1987) 11— 
2g. —A.K. 


HUMBERT (Ovyuzépros), cardinal of Silva Can- 
dida; born ca.1000, died Rome 5 May 1061. Asa 
monk at Moyenmoutier (Lorraine), Humbert 
studied Greek; he accompanied Pope Leo IX to 
Rome and became the principal Greek scholar in 
the Curia. He translated and responded to the 
letter on Latin ecclesiastical usages by LEO oF 
OHRID, sent in 1053 to John, bishop of Trani. 
Humbert then headed Leo IX’s embassy to Emp. 
Constantine IX, arriving in Constantinople early 
in 1054. His letters to Patr. MICHAEL I KEROULA- 
RIOS, treatises against Byz. liturgical practices, and 
response to Niketas STErHaTos inflamed the pa- 
triarch and clergy. His intemperate polemics con- 
tributed to a controversy that Constantine IX tried 
vainly to quell. On 16 July 1054 Humbert depos- 
ited on the altar of Hagia Sophia a bull excom- 
municating Keroularios and his followers (PL 
143:1001—04). It condemned the lack of the FIL- 
1OQUE in the Creed and various Byz. liturgical 
customs, esp. the use of leavened bread rather 
than AzyMES. Following his return, Humbert’s self- 
justifications helped perpetuate the SCHISM. 


LIT. A. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, 2 vols. (Pader- 
born 1924-30). ~C.M.B. 


HUMOR. LAUGHTER was considered in antiquity 
as a virtue, a divine quality, and writers (including 
Plutarch) collected jokes and anecdotes often as- 
cribed to famous personages. An anonymous col- 
lection of this kind was produced, probably in the 
grd—s5th C., under the title of Laughter-Lover 
(PHILOGELOS). Christian society, however, rejected 
laughter; it was replaced by tears of CONTRITION, 


compunction, and a quiet smile, frequently de- 
scribed as a quality of a saint. Attitudes toward 
humor nevertheless remained ambivalent: not only 
did the Philogelos survive in a number of MSS, 
but Sokrates (HE 6:22) describes a collection of 
theological jokes attributed to Bp. Sisinnios. Byz, 
humor inight take the form of a eun; for example, 
in a 12th-C. historian (Nik.Chon. 441.23—27), when 
Isaac I asked for some salt (kalas) at dinner, the 
mime Chaliboures replied, “Let us first come to 
know these women, and then command others 
(allas) to be brought in.” The Byz. also found 
humor in improper or absurd situations such as 
the lascivious dance of the old lady Maryllis, de- 
scribed by Niketas Eugeneianos (Hunger, Lit, 
2:136). Exaggerated improper situations were 
frequently used in personal INVECTIVE and reli- 
gious POLEMIC, and in such genres as SATIRE, PAR- 
ODY, and EPIGRAM; the elements of self-mockery 
developed as well. The peak of humor was achieved 
by Christopher of Mytilene, Psellos, Ptochopro- 
dromos, Eustathios of Thessalonike, and Sach- 
likes. There was also coarse and graceless humor, 
consisung of the cumulation of contorted curses. 

ED. G. Soyter, Griechischer Tumor (Berlin 1959) 83-123. 

tir. B. Baldwin. The Philogelos or Laughter-Lover (Am- 
sterdam 1983) iv—xii. Averincev, Poetika 57—83. M. Kyri- 
akis, “Satire and Slapstick in Seventh and Twelfth Century 
Byzantium,” Byzantina 5 (1973) 291—306. G. Morgan, “A 
Byzanune Satirical Song?” BZ 47 (1954) 292-97. ~A.K. 


HUNGARY, country founded by the Magyars or 
Hungarians, a people whom the Byz. called Tour- 
KOI and, from the 10th C. onward, Oungroi (early 
evidence for Oungroi is found in the vita of BASIL 
THE YOUNGER). In the gth C., Hungarians lived 
in the basin of the Don River and, according to 
an Arabic source, sold Slavic captives in Cimmer- 
ian Bosporos to the Byz. In 837 the Hungarians 
for the first time entered into direct military con- 
tact with Byz.: according to a revised version of 
GEORGE HAMARTOLOS, the Bulgarians invited the 
Oungroi to put down a rebellion of Byz. captives 
on the Danube, but the Byz. fleet overcame the 
Oungroi and repelled their attack (Zlatarski, st. 
1.1:339f). In the Byz.-Bulgarian war of 894-96 
they acted as Byz. allies but, under pressure from 
the PECHENEGS, moved westward and settled in 
PANNONIA, where they organized thcir state under 
the dynasty of the ARPADs. 

In the 10th C., the Hungarians often invaded 
the Balkans; a Hungarian legend eulogizes the 


chief Botond, who allegedly knocked a hole in 
the gates of Constantinople with his battle-ax. In 
948, two Hungarian princes were bapuzed in 
Constanunople. In g53 a Greek monk was sent as 
bishop to Hungary; the mission was temporarily 
successful, esp. in the eastern and southern parts 
of the country, but when Istvan (Stephen) I (1000— 
1038), the first Catholic king, defeated rival Byz. 
Christian relatives and chieftains, Greek influence 
began to decline. Even though Greck monasteries 
were founded in the 11th C. and Greek-speaking 
monks lived in some religious houses as late as 
1210, the country became increasingly Catholic 
and Latin-oriented. Byz. goldsmith-work, jewels, 
ecclesiastical vessels, reliquaries, and coins reached 
Hungary throughout the 11th—12th C., partly by 
trade, but mostly as imperial gifts; best known 
among these are the gold treasure of NAGYSZEN1- 
MIKLOS, the so-called Monomachos crown (prob- 
ably a gift to Andrew I) and the crown given to 
Géza | (now the lower part of the “Holy Crown 
of Hungary”; see Crowns). 

After LÁszLóÓ I (Ladislas) penetrated into Croa- 
ta and Kálmán (Coloman) annexed Dalmatia, the 
territorial conflicts between Constantinople and 
Hungary caused several wars; Hungary often made 
alliances with Serbia, the Normans, and the prin- 
cipalities of Rus’ against Byz. In the 12th C. the 
situation became very complicated: while there 
were many dynastic contacts between the Árpáds 
and Constantinople, the support frequently 
granted to Árpád pretenders by Constantinople 
caused recurrent tension between Hungary and 
Byz. When BéLa IlI—who for a while was ex- 
pected to unite both states under his rule—re- 
turned to Hungary, he turned definitively to the 
West and, from the 13th C. onward, the intensity 
of Byz.-Hungarian relations decreased. When, 
however, the Ottoman threat became serious, Byz. 
turned to Hungary for help: in 1366, Emp. John 
V Palaiologos visited Lajos (Louis) I of Hungary; 
in 1423/4 John VIII sought an alliance with Sig- 
ismund of Hungary; and in 1434-36 two Byz. 
embassies visited Hungary during their trips to 
the West. Janos Hunyab}, who had been success- 
ful in repelling the Turks from the borders of 
Hungary, was defeated in 1444 when he mounted 
a crusade that was crushed at VARNA, and in 1452/ 
3 he acted too slowly to prevent the fall of Con- 
stantinople. 


uT. Gy. Moravesik, Byzantium and the Magyars (Amster- 
dam 1970). A.B. Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Fron- 


HUNS 957 


ter (New York 1967). Gy. Székely, “La Hongrie et Byzance 
aux Xe—XIle siècles,” ActaHisiHung 13 (1967) 291-311. 
Délger, Paraspora 153-77. Zs. Lovag, “Byzantinische Bezieh- 
ungen in Ungarn nach der Staatsgrindung,” Mitteilungen 
des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wis- 
senschaflen 14 (1985) 225-33. E. Darko, Byzantinisch-ungar- 
ische Beziehungen in der zweiten Hälfte des XI. Jahrhunderts 
(Weimar 1933). -A.K., J.B. 


HUNS (Ovvvor), an Asian (possibly Turkic) peo- 
ple that appears in Roman sources beginning with 
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS; It is generally accepted 
that the Huns are to be identified with the Hsiung- 
nu of Chinese sources and are related to the 
EPHTHALITES in Central Asia. Around 375 the 
Huns crossed the Don, conquered the ALAns, and 
expelled the Gorus from the steppe north of the 
Black Sea. They participated in the Visigoth at- 
tacks on the empire but after 380 retired north 
of the Danube. After 450 they moved westward 
to Gaul. Their atutude toward the empire was 
ambivalent for several decades: sorne Huns served 
as FOEDERATI, others organized raids—in 422, un- 
der the command of “King” Ruga, they reached 
Thrace (B. Croke, GRBS 18 [1977] 347-67). In 
the east, the Huns in 395 crossed the Caucasus 
but were destroyed by the Romans at the Eu- 
phrates. Ruga’s successors were Bleda and AT- 
TILA. Attila created an “empire” that reached from 
Gaul to the northern Balkans, but after his defeat 
by AETIUS the empire of the Huns disintegrated 
quickly. 

The Hunnic empire was a conglomerate of var- 
ious nations, including Alans and some Germanic 
tribes. The Huns were nomads, although archae- 
ological finds include some agricultural imple- 
ments. They were horsemen, armed with bows 
and swords, who astonished Romans by their speed 
and discipline. Priskos of Panion noted that the 
Huns treated their slaves well and that Roman 
craftsmen worked for the Huns. A. Bernstam 
(Clem wivree gurnuo [LonIngrad 1gHij) suggests 
that the Huns played a progressive role in history 
by destroying slave-owning societies; E.A. 
Thompson (A History of Attila and the Huns (Ox- 
ford 1948] 209) asserts that in the West the mag- 
ister militum Aetius, as a representauve of the great 
landowners, looked forward to cooperation with 
the Huns against the Visigoths and Bagaudae, 
whereas in the East the ruling class induced Theo- 
dosios II to fight Attila. 

After the collapse of the reign of Attila, the 
name Hun was applied to various peoples: some 


958 | HUNS, WHITE 


of them (SABIRI, COTRIGURS AND UTRIGURS) may 
have been related to the Huns, but for others 
(Bulgarians, Avars, Hungarians, even Ottomans) 
it was only an archaizing ethnic designation. 

uit. JO. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns 
(Berkeley 1973: Germ. tr. Vienna-Cologne-Graz 1978). F. 
Altheim, Geschichte der Hunnen, 5 vols. (Berlin 1959-62) 
and rev. by R. Werner, J/bGOst 14 (1986) 243-60. J. Wer- 
ner, Beilrage zur Archdologte des Attila-Reihes (Munich 1956). 
J. Harmatta, “L'apparition des Huns en Europe orientale,” 
ActaAntHung 24 (1976) 277-83. ~A-K. 


HUNS, WHITE. Sec EPHTHALITES. 


HUNTING (kvvýyiov). In the Byz. countryside 
hunting had first of all a practical purpose—pro- 
tection of the flocks from wild beasts. It also 
provided MEAT as a supplement to the diet, al- 
though it was not as important as FISHING. Farm- 
ers snaring hares are represented in MS illumi- 
nation (e.g., Kádár, Zoological Illuminations 179, 
225). They also hunted quail: a post-Byz. text 
describes a great slaughter of quail in Crete in 
1494, when a single night’s catch netted 4.000 
birds (Canon Pietro Casola’s Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 
tr. M. Newett [Manchester 1907] 316F). 

Hunting played a more important role as a 
pastime of the upper class and is represented on 
their possessions, such as silks and an ivory casket 
in Troyes (Athens Cat., no.52). Three emperors 
(Theodosios II, Basil I, and John II) died in 
hunting accidents. There were imperial officials 
called PROTOKYNEGOS and PROTOIERAKARIOS, and 
hunting images formed a signal element of im- 
perial symbolism. Hunting was also considered a 
good substitute for military training (cf. SPANEAS, 
ed. Wagner, p.6.122—23). Enthusiasm for hunting 
peaked under the Komnenoi, when special ek- 
phraseis on hunting became fashionable (e.g., by 
Constantine Manasses and Constantine PAN- 
TECHNES). On the other hand, Michael Psellos, 
who was expressing the intellectual outlook of his 
time, had no enthusiasm whatsoever for hunting 
(Psellos, Scripta Min. 2:205.3—6). 

The quarry of noble hunters was primarily bears, 
boars, and deer, but smaller animals such as hares 
and BIRDS were also hunted. The prey of the 
various social classes—which are distinguishable 
by their costume—is illustrated in the Venice Ky- 
negelika MS of Orrian. The spear was the most 
common hunting weapon. Noble hunters rode 


HORSES; the Byz. also trained pocs and leopards 
for hunting as well as various birds for HAWKING. 
Pero Tarfur (ed. M. Letts, 145f) observed that the 
Greeks were great hunters with falcons, goshawks, 
and dogs. The equipment of the fowler was sim- 
pler: nets, decoy birds in cages, long cords, bird- 
lime, and reeds. His pursuit is treated in illumi- 
nated MSS (Treasures II, fig.300) as one of the 
seasonal activities evoked by the Easter homily of 
Gregory of Nazianzos. 

ur. Ph. Koukoules, “Kynegetika ek tes epoches ton 
Komnenon kai ton Palaiologon,” EEBS g (1932) 3-33. A. 
Karpozilos, “Basileiou Pediadite Ekphrasis Haloseos Akan- 
thidon,” EpChron 23 (1981) 284-98. Darkević, Svetskve is- 
kusstvo 207-11. ~ Ap.K., J-W.N., A.C. 


HUNYADI, JANOS (‘Iayyos ó Xovváðns, in 
CHALKOKONDYLES usually XwvieTys), Hungarian 
general and statesman; born between 1407 and 
1409, died Zemun 11 Aug. 1456. Probably of 
Wallachian origin, Hunyadi began his career as a 
retainer at baronial courts and achieved the high 
posts of voivod of Transylvania and, in 1446-53, 
regent for the minor László (Ladislas) V. He also 
amassed great wealth. 

In 1442-43 Hunyadi successfully campaigned 
against the Turks, reconquering Niš and Sofia. 
However, the crusade of Varna in which he par- 
ticipated in 1444 ended in disaster. In early 1451 
Hunyadi signed a three-year truce with MEHMED 
II, confirming it on 20 Nov. on condition that the 
sultan would build no strongholds on the Danube. 
When Mehmed began preparation for the last 
siege of Constantinople, Constantine XI sent en- 
voys to Hunyadi. In the fall of 1452, the Hun- 
garians agreed to assist if they received Mesem- 
bria as their operational base. After long 
deliberations, a chrysobull was delivered to Hun- 
yadi that granted him Mesembria (Reg 5, n0.3545). 
In Apr. 1453 Hunyadi’s ambassadors appeared 
in Mehined’s camp, threatening to wage war un- 
less the Turks ceased besieging Constantinople. 
fhe rumors about Hunyadi’s intervention as well 
as frightening omens in the Turkish camp caused 
Mehmed to waver, but the military council in- 
sisted on maintaining the siege. It was too late for 
Hunyadi to intervene, but in 1456, when Mehmed 
besieged Belgrade, Hunyadi won a victory that 
stopped the Turkish advance for decades. Soon 
thereafter Hunyadi died of the plague. 


urr. P. Engel in From Hunyadi to Rákóczi, ed. J.M. Bak. 
B.K. Király (Brooklyn 1982) 103-24. Moravesik, Studia Byz. 
371-82. F. Pall, “Byzance à ła veille de sa chute et Janco 
de Hunedoara (Hunvadi).” BS 30 (1989) 119-28. J. Held, 
~Hunyadi’s Long Campaign and the Battle of Varna 1443- 
i444 Ungarn-Jahrbuch 16 (1988) 10-27. —A.K., J.B. 


HYAKINTHOS OF CYPRUS, metropolitan of 
Thessalonike (ca. late spring 1345-spring 1346); 
born Cyprus, died Thessalonike before 19 May 
1346. Little is known of this anti-Palamite hiero- 
monk; he lived at the monastery of the HODEGON 
in Constantinople and is probably to be identified 
with the Hyakinthos who carried letters from Ni- 
kephoros GREGORAS to George LapirHes in Cy- 
prus. Gregory AKINDYNos praised Hyakinthos in 
his correspondence as “admirable” and “most holy” 
(ed. Hero, eps. 52.48—49, 60.54). He was made 
metropolitan by Patr. JoHN XIV Kacexas, but was 
unable to enter Thessalonike until fall 1945, when 
the ZEALoTs regained control of the city. His short 
tenure was marked by persecuuon of Palamite 
clergy and monks. Kyrres (infra) argues that Hy- 
akinthos was the metropolitan attacked in the 
“Anti-Zealot” Discourse of Nicholas KaBasiLas for 
simony, alienation of property, and imposing fixed 
taxes On monasteries. 

tir. K.P. Kyrres, “Ho Kyprios archiepiskopos Thessa- 


lonikes Hyakinthos (1345-6) kai ho rolos tou eis ton anti- 
palamitikon agona,” KyprSp 25 (1961) 91—122. -—A.M.T. 


HYBRIS (v@pis), injury to another person through 
word or deed; it even includes trespassing. Hybris 


committed in a public place, against a person of 


standing, or in connection with bodily injury was 
considered severe hybris. Only the injured party 
had the right to initiate a suit, which could be 
either private or criminal (Basil. 60.21). Hybris 
against a donor or patronus led to the forfeiture 
of the gift or emancipation; children who com- 


ited (Basil. 31.6.6.1; 35.8.41; 48.26.1; 49.2.19). 


LIT. Kaser, Privatrecht 2:439. -L.B. 


HYDATIUS, Latin historian and churchman; born 
Lemica (mod. Ginzo de Limia) in northern Spain 
ca.395, died Galicia? ca.470. During youthful east- 
ern travels, Hydatius met Jerome at Bethlehem. 
Back in Spain, he was ordained in 416 and by 
427 was consecrated bishop of an unknown see, 


HYMN | 959 


perhaps Aquae Flaviae (mod. Chaves in Portugal). 
On a secular trip tọ Gaul in 431 he met the 
general Arrius, toward whom he may be too 
partial. In 460, the Suevi kidnapped and briefly 
imprisoned him. As a theologian, Hydatius ac- 
quired a reputation as an expert on Priscillianisin 
(see PrisciLLiaNn), which he opposed. 

His Chronicle, a continuation of Jerome's, covers 
the period 379—469. Albeit not blind to the world 
at large, Hydatius focuses on Spain. While prone 
to inflate casualty figures and unduly partisan, he 
penned a reliable and well-considered account of 
most events, giving a uniquely rational reason, 
surprising in a bishop, for the retreat of ATTILA 
from Rome. Hydatius can be a useful source for 
Byz. history when his part of the world is involved, 
for example, the Visigothic vicissitudes of GALLA 
PLACIDIA. 

ED. Chronique, 2 vols., ed. A. ‘Tranoy (Paris 1974). with 
Fr. tr. T. Mommsen in MGH AuctAnt 11:3-36. 

ur. E.A. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians (Madison, 
Wisc. 1982) 197-60. C. Courtois, “Auteurs et scribes: 
remarques sur la chronique d’Hydace,” Byzantion 21 (1951) 
29-54. C. Molé, “Uno storico del V secolo: Il vescovo 
ldazio,” SicGymn 27 (1974) 279-351; 28 (1975) 58-139. 

-B.B. 


HYMN (uros). A religious poem set to fairly 
simple music and sung in Byz. sacred services. In 
early Christianity, the term “hymn” was applied 
to all devotional CHANT; later it referred only to 
newly written poems, as distinguished from the 
scriptural psalins and canticles. The earliest hymns 
are known to us from the New Testament: the 
Magnificat, the Song of Symeon, and the short 
poetic texts quoted by St. Paul in his epistles. Byz. 
hymns appear first in patristic literature, impor- 
tant early examples being the “Homily on Pascha” 
(a distant precursor of the KONTAKION) by Bp. 
Melito of Sardis and the PHOS HILARON and Hu 
momocenes hyoy (see Mos Gorsive: Hoi Heg- espli 
TROPARIA, the latter ascribed to Justinian I. 
Although no original music for these hymns 
survives, probably, like their Gregorian counter- 
parts, Byz. melodies were largely based on the 
principle of one tone to each syllable of the text, 
which made them suitable for congregational 
singing. Even the music for the hymns of Roma- 
NOS THE MELODE and JOHN OF DAMASCUS is un- 
fortunately lost, but the dramatic character of the 
texts suggests that they were chanted in a kind of 


960 HYMNOGRAPHY 


recitative. Clearly they originally must have had a 
syllabic musical setting because many hymns are 


hundreds of lines long and any other kind of 


performance could scarcely have been feasible. 
After about the 8th C., when musical responsibil- 
ity shifted from the congregation to trained choirs, 
more elaborate styles developed and the hymn 
texts were subjected at first to melismatie (orna- 
mental) and then to kalophonic (highly florid) 
treatment (see TERETISMATA). 

ED. Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum, ed. W. Christ, 
M. Paranikas (Leipzig 1871). Ekloge hellenikes orthodoxou 
hymnographias, ed. P.N. Trempelas (Athens 1949). 

uit. D.E. Conomos, Byzantine Hymnography and Byzantine 
Chant (Brookline, Mass., 1984). -1D.E.C. 


HYMNOGRAPHY, a fertile and creative area of 
Byz. LITERATURE. A HYMN can be defined as a 
poem on a religious topic, primarily intended for 
liturgical use and to be sung, but also including 
verse written for private devotional purposes. The 
decisions of the Councils of Laodikeia (4th C.) 
and Braga (6th C.) prohibited hymns in the lit- 
urgy on other than scriptural themes. Hymn sing- 
ing was part of Christian worship, as it had been 
of Jewish practice, from the earliest years. Possible 
specimens of such hymns can be extracted from 
the New Testament (e.g., Eph 1:3-14) and from 
the church fathers (e.g., the Easter Homily of 
Melito of Sardis), while embedded in the 4th-C. 
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS are hymns such as 
“Glory in the highest” and “O, gladsome light” 
(PHOS HILARON); other similar hymns also survive 
on papyrus. The limited evidence leads to the 
conclusion that these early hymns were written in 
rhythmic prose, used a simple language, and were 
sung responsorially. From the 5th C. there are a 
few indications (e.g., the comments of Abba Pambo 
[Christ-Paranikas, infra, xxix—xxxi] and the phrases 
preserved in the Life of Auxentios [PG 114:1416]) 
that the psalms and canticles were now part of 
the Orthros and Vespers services and that TRO- 
PARIA and STICHERA, stanzas inserted between 
psalm verses, were in use (although some monas- 
tic communities were opposed to MUSIC in ser- 
vices). The earliest hymn writers known by name 
(Anthimos and Timokles) are also recorded from 
this period, though none of their works can now 
be identified. 

Hymns had also been written in classical meters 
(e.g., by GREGORY OF Nyssa or SYNESIOS), but 
these, of limited appeal and intelligibility, were 


unlikely to have been intended for liturgical use, 
There had developed, however, in response to 
the evolution of the spoken language and under 
influence from Syriac literary patterns, increas- 
ingly elaborate verse forms that built lines usin 
stress rhythms, an equal number of syllables for 
phrases in corresponding stanzas, and acrostics. 
These tendencies culminated in the KONTAKION, a 
metrical homily consisting of a prooimion and a 
varying number of o1Ko1, or stanzas, linked by an 
ACROSTIC. The kontakion, probably chanted by the 
preacher with the choir singing the refrain at the 
end of each otkos, became the dominant form of 
the hymn in the late 5th—6th C. Though anteced- 
ents for many of its features can be found in 
earlier phases of Greek literature (e.g., in the late 
grd-C. Partheneton of MeTHoDios, bishop of 
Olympos), the most immediate models exist in 
Syriac and esp. in the works of EPHREM THE SYR- 
IAN. At its best, as in the AkATHISTOS HYMN or 
the Christmas Hymn of Romanos THE MELODE, 
the leading exponent of the genre, the kontakion 
is characterized by vivid dialogue and striking 
imagery. 

Toward the end of the 7th C. the kontakion was 
replaced by the kanon, for reasons not fully 
understood, but perhaps connected with a change 
to a more varied musical setting. As late as the 
gth C. kontakta were written (notably by JOSEPH 
THE HYMNOGRAPHER), but normally in shortened 
form for use within the kanon. A kanon, para- 
phrasing and meditating on the nine biblical can- 
ticles which it replaces, consists of mine odes, each 
made up of an heirmos and several troparia. In- 
numerable examples of kanones, many as yet un- 
edited, survive either in full or abbreviated service 
books, such as the MENAION. Notable exponents 
of the genre include ANDREW OF CRETE, JOHN OF 
Damascus, KOSMAS THE HYMNOGRAPHER, and Jo- 
seph the Hymnographer. 

Though hymns, in the form of kanones, stichera, 
and troparia, continued to be written until the fall, 
of Constantinople, for all practical purposes by 
the end of the 11th C. the liturgical calendar was 
full; few additions were made later. The Ortho- 
dox church in southern Italy, led from the GROT- 
TAFERRATA monastery, long remained an active 
center of hymn writing. Many hymns, like those 
of SYMEON THE THEOLOGIAN, which were not on 
scriptural subjects, may have been intended for 
personal use only. 

Hymns of all types, whether long forms like the 


kontakion and kanon, or the shorter elements like 
the froparia and stichera, were a vital feature of the 
services of the Orthodox church, involving psaltes 
(SINGER), Choir, and congregation. Their lan- 
guage, drawing on the koine of the Old and New 
Testaments, was rarely complex, though in the 
kanon, communication seems sometimes to have 
been subordinate to the musical setting. Limited 
to paraphrasing biblical passages in ways relevant 
to a particular feast or saint, the authors’ inge- 
nuity is frequently admirable. 

Hymnographers, while predominantly monks 


and clerics, nevertheless came from all walks of 


life and included emperors (e.g., Justinian I, Leo 
VI), some learned scholars (e.g., John Mauro- 
pous), and a few women such as Kassia (E. Ca- 
tafygiotu-Topping, Diptycha 3 [1982-83] 98—111). 
With the early acceptance of stress meters at a 
time when literary compositions were struggling 
to impose the irrelevant archaic quantitative me- 
ters, hymn writers acknowledged the fact of lin- 
guistic change and the need for accessibility with 
greater realism than the classicizing secular poets. 

eD. W. Christ, M. Paranikas, Anthologia Graeca Carminum 
Christianorum (Leipzig 1871; rp. 1963). E. Follieri, initia 
Hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae, 6 vols. (Rome 1960-66). G. 
Schirò, Analecta Hymnica Graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae infer- 
ioris, 13 vols. (Rome 1966—83). 

urr. E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and 
Hymnography? (Oxford 1961). K. Mitsakis, Byzantine Hym- 
nographia (Thessalonike 1971). —-E.MJ. 


HYPAPANTE (izazav7n, lit. “meeting”), the 
Presentation of Christ in the Temple (Lk 2:22- 
38) at the time of Mary’s purification, 4o days 
after giving birth. The Hypapante, one of the 12 
Byz. Grear Feasts, is celebrated 2 Feb. 

A Presentation feast is first seen in Jerusalem 
ca.384; it was celebrated on 14 Feb., this being 
the goth day after 6 Jan., the feast of EPIPHANY, 
which at that lime in the East comprised the 
Nativity as well as the Baptism. In 518, Severos 
of Antioch called Hypapante a recent Palestinian 
innovation not celebrated in either Antioch or 
Constantinople (PO 29:246.16-26; cf. 38:400- 
15). Justinian 1 decreed its celebration throughout 
the empire (Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, 
PG 147:292A). There is some confusion concern- 
ing the date on which the feast was celebrated in 
Constantinople. Under Justinian it was 2 Feb. (M. 
van Esbroeck, AB 86 [1968] 351-71; 87 [1969] 
442~44), but in 602 the riot that broke out against 


HYPAPANTE | 961 





Hypapante. The Presentation of Christ in the Temple. 
Miniature from a Gospel book (Getty Museum, 83.MB 
69 [MS Ludwig II 5], fol.129v); 13th C. J. Paul Getty 
Museum, Malibu. 


Emp. Maurice during his procession to Blachernai 
to celebrate the feast apparently took place on 14 
Feb. (M. Higgins, Traditio 1 [1943] 409f). 

The Hypapante has one day of forefeast, a 
synaxts the following day, and seven days of after- 
feast, which may be foreshortened by an early 
Lent. Despite the fact that, in the celebration of 
the feast, the theme of Jesus’ encounter with Sy- 
MICO pl eduiiitiaccd uvt Uiar ui uae Vu Bus pur 
rification, the Hypapante was considered one of 
the five Marian Great Feasts and was celebrated 
by the emperor at the Church of the Virgin at 
BLACHERNAI. 

Representation in Art. Rare in art of the 7th 
and 8th C., the Hypapante attained its standard 
composition in the gth. C. Usually showing Sy- 
meon and Anna standing to the right of a cibo- 
rium and altar and the Virgin with the Child and 
Joseph with his donation of pigeons to the left, 
the event is presented as a theophanic recognition 


962 HYPARCH 


of Christ. Symeon, who perceived Christ’s divin- 
ity. displaces the priest at the altar, often assuming 
his vestments, and Anna may gesture in ACCLA- 
MATION. An alternative composition, developed in 
the gth C. but widespread only in the 12th, em- 
phasizes the themes of Christ’s sacrifice and Mary's 
grief, as Symeon holds the Child over the altar 
and the Virgin assumes her mourning posture 
from the Crucifixion. The late 12th-C. image of 
Symeon alone cradling the Child in the posture 
of the Vircin Evrousa derived from this com- 
position, showing Symeon as a prophet of Christ’s 
Passion. Both variants of the full composition and 
the condensed “Symeon Glykophilon” (“sweet- 
beloved”) continued into Palaiologan art. 

wir. M. Aubineau, Les homélies festales @Hésychius de Jé- 
rusalem (Brussels 1978) 2—6. D. Shorr, “Fhe Iconographic 
Development of the Presentation in the Temple,” ArtB 28 
(1946) 17-32. H. Maguire, “The Iconography of Symeon 
with the Christ Child in Byzantine Art,” DOP 34-35 (1g80— 
81) 261-69. — R.F.T., A.W.C. 


HYPARCH. See EPARCH. 


HYPATIA ('Yraria), Neoplatonist teacher; born 
Alexandria between 355 and 360 (R. Penella, His- 
loria 33 [1984] 126-28), died Alexandria 415. 
Educated at Alexandria, Hypatia owed her zeal 
for mathematics to her father THEON, whose work 
she assisted and surpassed, revising the third book 
of his commentary on the Almagest of PTOLEMY; 
her commentaries on Diophantos of Alexandria 
and the Conics of Apollonios of Perga are lost. 
Hypatia remained in Alexandria to become that 
city’s most celebrated and adored teacher of 
mathematics and NEOPLATONISM (the version of 
Porpuyry rather than that of [AMBLICHOS). Pupils 
(Synesios being her most famous one), populace, 
and statesmen alike succumbed to her dazzling 
combination of intellect, beauty, virtue (which dis- 
appointed would-be seducers), eloquence, and po- 
litical acumen. All this and her paganism pro- 
voked the hatred of Cyrit of Alexandria, who 
may or may not have procured her brutal murder 
by a gang of hospital attendants (PARABALANO]) 
led by one Peter the Reader. 

ED. Commentaires de Pappus et de Théon d'Alexandrie sur 
U'Almageste, vols. 2-3, ed. A. Rome (Rome 1936-43). 

utr. JM. Rist. “Hypatia,” Phoenix 1g (1965) 214-25. F. 
Schaefer, “St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Murder of Hy- 
patia,” Catholic University Bulletin 8 (1902) 441-53. D. Shan- 


zer, “Merely a Cynic Gesture?” Rivista di Filologia 113 (1985) 
61-66. ~B.B. 


HYPATIOS (‘Yzartios), bishop of Gangra, leg- 
endary 4th-C. saint; feastday 14 Nov. His major 
miracle was the killing of a dragon that had taken 
up residence in the state treasury under Constan- 
tius II, thus causing severe financial problems; 
Hypatios used his staff, topped with a cross, to 
kill the dragon, and the icon of Hypatios was 
allegedly placed at the treasury entrance to pro- 
tect it. After returning to Gangra with the em- 
peror’s fiscal privilege, the abolition of the tax 
called xylelaion (Ferri, infra 83.1—5), Hypatios was 
murdered by partisans of NoOVATIANISM. 

Several vitae and a passio are dedicated to Hy- 
patios. It was suggested by Ferri that the earliest 
vita was written in the 5th C. and the passio, 
teeming with fantastic episodes, between 500 and 
700, but F. Halkin (AB 51 [1933] 392-95) dem- 
onstrated that his argument was ill founded. If 
the abolition of the xylelaion reflects the same 
measure recorded as a law of Justinian I (Malai. 
437.17-18), the vita cannot be earlier than the 
6th C.; if the Scythian basileus Chobar was mod- 
cled on Kouber-Kuvrart, the passio was produced 
after 680. 

Representation in Art. The MENOLOGION oF 
Basi II (p.181) shows the bishop confronting the 
dragon by spearing it in the mouth and setting it 
afire. The saint himself is then killed by a woman 
throwing stones from an upstairs window (though 
the title of the page refers to his kotmesis, or 
peaceful death). The composition is repeated in 
the illustrated “imperial” menologion in Moscow 
(Hist. Mus. 183, fol.158). 

sources. S. Ferri, “Il Bios e il Martyrion di Hypatios di 
Gangrai.” SBN 3 (1931) 69—103. F. Halkin, “Un recueil de 
légendes hagiographiques: Le MS. Bollandien 1009,” BZ 


44 (1951) 253-57. SLA 
Lr. BHG 759-759f. G. Kaster, LCI 6:562. 
-A.K., N.P.Š. 


HYPATIOS, general who was briefly declared 
emperor in 532; died Constantinople 1g Jan. 532. 
The nephew of Emp. Anastasios I, he was consul 
ca.500. In 503 he was sent with Patrikios and 
AREOBINDUS to command a campaign against the 
Persians. In 513 he was magister militum in Thrace, 
where his unpopular administration contributed 


to the revolt of Vivaian. Defeated in 514, he was 
deprived of his position, then reinstated, defeated 
once more, and captured by the rebels. He was 
commander again in the East under Justin | and 
negotiated with the envoys of KavAp; the nego- 
tiations failed, and after an investigation Hypatios 
was removed from the court. In 529 he was re- 
placed as the Eastern commander by BELISARIOS. 
In 532, at the time of the Nika REvoLT, Hypatios 
was proclaimed emperor but was executed when 
the rebellion was quelled. His body was thrown 
into the sea, but was later washed up and buried 
in the Church of St. Maura; verses supposedly 
written for his cenotaph survive in the Greek 
Anthology (AnthGr bk.7, nos. 591-92). His prop- 
erty was confiscated but later restored to his chil- 
dren. 
tiv. PLRE 2:577-81. A. Cekalova, “Narod i senatorskaja 
oppozicya v vosstanii Nika,” VizVrem 32 (1971) 24-34. 
-T.E.G. 


HYPATIOS, bishop of Ephesus (from 531); died 
ca.541. Early in his bishopric he presided at the 
conference convoked at Constantinople by Justi- 
nian I to reconcile SeEveros of Antioch and the 
Monophysites, whom he confounded by showing 
the spuriousness of the writings ascribed to DION- 
YSIOS THE AREOPAGITE (J. Gouillard, REB 19 [1961] 
75). He was also the orthodox spokesman at the 
Council of Constantinople in 536 that anathema- 
tized Severos and other Monophysites. In the 
interim, Hypatios had taken Justinian’s request 
for a ruling on THEOPASCHITISM to Pope John II 
(533-35) at Rome. Fragments remain of at least 
two books titled Miscellaneous Questions, answers to 
the questions of his suffragan, Julian of Atramyt- 
ton (H.G. Thümmel, BS 44 [1983] 161-70). They 
include an important statement on the cult of 
images in which church art is defended as an 
appropriate aid for uneducated people to pro- 
gress from material to spiritual contemplation of 
the divine. The many citations in biblical catenae 
suggest his authorship of commentaries on Psalms, 
the Twelve Prophets, and Luke. An inscription 
(Grégoire, Inscriptions, no.108) found at Ephesus 
in 1904 preserves his instructions on the obliga- 
tions of Christian burial. 

tp. Diekamp, AnalPatr 109-53. Partial Eng. tr.. Mango, 
Art 1166. 

LIT. S. Gero, “Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Im- 
ages.” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, 


HYPATOS 963 


Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, vol. 2 (Leiden 1975) 208— 
16. P.J. Alexander. “Hypatius of Ephesus: A Note on 
Image Worship in the Sixth Century.” HTAR 45 (1952) 
177-84. -B.B. 


HYPATIOS OF ROUPHINIANAI, saint; born 
Phrygia ca.366, died near Chalcedon 466, on 30 
June, according to J. Pargoire (BZ 8 [1899] 451); 
feastday 17 June. A scholastikos, Hypatios’s father 
educated his son well, but after a family conflict 
Hypatios left home for Thrace and became a 
shepherd. At about 20 he joined an ascetic, Jonas, 
and assisted him in building the fortified monas- 
tery of Halmyrissos. Circa 400 Hypatios founded 
the monastery of ROUPHINIANAL, from 406 he was 
its hegoumenos. From 436 onward, he was con- 
sidered the “father” of all the monks of Constan- 
unople. His monastery was a community of la- 
borers; the monks earned their living by making 
woolen garments and baskets and by gardening 
(pp. 100.14-16, 248.7-14). Hypatios struggled 
against pagan tradiuons; he prevented the prefect 
Leontios from restoring Olympic games in Chal- 
cedon and caused the disappearance of ARTEMIS, 
a giant female demon (pp. 270-72). He suppos- 
edly resisted Nestorianism even before the Coun- 
cil of EpHesus and was connected with the Akor- 
METOI (E. Wolfe, BZ 79 [1986] 302-09). The 
preamble of Hypatios’s Life says that it was writ- 
ten by his disciple Kallinikos and discovered by 
an anonymous “editor” who corrected the style, 
esp. mistakes caused by “the Syriac dialect.” Bar- 
telink (infra 12) trusts this claim and dates the 
Life to 447-50. If, however, the preamble is fic- 
uuous, the author must have lived later—in the 
6th C., according to Beck (Kirche 404). 

source. Callinicos, Vie d'Hypatios, ed. and Fr. tr. GJM. 
Bartelink (Paris 1971). Ital. tr. C. Capizzi (Rome 1982). 

Lre. BHG 760. G.J.M. Bartelink, “Text Parallels between 
the Vita Hypati of Callinicus and the Pseudo-Macariana,” 
VigChr 22 (1968) 128—308. -A.K. 


HYPATOS (raros), Greek term for consuL. Hy- 
patos and apo hypaton (ex-consul) became honorific 
utles by the 6th C. and declined in importance 
thereafter. A letter of Pope Grecory I THE GREAT 
shows that in Constantinople one could obtain 
cartas exconsulatus for 30 librae (C. Courtois, By- 
zantion 19 [1949] 54f). The seals of hypatoi and 
apo hypaton are numerous from the 7th—gth C.; 
the utle is usually combined with modest func- 


964 | HYPATOS TON PHILOSOPHON 


tions, bureaucratic and fiscal, even though some- 
times the Aypatos could serve as strategos (e.g., Za- 


cos, Seals 1, nos. g18—19). In the Kletorologion of 
PHILOTHEOS hypatos is a title following that of 


SPATHARIOS, and owners of several seals are titled 


spatharios and hypatos. In the 1.0th-C. TAKTIKON of 





Escurial Aypatos appears as an office—according 
to Oikonomides (Listes 325) with judiciary func- 
tions. The texts of the 11th C. again present 
hypatos as a title but of a higher rank than the 
PROTOSPATHARIOS; the title seems to have disap- 
peared after 1111. (See also ANTHYPATOS; DisHy- 

PATOS.) 
LIT. Oikonomides, Listes 296. Seibt, Blewsiegel 342-45. 
-A.K 


HYPATOS TON PHILOSOPHON ("chief of the 
philosophers”), title of the president of the school 
of PHILOSOPHY in Constantinople. F. Fuchs (Die 
höheren Schulen von Konstantinopel im Multelalter 
[Leipzig-Berlin 1926] 29f) suggested that the of- 
fice already existed in the ioth C., but the chry- 
sobull of Romanos I that mentions the Aypatos ton 
philosophon Paul Xeropotaminos (Xerep. 227.18) is 
a forgery, and Constantine, under Emp. Constan- 
une VII, was kathegeles and not hypatos. Thus the 
utle was apparently introduced in 1047 (or slightly 
earlier) by Emp. Constantine IX for Michael Pset- 
Los, whose successors were JOHN IraLos and 
THEODORE OF SMYRNA (ca.1112). The office re- 
appears ca.1165 or 1167, when the future patri- 
arch MICHAEL III received this post. While the 
first hypatot were serious scholars who contributed 
much to the development of philosophy, Mi- 
chael’s appointment had a different purpose, to 
control the followers of “pagan” philosophy and 
to defend the purity of Orthodox tenets. The 
office continued to exist in later centuries: in the 
14th-C, lists of funcuonaries, the hypatos occupies 
a place between the logothetes tou dromou and megas 
chartoularios (pseudo-Kod. 300.2 t—22, 321.48) or 
is named in the same breath as the “first of the 
rhetors,” dikaiophylax and nomophylax (338.143- 
45), probably an anachronistic statement reflect- 
ing the situation of the 11th C. The Aypatoz of the 
igth and 14th C. were teachers acting under the 
supervision of the patriarchate (Fuchs, ibid. 50— 
52). 

ur. W. Wolska-Conus. “Les écoles de Psellos et de 


Xiphilin sous Constantin IX Monomaque,” TM 6 (1976) 
231-33, 242f. G. Weiss, Oströmische Beamte im Spiegel der 


Schriften des Michael Psellos (Munich 1973) 83- Browning, 
Studies, pu. V (1961), 181-85. ~A.K. 


HYPERBOLE (ivepBodn), one of the TROPES, an 
exaggerated statement whose goal was the em- 
bellishment of speech. Byz. theoreticians, follow- 
ing their ancient predecessors, considered hyper- 
bole as an exaggerauon beyond verisimilitude (e.g, 
George CHOIROBOSKOS in RheiGr, ed. Spengel, 
3:252.25—29). However, a modern critic may view 
the term beyond its limited role of stylistic orna- 
mentation and consider the Byz. vision of the 
cosmos as hyperbolic. 'Fhis was expressed, on the 
lowest level, through frequent use of prefixes such 
as poly- or archi- or superlatives (to stress the 
extreme of certain qualities). It was also ex- 
pressed, on a higher level, through means used 
in other medieval literatures as well: endowing 
the hero (or antihero) with exaggerated qualities 
such as irresistible power, overwhelming beauty, 
immeasurable cruelty, or an extraordinary ability 
to endure pain or deprivation. The hyperbolic 
vision of people and objects was typical of certain 
genres, esp. hagiography, hymnography, and epi- 
deictic oratory. Rhetorical hyperbole could be 
traditional, tinged with antiquarian allusions. Thus 
Attaleiates asserts that his hero’s generosity sur- 
passed the riches of the gold-bearing rivers Pac- 
tolus and Chrysorrhoe (Attal. 273.22-274.3; cf., 
e.g., Strabo 13:4.5), but the same Attaleiates could 
make more innovative comparisons, as, for ex- 
ample, his description of a victory so bloodless 
that not a single nose was bloody (Attal. 271.8- 
9). The use of hyperbole is also found in Byz. art 
as in depictions of the priest Symeon flying through 
the air to meet the infant Jesus in the temple 
(Maguire, Art and Rhetoric 84—90). 


LIT. A. Quacquarelli, “Note sull'iperbole nella sacra 
Scrittura e nei Padri,” VetChr 8 (1971) 5-26. -A.K. 


HYPEROON. See GALLERY. 


HYPERPYRON (vó pa tnéprvpov, lit. “highly 
refined”), the gold coin of standard weight (4.55 
g) but only 20.5 carats fine, introduced by AL- 
Ex10S I in 1092 and continued by his successors, 
though a few earlier 11th-C. references show the 
name already had been applied to NOMISMATA. 
The term continued in use until the end of the 
empire, but after gold coins ceased to be struck 


at Byz. in the mid-14th C. it became a money of 
account, divided notionally into 24 KERATIA. The 
shortened forms perperum (Lat.) and perpero (It.) 
are Western. In the Balkans and southern Slavic 
borderlands it provided in various forms (e.g., 
perper, iperpero) a convenient name for a number 
of denominations, usually silver, and moneys of 
account. 


tir. Grierson, Byz. Coins 215-17. Hendy. Economy 513- 


17. -Ph.G. 


HYPOBOLON (v7z0Bodov), the term used from 
the time of Leo VI for the wedding gift of a man 
his wife. Formerly called vONATIO PROPTER 
NUPTIAS, it had been obligatory since the reign of 
Justinian 1. Leo VI promulgated three novels on 
the Aypobolon. According to the novels, the hypo- 
bolon should be of less value than the powry. In 
the case of childlessness and the predecease of 
the husband, it fell in full to the wife; if the wife 
died before her husband, it reverted to him (nov. 
20). If there were children, the surviving spouse 
obtained a portion of equal value to the inheri- 
tance of a child—as in Justinianic law—but the 
portion was not calculated on the value of the 
hypobolon (or dowry) but on that of the entire 
property of the predeceased (novs. 22 and 85). 
The amount of the hypobolon to be provided by 
the husband, or his family, varied. According to 
the Peira and the treatise De hypobolo by Eustathios 
RHomalos (ed. D.R. Reinsch, FM 7 [1986] 239—- 
52), in cases of uncertainty the hypobolon amounted 
to half the dowry; lower amounts were also pos- 
sible. According to the SYNOPSIS MINOR (Y 4), 
in default of other agreements, the hypobolon 
amounted to a third of the dowry. 
LIT. Simon, “Ehegtterrecht” 225-30. J. Beaucamp, 
“Proikotipobolon-Hypobolon- Hypoballo,” in Aphieroma 
Svoronos 1583—61. L. Margetić, “Bizantsko bračno imovinsko 


pravo u svjetlu povele XX Tava Mudroga.” ZRVI 18 (1078) 
19750. ~M. Th.F. 


HYPOCAUST (ýrókavoror), Roman system of 
radiant heating in which hot air circulated under 
a floor made of square or circular briek or tile 
and raised on low piers (suspensurae); heat could 
also rise through flues in the walls. Hypocausts 
can be found throughout the Roman world in 
public and private Barus and in palaces and upper- 
class housing. Until at least the 6th C. Byz. build- 
ers continued the hypocaust system throughout 


HYPOMNEMA 965 


the empire, both maintaining Roman structures 
(Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikon 49f) and adding new 
hypocausts, even in monasteries (A. Berger, Das 
Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit (Munich 1982] 102— 
07; Orlandos, Monast.Arch. 100-08). 


urr. P. Magdalino, “The Bath of Leo the Wise,” in 
Maistor 225-40. V. Kondić, V. Popovic, Caričin Grad (Bel- 
grade 1977) 130-45. 349-52. H. Hunger, “Zum Bade- 
wesen in byzantinischen Klöstern,” SbWien no.367 (Vienna 
1980) 353-64. -K.M.K., W.L. 


HYPOMNEMA (v76urypua), term designating 
various kinds of documents (e.g., in P.Cair.Masp. 
I 67303, II 67131). A khypomnema petition was 
addressed to the emperor; the response to it was 
called lysis (see RESCRIPTUM) or semezosis. A letter 
of Patr. Athanasios I (RegPatr, fasc. 4, 10.1774) 
mentions hypomnestika as short documents com- 
piled in the patriarchal chancellery and goes on 
to complain about the greed of copyists who made 
such compilations; it is plausible that the patriarch 
was referring to petitions. Usually, however, the 
patriarchal chancellery defined the term differ- 
ently. In earlier documents hypomnema designated 
synodal decisions or minutes (e.g., synodal hypo- 
mnemata of 29 Sept. 394—RegPatr, fase. 1, no.10), 
but evidently from the roth C. onward it applied 
to a patriarchal decree. The first case of its use is 
allegedly a lost act of Nicholas | Mystikos of 923 
(RegPatr, fasc. 2, no.684), but it is only called a 
hypomnema by Patr. Nicholas II] in 1084. A pa- 
triarchal hypomnema (e.g., the act of Matthew I of 
1398—RegPatr, fasc. 6, no.3066) was a solemn 
decree provided with a seal and signature; the 
designation sigilliodes hypomnema was sometimes 
employed (SIGILLION from the mid-13th C. on- 
ward). A hypomnema decision or record could be 
produced in other offices; thus Theodore of Ni- 
caea (mid-1oth C.), ina ee to the eparch Con- 


ra Pi my En aby A é har 
sianüuc, Witiitiweds. tnat Graciars “y aa p EnnRL 


mata” (Darrouzès, Epistoliers 304.7). 

A special official, the hypomnematographos, is 
mentioned in the 1ọth-C. taktikon of Beneševič 
(Oikonomides, Listes 251.26) and later texts. In 
the above-cited letter of Patr. Athanasios, ho epi 
ton hypomnematon is one of the senior officials of 
the patriarchal chancellery. Hypomnema was also a 
form of panegyric of a saint, e.g., the hypomnemata 
on the Twelve Prophets (BHG 1591). 


LiT. Délger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 82—85. Dar- 
rouzès, Offikia 362f, 399—426. -A.K. 


966 HYPOSTASIS 


HYPOSTASIS (tad6a7ao1s, lit. “substance’), an 
ancient term used by philosophers and scientists 
primarily to designate individual or real existence; 
PLorinos applied it to his supreme principles— 
the One, Intellect, and Soul. The word appears 
in the New Testament five times without having 
any technical meaning, and in its use by grd-C. 
theologians it was not clearly distinguished from 
ousia (SUBSTANCE); at the First Council of Nicaea 
it was used as a synonym for ousia. As late as the 
Council of Serpica hypostasis was conceived of 
as real existence, and the acceptance of individual 
divine hypostases proclaimed heretical. Only at 
the Council of Alexandria in 362 did ATHANASIOS 
of Alexandria approve the difference between the 
terms hypostasis and ousia, and in the wake of the 
creed of the First Council of Constantinople in 
381 the Cappadocian interpretation of the TRIN- 
ITY as three hypostases and one ousia became 
canonical. 

Hypostasis was contrasted to the substance or 
NATURE Of the divinity, and defined as the indi- 
vidual property (idiotes) of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, whereas ousta—as an individual real- 
ity—was the element they shared (kornon) that 
presupposed a Stoic ontology. In Christology hy- 
postasis was equated with the concept of PERSON 
at the Council of CHALCEDON (451). This teaching 
was further developed by JOHN OF CAESAREA and 
Leontios OF BYZANTIUM who defined the hypos- 
tasis as “being-for-itself” (kath’ heauten einai), dis- 
cerning two degrees of individuation, the nature 
and the person; this formula was analyzed by 
MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR and ANASTASIOS OF SINAI 
(ed. Uthemann, Viae Dux 22.4.85—86 [p.303)). 

The distinction between ousia and hypostasis 
was not fully understood in the Latin West, which 
tended to translate both terms as substantia; this 
accounted for the Eastern opinion that the West 
was Nestorian, that is, that the concept of two 
natures was in fact the concept of two hypostases 
in CHRIST. This linguistic misunderstanding ap- 
pears in John of Caesarea and Anastasios of Sinai. 


tir. H. Dorrie, Hypostasis (Göttingen 1955). A. de Hal- 
leux, “ ‘Hypostase’ et ‘personne’ dans la formation du dogme 
trinitaire,” RHE 79 (1984) 313-69, 6825—70. Prestige, God 
162—go. Wolfson, Philosophy 31g—-21. K.-H. Uthemann, “Das 
anthropologische Modell der hypostatischen Union,” Kle- 
ronomia 14 (1982) 215-312. Idem. “Das anthropologische 
Modell der hypostatischen Union bei Maximus Confessor,” 
in Maximus Confessor, ed. F. Heinzer, C. Schönborn (Fri- 
bourg 1982) 223-33. -K.-H.U. 


HYPOTHEC (vroðnkny, lit. “deposit, pledge”), in 
Roman law. a type of pledge or security. It dif- 
fered from a pIGNUS in that the object pledged 
remained with the debtor, even though the rights 
of possession were vested in the creditor. Justini- 
anic law and Byz. legal textbooks retained the 
Roman distinction between hypothec and pignus: 
thus, a scholion to Basil. 25.1.1 rejects as mistaken 
the application of the term hypotheke to a pignus 
(enechyron), arguing that the pignus was contracted 
by the physical transfer of the object, the hypothec 
“by simple agreement (symphonon).” A pledge 
without any actual physical transfer of the object 
was known in late Byz. practice: an act of 1285 
describes the case of Theodore Branas who loaned 
a man 1.33 litrai of silver; when the man died 
and his widow could not repay the loan, she 
pledged olive trees to Branas equivalent to the 
amount of the debt. She retained the right to 
regain her trees after having repaid the loan; no 
interest is mentioned (MM 4:114.21—28). 

The term “general hypotheke,” however, is used 
in documents with the meaning of “guarantee” 
(e.g., Docheiar. no.3.3—-4; Lavra 1, no.53.6), ap- 
plied not to a pledge but to the sale or exchange 
of land. The term rhethe hypotheke, in the will of 
Theodore Kerameas of 1284, refers to a certain 
piece of land used as security for a loan (Lavra 2, 
no.75.40—42). 

ut. Buckland, Roman Law 475f. Kaser, Privatrecht 2, 
par.25 1.4. —A.K. 


HYRTAKENOS, THEODORE, early 14th-C. 
writer and teacher in Constantinople; born in 
Hyrtakos on the Kyzikos peninsula (F. Délger, BZ 
31 [1931] 411f). Hyrtakenos (‘Yptaknvos) is known 
only from his writings, which include an enkomion 
of Andronikos II and monodies for Michael IX, 
Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat, and Nikephoros 
Choumnos. He also wrote a panegyric of the 
Theotokos and an enkomion of the anchorite An- 
inas the miracle worker. His ekphrasts on the Gar- 
den of St. Anne is based on a picture that he 
reports having seen. 

His 93 surviving letters are addressed to such 
luminaries as Andronikos IL, Patr. John XIII Gly- 
kys (S.I. Kourouses, EEBS 41 [1974] 344-53), 
Nikephoros Choumnos, and esp. Theodore Me- 
tochites (21 letters). In them, he complains about 
his straitened circumstances (surely exaggerated) 


and appeals for a siteresion (payment in money or 
grain) for his services as a teacher and placement 
on the state payroll. One letter includes a request 
for a coat lined with fox fur. Other letters describe 
his exchange of books with friends, requests for 
copies of MSS, and references to his own library. 
Constantine Loukites, who was in ‘Trebizond, 
commissioned him to purchase a copy of the Odys- 
sey in Constantinople (ep.56). Hyrtakenos was well 


HYRTAKENOS, THEODORE 967 


read in classical literature; his correspondence 
contains an unusual nuniber of mythological al- 
lusions and citations of ancient authors. 

ED. Letters—ed. F.J.G. LaPorte du Theil, in Notices et 
extrails 5 (1798) 709744: 6 (1800) 1-48. EFnkomia, monodics. 
and ekphrasii—ed. Boissonade, AnecGr 1:248-92; 2:409- 
53E 370 

trv. Beck, Kiche 691. Hunger. Lit, vai84. Tusculum- 
Lexikon 770. -A.M P.. Ap.K. 


seas ye Ay apui 





IAMBLICHOS (‘lauBacxos), Neoplatonist phi- 
losopher; born Chalkis (in Coele-Syria) ca.250, 
died ca.g325. lamblichos supposedly learned about 
NEOPLATONISM from PORPHYRY in Rome. Later 
he established his own school at Apameia in Syria, 
where he expounded a mixture of Neoplatonism, 
Pythagorean thought, and eastern mysticism to 
the detriment of the theories of PLOTINOS, further 
dazzling his students with genuine or stage-man- 
aged feats of clairvoyance and levitation. His name 
became talismanic among the pagan rearguard 
opposition to Christianity, esp. Emp. JULIAN. 

His extant writings comprise a Life of Pythag- 
oras, a Protreptikos (or Exhortation to Philosophy), 
and three mathematical treatises; the authorship 
of On the Mysteries, a defense of magic, is disputed 
but itis probably an authentic work of Iamblichos. 
A fragment of his treatise on rhetoric survives. 
Commentaries on Plato, Aristotle, and the Chal- 
dean oracles are mostly lost, as are the essays On 
the Soul (some fragments survive in SroBalos) and 
On the Gods. EUNapios oF SARDIS (Lives of the Soph- 
ils 458 [p.362]) deprecates his uncouth style. Iam- 
blichos influenced the course of Neoplatonism 
through both his writings and his pupils, eclecti- 
cally importing all manner of superstitions and 
eastern beliefs, perverting mysticism into magic, 
and fitting these new elements into an ever more 
expanding and abstruse system with a heavy re- 
liance on trinitarian subdivisions. 

ED. De vita pythagorica liber, ed. L. Deubner (Leipzig 
19373 rp. Stuttgart 1975). Protrepticus, ed. E. Pistelli (Leipzig 
1888; rp. Stuttgart 1967). Les mystères d'Egypte, ed. E. des 
Places (Paris 1966). with Fr. tr. Eng. tr. T. Tavlor (London 
1968). Theologoumena arithmeticae®, ed. V. de Falco (Leipzig 


1975)- 
Lir. Armstrong, Philosophy 294-301. B.D. Larsen, Jam- 


blique de Chalcis (Aarhus 1972). J.F. Finamore, /amblichus 
and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul (Chico, Calif., 1985). 
J. Vanderspoel, “lamblichus at Daphne,” GRBS 2g (1988) 
83-286. -B.B. 


IAMBOL (Acdéyzroacs), city in eastern Bulgaria on 
the river Tundža, sometimes identified as late 
Roman Diospolis. On the route from Adrianople 
to the passes over the Balkan range, Iambol played 


an important role in hostilities between Byz. and 
Bulgaria as well as in confrontations with invaders 
from the steppes. Ceded to Bulgaria by Justinian 
II in 705, it was recaptured in the mid-8th C. by 
Constantine V and retaken in 812 by KRUM. After 
John I Tzimiskes captured it in 971, it remained 
in Byz. hands for two centuries. In 104g the Byz. 
general Constantine Arianites was defeated by the 
Pechenegs at lambol, and in 1093/4 the city sur- 
rendered to the Cumans, who held it briefly. 
Froni ca.1190 it was incorporated in the Second 
Bulgarian Enipire. In the late 13th C. lambol 
changed hands several times; during the 14th C. 
it was a Bulgarian frontier city, twice taken and 
briefly occupied by the Byz. An inscription rec- 
ords the setting up of a column, no doubt to mark 
the frontier, by IVAN ALEXANDER in 1356/7. In 
1373 the Ottoman Turks conquered lambol. 

LIY. V. Gjuzelev, “Jambol v epochata na pùrvata i vtorata 
bilgarskata dùržava.” in /storija na grad Jambol, ed. Z. Ata- 
nasov (Sofia 1976) 43-6g. Ph. Malingoudis, Die mittelalter- 
lichen kyrillischen Inschriften der Hamus-Halbinsel, 1: Die bul- 
garischen Inschriften (Vhessalonike 1979) 84-86. -R.B. 


IASITES (laoirns), a noble family known from 
ca.1000. Some were generals, such as Nikephoros, 
strategos of Cherson, and Michael, archon of Iberia, 
who commanded the troops sent in 1047 against 
Leo Fornikios. Another (Michael?) [asites mar- 
ried Eudokia, Alexios I’s daughter, ¢a.1110, but 
soon fell from imperial favor and was expelled 
from the palace; perhaps his support of JOHN 
Iratos caused his dismissal. The lasitai were also 
related to the KEROULARIOL Some of them tounded 
a monastery in Constantinople before 1158. Later 
lasitai are known as judges (Constantine, epi ton 
deeseon), fiscal officials (lasites, praktor of Bulgaria 
before 1108), courtiers (Leo, komes tou staulou), 
members of the clergy (Michael, metropolitan of 
Nikomedeia, 1285—89), and literati (the monk 
and hagiographer Jos in the 1270s, Gregory in 
the 14th C.). 

LIT. Seibt, Bleistegel 1839—41. Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. 253, 
923. PLP, nos. 7950-60. -A.K. 


969 


970 IASOS 


IASOS (laces). coastal city on a peninsula in 
CARIA, west of MyLasa. It appears in written 
sources only as a base of the KipyRRHAIOTAL theme 
and as a suffragan bishopric of APHRODISIAS; it is 
last mentioned in the rath C. Its excavated re- 
mains, however, provide considerable informa- 
tion about the life of a small Byz. city. During late 
antiquity, lasos maintained its civ ic buildings, added 
several churches, and expanded to the adjacent 
mainland where large houses, whose remains in- 
dicate much activity in processing agricultural 
products, were built. Its forum was demolished 
in the 6th C. After the 7th C., the apparent date 
of a new fortification wall, some parts of the city 
were abandoned and others changed as public 
and private structures were ruined and built over 
with small houses. The remains of these domestic 
buildings have provided evidence for manufac- 
ture of pottery, glass, and iron products. lasos 
had evidently become smaller and poorer by the 
time of the dated evidence (gth—1oth C.). Re- 
mains indicate occupation through the 13th C.; 
ihe region fell to the Turks before 126g. 

ure. Annuario della scuola italiana di archeologia di Alene 
39/40 (1961/2) 5053—71; 43/4 (1965/6) 401-540: 45/6 (1967/ 
8) 537799; 47/8 (1989/70) 461-532. C. Laviosa, “lasos 
1984.” AnatSi 35 (1985) 1936. -C.F. 





IATROSOPHISTES (iatpomodia7ys), term ap- 
plied to teachers of medicine and skilled pHysi- 
CIANS. Latrosophistat, who survived as a class through 
the 7th C., were often suspected of cryptopagan- 
isn: Sophronios of Jerusalem, in the Miracles of 
Kyros AND JOHN (ed. Marcos, ch.go.z), tells of 
Gesios, an Alexandrian zatrosophistes, who alleg- 
edly was baptized under compulsion and uttered 
a Homeric couplet while in the font. Only after 
the saints cured his painful illness (which his own 
professional skill had been unable to correct) did 
Gesios convert to Christianity. The cults of heal- 
ing martyrs such as Kyros and John or ARTEMIOS 
competed with the tatrosophistai for clients by pub- 
lishing miracle collections that criticized the ietro- 
sophistai for arrogance, high fees, and clinical fail- 
ure, EPiPHANIOS of Salamis in Panarion 64.67.5 
speaks of “iatrosophistic trickery,” associating 
medical skill with magic. The term is used occa- 
sionally in later texts (e.g. Theophilos Protospa- 


S 


tharios and the Souda), but Theophanes the Con- 


fessor prefers a “separated” form, and speaks of 
a sophistes of medical science (Theoph. 382.18). 
—F.RAT, 


IATRUS (larpos), late Roman stronghold (phrou- 
rion in Prokopios, polis in Simokattes) in Moesia 
I on the Danube. near the modern Bulgarian 
village of Krivina, cast of Novar. It was founded 
after 293, probably in the early 4th C., as a mili- 
tary station, and is characterized by a uniform 
building plan (around the via principalis leading 
to the headquarters) and a relative uniformity in 
the ceramic types found there. latrus flourished 
(a.370-420, the barbarian invasions having no 
recognizable impact on its prosperity. At this time 
it acquired the character of a civilian settlement, 
with more diversified buildings and ceramics (28 
amphora types, as opposed to 12 during the pre- 
vious period). The invasion of the Huns in 422 
destroyed latrus, and when it recovered at the 
end of the 5th C., the settlement was smaller and 
humbler; however, a basilica of the 6th C. has 
been discovered. Iatrus was probably abandoned 
by the Byz. soon after 600 and replaced by a 
village with semisubterranean habitations and lo- 
cal (possibly Daco-Geran) ceramics. The Slavic 
infiltration (8th-gth C.) was slow and peaceful, 
typical Slavic ceramics existing side by side with 
the late Roman provincial types. The settlement 
seems to have been destroyed by the Hungarians 
in 895/6 and again by Svjarosiav in g68/g. The 
discovery of Byz. coins of the 11th C. and of a 
badly preserved seal of “str[adJego[s] [D]emetr{ios] 
[KJatalkalon?]” (fatrus-Krivina [infra] 1:207) indi- 
cates a Byz. presence in the area. 

ti. Jatrus-Arivina, 3 vols. (Berlin 1979-86). T. Ivanov, 
“Schriftquellen und gcographische Karten zur Geschichte 
von larus,” Klio 47 (1966) 5-10. G. von Bülow, “Die 
wirtschaftliche Entwicklung des spätrömischen Limeskas- 


cells Latrus in Niedermésien,” BS 41 (1980) 181-87. 
-A.K. 


IBAS (1Bés), bishop of Edessa (435-49, 451- 
57); died Edessa 28 Oct. 457. A professor in the 
school of Edessa, Ibas is said to have translated 
works of Aristotle, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and 
Diodoros of Tarsos into Syriac. An adherent of 
the ANTIOCHENE ScHOoL and an ardent anti- 
Monophvysite. Ibas was at loggerheads with RAB- 
BULA, the bishop of Edessa. In 433 he had to leave 


the city, but after Rabbula's death succeeded him 
as bishop. He was, however, unable to maintain 
peace in the church: he was accused of Nestori- 
anism, and, although vindicated at hearings con- 
ducted in Tyre and Berytus, he was deposed by 
the “Robber” Council of Epirsus in 449. The 
Council of CHALCEDON returned him to his sce, 
where he remained until his death. 

Of Ibas’s works only a letter to Mari, bishop of 
Ktesiphon (Seleuketa on the Tigris), has sur- 
vived—in a Greek translation of the original Syr- 
iac text (ACO, tom. Il, vol. i, pt.g.32-34). Al- 
though Ibas reproached Nestorios for rejection 
of the ttle Theotokos, all his polemics were di- 
rected against CYRIL of Alexandria whom Ibas 
saw as the suecessor of APOLLINARIS of Laodikeia. 
The fathers of Chalcedon approved the theology 
expressed in his letter, but Ibas’s views continued 
to be controversial long after his death, and he 
was condemned in 553 during the Affair of the 
THREE CHAPTERS. After Ibas’s death many of his 
partisans, teachers and students of the school of 
Edessa, moved to Nistbis. 

uT. A. d'Alès, “La leure d'Ibas a Marès le Persian,” 
RechScRel 22 (1932) 5-25. J.-M. Sauget, DPAC 2:1735f. 

-T.E.G. 


IBERIA (I8npia), northeasternmost theme of 
the Byz. Empire, created by Basil II from the 
inheritance of Davin oF ‘TayK‘/Tao. The precise 
date of its creation is controversial; the theme was 
probably organized soon after Basil’s cantpaign of 
1001 and considerably carlier than 1022, when it 
was consolidated by the emperor’s Iberian canı- 
paign. The territories of the theme first consisted 
of David’s domains, stretching southward along 
the eastern Byz. frontier and into central Ar- 
menia, where it included the city of MANTZIKER1. 
In 1045, the lands of the Bacratip kingdom of 
Sirak became part of the theme and its adminis- 
trative center shifted to Anı. ‘The Seljuks captured 
this city in 1064, but in 1064/5 the Bagratid king- 
dom of Kars entered the theme, which included 
southern Tayx‘/Tao, Basean, and Kars, until it 
disappeared in the 1070s when the Seljuks ad- 
vanced into unperial territory. 

LIT. V.A. Arutyunova-Fidanjan, Armjane-chalkidonity na 
vostuénych granicach Vizantijskoj imperti (XI v.) (Erevan 1980) 
108-35. Hr. Bartikjan, “O feme ‘Ivertja, ” Vesinik obšćest- 
vennych nauk Arm. AN 12 (1974) 68-79. K.M. Yuzbashian, 


IBN AL--ADĪM | 971 


“Ladministration byzantine en Arménie aux X°—XI° si- 
écles,” REArm n.s. 10 (1973-74) 154-83- =N.G.G. 


IBERIANS (‘Tfypor). The term “Iberia” was used 
in Greek with various meanings. Constantine VII 
Porphyrogennetos (De adm. imp. 23) notes that it 
could mean Spain or Georgia in the Caucasus. 
Georgian Iberia corresponds with K‘art‘li, the 
castern part of the medieval Georgian kingdom 
(see GEORGIA), and is to be distinguished from 
the theme of IBERIA, which included part of 
northern Armenia but not K‘art‘li. The various 
peoples of the Cancasus were often confused; 
thus John Tzerzes calls the Iberians, Abchasians, 
and Alans one people (P. Gautier, REB 28 [1970] 
208). 

“Iberian” was also used for Armenians who 
belonged to the Chalcedonian rather than the 
Gregorian Monophysite church (V.A. Arutjunova- 
Fidanjan, Armjane-chalkudonity na vostoénych granicach 
Vizantijsko} imperu [Erevan 1980]), those whom 
Armenian sources pejoratively call cayt" (see Tza- 
Tol). Hence the typikon of Gregory PAKOURIANOS 
permits only “Iberians” in his monastery. The 
term “Iberian” could also be applied to inhabi- 
tants of the theme of Iberia or, in its narrowest 
sense, to a monk from the monastery of IVERON. 

LIT. V.A. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, “ ‘Iver’ v vizantyskich 


isto¢nikach XI v.” Banber Matenadarani 11 (1973) 46-67. 
-R.T. 


IBERON MONASTERY. See IvERON Monas- 
TERY. 


IBN AL-‘ADIM (or Kamal al-Din), Arab historian 
and Ayytbid official; born Aleppo 1192, died 
Cairo 1262. He was a member of a prominent 
family that discharged various official responsi- 
bilities under the successive dynastic regimes in 
Aleppo (see BERRora). He himself, after studies 
in Aleppo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and 
the Hijaz, served in Aleppo as a diplomatic sec- 
retary, as a judge, and later as the chief minister 
of the Ayyabid regime. In 1260, as the Mongols 
approached, ibn al-‘Adim fled from Aleppo to 
Egypt. When thev withdrew, he revisited his na- 
tive city, found it destroyed, and returned to 
Cairo. 


972 IBN AL-ATHIR 


Ibn al-‘Adim wrote several works, the most im- 
portant of which are his two major books on 
Aleppo. The Ultimate Quest of the History of Aleppo, 
of which ten unpublished MS volumes survive, is 
an alphabetically arranged biographical dictio- 
nary of men connected with Aleppo. His second 
historical book, The Quintessence of Aleppo's History, 
offers a chronological presentation of material 
gathered for the dictionary. ‘The chronicle ends 
in the year 1243. It has the great merit of com- 
piling all sources, and of recording various opin- 
ions on historical events and presenting the events 
in chronological order or according to political 
states. It includes Aleppo’s relations with the Byz. 
during the 10th C. and the Crusader period. 

ED. Ultimate Quest—partual Fr. tr. C. Barbier de Mey- 
nard, RHC Orient. 3:695—732. Quintessence, partial ed. S. 
Dahhan, 3 vols. (Damascus 1951-68). Fr. ur. C. Barbier de 
Meynard, RHC Orient. 3:577—732. E. Blochet, “Histoire 
d’Alep de Kamal-al-Din,” ROL 3 (1895) 509-65; 4 (1896) 
145—225; 5 (1897) 37-107; 6 (1898) 1-49. 

uT. S. Dahan in Lewis-Holt. Historians, 111-13. B. Lewis. 
El? 3:6g5f. ASE. 


IBN AL-ATHIR, or ‘Izz al-Din Abū'l-Hasan ‘Ali 
ibn Muhanimad, Arab historian; born Jazirat ibn 
‘Umar (on the Tigris) 13 May 1160, died Mosul 
June 1233. Born into a prosperous scholarly fam- 
ily well connected with the Zancips, he received 
an excellent education and became a private scholar 
enjoying official patronage. He traveled fre- 
quently, esp. to Syria, where he witnessed some 
of the campaigns of SALaDIN and eventually set- 
tled in Aleppo. 

He composed several biographical works and a 
history of the Zangids but is best known for his 
Consummate History, a vast work (from Creation to 
1231) considered the acme of Arabic annalistic 
historiography. The earlier chapters, though 
largely based on al-Tapari, contain valuable ac- 
counts (mostly on military campaigns) from other 
sources now lost. For the 12th-13th C., he writes 
from personal knowledge and contemporary in- 
formants; though unquestionably preoccupied 
elsewhere, he offers a fragmentary but useful 
view of Byz. military history for 1164-1228. He 
describes the maneuvering between the various 
powers in Asia Minor and the reception of refu- 
gee Muslim princes in Constantinople, recounts 
several disastrous expeditions of the Komnenoi 
in Asta Minor, and provides details on the Third 
Crusade, including Byz. efforts to repel Frederick 


I Barbarossa and the fall of Cyprus to Richard I 
Lionheart in 1192. The Latin conquest of Con- 
stantinople is described in detail. Later reports, 
though recounting continuing decline, portray Byz. 
as a sull-formidable power. 

ED. Chronicon quod perfectissimum inscribitur, ed. CL]. 
Tornberg, 12 vols. (Leiden 1851-76); rp. with corr. and 
add. as Al-Kamil fTl-ta'rīkh, 13 vols. (Beirut 1965—60). Ex- 
tracts tr. J.T. Reinaud, C.F. Defrémery, RHG Orient. 1:187- 
744. 221-180. 

uir. Brockelmann, Literatur 1:345f, supp. 1:587f. Vasi- 
liev, Byz. Arabes 2.2:12g—-62. F. Rosenthal, El? 3:723f. D.S. 
Richards in Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and 
Islamic Worlds, ed. D.O. Morgan (London 1982) 76—108. 

=L.LC. 


IBN AL-QALANISI, Arab historian of Muslim 
Syria; born Damascus ca. 1072, died there 17 March 
1160. A member of a prominent family of Da- 
mascus, he twice served as its chief municipal 
official (r@is). He is best known as the author of 
the chronicle Continuation of the History of Damas- 
cus, used heavily by several later generations of 
Muslim historians. It covers a dramatic period of 
Syrian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian history ex- 
tending from the mid-1oth C. to 1160, overshad- 
owed by the changing fortunes of Byz., Fatimid, 
Crusader, and Zangid protagonists. For anterior 
historical events, ibn al-Qalanisi relied on Syro- 
Egyptian archives and minor chronicles, but he 
based the coverage of contemporary develop- 
ments on his own observations, eyewitness ac- 
counts, and documentary evidence. Although the 
work of ibn al-Qalanisi mainly deals with politico- 
social life in Damascus and in central Syria and 
Palestine, it constitutes a unique chronicle of the 
first 6o years of the Crusader period written from 
the Arab vantage point. 

ED, History of Damascus 363-555 a.h., ed. H.F. Amedroz 
(Beirut-Letden 1908). The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, 
ur. H.A.R. Gibb (London 1932). Damas de 1075 à 1154, tr. 
R. Le Vourneau (Damascus 1952). 

LIT. C. Cahen, “Note d’historiographie syrienne, la pre- 
mière partic de l'histoire d'Ibn al-Qalānisī,” in Arabic and 
Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A.R. Gibb, ed. G. Makdisi 
(Cambridge, Mass.— Leiden 1965) 157-67. -A.S.E. 


IBN BATTUTA, more fully Shams al-Din Abū 
‘Abdallah Muhammad ibn ‘Abdallah, celebrated 
Arab traveler; born Tangier 1304, died Morocco 
ca.1369 or 1377. A jurist by education, his exten- 
sive journeys by land and sea covered all Islamic 
lands and most other countries of Asia and Africa 


and included visits to the Crimea, Asia Minor, 
and Constantinople. His Travels were dictated in 
1355 at the request of the sultan of Morocco. 
Although scholars have minor qualms about his 


veracity, chronology, and the “editorial” role of 


his scribe, the Travels of ibn Batttita are an invalu- 
able primary source for 14th-C. history. His ac- 
count of Asia Minor (visited 1331-33) records the 
risc of the Ottoman principality under ORHAN; it 
is esp. illuminating on the processes of islamiza- 
tion, turkification, and Byz. decline. His report 
on the Crimean Tarars records their relations 
with the Palaiologoi, including the marriage of a 
Byz. princess to their khan. During a five-week 
visit to Constantinople (late 1331), having arrived 
via the Crimea with the caravan of the returning 
Byz. princess, ibn Battiita met Emp. Andronikos 
IlI and toured markets, churches, and monaster- 
ies. Valuable because of the uniqueness of his 
“private” visit, his sympathetic account also en- 
riches our knowledge of the topography of 14th- 
C. Constantinople and Byz.-Islamic mutual per- 
ceptions. 

ED. Voyages, ed. C. Defrémery, B.R. Sanguinetti, 4 vols. 
(Paris 1859~1922; rp. 1982), with Fr. tr. Travels, tr. H.A.R. 
Gibb, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1958-71). 

tir. H.A.R. Gibb, “Notes sur les voyages d'Ibn Battata 
en Asie Mineure et en Russie,” in Etudes d’Orientalisme 
dédiées à la mémoire de Lévi-Provencal, vol. 1 (Paris 1962) 
125-33. I. Hrbek, “The Chronology of Ibn Battita’s Trav- 
els,” Archiv Orientální 30 (1962) 409-68. A. Miquel, El? 
3:735f. R.E. Dunn, The Adventures of [bn Battita (Berkeley, 
Calif., 1986). —A.Sh. 


IBN BĪBĪ, Arab author of a history, written in 
Persian, of the SeLjuks of Asia Minor (Rim); fi. 
13th C. His father served as secretary at the chan- 
cellery of the Seljuk sultan in Konya and went on 
several diplomatic missions. Ibn Bibi himself made 
a career at the same court, becoming the head of 
the chancellery of the secretariat of state. 

Ibu Bibi’s work, “Ait ed Commecnds jic., of Ala’ al- 
Din Kay-qubadh I] Concerning ‘Ald’id Affairs, com- 
pleted in 1281/2, draws from his personal expe- 
riences at the court and covers events, including 
Seljuk-Byz. relations, from the end of the 12th C. 
until 1282. It is the only source of information 
about his own life. Apart from the main text 
(Istanbul, Süleymaniye, Aya Sofya 2985), there 
exist an abbreviated Persian version, Mukhiasar, 
composed in 1284/5 by an unknown writer while 
ibn Bibi was still alive, and a Turkish adaptation, 


IBN JUBAYR | 973 


written in the early 15th C. by an Ottoman court 
historian, Yazicioglu ‘Alt. 

ED. El-Evamirtl-“Ala@ iyye fv'l-Umur? l-‘Ala’iyye, ed. N. Lu- 
gal, A.S. Erzi (Ankara 1957). Die Seltschukengeschichte, tr. 
H.W. Duda (Copenhagen 1959). 

ur. P. Melioranskij, “Sel’dzuk-name kak istoénik dlja 
istorii Vizantii v XI i XHI vekach,” VizVrem 1 (1894) 613- 
40. -A.S.E. 


IBN HAWQAL, more fully Abū al-Qasim ibn ‘Ali 
al-Naşīb, Arab geographer of the systematic school 
(see ARAB GEOGRAPHERS); born Nisibis, died after 
988. His Picture of the Earth is a primary document 
for the historical geography of the Islamic world, 
Byz., and other lands. As a merchant-scholar, he 
traveled widely between 943 and 973, visiting the 
Caspian Sea region, Fatimid Egypt, North Africa, 
Sicily, Spain, and southern Italy. He knew the 
Arab-Byz. frontier region well and participated 
in Arab military expeditions into eastern Anatolia. 

His book (first published before 967 and revised 
twice, ca.g77 and g88), though begun indepen- 
dently, is essentially a recast of the Routes and 
Kingdoms of al-IsrakHrI, which the aging author 
requested him to edit when the two met in Bagh- 
dad (g51—52). A comparison of the two works, 
with reference to Byz., the Thughur (see ‘AwAsim 
AND THUGHODR), Sicily, and Mediterranean trade, 
reveals ibn Hawgal’s independent judgment and 
sense of history, as well as his concern for detail. 
His maps are also more developed and show some 
Byz. themes and towns. Equally important are his 
insightful remarks on Islamic Sicily, the policies 
of the HaMDANtDs, the military and financial pol- 
icies of Nikephoros LI Phokas, the decline of the 
Islamic Thughtr, and the impact of the Byz. 
reconquista. Of particular interest is his account of 
the Banu-Habib of Nisibis, cousins of the Ham- 
danids who, during the reign of John 1 Tzimiskes, 
converted to Christianity and cooperated with the 
Byz. in their campaigns against the Muslims. Ibn 
Hawgal reflects subtle FĀȚIMID propaganda and 
is severely critical of the Hamdanids. 

ED. Sürat al-Ard, ed. J.H. Kramers (Leiden 1938). Con- 
figuration de la terre, tr. G. Wiet, revised J.H. Kramers (Paris- 
Beirut 1964). 

Lit. Krackovskij, Geog. Lit. 198—205. A. Miquel, E/? 
3786-88. —A.Sh. 


IBN JUBAYR, more fully Abu al-Husayn ibn 
Jubayr Muhammad ibn Ahmad, Arab traveler 
and man of letters; born Valencia 1145, died 


974 | IBN KHURDADHBEH 


Alexandria 29 Nov. 1217. After working as a 
government secretary in Arab Granada for a time, 
he made two major and eventful sea journeys to 
Mecca and back (1183-85 and 1189—91) and a 
less eventful one in 1204 (Krackovskij, infra) or 
1217 (Pellat, infra). Only the first journey is re- 
corded in his extant Travels. Ostensibly a pilgrim 
to Mecca, his main itinerary included Ceuta, Sic- 
ily, Alexandria, Cairo, Jedda, Mecca, Madina, 
Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, Tyre, Acre (the last 
two were in Crusader hands at the time), again 
Sicily, Cartagena, and Granada. He traveled on 
Genoese ships both ways with Christian and Mus- 
lim pilgrims and merchants. 

His Travels, written in a diary form giving the 
names of Muslim and Christian months, is an 
important document for political, economic, and 
social conditions not only in Islamic lands but also 
in the Mediterranean world. In particular, it notes 
the conflicts and peaceable contacts between Cru- 
saders and Muslims; Byz.-Genoese relations; and 
Sicily under WILLiaM LI, including the conditions 
of Muslims. It gives, moreover, a valuable descrip- 
tion of the cathedral of Palermo and a unique 
account of the Norman court. He also alludes to 
Byz.-Norman relations and records the curious 
echoes in Sicily of recent Seljuk victories over Byz. 
Especially interesting is his report on Andronikos 
I’s use of Muslim troops in seizing the throne in 
Constantinople in 1182 (Hecht, Aussenpolitik 33). 

ED. Rihlat [bn Jubayr, ed. M. de Goeje (Leiden-London 
1907; rp. New York 1973). The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, tr. 
R.J.C. Broadhurst (London 1952). 

ure. Kractkovskij, Geog. Lit. 304-07 (Fr. tr. in Canard, 


L'expansion, pt.XIV [1960-61], 64—69). C. Pellat, EI? 3:755- 
-A.Sh. 


IBN KHURDADHBEH, more fully Abu al-Qasim 
‘Ubaydallah ibn ‘Abdallah ibn Khurdadhbeh, au- 
thor of the earliest surviving Arabic administra- 
tive geography, including vital details on Byz.: 
born Khurasan ca.825, died Iraq ca.g12. Of Per- 
sian origin, he grew up in Baghdad, where he 
studied Arabic philology, literature, history, and 
music. He was director of posts and intelligence 
in al-Jibal (ancient Media) and a boon companion 
of the ‘Abbasid caliph al-Mu‘tamid (870-92). 

Of his ten books, including a world history, only 
extracts of On Entertainment and Musical Instru- 
ments, containing references to Byz. Music, and 
an incomplete version of his Routes and Kingdoms 


(composed ca.8 46-70, revised ca.885) survive. His 
fame rests on the latter book, which is a primary 
source for Islamic administrative and economic 
history as well as Byz. military administration. His 
account of Byz. is based mostly on the lost writings 
of the Arab prisoner al-JArMi (released 845), but 
also on official documents. It preserves a curious 
report of an Arab scientific expedition to the cave 
of the Seven SLEEPERS of Ephesus. More impor- 
tant is his concise information on Constantinople; 
topography, routes, distances, towns, and for- 
tresses of Asia Minor; official Byz. hierarchy; army 
strength, revenues, and organization; and the first 
known Arabic list of Byz. THEMES, with the earliest 
mention of Cappadocia and Charsianon as mili- 
tary districts. His work also refers to Byz.’s north- 
ern neighbors and international trade. 

ED. Kitab al-Masdlik wal-Mamdlik, cd. M. de Goeje [= 
BGA 6 (1889)], with Fr. tr. Mukhtar min Kuab al-Lahw wal- 
Malahi (On Music and Entertainment), ed. L.A. Khalité (Beirut 
1969). 

Lit. Kra¢kovsky. Geog. Lit, 147-50. Miquel, Géographie 
1:xxi, 87—92, 2:396-99. M. Hadj-Sadok, EZ? 3:839f. Gel- 
zer, Themen 81—90, 100-06, 114-26. -A.Sh. 


IBN RUSTA. Sec HARCN IBN YAHYĀ. 


IBN SHADDAD. Sec Bana’ AL-DIN. 


ICON FRAMES (sing. vepidéptov, e.g., Paniel., 
nos. 7.21, 53) are usually slightly raised from the 
surface of the icon and display figural represen- 
tations, floral or geometric ornament, and bosses. 
From the 11th C. onward they are frequently 
recorded in church INVENTORIES but may have 
been in use at least a century earlier. The most 
elaborate examples were made of precious metals, 
enamels, and stones or glass beads (Treasury S. 
Marco 172) or, more frequently, of repoussé silver 
(M. Chatzidakis, /cons of Palmos [Athens 1985] nos. 
1—2). Another technique—cloisonné silver with- 
out enamel inlay—appears on numerous frames 
of the late 1gth—14th C. (M. Chatzidakis, JOB 21 
[1972] 79-81). 

The figural decoration of icon frames consists 
of busts (/aimza) of saints or whole-figure repre- 
sentations (stasidia), sometimes including donor 
portraits. These form a DEFsis composition com- 
plementary to the main subject of the icon. Others 
display Gospel scenes or events from the life of 


the depicted saint. Most of the elaborate frames 
surround venerated icons of the Virgin. They 
were less often employed on icons of Christ or a 
church’ 
Gospel and other scenes. Simpler frames are re- 
stricted to geometric or floral ornament. 


Liv. A. Grabar, Les revêtements en or et en argent des icônes 


byzantines du moyen dge (Venice 1975 —L.Ph.B. 
ICONIUM. See IKONION. 
ICONOCLASM (from eixovoxddorTys, “image- 


destroyer”), a religious movement of the 8th and 
gth C. that denied the holiness of tcons and 
rejected icon veneration. Clerical opposition to 
the artistic depiction of sacred personages had its 
roots in late antiquity (Baynes, Byz. Studies 116— 
43, 226—39). In the 4th C. EUSEBIO; OF CAESAREA, 
evidently drawing on the christology of ORIGEN, 
denied the possibility of artistically delineating 
Christ’s image (G. Florovsky, ChHist 19 [1950] 77- 
96). There was also an Iconoclast movement in 
yth-C. Armenia (Alexander, History, p. VH [1955], 
151-60). In the early 8th C. several bishops in 
Asia Minor, notably Constantine of Nakoleia and 
Thomas of Claudiopolis, condemned the venera- 
tion of images (G. Ostrogorsky in Mél. Diehl 1:2395- 
38), citing traditional biblical prohibitions against 
idolatry. Their views became a movement when 
Emp. Leo III began to support their ponmi 
publicly in 726 (Anastos, “Leo III's Edict” 5—41). 
His order to remove an icon of Christ itom the 
CHALKE gate caused a riot. In 730 Leo summoned 
a silention that forced Patr. GERMANOS I to resign 
and issued an edict commanding the destruction 
of icons of the saints. Persecutions under Leo 
appear to have been limited to instances of de- 
stroying church decorations, portable icons, and 


altar furnishings; there is no solid evidence of 


martyrdom. 

The usurper ARTABASDOS temporarily restored 
icon veneration, but CONSTANTINE V broadened 
the theological base of Iconoclasm by personally 
writing treatises and organizing silentia. Constan- 
tine introduced an explicit christological aspect 
into Iconoclasm by asserting that a material de- 
piction of Christ—who as God is uncircumscrib- 
able—threatened either to confuse or separate his 
two natures. In 754 Constantine summoned 
council in HERI, which condemned icon vener- 


s patron saint and only rarely on icons of 


ICONOCLASM 975 


KeuTe pism iun p pavia pep Ips 
nappov: Mey Tio pov FRYE C65 Ni 
Boprricpe: 
vere Herm ved wae noep “jue aanu* 
Kiring p apr KUURA DLA 
AUT vow Marat yemp hg ; kia 
Popenasuu lor xaavyiiyop 
Suk Dee xay ef: Tune au yau 
were fetuu Hap nave meridian caze 
t Ata Soe SV QIME / ES arap £1563 71] 
oper: ELETTA Åres: nee 
Tra ORY Ahy Earm 
nals VP bad por surop 
ce Meu [ep p ú Topas 
Fat Nace OC ry Me 
ee ce ae: 
bauna e owe o BARATA | ‘ 
Fir ato: raz: $ 
e NATRE yava Ateaurwp rp na 
meen: eas tp tan.. i Rk paray ow f: 
Top pugo dD] a xt," KI (* 
i Teg ever agac airiran ogay 
wa ENDO Jon oey rp cur mepu 






















Iconoclasts whitewashing an image of 
Marginal miniature in the Khludov Psalter 
(Moscow gr. 129, fol.67r); 9th C. State Historical Mu- 
seum, Moscow. The Iconoclast with the wild hair is 
thought to represent the patriarch John VH Gramma- 
ukos. 


ICONOCLASM. 
Christ. 


ation as diabolical idolatry and insisted that the 
EUCHARIST was the only appropriate, nonanthro- 
pomorphic image of Christ. Constantine report- 
edly rejected worship of RELICS and attacked the 
cult of EUPHEMIA OF CHALCEDON, but the 754 
council affirmed the efficacy of the intercession 
of saints and denied only the propriety of ven- 
erating them through material depictions. 

The acts of the 754 council were not strongly 
enforced until the 760s, when several Icono- 
PHILFS were executed, including STEPHEN THE 
YOUNGER. Constantine rigorously persecuted 
Iconophiles in Constantinople, esp. monks; stra- 
tegot such as Michael LacHANODRAKON extended 
this anumonastic campaign into the provinces. Yet 
outside the capital Iconoclasm was irregularly 
supported and often restricted to redecorating 
churches with secular art. In the capital, according 
to the vita of Stephen the Younger, Constantine 


976 ICONOCLASM 


replaced pictures in the Church of the Virgin at 
Blachernai with “mosaics [representing] trees and 
all kinds of birds and beasts. .” Yet images of 
Christ and the saints remained in the sekreta of 
Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, until 768/g, when 
Patr. Niketas I (766-80) had them removed (Ni- 
keph. 76.21f). Iconoclasm waned after Constan- 
tine’s death: Leo IV persecuted only a small group 
of officials in Constantinople in 780, and in 787 
Constantine VI, Irene, and Patr. TARASIOS se- 
cured an official condemnation of Iconoclasm at 
the Second Council of NICAEA. 

The emperors of the AMORIAN DYNASTY revived 
Iconoclasm, but it lacked the vigor of the 8th-C. 
movement. Leo V deposed Patr. NIKEPHOROS I 
and summoned a synod in 815 that renounced 
the restoration of icons and rehabilitated the Hicria 
council (P. Alexander, DOP 7 [1953] 35—66; idem, 
History, pt.LX [1958], 493-505). Michael II, al- 
though an Iconoclast, did not force the issue. 
Theophilos, influenced by Jonn VII GRAMMATI- 
kos, prohibited the production of icons and 
persecuted prominent Iconophiles, including Ev- 
THYMIOS OF SARDIS, THEODORE Grapros, and the 
painter Lazaros, but in 843, Empress THEODORA 
and THEOKTISTOS engineered the TRIUMPH OF 
OrtuHopoxy. Although several church councils in 
the 860s and 870s condemned Iconoclasm again 
(F. Dvornik, DOP 7 [1953] 67-97), it was no 
longer a major issue. 

While Byz. sources blame external factors like 
Jewish magicians and Caliph Yazip II for influ- 
encing Leo III and his supporters, modern schol- 
arship offers various explanations for the devel- 
opment of Iconoclasm. Many specialists favor an 
ideological interpretation: Iconoclasm was the re- 
vival of ancient polemics against religious art 
(Alexander, Patr. Nicephorus 6—22), which har- 
bored vestiges of paganism (Martin, Jconoclastic 
Controversy); Leo II was attempting to purify re- 
ligious doctrine and practice because God was 
punishing the Byz. for idolatry by sending Arab 
attacks and natural disasters, such as an earth- 
quake on Thera in 726 (C. Mango in Iconoclasm 
2f). Other scholars emphasize economic motives: 
the emperors used Iconoclasm to confiscate mo- 
nastic and ecclesiastical property (M.Ja. Sjuzju- 
mov, Učenye zapiski Sverdlouskogo gosudarstvennogo 
pedagogiceskogo instituta 4 [1948] 48-110). More 
recently, scholars have stressed the role of impe- 
rial power: Iconoclasm was the climax of CAESAR- 


opaPisM (G. Ladner, MedSt 2 [1940] 127-49); the 
reestablishment of the traditional imperial cult (L, 
Barnard, Byzantion 43 [1973] 13—29); or the effort 
of emperors to establish their authority in eccle- 
siastical matters at a ime when they were under 
pressure to regenerate Byz. society and ward off 
its external enemies (J.F. Haldon, BS 38 [1977] 
161-84). Another explanation considers Icono- 
clasm against the backdrop of the crisis of early 
Byz. crimes: for the secular clergy, particularly 
bishops, the potentially centrifugal nature of the 
cult of saints—physically localized and emotion- 
ally privatized by holy men, icons, relics, and 
monasteries—threatened their ability to retain a 
centralized ecclesiastical authority that could de- 
fine the holy and shore up the weakened struc- 
tures of Byz. civic life (P. Brown, EHR 88 [1973] 
31f). 

Economic and political factors played important 
roles in the development of Iconoclasm, but the 
central issue of the controversy was the doctrine 
of SALVATION. By the 8th C. the Orthodox victory 
in the dispute over Christ’s human and divine 
natures had affirmed the possibility of man’s as- 
cent to God, but without delimiting the instru- 
mentality of salvation or the position of the holy 
in Byz. society. Iconoclasts were genuinely con- 
cerned that increasing devotion to icons, by effac- 
ing the distinction between the material image 
and its spiritual prototype, was encouraging idol- 
atry (E. Kitzinger, DOP 8 [1954] 82-150) and 
thus blurring the crucial distinction between the 
sacred and the profane. The Iconoclasts accepted 
only the Eucharist, the church building, and the 
sign of the cross as being fully holy, because only 
those objects had been consecrated by God di- 
rectly or through a priest and were thus capable 
of bringing human beings in contact with the 
divine, whereas icons and relics were illegitimately 
consecrated from below by popular veneration 
(Brown, supra). 

Fhe outcome of Iconoclasm was a partial vic- 
tory for both sides. The Iconophiles, aided by 
thinkers such as JOHN oF Damascus, won the 
theological battle by formulating a theory of im- 
ages that regarded icons as efficacious vehicles of 
the holy and having it formally endorsed as Or- 
thodoxy. Yet the [conophiles owed their triumph 
to sympathetic emperors, whose authority over 
church affairs was thereby strengthened. In par- 
ticular, imperial jurisdiction over monasteries 


was established: strong, centralized monasteries 
(see STOUDIOS) were undermined and increasingly 
replaced by smaller, less cenobitic monasteries 
under state patronage and control. Moreover, re- 
ligious dissidents (see THEODORE OF STOUDIOS) 
failed in appeals to Rome to counter imperial 
efforts to dictate religious policy. The flight of 
many active monastic Iconophiles to the West 
permitted conformists like PHorios and EutHy- 
MIOS to hold the patriarchate. Among other con- 
sequences, the Iconoclasts’ reliance on nonrepre- 
sentational religious art contributed tọ the 
exaltation of the cult of the cross (J. Moorhead, 
Byzantion 55 [1985] 165-79), while in the West 
imperial support for Iconoclasm provoked de- 
nunciations from popes GREGORY II and GRE- 
GoRY III and pushed the papacy further toward 
dependence on the Franks (see also LIBRI CARO- 
LINI). 

utr. P. Schreiner, “Der byzantinische Bilderstreit: kri- 
tische Analyse der zeitgenössischen Meinungen und das 
Urteil der Nachwelt bis heute,” SettStu 34.1 (1988) 319- 
407. A. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin: Le dossier archéologique” 
(Paris 1984). D. Stein, Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilder- 
streites und seine Entwicklung (Munich 1980). H. Hennephof, 


Textus byzantinos ad iconomachiam pertinentes in usum academ- 
icum (Leiden 1969). —P.A.H.. A.C. 


ICONODULES. See ICONOPHILES. 


ICONOGRAPHY, the demonstrative subject 
matter of Byz. works of arr, imbued above all 
with Christianity and the cult of the EMPEROR. 
While HISTORY PAINTING, PORTRAITS, and PERSON- 
IFICATIONS were inherited from antiquity and re- 
mained abiding subjects, in other areas of content 
marked changes are discernible. As early Chris- 
tan concern with TYPOLOGY declined, Old Testa- 
ment subjects tended to disappear save where 
themes such as the ARK OF THE COVENANT were 
newly interpreted. By the oth G. a broad range 
of motifs from the New Testament and Apocry- 
pha was in use, as well as an extensive hagiograph- 
ical repertory. The gth-11th C. saw new themes 
created under the influence of the LiTuRGy and 
homiletic sources; developments intensified in the 
12th C. when special attention was paid to such 
motifs as the Melismos (see Fraction) and pa- 
thetic aspects of Christology. A secular repertory 
drawing on classical mythology was used already 
in the roth C., enriched with motifs taken from 


ICONS 977 


both everyday life and the West, esp. in the Kom- 
nenian era. The multiplication and extension of 
monumental cycles, often dependent on HYMNOG- 
RAPHY, and the claboration of PREFIGURATIONS of 
the Virgin, are marked characteristics of 18th- 
and 14th-C, art. 

LIT. A. Grabar, Christan Iconography (Princeton 1968). 
G. Millet, Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'évangile aux XIVe, 
XVe et XVIe siècles (Paris 1916). C. Walter. Art and Ritual of 
the Byzantine Church (London 1982). S. Dufrenne, “Prob- 


lémes iconographiques dans la peinture monumentale du 
début du XIVe siècle,” in Symp. Gračanica 29-38. -A.C. 


ICONOPHILES (cixovodtirers, “lovers of im- 
ages”), also iconodules (eixovddovaAor, “servants of 
images”), a term apparently coined during the 
period of IcONOCLASM—it occurs as early as the 
8th C. (Lampe, Lexicon 410)—to denote those who 
defended the holiness of icons and the propriety 
of icon veneration; they called their opponents 
iconoclasts (eikovoxAadotat, “image-breakers”). 
Among the most prominent iconophiles were Patr. 
GERMANOS I, JOHN oF Damascus, THEODORE OF 
Stouvios, Patr. NIKEPHOROS I, STEPHEN THE 
YOUNGER, THEODORE GRapTos, and EUTHYMIOS 
oF SARDIS. Monks were the most ardent icono- 
philes and suffered particularly under Constan- 
tine V and at the hands of Michael LacHANo- 
DRAKON. -P.A.H. 


ICONOSTASIS. See TEMPLON. 


ICONS (sing. ikov, “image”). In its broadest 
sense an icon is any representation of a sacred 
personage, produced in many media and sizes, 
monumental as well as portable; in its narrowest 
sense icon most often refers to a painted wooden 
devotional panel (see “Painted Icons,” below). 

Icon Veneration and the Theory of Images. 
lhe term ekon was ambiguous, applied even to 
ancient statues, while other terms of pagan vocab- 
ulary, such as stele or agalma, could be used for 
images of Christ. On the other hand, the Byz. 
tried to contrast eikon with eidolon (idol), which 
was an embodiment of pagan cult; sometimes, 
however, the difference between them disap- 
peared as in the story about a heathen ektypoma 
that turned out to be an image of the Archangel 
Michael (Malal. 78f). 

Christianity inherited a hosule attitude toward 


978 | ICONS: PAINTED ICONS 


images from the Old Testament prohibition of 


Exodus 20:4 (“Thou shalt not make .. . any 
graven image”) and from the era of persecutions, 
when Christians were forced to sacrifice in front 
of imperial images. Many early church fathers 
(c.g., EUSEBIOS OF CAESAREA, EptpHANnios of Cy- 
prus) disapproved of icons, esp. those of Christ, 
since he should be worshiped as an “image (eikon) 
of the invisible God.” Nevertheless, Christians 
decorated their CATACOMBS and eventually their 
churches with images that were considered to be 
holy. Church fathers such as Basi, THE GREAT 
defended the veneration of images as offered not 
to the picture but to the prototype (PG 32:149C). 

The dispute became acute in the 8th and gth 
C. during the controversy over IconoctasM. ‘The 
Iconoclasts argued that portrayal of Christ leads 
either to Nestorian separation of humanity from 
divinity or Monophysite confusion of humanity 
and divinity; they considered the eucharistic ele- 
ments as the only proper “icon” of Christ. lcon- 
OPHILES, the defenders of icon veneration (pri- 
marily Jonn of Damascus, THEODORE OF STOUDIOS, 
Patr. NikEPHOROS I), developed Basil’s idea and 
elaborated the concept of three levels of image: 
Christ as the natural image of the Father; man as 
the divine image by adoption and imitation; and 
the icon as an artistic image of Christ or the saints. 
Consequently, they also developed a terminology 
to differentiate the veneration of icons: they dis- 
tinguished the relative veneration (dmetike/schetike 
proskynesis) of the icon and saints from the genuine 
worship (latreia) of the object depicted and stressed 
that the purpose of veneration was to arouse 
devotion. Attacking the Iconoclasts, they con- 
nected the latter’s anti-iconic attitude with Mani- 
chaean (Paulician) and Jewish tenets. John of Da- 
mascus emphasized the didactic role of icons, esp. 
for the illiterate, whereas the LETTER OF THE THREE 
PATRIARCHS and saints’ vitae describe the won- 
drous power of icons, which could heal the sick 
and bring retribution on assailants. 

The principles of icon veneration were sum- 
marized at the Second Council of Nicaka (787), 
which, however, laid greater emphasis on the tra- 
dition of miracle-working icons (such as the Man- 
DYLION and other ACHEIROPOIETA, likenesses “not 
made by human hand”) than on theological sub- 
ueties. Doubts about icon veneration remained 
alive even after the defeat of Iconoclasm (J. Gouil- 
lard, AnnEPHE, 5e section, 86 [1977/8] 29-50). 


ur. G.B. Ladner, “Ihe Concept of the Image in the 
Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Contro- 
versy,” DOP 7 (1953) 1-34. E. Kitzinger. “The Cult of 
Images in the Age before Iconoclasm,” DOP 8 (1954) 83- 
150. Th. Nikolaou, “Die Ikonenverehrung als Beispiel ost- 
kirchlicher Theologie und Frömmigkeit nach Johannes von 
Damaskos,” OstkSt 25 (1976) 138-65. S. Gero, “Cyril of 
Alexandria, Image Worship, and the Vita of Rabban Hor- 
mizd,” OrChr 62 (1978) 77-97. L. Barnard, “lhe Theology 
of Images,” in /eonoclasm 7-13. M. Loos, “Einzige Strittige 
Fragen der ikonoklastischen Ideologie," BBA 51 (1983) 
131-51. P. Henry, “The Formulators of Icon Doctrine,” jn 
Schools of Thought in the Christian Tradition, ed. P. Henry 
(Philadelphia 1984) 75-89. -G.P., R.S. 


PAINTED Icons. The painted wooden panel is 
the most copiously preserved and lJongest-lived 
genre of that very distinctive form of Byz. art, the 
portable devotional icon. Its history can be studied 
best from the panels at the monastery of St. CATH- 
ERINE, Sinai, the only comprehensive collection of 
Byz. examples that survives. The earliest pre- 
served panel-painted icons—some 27, all at Sinai— 
belong to the 6th—7th C. (Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, 
nos. B.1—B.31). All are on wood and are from 14 
to gz cm high. They use antique media, either 
encaustic (pigment suspended in wax) or tempera 
(pigment suspended in egg yolk, the medium 
found in most post-Iconoclastic panels). Their 
forms—likewise anttque—include single rectan- 
gular panels, piprycus (derived from writing tab- 
lets), and rRiprycus (recalling Late Antique de- 
vouonal triptychs with images of the gods); no 
round examples survive, but they are depicted in 
other media and so may have existed. Their por- 
trait compositions echo Late Antique commem- 
orative PORTRAITS and imperial lavrata. Themati- 
cally varied, with New Testament theophanies, 
Old Testament scenes promising salvation, and 
ful- and half-length portraits of Christ, the Virgin 
Mary, prophets, and major saints, they reflect not 
so much liturgical formulas as private devotions. 
Chronologically, these panels coincide with exten- 
sive evidence in other media and in saints’ vitae 
of images mediating the holy. Thus they seem to. 
reflect a significant stage in the development of 
the icon, as it moved from private use into more 
public visibility. The diverse subjects and formats 
of these earliest panels indicate that most came 
into the church as private vorive donations, and 
their use remained extraliturgical, focusing indi- 
vidual devotions. 

Panels of the 8th and gth C.—surviving only at 
Sinai (Weitzmann, Sinai Icons, nos. B.g2-B.41)— 









my ee 








Icons. Painted icon; late 13th C. Dumbarton Oaks, 
Washington, D.C. St. Peter is depicted holding a scroll 
and a long-handled cross; his keys hang around his neck. 
Probably of Macedonian origin. 


are exceedingly scant and probably of provincial 
origin. Examples of the 10th and 11th C. are less 
rare. They reflect the centralized character of the 
Byz. world at this time, as art was linked firmly to 
liturgy and the liturgy itself was regularized. The- 
matically, art was thoroughly coordinated with 
liturgy by exhibiting established fiturgicai feasts: 
images were attached to particular feasts and their 
compositions standardized to represent both the 
event or person commemorated and the feast 
itself. This set repertoire of liturgically deter- 
mined representations was adopted in all media, 
including panel painting, displacing the carlier 
heterogeneous devotional imagery. Functionally, 
the painted panel—though never adopted into 
the actual liturgical ceremouy—was similarly co- 
ordinated with liturgical practice when the church 


ICONS: PAINTED ICONS 979 


TEMPLON emerged as the focus for its public dis- 
play. Normally stored on hooks in aisles or the 
sanctuary, panels were moved to the templon— 
OF tO a PROSKYNEFARION in front of 1t—on the day 
of the feast they represented. Shifted in accord 
with shifting feasts, the panels remained portable, 
seldom exceeding the height of about one meter 
accommodated by the templon. In shape, how- 
ever, they adapted to the rectangular intercol- 
umniations of the templon, and only private panels 
retamed the varied anuque forms. 

Panels of the mid-rrth through 12th C. are 
characterized more by innovation and prolifera- 
tion than by standardization. The liturgy, now 
thoroughly regularized, was enriched emotionally 
by the incorporation of evocative Ceremonies, esp. 
those of Hoty Week. This opened the way for 
artistic invention within hturgical boundaries, 
generating new, emouonally charged images based 
on hymns and prayers: the Man or SORROWS, 
variants of the Vircin ELeousa, Symeon Glyko- 
philon (see Hypapante), the major bilateral icons 
(sec below). These new themes were suited to, 
and probably originated as, devotional panels. 
They coincided with an expanded use of panel- 
painted icons in both public and private devotion. 
Richer patterns for the disposition of panels in 
church and templon emerged, generating new 
and distinctively Byz. shapes: the long. narrow 
templon beam displaying a Great DrEEsis or GREAT 
Feasts cycle; the panels hung in the templon’s 
intercolumniations, usually showing Christ, Mary, 
John the Baptist, or the church’s patron saint; the 
holy (or “royal”) doors in the templon adorned 
with the ANNUNCIATION; the Crucifixion mounted 
above the templon; the calendar icons, whose 
registers display the feast images for entire months; 
and the hagiographical or “vita” icons, showing a 
saint surrounded by scenes from his or her life. 
While such images may often have been made of 
precious materiais in the churches of Constanu- 
nople, panel painting was generally adopted, 
proving preferable in scale, weight, adaptability, 
and affordability. Many more pane] paintings sur- 
vive from the 12th C. than from any earlier cen- 
tury. Sinai itself was fully furbished with panel- 
painted icons then, and panel painting began to 
take on a local cast in the byzantinizing cultures 
of Russia and Italy. 

The climactic proliferation of panel painting 
came in Palaiologan art. The r4qth is the first 


980 ICONS: BILATERAL ICONS 


century in which panel paintings dominate works 
in other media both numerically and artistically. 
More panels are preserved than icons in other 
media; for the first time they survive from all 
parts of the Orthodox world, reflecting numerous 
local traditions. Their imagery expands, embrac- 
ing complex allegories and arcane New Testa- 
ment and hagiographical events. Other media 
imitate them: MS illumination contracts to fron- 
tispieces resembling icons; monumental painting 
exhibits grids of iconlike rectangular pictures; in 
the realm of precious inaterials, the miniature 
mosaic (see “Mosaic Icons” below), which attempts 
to imitate the fluid modeling of panel painting, 
displaces the more abstract media like enamel. 
The templon develops into the tconostasis, the 
opaque screen of fixed icons, tier upon tier. 

Little is known about icon painters. Though 
some were monks, others were clearly laymen, 
and many practiced in a variety of media (see 
ARTISTS). 

uit. Belting, Bild und Kult 11-330. M. Chatzidakis. 
“L'icône byzantine,” Saggi e memorie di storia dell’arte 2 (1959) 
g—40. W. Felicetti-Liebenfels, Geschichte der byzantinischen 
Ikonenmalerei (Olten-Lausanne 1956). Soteriou, Eżkones. K. 
Weitzmann, “Icon Programs of the 12th and 13th Centu- 
ries at Sinai,” DCAAE* 12 (1984) 63-116. K. Weitzmann et 
al., The Fcon (New York 1982). -A.W.C. 


BILATERAL ICONS. The term bilateral is usually 
reserved for panel-painted icons of fair size, dis- 
playing thematically related compositions on both 
faces. Some 37 Byz. examples survive; the earliest 
is of the 11th C. The obverse generally shows the 
Pantokrator, the Virgin Mary, or a saint and the 
reverse a Christological or Marian feast, or scenes 
from the life of the saint. Most widespread is the 
pairing of the VIRGIN HopEGETRIA and CRUCIFIX- 
ION. In fact, the Hodegetria icon in Constantino- 
ple seems to have originated the whole genre: 
being the object of special veneration on Good 
Friday, the Virgin icon was at some unknown 
point furnished with an image of the Crucifixion 
on its reverse. From this model, apparently, sprang 
the idea of pairing a church’s patron saint with a 
GREAT Feast and esp. the idea of pairing the 
Virgin prescient of her infant’s death with an 
image of that death itself. The actual use of bilat- 
eral icons remains unclear; hung ordinarily on 
the templon screen, they were surely displayed 
on special occasions in processions or on stands 
(PROSKYNETARIA), where their conjunction of im- 


ages could be appreciated. Though some icons, 
such as the great palladia—the Hodegetria and 
the VIRGIN OF VLADIMiR—may have become bi- 
lateral as cult practices developed around them, 
other icons were bilateral from the start. 


LIT. Pallas, Passion und Bestattung 89—97, 308-32. 
-A.W.C. 


METAL Icons. Vulnerable because their mate- 
rial could be reused, few icons in precious metals 
survive today. They were numerous in the Byz. 
era, however, in both public and private contexts. 
In private use, gold, silver, bronze, cloisonné 
ENAMEL, and CAMEOS were formed into icons for 
personal adornment on AMULETS, PENDANTS, BELTS, 
and RINGS. Byz. wills refer to devotional icons of 
silver and copper. Silver examples do not survive, 
though several small bronze panels seein to copy 
more costly silver models, just as the gilded bronze 
triptych in London reflects models in ivory 
(K.Weitzmann, The Icon: Holy Images, Sixth to Four- 
teenth Century [New York 1978], fig.E). In the 
public realm, cloisonné icons adorned not only 
imperial and ecclesiastical vestments and vessels, 
but also church furniture. The Para D'ORO in S. 
Marco in Venice preserves Byz. enamels both 
from the church’s 12th-C. antependium (altar front) 
and from the templon beam of the Pantokrator 
Monastery in Constantinople. ‘These represent 
Christ, apostles, angels, and Great Feasts. Indi- 
vidual metal icons most often show single figures: 
Christ, the Virgin Mary, an archangel or a major 
saint (military saints, Nicholas of Myra). The most 
spectacular surviving examples are the two cloi- 
sonné and relief panels of St. MICHAEL in Venice 
(Treasury S. Marco, nos. 12, 19); the paired cloi- 
sonné plaques there (nos. g, 14), now used as 
hookcovers, may originally have been used as de- 
votional panels in Byz. 

urr. A. Bank, Prikladnoe iskusstvo Vizantii (IX-XII vv.) 
(Moscow 1978) 64-71. Eadem, Byzantine Art in the Collections 


of the USSR (Leningrad-Moscow 1986), pls. 159-63, 180- 
85. IAW.. 


Mosaic Icons. Some 48 Byz. mosaic icons sur- 
vive from the 11th through 14th C. Artistic hy- 
brids of outstanding luxury, they unite the port- 
ability of panel paintings with the mosaic technique 
of mural art and the precious materials of metal- 
work. Wax or resin on wood serves as a setting 
bed for jewellike tesserae of solid gold and silver, 
semiprecious stones, ivory, and enamel flux. One 





Icons. Mosaic icon, early [4th C. Museo dell’Opera del 
Duomo, Florence. Right half of a diptych showing six 
of the Great Feasts: Entry into Jerusalem, Crucifixion, 
Anastasis, Ascension, Pentecost, Dormition of the Vir- 


gin. 


group, which includes the earliest examples, con- 
tains relatively large panels (23-34 X 62—92 cm) 
that reproduce greatly venerated single-figure 
prototypes, esp. of Christ and the Virgin Mary, 
and reflect the setting techniques of mural mosaic. 
Many of these originated on templon beams and 
were not initially portable. By the roth C., the 
technique of this group came to be dominated by 
the diminutive, densely set tesserae and opulent 
colors developed for a second group. This second 
group, preeminently of 14th-C. examples, com- 
prises tiny mosaics of 6—10 by 18-26 cm. Showing 
single saints or Great Frasrs and often set like 
genis in ornate silver frames, these tiny examples 
were surely madc for private devotion, most prob- 
ably in Constantinople. Of consummate crafts- 
manship, they use tesserae of 1 sq. mm, set so 


IDIORRHYTHMIC MONASTICISM 981 


densely that they appear seamless and breathtak- 
ingly illusionistic. Sometimes their media are mixed, 
with molded haloes of gilded gesso around mosaic 
figures or Mosaic highlights in painted fields 
(Florence diptych). 

Lir. l. Furlan, Le icone bizantine a mosaico (Milan 1979). 
O. Demus, “Two Palacologan Mosaic Icons in the Dum- 
barton Oaks Collection.” DOP 14 (1960) 87-119. A-A. 
Krickelberg-Pütz, “Die Mosaikikone des HI. Nikolaus in 
Aachen-Burtschied,” Aachener Kunstblätter 50 (1982) 56- 
141. -A.W.C. 


IC XC NIKA, partly abbreviated form of the 
Greek “Ingots Xpiaros vika, “Jesus Christ, con- 
quer,” or “Inaovs Xpiorés vikG, “Jesus Christ con- 
quers” (DOC 3.1:231). Inspired by Constantine I's 
vision at the MıLvian BRIDGE, the slogan was 
repeated during acclamations in the Hippo- 
drome. The sigla occur on various objects, for 
example, on a commemorative inscription of 740— 
41 on the walls of Constantinople and cantoned 
within the arms of the cross on pages of the Paris 
Gregory and the Bible of Leo Sakellarios. In this 
form they served gencrally as invocatory or apo- 
tropaic signs at the entrances to houses and 
churches, on bread stamps, and on the backs of 
icons and ivories. On coins, a similar formula èv 
TOUT@ viKa was introduced in 641 (DOC 2.1:101); 
although it was replaced by IC XC NIKA under 
Leo ILI, it reappears in the 11th C. 


LIT. A. Frolow, “IC XC NIKA,” BS 17 (1956) 98-113, 
~-AC. 


IDACIUS. See Hyparius. 


IDIORRHYTHMIC MONASTICISM, an indi- 
vidualized form of monastic life. The term idzor- 
rhythmia (i6co(p)pvdpia), meaning “following one’s 
own devices,” is found as early as the 5th C. (Mark 
the Hermin PO 65:1037,4), bul tu type of mun- 
ASTICISM did not become at all common until the 
Palaiologan era and has a negative connotation 
throughout the Byz. period. In general, idior- 
rhythmic monasticism has been condemned by 
the Eastern church (as in the typzkon tor the mon- 
astery of AREIA, 249.13—14) because of its devia- 
tion trom the traditional ideals of the KOINOBION, 
or cenobitisrn. Nonetheless, by the late 14th C. 
the idiorrhythmic regime appears to have become 
established in some monasteries on Mt. ATHOS as 


R 


982 IDOL 


an alternative to the cenobitic or eremitic form of 
monasticism. [diorrhythmic monks are permitted 
to acquire personal property; through their labor 
they earn income to purchase food and clothing. 
They take their meals separately in their cells 
rather than in a communal refectory and may eat 
meat. The organization of an idiorrhythmic mon- 
astery also differs from its cenobite counterpart; 
instead of the absolute rule of a HEGOUMENOS 
elected for life, the affairs of the monastery are 
administered by an oligarchic council (synaxis) of 
proistamenot who make decisions and two or three 
epitropoi who execute them. 

itr. Meester, De monachico statu 5. 27-30, 78-81, 2gt— 
98. E. Amand de Mendieta, La presquile des caloyers: Le 


Mont-Athos (Paris 1955) 45-47. 85-91. Meyer, Haupturkun- 
den 57-64. -A M.T. 


IDOL (cidwdov), a generic disdainful term used 
by Christian apologists to characterize pagan gods 
and their images, idolatry being synonymous with 
pagan worship. The Christians emphasized that 
idols were dead and that their veneration was 
instigated by DEMONS. The term also designated 
phantoms, ghosts, and hallucinations, but it was 
applied to statues without derogatory connotation 
(Av. Cameron, J. Herrin in Parastaseis 31). Fhe 


multiple meanings of the term became obvious 
during the dispute over Iconoclasm when the 
Iconodules were accused of idolatry and had to 
elaborate a strict distinction between the dead ido} 
that did not represent anything but itself—wood, 
stone, or metal—and the icon that as the image 
of God, the Virgin Mary, or saints had to be 
distinguished from its material in the same way 
that the parchment, ink, and paint on manuscripts 
were distinguished from the word of the Lord, 

-A.K. 


IDRĪSĪ, AL-, more fully Muhammad ibn Mu- 
hammad al-Idrisi, Arab geographer, cartogra- 
pher, and botanist; born Ceuta (North Africa) 
1100, died Ceuta ca.1165. Educated in Islamic 
Cordoba, he traveled throughout Spain and other 
parts of the Mediterranean world. In 1138 he was 
invited by RoGeR II to settle in Palermo, where 
he led a team of cartographers and researchers 
that produced a spherical map and a world ge- 
ography. The resulting Yearning Man’s Journey, or 
Book of Roger (begun 1139, completed Jan. 1154, 
under Roger's official patronage), is perhaps the 
best work of medieval cartography, marking the 
climax of Arab geography and demonstrating 


Ipor. St. Cornelius causing the destruction of a pagan temple and its idols. Minia- 
ture in the Menologion of Basil IH (Vat. gr. 1613, p.125). Biblioteca Apostolica Vati- 


cana. At the right, the death of the saint. 





Norman Sicily’s intellectual achievement. Al-Idrisi 
wrote a summary of this for William 1. 

Besides his description of Sicily, Italy, Spain, 
northern Europe, and Africa, some of his material 
on Byz. is original, though he freely uses earlier 
Arab geographers. The assumption that he visited 
Constantinople or Asia Minor is based on a mis- 
reading of his statements. He adds new informa- 
tion on later developments, topography, towns, 
ports, and economic and commercial activity in 
Byz., Seljuk Asia Minor, Armenia, Trebizond, and 
the Balkans. His work on Materia Medica seems to 
distinguish between ancient and Byz. Greek. 

BD. Al-ldrisi Opus Geographicum, ed. E. Cerulli et al., 9 
fasc. (Naples-Rome 1970—84), esp. fasc. 7 (1977). Fr. tr. 
P.A. Jaubert, La géographie d'Edrisi, vol. 2 (Paris 1840) 122- 
41. 286-319, 391-99. 

uit. Kračkovskij, Geog. Lit. 281—906. B. Nedkov, Bilgarya 
i sūsednile i zemi prez XH vek spored “Geografyjata™ na Idrisi 
(Sofia 1960). K. Miller, Weltkarte des Arabers Idrisi vom Jahre 


r154” (Stuttgart 1981). G. Oman, EI? 3:1032-35,. 
-A.Sh. 


IGNATIJ OF SMOLENSK, writer; fl. 1389—1405. 
Ignatij (Ignatios) traveled from Moscow to Con- 
stantinople in 1389 in the entourage of Metr. 
Pimen. After Pimen’s death (Sept. 1389) and the 
appointment of Kiprian, lgnatij remained in 
Constantinople at least until 1392 and probably 
in the Balkans and on Athos until ca.1405. The 
three works soundly attributed to him—a Journey 
to Constantinople (1389—92), a Description of Thes- 
salonike and the Holy Mountain, and parts of an 
Abbreviated Chronicle to 1404—together form a 
selective diary of Ignatij’s observations. The me- 
ticulous details and chronologies make Ignatij’s 
works valuable and varied repositories of infor- 
mation. Topics on which he is the sole or main 
eyewitness source include the Don River route to 
Constantinople; the struggle for the throne be- 
tween John VH and Manuel TT in 1990-91, as 
reflected in the life of the capital; and the coro- 
nation of Manuel II in 1392. [gnatij also provides 
a list of churches in Thessalonike and the earliest 
Eastern Slavic description of Athos. His Journey 
relates his own visits to the sacred sites in chro- 
nological order; he neither presents a systematic 
itinerary nor details legends and stories about the 
monuments. He does, however, employ some of 
the formulas and phraseology of the “pilgrim 
book” genre. 


IGNATIOS 983 


ED. Choidenie Ignatija Smol’njanina, ed. N. Prokofev, in 
Literatura drevnej Rusi, 2. Shornik trudov (Moscow 1978) 123— 
50. Majeska, Russian Travelers 48—113, 388—436, with Eng. 
tr. 

uT. K. Seemann, “Zur Texttiberlieferung der dem Ig- 
natij von Smolensk zugeschriebenen Werke,” ByzF 2 (1967) 
345-69. M.N. Tichomirov, “Puti iz Rossii v Vizantiju v 
XIV-XV wy,” VizOč (1961) 4-10. -S.C.F. 


IGNATIOS, patriarch of Constantinople (4 July 
847-23 Oct. 858; 23 Nov. 867-23 Oct. 877) and 
saint; baptismal name Niketas; born Constanti- 
nople ca.797/8, died Constantinople; feastday 23 
Oct. He is sometimes called Ignatios the Younger 
(ho neos) to distinguish him from the 1st-C. church 
father Ignatios Theophoros. After the deposition 
of his father, Emp. Michael I Rangabe, in 813, 
Ignatios, together with his brothers, was castrated 
and forced to take monastic vows. He became 
hegoumenos of three monasteries that he had 
founded on the Princes’ Islands. In the aftermath 
of the Iconoclast controversy, Empress THEODORA 
appointed him to succeed MeETHODIOS I as patri- 
arch without convening an elective synod, since 
she wanted to avoid stirring up enmity between 
the Stoudites and the moderates. Ignatios found 
a modus vivendi with the Stoudites but aroused the 
opposition of the moderates led by Gregory As- 
BESTAS. The patriarch’s position deteriorated when 
Caesar Barbas took power and exiled Theodora; 
deprived of her support, Ignatios was forced to 
resign. 

He was replaced by PHotios, who had to give 
some guarantees to the former patriarch and his 
followers, but the guarantees were soon broken; 
the appointment of Asbestas to the see of Syracuse 
became the external cause of the clash. Ignatios, 
who had been temporarily exiled by Bardas to 
the island of Terebinthos, was allowed to return 
to his mother’s palace in the capital. He remained 
moderate, but the Ignatians attacked Photios and 
attempted to draw Pane Nicuarac T ta their cide 
At first Nicholas was reluctant to support them, 
stating that Ignatios had been elected noncanon- 
ically, but eventually the pope used this conflict 
as a means to intervene in the affairs of the church 
of Constantinople. 

In 867 Basil I, in his search for a Western 
alliance, restored Ignatios to the patriarchal throne 
and banished Photios, but Ignatios refused to 
vield to the papacy; he managed to draw Bulgaria 
into the Byz. ecclesiastical orbit and probably sub- 


984 IGNATIOS OF NICAEA 


jected the young church in Moravia to Constan- 
unople. This active anti-Western policy of Basil I 
and Ignatios made senseless their antagonism to 
Photios; the latter was released from exile, suc- 
ceeded [gnatios after his death, and contributed 
to the sanctification of Ignatios. A unique mosaic 
portrait of Ignatios preserved in Hagia Sophia 
was probably created shortly after 886. The vita 
of Ignatios by Nikevas Davin PAPHLAGON is per- 
meated by hatred for Photios and contains more 
derision of Photios than eulogy of Ignatios. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 2, nos. 444-55, 498-507. F. Dvornik, 
New Catholic Encyclopedia 7:351f. R. Janin, DTC 7 (1930) 
713722. P. Stephanou, “La violauon du compromis entre 
Photius et les ignatiens,” OrChrP 21 (1955) 291-307. 

-A.K. 


IGNATIOS OF NICAEA. See IGNATIOS THE 


DEACON. 


IGNATIOS OF SMOLENSK. See Icnary OF 
SMOLENSK. 


IGNATIOS THE DEACON, writer; born ca.770— 
80, died after 845, if the kanon on the FORTY- 
Two Martyrs or AMoRION (ed. V. Vasil’evskiy, 
P. Nikitin, p.80.44) ascribed to “Ignatios” belongs 
to him and not to one of his numerous naniesakes. 
A pupil and collaborator of Patr. Tarasios, Ig- 
natios was ordained by him deacon and became 
skeuophylax; after Tarasios’s deposition (806) Ig- 
natios sided with the Iconoclasts and was later 
elected metropolitan of Nicaea. He later regretted 
this change of heart. At some point he became a 
monk on Mt. Olympos. 

The Soupa lists his works, including the vitae 
of Tarasios and Patr. NtkEPpHoRoOS I, funeral ele- 
gies, letters, and (now lost) iambics against THOMAS 
THE Slav. On a stylistic basis Ševčenko attributed 
to him the vitac of GREGORY OF DEKAPOLIS and 
GEORGE OF AMASTRIS (in Iconoclasm 121-25). 
Probably Ignatios also wrote several poetic works, 
such as verses on Adam (a dialogue between Adam, 
Eve, and the Serpent), verses on Lazarus and the 
rich man, moral sentences in alphabetical order; 
the existence of other Ignatioi prevents certain 
identification. A member of the generation that 
followed THEOPHANES and THEODORE OF STOU- 
DIOS, Ignatios revealed interest in the ancient her- 
itage, esp. in Sophocles and Euripides (R. Brown- 


ing, REGr 81 [1968] 405-07), and emphasized 
the rhetorical adornment of his speech. Lipšic 
(Očerki 404-05) hypothesized that Ignatios was 
represented with Patr. John VII in a caricature 
in the Khludov PSALTER. 

ED. For list of his works, see Tusculum-Lexikon 360~61. 

LIT. W. Wolska-Conus, “'De quibusdam Ignatis,’” TM 
4 (1970) 329-60. C. Mango, “Observations on the Corre- 
spondence of Ignatius, Metropolitan of Nicaea,” TU 125, 
(1981) 403-10. -A.K. 


IGNATIUS, PSEUDO-, conventional name for 
the author of the interpolations made perhaps 
ca.360—380 in the text of the letters of St. Igna- 
tius, bishop of Antioch (died ca.107). The inter- 
polations mainly concern the role of the bishop. 
The interpolator appears to be a follower of Ar- 
IANISM, and various candidates have been pro- 
posed, for example, Akakios of Caesarea (died 
366), Eunomios, Silvanos of Tarsos (O. Perler, 
Hist] 77 [1958] 73-82), and JULIAN OF HALikar- 
NASSOS. It is possible that he is to be equated with 
the author of the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS. 

ED. K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 (London- 
Cambridge, Mass., 1959) 166—277, with Eng. tr. 

LIT. J. Rius-Camps. The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, 
the Martyr (Rome 1980). R. Joly, Le dossier d’'Ignace d'Antioche 
(Brussels 1979). -B.B. 


IGOR, prince of Kiev, successor of OLEG; died 
945. In 941 Igor led a fleet of small boats (mono- 
xyla) against Constantinople. Byz. ships under 
command of the patrikios THEOPHANES met them 
at Hieron on i1 June and prevented Igor from 
attacking the capital. He probably left for Kiev 
after this failure, but the boats from Rus’ re- 
mained in the area for two months, plundering 
the Bithynian coast (from Pontic Herakleia to the 
border of Paphlagonia, according to the vita of 
BASIL THE YOUNGER). The government of Roma- 
nos I recalled some troops of John KOURKOUAS 
from the eastern frontier and dispatched Theo- 
phanes with a fleet; he used GREEK FIRE and on 
15 Sept. destroyed the boats of the Rus’ near the 
Thracian coast; the remnants of their army headed 
homeward by land. According to common schol- 
arly opinion, in 943 or 944 Igor again launched 
his forces against Byz., but Byz. envoys met the 
army at the estuary of the Danube; after negoti- 
ations a new treaty was signed that provided Kie- 
van merchants with less favorable conditions than 


those established in the treaty signed by Oleg. 
Soon thereafter Igor was murdered while collect- 
ing tribute from the Drevljane, a neighboring 
tribe. 

ut. Levéenko, Rus-VizOtn 128-71. A.N. Sacharov, Di- 
plomatija drevnej Rusi (Moscow 1980) 209-58. N.Ja. Polovoj, 
“K voprosu o pervom pochode Igorja protiv Vizantiji,” 
VizVrem 18 (1961) 85-104. G. Vernadsky, “The Rus’ in the 
Crimea and the Russo-Byzantine Treaty of 945,” Byz- 
Metabyz 1.1 (1946) 249-60. H. Grégoire. P. Orgels, “Les 
invasions russes dans le Synaxaire de Constantinople,” By- 
zantion 24 (1954) 141—45. ~A.K. 


IKONION ('Ikóviov, now Konya), city of Prstp1a 
in the mid-4th C., metropolis of LyKaonta from 
ca.370, incorporated into the ANATOLIKON theme 
in the 7th C. The execution of Isaurian prisoners 
in 354 at Ikonion provoked the great Isaurian 
revolt. St. (THEKLA was believed to have miracu- 
lously saved Ikonion from a later Isaurian attack. 
Its first metropolitan was St. AMPHILOCHIOS. From 
the 8th to 10th C., Arabs frequently attacked 
Ikonion and its neighboring fortress, Kabala. 
Plundered by the Turks in 1069, Ikonion was the 
scene of the revolt of RousseL pe BAILLEUL. It 
fell to the Seljuks in 1084 and flourished as their 
capital. The city was briefly occupied by the Cru- 
saders in 1097, its suburbs were ravaged by Man- 
uel I in 1146. Most of its Byz. monuments, in- 
cluding the 11th-C. Church of St. Amphilochios, 
have disappeared, but the Byz. fortress of Kabala 
and the rock-cut churches of Sille, both in the 
immediate vicinity of the city, survive. 


LIT. TIB 4:176~—78, 182f, 224f. G. Goodwin, E/? 5:253- 
56. -C.F. 


ILARION (Hilarion), author of Discourse on Law 
and Grace [Slovo o zakone i blagodati] (ca.1049) and 
a Confession of Faith (ca.1051?); metropolitan of 
Kiev (1051-ca.1054). The Discourse, the most sus- 
tained and crudite rhetorical work of Ricvai Rus 
(see Rus’, LITERATURE OF), celebrates the conver- 
sion of Rus’ within the context of sacred history: 
the Grace of Christianity superseded the Law of 
Moses, just as Sarah the free woman superseded 
Hagar the bondmaid, and reached Rus’ through 
the divinely inspired free choice of VLADIMIR L. 
The homily ends with an enkomion to Vladimir 
and a prayer for the land of Rus’. The Discourse’s 
language, typology, style, and structure owe much 
to Byz. rhetoric and exegeses, leading to conjec- 


ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN 985 


ture that Ilarion read Greek (F. Thomson, Slavica 
Gandensia 10 [1983] 67-102). Influence from 
CZECH LITERATURE Is also possible (N.N. Rozov, 
TODRL 23 [1968] 71-85). The appointment of 
Ilarion, the first native metropolitan of Kiev, by 
Prince Jaroslav of Kiev and the composition of 
the Discourse are sometimes interpreted as anti- 
Byz. acts. The circumstances of Harion’s election 
are unknown, however, and the Discourse, pro- 
claiming Vladimir to be a “likeness of Constantine 
the Great,” manifestly presents Byz. as the cul- 
tural prototype rather than as a political or eccle- 
siastical threat. 

ED. L. Müller, Des Metropoliten Harion Lobrede auf Vladimir 
den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis (Wiesbaden 1962). Slovo 
o zakone i blagodati Iariona, ed. A.M. Moldovan (Kiev 1984). 
Eng. tr. N. Ickler, Comitatus 9 (1978) 19-54. 

ur. L. Müller, Die Werke des Metropoliten Harion (Munich 
1971). Fennell-Stokes, Russ. Lit. 41-60. E. Hurwitz, “Met- 
ropolitan Harion’s Sermon on Law and Grace,” Russian History 
7 (1980) 322-33. Podskalsky, Rus’ 84-87. 

—-S.CLF., P.A.H. 


ILIAD. See Homer; Troy TALE. 


ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (vóĝo:), also called 
spourioi, were, according to the Codex Justinianus, 
children born to a concubine (see CONCUBINAGE), 
an unmarried woman, or a prostitute (see PROS- 
TITUTION); progeny from the union of a free 
woman and slave were also considered illegiti- 
mate. Illegitimate children were legally deprived 
of the right to inherit from their father, but had 
the same relationship with their mother as legiti- 
mate children. The classical jurists did not give 
serious attention to this discrepancy; it was Justi- 
nian I who corrected the situation by making the 
father liable for supporting his children by a con- 
cubine. In novel 89 he considered ways of legiti- 
mizing nothot: the most recommended method 
was iv asuiive ie ty LIU CURIA, AHULDU! valid 
method was to assign a “charter of dowry” to the 
mother of a nothos, whether she was freeborn or 
a freedwoman, or the testamentary statement of 
a man who had fathered only illegitimate children 
that they were his heirs. High-born mothers were 
prohibited by both civil and canon law from mak- 
ing gifts of any sort to their natural children; 
legitimate offspring were thus protected from any 
form of disinheritance (J. Beaucamp, CahCM 20 


[1977] 158). 


986 | ILLOS 


Later Byz. law essentially retained the rules 
established by Justinian. In the 13th C. illegitimate 
progeny still had no right to inherit if there were 
legitimate descendants, even if they were collat- 
eral descendants (A. Laiou, FM 6 {1984} 295f). 
Patr. Nikephoros | considered the case of a fa- 
ther’s refusal to recognize his natural son (PG 
100:468B); the tribunal had to determine whether 
they had a physical resemblance; if not, the child 
was proclaimed ekphylos, “without family.” 

Despite such disadvantages, some nothoi (usually 
the children of emperors and courtiers) reached 
high positions, like the parakoimomenos BASIL THE 
NotHos (son of Romanos 1), and children of 
Manuel I and Andronikos I. IlIlegitiniate sons 
might serve as important hostages, and several 
illegitimate daughters of emperors were married 
to foreign rulers as diplomatic pawns. 

tir. P.A. Yannopoulos, La société profane dans [Empire 
byzantin (Louvain 1975) 232-36. H.J. Wolff, “The Back- 
ground of the Postclassical Legislation on Mlegitimacy.” 
Seminar 3 (1945) 21-45. H. Antontadis-Bibicou, “Quelques 
notes sur l'enfant de la moyenne époque byzanune,” An- 
nales DH (1973) 8of. -A.K.. J.H. 


ILLOS (‘TaAdos), rebellious general of Zeno; died 
fort of Papyrios (Paperon), Isauria, 488. An Is- 
aurian by birth, Illos together with his brothers 
Aspalios and Trokoundos supported Zeno’s rise 
to the throne. In 474 he fought successfully against 
the barbarians in Thrace; the same year, however, 
he switched his allegiance to BAsILiskos, who sent 
him to besiege Zeno in Sbide, an Isaurian strong- 
hold; there he again changed sides (Theophanes 
explains this saying that Basiliskos failed to fulfill 
“promises”) and helped Zeno recover his throne. 
He became patrikios and magister militum and, ac- 
cording to Malalas, administered the empire. Zeno’s 
wife ARIADNE and mother-in-law VERINA con- 
spired against Hlos unsuccessfully in 477 and 478; 
as a result, Verina was banished. In 479 Hlos 
suppressed the revolt of Verina’s son-in-law Mar- 
cian. In the winter of 481/2 Ariadne organized a 
third plot against the general. During the assault 
on him, Illos lost an ear. In 482-84, while in 
Antioch, Illos prepared a revolt against Zeno; at 
this time he gained the support of Verina, who 
crowned his ally Leontios. They were defeated 
by Zeno’s magister militum John the Scythian in 
484 and took refuge in the fort of Papyrios (J. 
Gottwald, BZ 36 [1936] 88f). Illos and Leontios 


held out for four years. They were eventually 
betrayed and executed. With regard to religious 
policy Illos appealed to the Orthodox against Zeno’s 
Monophysite tendencies, but he was also sympa- 
thetic toward paganism. The soothsayer PAMpre- 
pios was his adviser during the rebellion. A dis- 
trict in Constantinople was known as ta /Hou, and 
his house there became a church of St. John, 

Lit. Bury, LRE 1:39g0—-yg. PLRE 2:586-go. P. Lemerle, 
“FI. Appalius Illus Trocundus,” Syria 40 (1963) 315-22. H. 
Hunger, “Die Bauinschrift am Aquadukt von Elaiussa- 
Sebaste.” Tyche 1 (1986) 132-37. -T.E.G, 


ILLUMINATORS of Byz. MSS are rarely docu- 
mented in COLOPHONS or otherwise. The common 
term for an illuminator was zographos, “painter” 
(1. Ševčenko, DOP 16 [1962] 245, n.6), but prob- 
ably around the gth C. another term, chrysogra- 
phos, “one who writes in gold,” appeared—first 
mentioned in an obscure author, MELETIOS THE 
Monk, from the theme of Opsikion (PG 64:1309B). 
A few illuminators are known by name: PANTO- 
LEON and his team; Theodore of Caesarea, who 
wrote and illuminated the THEODORE PSALTER in 
1066; Michael Koresis, who “wrote in gold” a 
Georgian Gospel book in the late 12th/early 13th 
C. (E. Takaichvili, Byzantion 10 [1935] 659f). In 
verses accompanying a dedicatory miniature, the 
monk THEOPHANES claimed to be the donor, scribe, 
and illuminator of the Melbourne Gospels, but 
donors often took credit for making the object of 
their generosity. Finally, in the late 14th C. THEO- 
PHANES “THE GREEK,” described as an illuminator 
of books and a painter of churches, was asked to 
paint a leaf to be inserted in a MS. The practice 
had long been used by Byz. illuminators, but 
became increasingly frequent in the Palaiologan 
era. Generally the scriBe wrote the text of the 
MS, leaving space for the illuminator, who made 
a preliminary underdrawing, applied the gold 
ground, and then began to paint, concluding with 
the faces. (See also ARTISTS.) 


LIT. Belting, Illum. Buch 3-17. -R.S.N. 


ILLUSTRIS (idAovorpios), the highest ttle of 
SENATORS in the late Roman Empire. The term 
was used as a vague epithet much earlier, but 
acquired a specific technical meaning in the last 
quarter of the qth C. First it was bestowed on 
major officials such as PRAETORIAN PREFECT, UR- 


BAN PREFECT, MAGISTER MILITUM, CONSULS, and 
pATRIKIOI, and eventually on all senators. In the 
6th C. the most important dllustres were called 
GLORIOSI. Not being a hereditary utle (Guilland, 
Institutions 1:66f), it provided certain privileges, 
both fiscal (immunity from certain obligations) 
and ceremonial. The term remained in use in the 
ath C. Maximos THE Conrrssor (PG g1:644D) 
addressed a correspondent as “magnificent illus- 
tris,” and the Miracles of St. Demetrios (ed. Le- 
merle 1:161.7) speak of the “so-called ¿lloustrioi.” 
‘The term illustris does not appear in the TAKTIKA, 
although both legal and hagiographic texts (until 
the 11th C.) equate the title PROTOSPATHARILOS 
with it (e.g., A. Sigalas, EEBS 12 [1936] 355.12— 
13). 


trv. A. Berger, RE g (1914) 1070-85. Jones, LRE 1:528— 
36. —A.K, 


ILLYRICUM (‘lAAvpixov), a Roman province in 
the northwestern part of the Balkans. In the 4th 
C. attempts were made to create a prefecture of 
Illyricum, encompassing PANNONIA, MACEDONIA, 
and Dacia. After 395 this vast territory was di- 
vided into Illyricum occidentale and Illyricum orien- 
tale with capitals at Sirmium {?) and Thessalonike, 
respectively. Latin was the lingua franca in west- 
ern Illyricum. Beginning in the 2nd C. Christian- 
ity spread through western Illyricum, the two 
metropolitan sees, SALONA and Sirmium, being of 
principal importance. 

In the 5th to 7th C. IHyricum underwent var- 
ious invasions by Ostrogoths, Huns, Lombards, 
and Avars; Sklavenoi (second half of the 6th C.); 
Serbs and Croatians (7th C.); and, after 680, Bul- 
gars, who began to play a decisive role in IIlyri- 
cum. The ancient cities declined and assumed a 
rural character (V. Popovic in Palast und Hütte 
[Mainz 1982] 545-66). Those townships that sur- 
vived were forced to come to terms with new 
masters (by paying tribute). During the reign of 
Justinian I, western Illyricum was under the rule 
of Constantinople, with the center of Illyricum as 
a whole at JuSTINJANA PRIMA and, for a time, 
probably at Sirmium. According to the vita of 
Davip oF THESSALONIKE the capital was trans- 
ferred from Sirmium to Thessalonike; whether it 
was in fact from Sirmium (Lemerle, Miracles 2:50) 
or from Justiniana Prima (A. Vasiliev, Traditio 4 
[1946] 115-47) is difficult to determine. It is 


IMAD AL-DIN 987 


unclear how long Hlyricum continued to exist, but 
by the gth C. it had been replaced by the theme 
of Thessalonike; the name Jilyricum lost its precise 
meaning and was used as a descriptive designation 
for the region of DyRRACHION (as in the Alexiad 
of Anna Komnene), including Serbo-Croatian ter- 
ritory. 

Ecclesiastically, the former Illyricum occidentale 
remained under the direct authority of the pope. 
In the 8th C., however, the Iconoclast emperors 
tried to subordinate it to Constantinople—accord- 
ing to M. Anastos (StB g [1957] 14-31) in 732/3, 
according to V. Grumel (RechScRel 40 [1952] 191- 
200) two decades later. The papacy never recog- 
nized this act. By the end of the gth C. the Byz. 
founded the theme of Dalmatia, but they had to 
abandon the region by 1069; they briefly held it 
again from 1165 to 1180 (Ferluga, Byzantium 141— 


49). 


LIT. R. Rogošić, Veliki Ilirik (284—395) i njegova konačna 
dioba (396-437) (Zagreb 1962). Villes et peuplement dans 
lIllyricum protobyzantin (Rome 1984). J.-R. Palanque, “La 
préfecture du prétoire ďd'Illyricum au IVe siècle,” Byzantion 
21 (1951) 5-14. Lj. Maksimović, “L'administration de 
lIHyricum septentrional à l'époque de Justinien,” in Phila- 
delphie et autres études (Paris 1984) 143-57. -O.P. 


‘IMAD AL-DIN, more fully Muhammad ibn Mu- 
hammad al-Katib al-Isfahani, Arab writer, poet, 
diplomat, and chronicler; born Isfahan 1125, died 
Damascus 1201. In 1175, following a colorful 
career in the service of the ‘ABBASiIDS and of NOR 
AL-Din, ‘Imad al-Din joined SALADIN to become 
his ardent friend, counselor, chief diplomatic sec- 
retary, and chronicler. After Saladin’s death, ‘Imad 
al-Din returned to private life and devoted him- 
self to literary work. His tomb adjoins that of 
Saladin. 

‘Imad al-Din’s books, Qussian Eloquence on the 
Conquest of Jerusalem and The Syrian Lightning, con- 


aad 


titta a Cada dintn ernn 
SAAGIS oS Wars ana 


Rentini d an ienein os 
politics, with frequent references to his relations 
with the Byz. Although only the third and fifth 
parts of The Syrian Lightning have survived, its 
first (?) part is preserved in al-Bundari’s abridg- 
ment, The Splendor of the Syrian Lightning. Equally 
important is ‘Imad al-Din’s The Assistance of the 
Weak, the first history of the Great SELJUKS. It is 
based on the lost Persian memoirs of Anushirvan 
ibn Khalid (died 1137), which ‘Imad al-Din ren- 
dered into Arabic. Its precious information on 


988 IMAGO PIETATIS 


the Seljuk penetration and conquest of Asia Mi- 
nor includes a lengthy account of the battle of 
MANTZIKERT. In addition to the full version, ex- 
tant in a unique MS in the Bibliothèque Nationale, 
al-Bundari’s abridgment (1226) survives. ‘linad 
al-Din also produced a voluminous anthology of 
rath-C. Arab poets. As a rule, a virtually untrans- 
latable, overly flowery style characterized ‘Imad 
al-Din’s work. Al-Bundari’s abridgments strip away 
the stylistic redundancies but retain all the tacts. 

ED. Histoire des Seldjoucides de UIrâg par al-Bondârî, d'après 
Iméd ad-din al-Katib al-Isfahani, ed. M. Uh. Houtsma (Leiden 
1889). Al-Fath al-Qussi: Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine 
par Salah ed-din, ed. C. de Landberg, vol. 1 (Leiden 1888). 
Fr. tr., H. Massé, Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine par 
Saladin (Paris 1972). Al-Bundari, Sand al-Barg al-shémi, ed. 
R. Şeşen, pt.1 (Beirut 1980). 


urr. H. Massé, £7? 3:1157. -A.S E. 


IMAGO PIETATIS. See Man oF SORROWS. 


IMBERIOS AND MARGARONA (‘Iyzréptos kat 
Mapyapwva), a romance of chivalry in just under 
goo unrhymed POLITICAL VERSES, composed prob- 
ably in the late 14th C. Surviving in five MSS that, 
despite barely reconcilable variants, derive from 
a single archetype, the romance continued to cir- 
culate widely in the post-Byz. period in a printed 
rhymed version. A free adaptation of the French 
prose tale, Pierre de Provence et la belle Maguelonne 
(widely known throughout Europe from the late 
13th C. and serving as a foundation legend for 
the monastery of Maguelonne, France), /mberios 
and Margarona came in popular tradition to be 
used as a foundation legend for the monastery of 
DaPHNI. Attempts to provide a secure historical 
setting for Imbertos and Margarona in 13th- and 
14th-C. events in the Morea have failed to con- 
vince (see, e.g., M. Pichard, REB 10 [1952] 84- 
g2 and R.-J. Loenertz, Thesaurismata 13 [1976] 
40—46). With its accounts of the hero’s precocious 
youth, his prowess in tournaments, and the haz- 
ards endured with his beloved, /mbertos and Mar- 
garona has much in common with the ACHILLEIS 
as well as with PHLORIOS AND PLATz1a-PHLORA. Its 
assumptions and descriptions reflect the mixed 
Frankish-Greek society of the Palaiologan Pelo- 
ponnese. 
ED. Kriaras, Mythistoremata 199—249. 


Lit. Beck, Volksliteratur 143-47. Jeffrevs, Popular Liter- 
ature, pt.I (1971). 122-60. — E.M.J.. MJJ. 


IMBROS (‘IpBpos, mod. Imroz), island in the 
northeastern Aegean Sea that, along with Tene- 
bos, controls the entrance to the HELLESPONT. In 
late antiquity Imbros was part of the province of 
AcHaia (Hierokl. 649.2), and by the oth C. it 
almost certainly was part of the theme of the 
Aegean Sea. Although not specifically mentioned 
in De thematibus, Imbros provided a primary line 
of defense for Constantinople against the Arabs, 
Assigned to the Latin Empire after 1204, it was 
effectively controlled by Venice; after 1354 it was 
in the hands of the Genoese descendants of Fran- 
cesco GattTiLusio. By the time CyRIACUS OF AN- 
cona visited Imbros in 1444, the island was again 
Byz. and his guide was the Imbriot Michael KRI- 
TOBOULOS. The latter asked Mehmed II to grant 
the island independence after 1453, but it was 
assigned to the Gattilusi of Lesbos. In 1460 Im- 
bros was part of the appanage given to Demetrios 
Palaiologos, former despotes of the Morea. A bishop 
of Imbros, not mentioned previously, was raised 
to archiepiscopal status by Manuel II (Notitiae CP 
18.157); he was a metropolitan (21.75) after 1453. 

Lry. C. Fredrich, “Imbros,” MDAF AA 33 (1908) 81-112. 


M. Karas, He nesos Imbros: Symbole eis ten ekklesiastiken histo- 
rian tes (Fhessałonike 1987) 35-41. 80-87. -T.E.G. 


IMITATION (uiunois) was considered by the 
ancient theoreticians as an important element of 
intellectual activity. The imitation of Attic culture 
was recommended both in late antiquity and in 
Byz. The Byz. rejected INNOVATION, and even 
great minds, such as JOHN oF Damascus, empha- 
sized the imitativeness of their works. Mimesis 
could have different aspects: direct imitation, such 
as the CHRISTOS PASCHON, which is a pastiche of 
existing verses by ancient poets; writing in the 
style of a predecessor, like dialogues imitating 
Lucian. Rhetorical exercises on ancient or biblical 
topics and borrowing of the stock elements of 
ancient literature or patristics or using overt or 
concealed citations were also practiced. Materials 
that were borrowed or imitated included not only 
writings of the remote past but works of more 
recent Byz. authors as well. Sermons, saints’ vitae, 
and historical works teem with such stock ele- 
ments and citations. The ideological underpin- 
ning of mimesis can be found in the declarations 
of ecumenical councils, such as that in Trullo, 
which embraced adherence to “the ancient types” 
(Rhalles-Potles, Syntagma 2:493.3). 


‘The purposes of imitation were diverse: the 
author could, by engaging in imitauon, demon- 
strate how well versed he was in literature; he 
could also, by referring to the knowledge of his 
audience, stimulate reminiscences and create al- 
lusions. He could, by making parallels with biblical 
or Roman history, stress the eternity of certain 
phenomena or contrast present times with the 
glorious (or infamous) past. Truly skillful imita- 
tion consisted in employing the same general pat- 
tern to emphasize certain details or distinctions 
or to produce, from the available “bricks,” a com- 
pletely new idea and image. Imitation could also 
have the force of paropy. Byz. literature pro- 
duced an enormous amount of purely imitative, 
plagiaristic material, but in talented hands mi- 
mesis could become a powerful vehicle of expres- 
sion. Imitation, then, was not purely servile but 
an intrinsic part of Byz. CULTURE. 

Even while it must be distinguished from cus- 
tomary observance of canonical forms, imitation 
in the visual arts was more central than in litera- 
ture to the working methods of craftsmen and 
more pragmatic in purpose. Using established 
CHURCH PLAN TYPES, builders replicated venerable 
models, sometimes with the intention of evoking 
associations with /oca sancta and pilgrimage sites. 
Painters such as Kallierges could copy entre com- 
positions, yet adaptation and the “quotation” of 
elements, rather than wholesale appropriation, 
were more characteristic practices. When an an- 
cient treasure like the Paris PSALTER was tapped 
some 250 years after its creation, its miniatures 
were not merely copied but made the basis for 
the invention of new images. 

ur. Hunger, Grundlagenforschung, pt.XV (1969-70), 17- 
38. Mango, Byz. Image, pt.Il (1975), 3-18. H.-G. Beck, 
“Antike Beredsamkeit und byzantinische Kallilogia,” AntAb 
15 (196g) gi—101. A. Kazhdan, “Looking Back to Antiq- 


uity: Three Notes,” GRBS 24 (1983) 375-77. 
-A.K., A.C. 


IMMUNITY, a concept borrowed from the ter- 
minology of western European FEUDALISM to de- 
note a privilege granted by the emperor that 
forbade state officials from entering the benefi- 
ciary’s domains and performing certain fiscal, ju- 
dicial, and administrative functions there. Ostro- 
gorsky, among others, viewed EXKOUSSFIA as 
synonymous with immunity. On the basis of the 
EXEMPTION formulas found in documents, he con- 
cluded that, during the 1oth—12th C., immunity 
implied fiscal rights, that is, freedom from taxa- 


IMPERIAL CULT | 989 


tion, and that only in the 14th—15th C. did judicial 
immunity develop, that is, the right for privileged 
landlords, lay and religious, to judge their PAROI- 
KOI; Ostrogorsky limited this right, however, to 
low justice. While fiscal immunity did exist in Byz., 
though to an extent perhaps not as widespread 
as in the West, there is some question as to whether 


judicial immunity existed at all. Some scholars in 


fact consider the application of the Western me- 
dieval concept of immunity to Byz. as inappro- 
priate and misleading and prefer the more limited 
concept of exemption. 

ur. P.A. Jakovenko, A istorii immunileta v Vizanti (Juriev 
[Tartu] 1908). G. Ostrogorsky, “Pour l'histoire de l'immu- 
nité à Byzance,” Byzantion 28 (1958) 165-254. Solovjev- 
Mošin, Grčke povelje 433-36. -M.B. 


IMPERIAL CULT. Worship of the divinity of the 
EMPEROR, which had begun as a means for Greek 
cities to assimilate their relationship with the Ro- 
man Empire (S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power [Cam- 
bridge 1984]), culminated in the adoption of Hel- 
lenistic divine kingship by the TETRARCHY. 
Constantine I's conversion excluded outright sac- 
rifice to imperial divinity, although ambiguities 
persisted (e.g., the temple to his family erected at 
Hispellum [/LS, no.705]). On the local level, priests 
of the imperial cult probably shed religious func- 
tions but continued their political role in city and 
provincial assemblies well into the 5th and 6th C., 
esp. in Africa (F.M. Clover in Romanitas-Christian- 
itas [Berlin 1982] 661—74). In the capital, the 
emperor's status as God’s representative on earth 
maintained and even expanded aspects of the 
imperial cult, esp. the sacredness of imperial per- 
sons and institutions concretized by ceremony and 
by divinizing epithets. Although Constantine 
avoided divus tor his person, his successors re- 
vived the custom, whence arose the Byz. usage of 
theios for the imperial person and institutions and 


cahya Free Ancrmante Daorncrinrenra AR thn rew es r maes o 
ra OT GOCAT S. a Shn kareuwas Ga Spe 


and his haloed image, the image’s privilege of 
asylum and placement on church altars, the cus- 
tom of receiving objects from the emperor with 
covered hands, silence, incense, and lighted can- 
dles in his presence stemmed ultimately from the 
imperial cult and characterized Byz. rulership. 
‘The chureh itself transformed and fostered the 
imperial cult, as posthumous consecratio gave way 
to elaborate Christian funerals (S. Price in Can- 
nadine-Price, Rituals 56—105), imperial obits were 
commemorated in the Synaxarion of Constantinople, 


990 IMPOST BLOCK 


and the emperor obtained unique liturgical pre- 
rogatives reflecting his sacral status. 

LIT. L. Bréhier, P. Batiffol, Les survtvances du culte impé- 
rial romain (Paris 1920) 35-73. A. Chastagnol, N. Duval, 
“Les survivances du culte impérial dans l'Afrique du Nord 
a l'époque vandale,” in Mélanges d'histoire ancienne offerts à 
William Seston (Paris 1974) 87-118. A. Wlosok, Römischer 
Kaiserkult (Darmstadt 1978). P. Schreiner, “Das Herr- 
scherbild in der byzantinischen Literatur des g. bis 12. 
Jahrhunderts,” Saeculum 35 (1984) 132~51. —M.McC. 


IMPOST BLOCK, a stone block shaped like an 
inverted, truncated pyramid, placed on the capi- 
tals of COLUMNS destined to carry an arcade. The 
impost block probably evolved from the Roman 
practice of projecting short ENTABLATURE spurs 
over capitals of columns placed in front of walls, 
as at the Porta Aurea of the Palace of Diocletian 
at Split. The capitals of the paired columns of S. 
Costanza, Rome, support a short entablature block 
that functions as an impost block. According to 
Deichmann, the mature form had its origin in the 
5th-C. Greek East, but fully developed impost 
blocks appeared by ca.4oo in Italy at S. Giorgio 
Maggiore in Naples and in the Basilica Ursiana 
in Ravenna. Impost blocks, often spoLia, were 
used in Byz. architecture as late as the 14th C. 
They were placed directly on column shafts in 
the cisterns of Constantinople and, on a smaller 
scale, appear directly on columns or posts dividing 
windows, e.g., at Daphni, Hosios Loukas, and on 
the exterior of the Holy Apostles, Thessalonike. 
The impost block is frequently decorated with 
elaborate patterns of ACANTHUS leaves and Chris- 
tian symbols. In the 5th C., the impost block and 
capital merged to form the IMPOST CAPITAL. 

LIT. F. Deichmann, Studien zur Architektur Konstantinopels 
im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach Christus (Baden-Baden 1956) 
41-45. C. Strube, Polyeuktoskirche und Hagia Sophia (Munich 
1984) 20f, figs. 7, 12, 39. R. Olivieri Farioli, La scultura 
architettonica (Rome 1969) 77—91. —M.]., W.L. 


IMPOST CAPITAL, a uniquely Byz. CAPITAL cre- 
ated possibly in Constantinople by merging the 
function of the IMPOosT BLOCK with the mid-5th- 
C. torms of the Corinthian capital. The merger 
was facilitated by the development of the Corin- 
thian capital into cup- and kettle-shaped forms, 
covered with abstract floral ornament incised and 
drilled, rather than carved, into the block; in both 


shape and decoration this late Corinthian capital 
approached the form of the more geometrically 
conceived impost block. Some impost capitals show 
a much diminished impost block on top; some 
exhibit small volutes at the base or at the top, 
faint reminders of the Ionic capital. The stages in 
this development from the mid-sth C. to its climax 
in Justinian I’s Hagia Sophia have been traced by 
Strube (infra). The creation of the impost capital 
marks the end of the classic capital and the ap- 
pearance of a new form that carries the eye more 
fluently from column shaft to the arches above. 
tir. C. Strube, Polyeuktoskirche und Hagia Sophia (Munich 
1984) 102-10, figs. 62-65, 80-88, 95—98. M. van Lohuizen- 
Mulder, “Early Christian Lotus-panel Capitals and other 
so-called Impost Capitals,” BABesch 62 (1987) 131-52. 
-W.L. 


IMRU’ AL-QAYS. See Qays. 


INCANTATION (é77@57), a magic song recited 
over a person or a charm to effect a cure, fend 
off evil, transfer evil to another, or evoke an erotic 
response in a member of the opposite sex. Incan- 
tations were similar in format, whether of Chris- 
tian, pagan, or syncretistic provenance. The reci- 
ter of the incantation invariably summoned an 
angel or daimon, without which the charm was 
believed ineffective. Byz. writers often mention 
incantations in connection with MAGIC, but seldom 
quote the actual words used. Canon 36 of the 
Council of Laodikeia (4th C.) forbade Christian 
clerics to invent or recite incantations. In the 12th 
C. Balsamon and Zonaras commented on the 
practice. Many examples of incantations survive 
on magical papyri, metal sheets, and small objects. 
An illiterate but dramatic 7th-C. incantation on 
an amulet calls upon Beliar, the inventor of the 
EVIL EYE, to flee in the name of Christ from the 
limbs of the owner (who was perhaps paralyzed?) 
(CIG 4, no.go6s5). Syncretistic incantations often 
used the names of apocryphal angels of Jewish 
tradition and “barbaric words.” Pagan incanta- 
tions are reported in Anatolia and Sicily as late as 
the 7th-8th C. 

LIT. Koukoules, Bios 1.2:239-49. H. Hunger, “Eine 
friihbyzantinische Wachstafel der Wiener Papyrussamm- 
lung,” Serta Turyniana (Urbana 1974) 489-94. T. Scher- 


mann, Spatgriechische Zauber- und Volksgebete (Munich 1919). 
Papyri graecae magicae?, ed. K. Preisendanz, 2 vols. (Stutt- 


gart 1973-74). —F.R.T. 


INCARNATION (caépxwots or évgapKwats) re- 
fers to the appearance of the Logos in the history 
of salvation (otkonomia), distinguished from his 
generation within the Godhead. It is the classical 
formula of those Christologies oriented toward 
John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh.” It is 
distinguished from a Christology that lays empha- 
sis on the Preexistent One “becoming man” (en- 
anthropesis—cf. Gal 4:4). The Logos-sarx model, 
which distinguishes theologians in the ALEXAN- 
DRIAN SCHOOL, competed with the Logos-anthropos 
model of the ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL. When the two- 
natures formula of the Council of CHALCEDON 
was accepted by the imperial church, the differ- 
ence lost meaning since flesh in this Christology 
no longer implied a theological devaluation of the 
soul and human freedom of CHRIST. It meant, 
rather, the full reality of human existence as it 
was assumed by the Logos without sin (Heb 4:15: 
cf. FREE WILL). Sarx refers not to the sinful, Aeshly 
existence of fallen humanity (in the Pauline sense), 
but to human nature as such: to the logos, not the 
tropos tes hyparxeos. In some texts one encounters 
the view that this sarx is not an individual reality, 
but MANKIND as a whole. SOTERIOLOGY finds its 
basis in the incarnation, or assumption of the 
flesh, by the Logos. -K-H.U. 

Iconoclastic Views on Incarnation. Debate over 
the relevance of the Incarnation to the depiction 
of Christ on icons was a key feature of the polemic 
on IconocLasM. The Council at Hieria (754) de- 
clared that the “illicit” craft of the painter violated 
the doctrine of the Incarnation, attributing to 
artists the notion that they painted the image of 
the flesh alone (Mansi 13:256A), which, in truth, 
cannot be separated from the Logos. -A.C. 


INCENSE (6vpiapa), resins, esp. frankincense 
from the gum resin of the boswellia tree, that 
produce fragrant smoke when burned; also the 
smoke thereof. Incense, imported primarily from 
southern Arabia, held an important place in Ro- 
man medicine and in the imperial cult; it became 
therefore for Christians a symbol of pagan wor- 
ship, and church fathers (Tertullian, Eusebios, 
Augustine) rejected its use (W. Miller, RE supp. 
15 [1978] 761-64). A change in the Christian 
attitude toward incense began by the end of the 
4th C. Ephrem the Syrian refers to it; John Chry- 
sostom mentions its use in processions to martyrs’ 


INCEST | 991 


shrines and even in church; and Christian CEN- 
SERS of the 4th C. have been found. In the liturgy, 
incense is burned over charcoal in fixed burners 
or, more usually, in portable censers. 

Christian use of incense is (1) fumigatory, as 
perfume, as at funerals; (2) honorific, when ob- 
jects (such as icons, gifts, or the altar), or persons 
are censed in veneration; (3) exorcistic, chasing 
away evil spirits, as when the church is incensed 
at the beginning of a service; and (4) oblationary, 
when burnt in offering, as a sign of prayer or 
propitiation, a notion found esp. in the Syrian 
and Coptic traditions. In Byz. usage only ministers 
in major orders (deacon, priest, bishop) cense at 
services. In Constantinople incense was carried in 
processions at the EUCHARIST or a LITE, etc. At 
VESPERS incense is burned (in conjunction with Ps 
140:2) as a sign of penance and prayer. At the 
SUNDAY resurrection vigil of festive orthros (Taft, 
Liturgy of the Hours 280f, 288f) it symbolizes the 
service of the MyRROPHOROI. 


LIT. Taft, Great Entrance 149-62. Treitinger, Kaiseridee 
67—71. E. Fehrenbach, DACL 5.1:2-21. -R.F.T., A.K. 


INCEST (aipopcéia, lit. “mixing of blood,” a term 
unknown in ancient Greek; Lat. incestus) was treated 
in different manners in Roman and in Oriental 
law, the latter condoning matrimonial relations 
between close relatives. In the grd C. Roman 
jurists, yielding to the Oriental system, distin- 
guished between marriages with lineal relatives 
that were considered illicit and collateral mar- 
riages that were permissible although not rec- 
ommended (Digest 23:2.68). The attack on inces- 
tuous marriages began with Diocletian’s law of 
295 (F. Klingmiller, RE g [1916] 1248) who pro- 
claimed them “barbarian monstrosities” and 
threatened execution as punishment. Diocletian's 
attitude toward incest was supported by the church 
tathers (tor instance, BASIL THE GREAT, ep.100, 
ed. Y. Courtonne 2 [Paris 1961] 88—92, more 
closely defined by canon 54 of the Council in 
Trullo) and civil legislators; special attention was 
paid to consecutive marriages of a man to two 
sisters and a woman to two brothers as well as 
marriage to a niece. Though the threat of the 
death penalty appears in some laws (e.g., Con- 
stantius II in 342—Cod.Theod. III 12.1), other 
legislators lessened the punishment. 

The extension of the concept of incest de- 


992 | INCISED WARE 


pended on changes in the definition of consan- 
guinity (see RELATIONSHIP, DEGREES OF): the church 
endeavored to extend this notion whereas the 
aristocracy tended to reduce it. Spiritual paternity 
was considered as a MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENT, and 
therefore sexual relations between a godfather 
and the widowed mother of his spiritual child 
were viewed as incestuous (canon 53 of the Coun- 
cil in Trullo). In real life people frequently ne- 


glected prohibitions of incest: the marriage of 


Herakleios to his niece MARTINA was viewed as 
scandalous but valid, and in the 12th C. both 
Manuel |} and Andronikos I had nieces as mis- 
tresses. Even ecclesiastics were accused, rightly or 
wrongly, of incest, esp. with spiritual daughters. 

ur. Zhishman, Eherecht 215-53. E. Mangenot, DTC 7 
(1930) 1545-47. A.D. Lee. “Close Kin Marriage in Late 


Antique Mesopotamia,” GRBS 29 (1988) 403-13. 
~J.H., A.K. 


INCISED WARE. See SCRAFFITO WARE. 


INCUBATION. The practice of spending the 
night at a sacred precinct, pagan or Christian, 
until the god or saint of the shrine appears to the 
suppliant in a dream and cures him of disease, 
injury, or insanity, has continued frorn antiquity 
to the present day. Pagan temples often had dor- 
mitories, but Christian churches usually allocated 
an aisle of the basilica to those seeking cures. 
Pagan incubation endured throughout the 5th C. 
Constantine I suppressed the shrine of ASKLEPIOS 
at Aegae in Cilicia but other sites continued to 
function, among them the temple precincts at 
Epidaurus in Greece (at least until 354) and the 
temple of Isis at Menouthis on the Nile Delta 
(until the 5th C.). The temple, dormitory, and 
sacred spring of the Asklepieion in Athens prob- 
ably housed a Christian healing cult from the 
second half of the 5th C., and the inscription 
“Saint Andrew” (J.S. Creaghan, A.E. Raubitschek, 
Hesperia 16 [1947] 29) permits the hypothesis that 
the basilica was dedicated to the apostle Andrew. 
Incubation became popular in Christian churches 
in the 6th C., as the Acts of Sts. KOSMAS AND 
DaMIANOS attest. Incubations at rural martyria de- 
veloped as a social protest against the incompe- 
tence of, and high fees charged by, physicians. 
Among places where incubation was practiced in 
the 7th C. were the basilica of St. Isidore on Chios 


and the martyrion of St. ARTEMIOS in Constanti- 
nople. Miraculous HEALING by incubation is at- 
tested throughout the Byz. period; in the 14th C., 
for example, a man was exorcised of a demon by 
sleeping next to the coffin of the patriarch of 
Constantinople, Athanasios 1 (A.M. Talbot, Faith 
Healing in Late Byzantium [Brookline, Mass., 1983] 
18f, 78-80). 

LIT. T. Gregory, “The Survival of Paganism in Christian 
Greece,” AJPh 107 (1986) 229-42. Lawson, Folklore 45-63. 
N.F. Marcos, Los Thaumata de Sofronio: Contribución al estudio 
de la Incubación Cristiana (Madrid 1975). ERT. 


INDIA (Ivia) maintained both economic and 
political relations with the late Roman Empire. 
EuSEBIOS OF CarsaREA relates that Constantine I 
received ambassadors from India, allegedly as an 
acknowledgment that his sovereignty extended to 
the ocean; according to Philostorgios, Constantine 
dispatched a certain Theophilos to India, where 
he found some Christian followers of the apostle 
Bartholomew. The Indians also sent embassies to 
Emp. Julian—probably in connection with his 
preparations for war against Persia—and Malalas 
inentions an Indian ambassador to Constantino- 
ple ca.530. Late Roman coins, esp. those of Ar- 
kadios and Honorius, have been discovered in 
India. 

Trade with India, testified to by Kosmas INDI- 
KOPLEUSTES, took four routes: via the Euphrates 
and Persian Gulf to Taprobana (CrYLon); via the 
Red Sea to the Indian Ocean; by overland caravan 
routes via Persia; and by caravan travel north of 
the Caspian Sea and across Central Asia. The 
primary exports from India were spices, incense, 
and probably precious stones: “the wealth of In- 
dia,” according to the Vita Basilii, decorated the 
chapel of St. Clement in the Great Palace. 

Kosmas provides sorne factual information about 
India, but from antiquity onward many legends 
were created about this distant land; India was 
portrayed as the home of pious and wise gym- 
nosophists (a reflection of the Brahmans). NoN- 
NOS OF PANOPOLIS wrote an epic poem on the god 
Dionysos’s expedition against India and his vic- 
tory over the Indian king Deriades, achieved with 
the help of a fleet summoned from Arabia. 

After the Arab conquest of the Near East in the 
7th C., Byz. contacts with India were severed. 
Knowledge of India’s location grew vaguer and it 
was often confused with ETHIOPIA (“the inner 


India” of earlier sources). Byz. legends (BARLAAM 
AND JOASAPH, ALEXANDER ROMANCE, vita of Ma- 
KARIOS OF RoME) dwelt on the miraculous features 
and extreme piety of India, a country located 
somewhere near Paradise. JOHN OF KARPATHOS 
wrote a tract addressed to Indian monks, but for 
him India was a nebulous notion. Photios ex- 
pressed an antiquarian interest in India by includ- 
ing in his BrstsoTHEca (cod.72) the description 
of the country by the 5th-C. B.C. author Ktesias— 
full of legendary data such as the mantichora, a 
beast with a human face, and people with dogs’ 
heads. Psellos (Scripta min. 2:10.2—5) ridiculed a 
man who allegedly traveled to Egypt, Ethiopia, 
and India. Some Indian influences reached Byz. 
via Persian, Syriac, or Arabic sources: thus Sy- 
meon SETH produced a Greek version of the Kali- 
la wa-Dimna and PLANOUDES a tract entitled Cal- 
culation According to the Indians. 

Personifications of India or representations of 
its inhabitants have been recognized in floor mo- 
saics and the BARBERINI Ivory. These are usually 
identified by their double-horned fillets; more 
certain attributes are the ugers that accompany 
the women on a silver plate in Istanbul (Rice, Art 
of Byz., pl.43). 

LIT. J. Irmscher, “Vizantija i Indija,” VizVrem 45 (1984) 
66-71. ].W. M’Crindle, Ancient India (Westminster 1901) 
156-216. E.H. Warmington, The Commerce between the Ro- 
man Empire and India? (London—New York 1974) 139f. N. 
Pigulewskaja, Byzanz auf den Wegen nach Indien (Berlin 1969). 
C. Datema, “New Evidence for the Encounter between 


Constantinople and ‘India, ” in After Chalcedon (Leuven 
1985) 57-65. -A.K., AC. 


INDICTION (ivécxriwy or émuvépnors), initially 
an extraordinary tax in produce imposed by the 
emperor in order to meet specific needs. H was 
regularized on a yearly basis by Diocletian (five- 
year cycle) and finally under Constantine I be- 
came a 15-year cycle (starting in Sept. 312) during 
which the amount ot the indiction was to remain 
unchanged. In spite of this, extra indictions (ex- 
traordinariae, superindictiones) were occasionally im- 
posed. Because the fiscal and calendar years co- 
incided (1 Sept.-31 Aug.), the word indiction 
acquired a chronological meaning that it kept 
after losing its fiscal one: it indicated one year 
within the 15-year cycle, without specifying which 
cycle. According to K.A. Worp (Archiv für Papy- 
rusforschung 33 [1987] 91—96), indiction-dating in 
the papyri was not a result of the edict of 472 but 


INFANCY OF CHRIST 993 


became mandatory after Justinian I’s novel 47 of 
537- In spite of its lack of absolute chronological 
precision, the Byz. used indictional dating in 
everyday life and in administration. In order to 
calculate the indiction corresponding to a given 
year of the Christian cra, add 3 to the year, then 
divide the total by 15; the remainder is the indic- 
tion (if the remainder is zero, the indiction is 15). 

tir. Karayannopulos, Finanzwesen 138-41. Jones, LRE 
451-56. Grumel, Chronologie 192—206. R.S. Bagnall, K.A. 
Worp, The Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt (Zutphen 
1978) 2-35- -N.0. 


INFAMY (à&tiuia), the deprivation of honor, ap- 
pears in Justinianic law as a PENALTY for wrong 
or unseemly conduct, such as not obeying trade 
regulations, disgraceful behavior in the army, mis- 
conduct in family relations, and certain criminal 
offenses. Infamy brought with it the restriction of 
certain rights or privileges, for example, the right 
to act as WITNESS. The Ecloga (2:8.1) considers as 
atimos the widow who enters a second marriage 
before completing the 12-month term of mourn- 
ing—she would lose any right to her former hus- 
band’s property. The Book oF THE EPARCH (e.g., 
18:5) punishes infringement of trade relations 
with flogging, cutting off the hair, a parade of 
infamy (thriambos), and exile. The public disgrace 
of infamy was used in political and religious strug- 
gles (e.g., to humiliate monks during Iconoclastic 
persecutions): the victims, sometimes made to ride 
backward on an ass or mangy camel, were pre- 
ceded by a herald announcing their crime; their 
faces might be blackened, and they were ridi- 
culed, beaten, or pelted with stones by the crowd. 
The parade could be followed by exile (e.g., Patr. 
Euthymios) or even execution (Ernp. Andronikos 
1). 
ur. A H.J. Greenidge, Jnfamia: Its Place in Roman Public 
and Private Law (Oxford 1894). Ph. Koukoules. “He dia- 
polpeusis kata wus Byzanunous chuiynous, Dysivieutye 
1.2 (1949) 75-101. E. Patlagean, “Byzance et le blason 
pénal du corps,” Du châtiment dans la cité (Rome 1984) 4161. 
McCormick, Eternal Victory 135, n.12, 142f, 182, n.206. 
-A.K. 


INFANCY OF CHRIST, specifically the period 
from the ANNUNCIATION through the FLIGHT INTO 
Eoypr (Mt 1:18-25, 2:1-23; Lk 1:26-55, 2:1- 
52; PROTOEVANGELION OF JAMES, chs. 11—21). 
Christ’s infancy was illustrated esp. extensively 
during the centuries of the Christological contro- 


994 | INFANTRY 


` 


versies (4th—7th C.): cf. S. Maria Maggiore in 
Rome (sth C.); Cathedra of MAXIMIAN and St. 
Sergius, Gaza (6th C.); Monza and Bobbio Am- 
PULLAE. These cycles include numerous apocry- 
phal scenes from the Protoevangelion that en- 
hance their miraculous, theophanic content. With 
the exception of churches in GOrEME and the 
huge, byzantinizing churches in Kiev, Norman 
SiciLy, and VENICE with their vast wall spaces, the 
Infancy cycle was reduced in 10th- through 12th- 
C. monumental painting to its major liturgical 
feasts: Annunciation, NaTiviry, Presentation of 
Christ (HypPapante). Likewise liturgically inspired 
is the 11th-C. Sinai icon conflating the many events 
celebrated on 25 Dee. (Nativity, story of the Magi), 
26 Dec. (Flight into Egypt), and 2g Dec. (Massacre 
of the Innocents) (K. Weitzmann, Icons from South 
Eastern Europe and Sinai [London 1968] 23). Only 
certain densely illuminated Gospel and Lectionary 
MSS of the 1oth-12th C. retained lengthy nar- 
rative cycles (FRIEZE GosPELs; Athos, Dion. 587, 
1ith C.—Treasures I, figs. 247-52, 260). Palaio- 
logan art saw a rich resumption of Infancy im- 
agery in both monumental painting (CHORA) and 
the MSS illustrating the AkaTHisros Hymn (J. 
Lafontaine-Dosogne, Byzantion 54 [1984] 671—702). 

LIT. Grabar, Martyrium, see index, 2:380. Underwood, 
Kariye Djami 4:197—241. -A.W.C. 


INFANTRY (neġikóv). Modestly equipped and 
slow to move, Byz. infantry nevertheless fulfilled 
an important defensive role in support of cav- 
ALRY. It secured routes, guarded fortresses and 
encampments, and provided a mobile base for 
cavalry on campaign. Infantry was also indispens- 
able for sieges and in terrain unsuited to cavalry. 
Foot soldiers were usually deployed in a square 
formation that they maintained in battle, on the 
march, and in camp. To judge from the totals 
given in the STRATEGIKA, infantry made up the 
bulk of the the army, outnumbering the cavalry 
by a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1. Three types of infantry- 
men are distinguished: heavy infantry armed with 
spears and swords, protected by corselets, caps, 
and shields; archers; and light infantry, armed 
with javelins and slings. A fourth type, menaulatos, 
armed with a heavy pike (see WEAPONRY), was 
created in the 1oth C. for use against armored 
cavalry (E. McGeer, Diptycha 4 [1986-87] 53-57). 
Byz. and Armenians were preferred as heavy in- 


fantry, while foreign MERCENARIES (such as the 
Rus’) served as light infantry. The 1oth-C. Escu- 
rial TAKTIKON mentions the Aoplitarches or com- 
mander of the infantry force in expeditionary 
armies and his subalterns, the TAXIARCHAI! (also 
chiliarchai), who commanded units of 1,000 men 
(Oikonomides, Listes 335f). 

The sources offer scant details about the eco- 
nomic status of infantrymen. A 12th-C. historian 
(Zon. 3:506.3—8) lists them below CAvaLry and 
above SAILORS in levels of military service (STRA- 
TEIA); it seems likely that they were drawn from 
the poorer STRATIOTAL who could at least afford 
the simple equipment used by infantry (W.T. 
‘Treadgold in Okeanos 624f). 


LIT. E. McGeer, “Infantry versus Cavalry: The Byz- 
antine Response,” REB 46 (1988) 135-45. —-E.M. 


INFERTILITY (a7eipwois) was considered by the 
Byz. as a terrible misfortune; there are abundant 
stories of barren couples who sought the help of 
physicians, holy men, shrines, or magic in order 
to overcome this condition. A passage in DIGENES 
AKRITAS (Grottaferrata version VII 180-88, ed. 
E. Trapp, p.342) evoked the grief of the childless 
Digenes and his wife Eudokia as they prayed daily 
for a baby. The vita of ANTONY THE YOUNGER 
indicates the enormous sums paid to doctors to 
cure barrenness. AMULETS were a popular means 
of increasing fertility. Men’s sterility could also be 
remedied by a saint as evidenced by John Mos- 
chos’s tale (PG 87:2g77D—2980A) about a preco- 
cious baby who at the age of three weeks was able 
to point out his father, who was previously thought 
to be sterile. The biblical prototype of the barren 
Sarah rewarded with fertility only at a venerable 


age was often used in hagiographical texts. 
—J.H., A.K. 


INGOTS (âai, walia, massae), fixed weights of 
metal cast into bars or related shapes for conve- 
nient transportation and distribution. Gold, silver, 
and copper coins and bullion collected as taxes 
at provincial treasuries were melted and formed 
into ingots. These were weighed and stamped by 
officers of the COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM be- 
fore being sent to mints for the striking of coins. 
As the SOLIDUS was struck 72 to the pound, it is 
supposed that mints were issued with gold bars 
of this weight. Numerous gold and silver ingots 


survive from the late qth C., particularly from the 
Western Empire; they often bear one or more 
stamps, similar to the SILVER STAMPS applied to 
objects. Occasionally found together with imperial 
anniversary dishes, these ingots may (like LARGI- 
TIO DISHES) have been used to pay military and 
other government personnel. 
ur. Jones, LRE 1:438. Hendy, Economy 380-94. R. Del- 
maire, “Les largesses impériales et émission d’argenterie 
du IXe au Xle siècle,” in Arg. rom. et byz. 113-22. 
-M.M.M. 


INHERITANCE. See HEIR; SUCCESSION. 


INITIALS, ORNAMENTAL. Compared with 
Latin scribes, Greek copyists, always more faithful 
to ancient traditions, were slower to enlarge and 
decorate initial letters. In the 6th C., small initials 
were filled with miscellaneous designs or outlined 
with dots. In contrast, the gth-C. PARIS GREGORY 
contains large jeweled and floriated initials, ac- 
companied by birds and snakes, and an epsilon 
with a blessing hand, later a common motif. Small 
figural initials also appear in the period, but the 
apogee of the decorated letter was in the 11th 
and 12th C. The 11th C. saw inventive combina- 
tions of animals, but it was the influential painters 
of the 12th-C. MSS of JAMES OF KOKKINOBAPHOS 
who established long-lasting conventions for 
zoomorphic initials. Figural initials began to de- 
pict narrative scenes as well as single figures of 
the text’s author or narrator. Particularly in lec- 
tionaries, the person represented may belong to 
a larger group displayed about the page, thus 
pictorially uniting the entire surface. Figural ini- 
tials are less common in the MSS of the DECORA- 
TIVE STYLE and all but disappear in the Palaiolo- 
gan period, but zoomorphic initials continue to 
be used for centuries. 

iv. C. Frane-Sgourdeou, “Les initiales historiées dans 
les manuscrits byzantins aux Xle—XIle s.,” BS 28 (1967) 
336-54. C. Nordenfalk, Die spdtantiken Zierbuchstaben 


(Stockholm 1970). Anderson, “Sinai. Gr. 339,” 171-76. 
-RS.N. 


INK (uéàav, wedaveov) in antiquity was made of 
soot; this durable black ink is still very well pre- 
served on papyri. In Byz. MSS various kinds of 
inks with metallic components are to be discerned, 
a brown gallnut ink being one of the most wide- 


INN 995 


spread. For writing on purple codices, silver or 
gold ink was used. Sometimes other colors such 
as light blue or greenish also occur in MSS. Red 
ink serves to emphasize a heading (LEMMA), ini- 
uals, or other prominent words, letters, or text 
passages. PURPLE ink has a particular function in 
imperial documents: the emperor signed with 
purple ink, and the head of the imperial chancery, 
the KANIKLEIOS, wrote logus in a designated spot, 
also using purple ink. ‘This official therefore wore 
an ink bottle attached to his garment, as is some- 
times seen in miniatures. Some antique ink bottles 
and a few Byz. ones have been preserved, among 
them a silver bottle with metrical inscription in 
the treasury of the cathedral at Padua. 

Lit. Gardthausen, Palaeographie 1:202-17. H. Hunger, 
RBK 2:477-79. Dolger-Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 28- 
31, 34-36. Hutter, CBM 3.1:392. M. de Pas, “Recherches 
sur les encres noires manuscrites,” in PGEB 55-60. M. 
Zerdoun Bat-Yehouda, Les encres noires au moyen âge (Paris 
1983) 305-08. -W.H. 


INN. Privately owned inns (pandocheia, lit. “ac- 
cepting everything”) in both town and countryside 
provided accommodations for all kinds of travel- 
ers and their animals. John Chrysostom (PG 
56:111.50—53) states that pandochera were estab- 
lished everywhere along the roads so that travel- 
ers and beasts of burden could stop and rest. 
Nicholas Mesarites in the 12th C. vividly described 
an inn in the small kastellion of Kyr George near 
Nicaea (A. Heisenberg, Quellen und Studien zur 
spalbyzantinischen Geschichte {London 1973] 2.2 
[1923] 4of): his companion awoke in the morn- 
ing, kindled a fire in the hearth from the previous 
day’s ashes, put an earthenware pot on an iron 
tripod, and began his breakfast, holding the meat 
in his left hand and cutting it into pieces with a 
knife, washing down the meat and bread with 
wine, while poor Mesarites suffered from the 
SiMOKC tiat nucu ue Luvin, tunis were uvi winly 
places to sleep, eat, and drink, but also to find 
sexual pleasures: the mother of ‘THEODORE OF 
SYKEON worked as a prostitute in a country inn 
(Vita, ed. Festugiére, vol. 1, ch.3.6—14) and, ac- 
cording to legend, Helena, the future mother of 
Constantine I, was a whore in an inn owned by 
her father (AB 77 [1959] par.2.3). The vita of 
Andrew the Fool refers to brothels as “inns of 
fornication” (PG 111:652C). 

The remains of a late Roman inn survive today, 


996 INNOCENT II 


17 km southwest of Urfa: there are three rock- 
cut caves, two of which were animal stables, and 
a cistern; the rooms for travelers were in a sepa- 
rate structure, now destroyed. An inscription, 
probably of the grd C., identifies the site as “an 
inn [pandokeion], well, and caves” built by Aurelius 
Dasius, governor of Osrhoene “so that travelers 
may enjoy refreshment and repose” (C. Mango, 
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5 [1986] 223-31). 
Distinguished from pandocheia, which were profit- 
making establishments, were XENODOCHEIA, guest- 
houses founded in a spirit of PHILANTHROPY to 
offer Christian hospitality. The mrraton for Syr- 
ian merchants in Constantinople was a type of 
inn as well, The world as a temporary abode was 
compared to an inn by Didymos the Blind (PG 
39:780D) and other authors. -A.K.. A.M.T. 


INNOCENT II (Gregory Papareschi), pope (14 
Feb. 1130—24 Sept. 1143). He was the scion of a 
noble Roman family, whose election to the papacy 
led to a schism within the curia; his adversaries 
elected antipope Anacletus II from a rival family 
of the Pierleone, who was supported by ROGER II 
of Sicily. Innocent sought German assistance, but 
ConraD ITI was slow to act; the papal expedition 
against Roger ended in Innocent’s defeat and 
capture and the treaty of Mignano (27 July 1139), 
in which the pope recognized Roger as king. 

Innocent disapproved of the claims of Emp. 
John II Komnenos on Antioch; in a letter of 28 
Mar. 1138 he excommunicated the emperor and 
prohibited Latins from serving in the Byz. army. 
Several months later, however, the pope changed 
his position and opened negotiations with John 
in an effort to establish friendly relations with 
Byz. No positive results were achieved. 

uit. JG. Rowe, “The Papacy and the Greeks (1122- 
1153)” ChHist 28 (1959) 115-22, 126-30. —ALK. 


INNOCENT III (Lothar of Segni), pope (from 8 
Jan. 1198); born Anagni 1160/1, died 16 July 
1216. The collapse of German power after the 
death of Henry VI in 1197 allowed Innocent to 
accomplish the moral and administrative restruc- 
turing of the Roman church and to acquire great 
influence throughout the Western world. He also 
tried to expand papal jurisdiction over Armenia 
and Bulgaria. He worked toward union with the 


Greek church on condition that Byz. recognize 
papal primacy, but in the beginning, at least, he 
was willing to discuss differences in rite. 

The organization of the Fourth Crusade put 
the problem in a new lght: at first Innocent 
apparently hoped to use the Crusader army against 
the Saracens in Sicily (E. Kennan, Traditio 27 
[1971] 246-48). Even though the pope supported 
the German king Otto IV (1198—1218), the rival 
of Puil OF Swabia, he accepted Philip’s ap- 
pointec BONIFACE OF MONTFERRAT as leader of 
the expedition. The Crusaders’ capture of ZARA 
created a new political and moral dilemma. The 
pontiff disapproved of the attack on a Christian 
city but recommended continued collaboration 
with the Venetians, whose resources were neces- 
sary to execute the plan (A. Andrea, |. Motsiff, 
BS 33 [1972] 6-25). M. Zaborov (VizVrem 5 [1952] 
152-77) argued that diversion of the Crusade 
toward Constantinople was Innocent’s own scheme; 
this may be an exaggeration, but the Latin seizure 
of Constantinople in 1204 seemed to be a political 
success for the reformed papacy. 

Innocents predecessors usually denied Con- 
stantinople’s claim to the status of patriarchate. 
Now, with Constantinople in Western hands, In- 
nocent endorsed the Greek concept of five pa- 
triarchates and associated Constantinople with the 
activity of the apostle John. However, he had to 
accede, although reluctantly, to the election of the 
Venetian THomas Morosini as Latin patriarch of 
Constantinople. The pope sent legates (PETER 
Capuano, Benedict) to Constantinople, where they 
had debates with the Greek clergy: although their 
words were conciliatory, they in fact demanded 
that the Greeks conform to Latin doctrine and 
rite. The Greek hierarchy was restructured and 
put under the jurisdiction of the Latin church, 
and Latin monastic orders expanded in the em- 
pire. These measures failed to achieve church 
union, however, and Innocent soon began to treat 
the Byz. as heretics and schismatics. In 1213 In- 
nocent received letters from certain Greek monks 
who complained about the Cistercians. ‘The latter 
had acquired the CHORTAITES MONASTERY, near 
Thessalonike, from Boniface of Montferrat; later, 
Henry OF Hainaut, the Latin emperor of Con- 
stantinople, installed Greek monks there, but in 
1212 the Cistercians, armed with Innocent’s man- 
date, expelled them. Although the pope ordered 


Cardinal PeLacrus OF ALBANO to investigate the 
situation, the Chortaites monastery remained in 
Cistercian hands, and by 1223 its owners had even 
been granted the monastery of the Holy Arch- 
angel in Negroponte (E. Brown, Traditio 14 [1958] 
78-81). 

ure. A. Luchaire, Innocent HT, 6 vols. (Paris 1906-08). J. 
Gill, “Innocent HI and the Greeks: Aggressor or Apostle?” 
Relations Between East and West in the Middle Ages, ed. D. 
Baker (Edinburgh 1973) g5-108. G. Hagedorn, “Papst 
Innozenz III. und Byzanz am Vorabend des Vierten 
Kreuzzugs (1198-1203), OstkSt 23 (1974) 3-20, 105-36. 
W. de Vries, “Innozenz lI. (1198—1216) und der christ- 
liche Osten,” ArchHistPont 4 (1965) 87—126. R.L. Wolff, 
“Phe Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constanti- 
nople, 1204-1261," Traditio 6 (1948) 33-60. -ALK. 


INNOCENT IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), pope (from 
25 June 1243); born Genoa ca.1200, died Naples 
7 Dec. 1254. Innocent carried the war against 
FREDERICK II to its climax. In the summer of 1244 
the pope fled to Lyons to organize a coalition 
against Frederick. In 1245 he convened the First 
Council of Lyons. His aim was to sever Sicily from 
the German kingdom, and in 1252 he tried to 
offer Sicily to Richard of Cornwall (son of King 
John of England) and to CHARLES I or Anjou. 
His Eastern policy was determined primarily by 
two factors: the need to protect the remnants of 
the Latin state in Palestine, esp. after the Crusad- 
ers’ defeat at Gaza in 1239, and to secure assis- 
tance against Frederick. In March or April of 
1245 Innocent sent Andrew of Longjumeau to 
negotiate with the Egypuan emir Fakhr al-Din; in 
a letter of 15 Aug. 1246, Fakhr al-Din claimed 
that atrocities in Jerusalem had been committed 
without the knowledge of the Ayyubid sultan and 
promised to repair demolished buildings and to 
support pilgrimages, which were lucrative for the 
Ayyusips (K.-E. Lupprian in Das heilige Land im 
Mittelalter [Neustadt an der Aisch 1982] 77—82). 
Innocent also sought alliance with the Mongols 
(K.E. Lupprian, ST 291 [1981] 48-56). He worked 
for a union with “schismatics” and “heretics” un- 
der papal jurisdiction: in a letter of 22 Mar. 1253 
he blamed the Catholics on the island of Melos 
for going too far in rapprochement with the 
Greeks, but he was ready to recognize some dif- 
ferences in rite if the Eastern church would accept 
papal primacy. The Nicene emperor John IIIT 
Vatatzes was eager to reach an agreement and to 
receive the pope’s assistance against the Latin 


INNOVATION 997 


empire of Constantinople (P. Zavoronkov, Viz- 
Vrem 36 [1974] 113-16), but the negotiations were 
interrupted by the deaths of John and Innocent 
in 1254. 

ur. W. de Vries, “Innozenz IV. (1243-1254) und der 
christliche Osten.” OstkSt 12 (1963) 113-31. J.-M. Powell, 
“Frederick II and the Church: A Revisionist View.” Catholic 
Historical Review 48 (1963) 487-97. H. Marc-Bonnet, “Le 
Saint-Siège et Charles d'Anjou sous Innocent IV et Alex- 
andre IV (1245-1261)," RH 200 (1948) 49-62. A. Franchi, 
La svolta politica-ecclesiastica tra Roma e Bisanzio (1244-54) 
(Rome 1981). -4A.K. 


INNOVATION (kawortopia), in the narrow sense, 
as used by theologians, primarily of the 6th—7th 
C., described the new doctrine of the miracle of 
Incarnation. Kainotomia is defined by Maximos the 
Confessor (PG gi:1313C) as Christs assumption 
of “our flesh without semen” and the Virgin’s 
giving birth without defloration. More often the 
word was used in a broader sense of novelty and 
breach of tradition and applied predominantly to 
heretical doctrines or even rebellions. According 
to Psellos (Chron. 1:103, par.27.14), many of his 
colleagues called the revolt against Michael V “a 
senseless kaznotomia,” while in Kekaumenos kaino- 
tomia designates ilhcit actions or illegal gain (A. 
Kazhdan, VizVrem 36 [1974] 156) rather than un- 
expected damage (G. Litavrin, VizVrem 36 [1974] 
170). Accordingly, the expression kainos theologos, 
“new theologian,” had a pejorative connotation 
(P. Wirth, OrChr 45 [1961] 127f), and Niketas 
Stethatos spoke ironically about new teachers or 
a new prophet (neos prophetes) (A. Kazhdan, BS 28 
[1967] 4, n.8). The customary tide “the New The- 
ologian” given to the mystic Symeon is a misin- 
terpretation—he was Symeon the Younger, the 
theologian (H.-G. Beck, BZ 46 [1953] 57-62). 
Thus, the Byz. did not appreciate innovation 
and claimed to have stuck to tradition. IMITATION 
or repetition of the standard authorities was 
praiseworthy. lhe idea of plagiarism did not ex- 
ist. Reforms were usually couched in terms of the 
restoration of the past rather than of innovation: 
Psellos, while criticizing Isaac I Komnenos for 
drastic changes, referred to God who did not 
create the world instantaneously but took an en- 
tire week (Chron. 2:121, par.62.g—12). In the same 
vein Gregoras (Greg. 2:796.2-12) censored the 
ZEALOTS in Thessalonike for their rule that had 
no precedents, aristocratic or democratic, and was 


998 INSANITY 


not even a “new species” derived from existing 
forms but emerged spontaneously as a “strange 
ochlocracy.” This negative attitude toward inno- 
vation does not mean that Byz. culture totally 
lacked originality. For example, there were re- 
markable novelties of both content and style, esp. 
in MONUMENTAL PAINTING, in and after the gth C. 


Urr. Mango, Byz. Image, pt. (1981), 48-57. 
-A.K., A.C. 


INSANITY, a pisease that was viewed by the Byz. 
in a contradictory manner: some people with ab- 
normal behavior were proclaimed holy rooxs, but 
insanity and esp. the epilepsy confused with it 
were interpreted as caused by DEMONS. Accord- 
ingly, the Byz. lost the classical definition of epi- 
lepsy as “holy disease,” or hiera nosos, a term trans- 
ferred to LEPROSY (A. Philipsborn, Byzantion 33 
[1963] 223f). 

Byz. theoreticians generally hearkened back to 
the notions of GaLeNn that madness was the result 
of too much black bile, causing the diseased 
imbalance of humors called melancholy (cf. 
Alex.Trall. 1:590—617). A second Galenic concept 
was the idea of the three pneumata (Vital, Psychic, 
and Natural) that also caused madness when bal- 
ance among the three was disturbed; one meets 
continual reference to “passions” (esp. those of 
Just) as particularly engendering insanity. Galen’s 
Passions and Errors of the Soul (ed. W. de Boer 
[Leipzig-Berlin 1937]) provided a model of sorts, 
from which many Byz. physicians derived their 
basic concepts of madness, although numerous 
cases of pure insanity had clear records of cure 
through religious miracles, not medical or phar- 
maceutical treatment. As treatment of insanity, 
Saints used EXORCISM and INCUBATION in special 
churches. 

uit. M. Dols, “Insanity in Byzantine and Islamic Medi- 
cine,” DOP 38 (1984) 135-48. H. Flashar, Melancholie und 
Melancholiker in den medizinischen Theorien der Antike (Berlin 


1966) 118-33. W. Creutz, Die Neurologie des 1.-7. Jahrhun- 
derts (Leipzig 1934) 50-81. ~J.S. 


INSCRIPTIO. See Acrs, DOCUMENTARY. 


INSCRIPTIONS, LAPIDARY, are incised or 
carved in relief on stone or marble, the letters 
sometimes heightened in color. They may be di- 
vided into two periods: the first from the 4th to 


the 7th C., the second trom the 7th to the 15th, 
In the first period EPIGRAPHY continues to play 
the same role, closely tied to city life, that it had 
played under the pagan empire; in the second 
period its scope becomes more restricted. We may 
divide stone inscriptions (sing. TiTAos, TETAOY) into 
the following principal categories: 

1. Funerary inscriptions are very numerous in 
the first period and are found on stelae, sarco- 
phagi, loculi, and other forms of burial. Persons 
of high status are often commemorated in hexa- 
meter. There is a wide spread of lower-class epi- 
taphs (artisans, shopkeepers, soldiers, minor clergy, 
etc.) recording the name of the deceased and his/ 
her father; place of origin (often providing evi- 
dence of migration); occupation; length of life; 
date of death (day of the week, month, indiction), 
seldom in absolute terms (i.e., by consulship, reg- 
nal year, or local era in the Eastern provinces). 
Sometimes curses are added against anyone mak- 
ing unauthorized use of the tomb; the price paid 
for it may also be mentioned. There is a particu- 
larly full series of epitaphs from Korykos, an- 
other from Tyre. Constantinople with its envi- 
rons, Corinth, and other places have also yielded 
a fair number. 

In the second period epitaphs become much 
rarer and those of ordinary persons almost non- 
existent, which suggests that they were buried in 
unmarked graves. This development may account 
for funerary graffiti, such as those scratched on 
the columns of the Parthenon in Athens, sepa- 
rated from the place of burial. As for persons of 
rank, there is a tendency toward longer and longer 
verse epitaphs, inscribed on the sarcophagus or 
on slabs attached to an arcosolium. 

2. Honorific inscriptions on statue bases or ac- 
companying the portrait of a prominent person 
(emperor, official, charioteer), usually in verse, 
were still fairly common in the first period (many 
preserved in the GREEK ANTHOLOGY), but absent 
in the second. 

3. Building inscriptions appear on public mon- 
uments and works of fortifications, seldom on 
private houses. This category continued into the 
second period, while undergoing considerable 
contraction. 

4. Inscriptions recording edicts and tariffs were 
practically absent in the second period, the latest 
known example perhaps being the grant of a salt 
pan to the Church of St. Demetrios at Thessalo- 


nike by Justinian I (688/9). The conciliar “edict” 
of Manuel I of 1166 (C. Mango, DOP 17 [1963] 
315730) is essentially a religious text. 

5. Acclamations addressed to emperors and cir- 
cus factions are usually introduced by the formula 
Nika he tyche. Vhey are absent in the second pe- 
riod. 

6. Boundary stones are practically absent in the 
second period, except for those delimiting the 
Byz.-Bulgarian fronter (Beševliev, Inschriften, 
no.46). MILESTONES along public roads appear to 
cease in the 5th C. 

7. Inscriptions regarding rights of ownership or 
the place (topos, thesis) occupied by persons in a 
theater, a market, or even a church form another 
category. They are absent in the second period. 

8. Religious texts, invocations, and curses are 
also the subject of inscriptions. 


Liv. Corpus inseriptionum graecarum, 4 (Berlin 1877). 
-C.M. 


INSIGNIA (onpeĉta), characteristic emblems used 
to express symbolically the social and political 
position of an individual or an institution. Byz. 
only embryonically developed the heraldry of he- 
reditary familial COATS OF ARMS So typical of West- 
ern feudalism, but it did establish systems of per- 
sonal, institutional, and imperial insignia. The 
word semeion was also used to designate both a 
standard or banner (e.g., a Persian semeion placed 
on a tower—Chron. Pasch. 554.8—9) and a theo- 
logical symbol, such as the sign of the cross, bap- 
tism, or a miracle. 

Personal insignia are known primarily from SEALS 
that depict images of Christ, the Virgin, the cross, 
and various saints, the most popular of which 
were military saints (George, Demetrios, and 
Theodore), the Archangel Michael, and St. Ni- 
cholas; more developed scenes (e.g., the Annun- 
ciation) appear rarely. The saint is considered a 
patron (often the owner of the seal was named 
after him), but it is not yet clear to what extent 
the owner consistently used the image of his pa- 
tron saint and accordingly whether the semeion 
should be considered a genuine emblem. Some 
patterns of usage are evident: thus, generals fre- 
quently adopted military saints as patrons, whereas 
civil functionaries preferred Michael and Nicho- 
las. Seals reveal a certain consistency and conti- 
nutty of semeia tor local churches; thus, the met- 





INSIGNIA 999 


ropolitans of Ephesus had as their patrons either 
the apostle John or the Virgin. 

‘The emblems of officials are better known. The 
NOTITIA DIGNITATUM represents the insignia of 
important office holders ca.400; thus, the em- 
blems of the praetorian prefect of Illyricum were 
the codicillus (diploma of appointment) with im- 
perial portrait, the so-called theca (i.e., pen case 
and ink pot), and a horse-drawn state coach re- 
served for the use of the prefect (P.C. Berger, 
The Insignia of the Notitia Dignitatum [New York— 
London 1981] 25-37). Later insignia are listed in 
such texts as De ceremoniis of Constantine VII or 
in pseudo-Kodinos. 

Insignia can be divided into symbolic emblems 
(as represented in the Notitia dignitatum or on 
coins) and real objects. ‘The latter encompassed 
COSTUME including footgear, the CROWN, weap- 
onry and horse trappings, the THRONE, and sym- 
bols of authority or piety, such as the SCEPTER, 
SPHAIRA (orb), and akakiA. The form and color 
of these garments and objects differed, reflecting 
the hierarchical ladder. Thus, in pseudo-Kodinos, 
the despoles was granted the privilege of wearing 
the SKIADION covered with pearls, with a veil bear- 
ing the name of the owner einbroidered in gold; 
the sebastokrator had a gold and red skiadion with 
gold embroidery (syrmateinon), but no pearls are 
mentioned; the megas domestikos wore a klapoton 
(not syrmateinon) skiadion, that is, one decorated 
with small golden squares in the shape of a nail- 
head; the megas doux wore a klapoton skiadion, but 
without a veil, and so on. 

In the late gth C. the Kletorologion of Philotheos 
divided all functionaries into two major catego- 
ries: those who were invested with some form of 
insignia (brabeion), and those who were appointed 
by the word of the emperor. Among official in- 
signia Philotheos mentioned the charte (codieil); a 
golden staff; the fiblatorion, a cloak secured with 
a FIBULA; a golden chain; a golden whip decorated 
with precious stones; and a sword ornamented 
with gold and ivory plaques. 

Imperial regalia, partly developed from the in- 
signia of Roman magistrates (e.g., consuls), partly 
derived from the East, partly created anew, were 
above all characterized by the exclusive right to 
use the color PURPLE (while green and blue were 
the colors of certain high-ranking officials). A 
special costume decorated with gold, pearls, and 
precious stones distinguished the emperor from 


1000 INSPIRATION 


his entourage. The order in which the different 
elements of imperial costume (DIVETESION, CHLA- 
MYS, SKARAMANGION, etc.) were put on was pre- 
scribed by court ceremonial, and the usage of a 
particular garment was usually linked with car- 
rying particular objects (scepter, etc.). The cere- 
monial also prescribed a change in the imperial 
regalia at certain stages of processions and recep- 
tions. The different elements of the regalia varied 
in importance: the crown and chlamys always held 
pride of place, whereas the scepter and shoes 
(TZANGI1A) probably assumed significance only by 
the 10th C. Different crowns and garments were 
employed for different festivities. 

The Byz. saw a symbolic meaning in various 
insignia: the sphaira designated the universal power 
of the emperor, the akakia his mortality and sub- 
jection to Christ. A poem of CHRISTOPHER OF 
MYTILENE (no.30.12~26) gives an example of the 
symbolic interpretation of the insignia that be- 
longed to the eparch of Constantinople: his simi- 
kinthion (“apron,” probably the Loros) symbolized 
the uninterrupted series of his good works; the 
tawny orange boots his divine paths; the white 
horse his shining virtue; and the brazen bosses of 
his horse trappings, which were alloyed with gold, 
symbolized his generosity, since he distributed 
gold and bronze among the needy. 

UT. K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, RBK 3:369-468. 
DOC 2.1:80—88; 3.1:127-142. P.E. Schramm, Herrschafts- 
zeichen und Staatssymbolik, vols. 1—4 (Stuttgart-Munich 1954- 
78). A. Alföldi, “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kai- 
ser,” MDAI RA 50 (1935) 1-171. G. Galavaris, “The Sym- 
bolism of the Imperial Costume as Displayed on Byzantine 
Coins,” MN 8 (1958) 99—112. A. Pertusi, “Symbolisme des 


insignes byzantines du pouvoir,” EtBalk 14 (1978) no.2, 
44-50. -A.K. 


INSPIRATION commonly designates the work- 
ings of a (divine) spirit. In Christianity it refers 
particularly to the Hoty Spirit who acts on the 
authors of the Biste. Their works, according to 
2 Timothy 3:16, are “inspired by God” (theo- 
pneustos, a Hellenistic term to indicate the phe- 
nomenon of “divine rapture,” “divine emotion,” 
and ecstasy) and an operation of divine empneusis. 
The books of the Bible are not the work of man, 
but prophecy (2 Pet 1:20-21): this is the term 
preferred by the church fathers to describe the 
Bible as the work of God. Therewith, inspiration 
also means the influence of God on the prophets, 


and then the Apostles (to be distinguished from 
the possession of the Spirit in Christ: Nicholas of 
Methone, ed. A. Demetrakopulos, Ekklesiastike Bib. 
liotheke, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1866; rp. Hildesheim 1965) 
199—218), and the saints; finally it includes all 
“charismas,” inspirations of God, and esp. enthu- 
stastic experiences. Certain writers, esp. hagiog. 
raphers, emphasize that they are or are said to be 
humble sinners who function only as the tool of 
the Holy Spirit. The notion of inspiration serves 
primarily and largely to maintain authority, and 
so in Byz. one speaks of the inspiration of the 
councils, the church fathers, or the ecclesiastical 
canons. Finally, in the political sphere, there is 
inspiration of the emperor, who, crowned by the 
Holy Spirit, rules through the Holy Spirit’s inspi- 
ration. (See also SOPHIA.) 

LIT. H. Bacht, “Religionsgeschichtliches zum Inspira- 
tionsproblem,” Scholastik 17 (1942) 50—69. J. Leipoldt, “Die 
Frühgeschichte der Lehre von der göttlichen Eingebung,” 
ZNTW 44 (1952-53) 118-45. K. Holl, Enthusiasmus und 
Bussgewalt beim griechischen Ménchtum (Leipzig 1898). G. 


Bardy, “L'inspiration des Pères de l'Eglise,” RechScRel 40 
(1951—52) 7—26. -K.-H.U. 


INSTITUTES. Promulgated by Justinian I through 
the constitution “Imperatoriam” of 21 Nov. 533 
and compiled at his order by the law professors 
THEOPHILOS and DoroTHEOS, under the direction 
of TRIBONIAN, the Institutes are at once a textbook 
in four books and law. As a textbook they are 
closely modeled, in the arrangement of the ma- 
terial, on the Institutes of the jurist Gaius (2nd C.), 
from which many of their texts are derived. The 
writings of the classical Roman jurists—mostly in 
their form as preserved in the Dicest—and 
Justinian Is own constitutions also served as 
sources. Justinian explicitly endowed the Institutes 
with the force of law in the introductory consti- 
tution “Imperatoriam” (ch.7). A Greek para- 
phrase of the Institutes that resulted from the 
law course of Theophilos served as a “quarry” 
for later Byz. legal textbooks (PsELLOs, Syn- 
opsis legum) and legal lexika (adet), because of 
its pedagogical arrangement of the most im- 
portant legal topics (personae, res, actiones) on 
the one hand, and its numerous explanations 
of Latin legal terms on the other. Various frag- 
ments from Greek revisions of the text of the 
Institutes—which are more or less similar to 


the Theophilos text—are found in legal MSS 
and can even be detected in the Hexabiblos of 
HARMENOPOULOS. 

ep. P. Birks, G. McLeod (London 1987), with Eng. tr. 

Lit. Wenger, Quellen 600—11, 682—86. P. Pieler in Hun- 
ger, Lit. 2:417—-21. O.F. Robinson, “Public Law and Justi- 
nian’s Institutes,” in Studies in Justinian’s Institutes in Memory 
of J.A.C. Thomas (London 1983) 125-33. L. Burgmann, 
“Das Lexikon adet—Ein Theophilosglossar,” FM 6 (Frank- 
furt 1984) 19-61. —M.Th.F. 


INTAGLIO, conventional term denoting a sub- 
category of glyptics (carved hardstones), on which, 
in contrast to CAMEO, the design is incised. Pre- 
ferred stones were jasper, carnelian, haematite, 
and rock crystal, for any of which glass might 
occasionally be substituted. The technique is most 
characteristic of ring bezels and cone SEALS, where 
it was essential to their sealing function, and of 
pendant AMULETS, where it was apparently valued 
for its beauty and, perhaps, for its similarity to 
Greco-Egyptian gem amulets (Bonner, Studies, nos. 
294-97, 334-39). Intaglios were far less popular 
among the Byz. than among the Romans or Sas- 
anians, and their technical quality relatively infe- 
rior. Monograms were preferred for sealing in- 
taglios, while various biblical scenes, icons, or 
magical creatures or symbols might appear on the 
amulets. Relatively common during the 5th—7th 
C., gemstone intaglios are rare thereafter, al- 
though the occasional appearance of fine figural 
specimens from succeeding centuries attests to 
preservation of the tradition, probably among 
craftsmen who regularly incised metal, whether 
for ring bezels, cone seals, coin dies, or boulloteria 
(see SEALING IMPLEMENTS). 

uit. H. Wentzel, “Die Kamee der Kaiserin Anna,” in 


Festschrift Ulrich Middeldorf, vol. 1 (Berlin 1968) 1-11. 
-G.V. 


INTELLECT (vots), the human mind, was con- 
ceived in accordance with ancient Greek meta- 
physics as the immaterial or spiritual cognitive 
faculty, referring to unity and transcending the 
differences of rational discourse, “reconciling all 
oppositions” (BASIL THE GREAT, ep.8.g, ed. Cour- 
tonne 1:33.11—13). Although the nous functioned 
in a different way from sensorial perception 
(Maximos the Confessor in scholia on pseudo- 
Dionysios THE AREOPAGITE), ANASTASIOS OF SINAI 


INTELLECTUALS | 1001 


(ed. Uthemann, Viae Dux 2.5.66—67) defined it as 
the “contemplative perception” (aisthesis theoretike) 
that brings forth the Locos in the unity of lan- 
guage and thought. Differentiated from the souL, 
nous is a divine spark in the soul possessing the 
capacity of knowing God. It is the instrument of 
contemplation that prepares the human way to 
perfection, but needs constant purification, since 
it can be obscured and coarsened by sin. Nous was 
metaphorically represented as light, eye, and 
charioteer. 

Pseudo-Dionysios speaks of angelic intelligences 
or powers as noes (pl. of nous). The Byz. also 
employed the terminology of PLorinos who con- 
sidered the divine Intellect as the first emanation 
of the One. The epithet nous was applied both to 
the Father whose Son was “the Logos of the Nous” 
and to the Son. 

For the Origenists of the 6th C., Christ was the 
“self-alienating Nous” who is to come, at the end 
of time, for the salvation of fallen spirits “in var- 
ious bodies and under various names.” All intel- 
ligent beings or noes, before the aversion or dis- 
gust that is caused by their vision of God and 
leads them to apostasy, were but “one substance, 
one force, one energy,” and they will acquire such 
status again at the end of time owing to their 
unity with God the Logos and the loss of any 
individuality. Only one nous had preserved his 
union with God the Logos in the vision of God, 
namely one that at the end of time will be revealed 
as Christ in multiple forms in order to initiate the 
apokatastasis, that is, the restoration of the original 
unity. In this teaching on the beginning and the 
end of time, the metaphysics of the intellect be- 
comes a cosmological myth and drama; this teach- 
ing overlaps with Gnostic speculations that resolve 
the entire cosmos and all its species in a single 
undifferentiated unity; in other words, alienates 
them. A contrasting view is represented by the 
hierarchical world view of pseudo-Dionysios. In 
the tenets of Byz. mystics and in the doctrine of 
the Trinity one can see the merging of these two 
tendencies. ~K.-H.U. 


INTELLECTUALS in the late Roman period were 
connected primarily with the urban environment: 
they received their training in universities and 
occupied positions as teachers, lawyers, rhetori- 


1002 | INTELLIGENCE, MILITARY AND POLITICAL 


cians, physicians; they were members of the local 
aristocracy or belonged to its milieu. Alongside 
them two new groups of intellectuals developed, 
theologians and officials. The crisis of the late 
antique POLIS was accompanied by the disappear- 
ance of the urban “intelligentsia”—cultural activ- 
ity ca.800 was concentrated around monasteries, 
not the curia as it was in antiquity. The ENcy- 
CLOPEDISM of the gth—1oth C. contributed to the 
development of a secular intelligentsia, but through 
the 11th C. intellectuals were primarily state and 
church bureaucrats, closely connected with Con- 
stantinople and its administrative machinery. Pro- 
fessional intellectuals came to the fore in the 12th 
C., but even in this period their careers were often 
crowned by appointment to a bishopric. Never- 
theless, intellectuals of the 12th C. argued that 
they held a specific social position and had a right 
to remunerations granted by the state, church, or 
private patrons. The increasing social importance 
of the medical profession (A. Kazhdan, DOP 38 
[1984] 43-51) also reflects this shift. Sevéenko’s 
analysis of the status of late Byz. literati (infra) 
demonstrated that the court of Constantinople 
continued to be the center of intellectual life, even 
though more than half of the writers can be 
assigned to the ecclesiastical sphere; only a few 
were of humble origin. 

LIT. Ševčenko, Soc. & Intell., pt.1 (1974), 69—92, rev. A. 
Kazhdan, GOrThR 27 (1982) 89—97. H.G. Beck, Das liter- 


arische Schaffen der Byzantiner (Vienna 1974) 11f. Kazhdan- 
Constable, Byzantium 101f. -A.K. 


INTELLIGENCE, MILITARY AND POLITI- 
CAL. Surrounded by hostile powers and peoples, 
the Byz. state constantly required political and 
military intelligence to defend itself and to ex- 
pand its influence beyond its borders. The DE 
ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO (10th C.) outlines the in- 
terests served by political intelligence, such as 
desirable alliances, trade routes, and diplomatic 
strategy, and by counterintelligence, used to awe 
foreign ambassadors with Byz. power and to with- 
hold state secrets from them. Information was 
channelled to the LOGOTHETES TOU DROMOU from 
many sources, including merchants, travelers, for- 
mer prisoners of war, embassies, and Christian 
communities outside the empire. 

Military men paid close attention to the equip- 
ment, skills, tactics, and character of various ene- 
mies; their observations were recorded in the 


STRATEGIKON OF Maurice (bk.11) and the TAk- 
TIKA OF LEo VI (bk.18) with suggestions on how 
best to adapt to each one. The DE VELITATIONE 
(10th C.) describes the surveillance of the fron- 
tiers by local units, which monitored enemy in- 
vaders to ascertain their strength and intentions; 
the necessity of reconnaissance while on campaign 
is repeatedly emphasized in the sTRATEGIKA. In 
preparation for offensive expeditions, merchants 
were sent into enemy lands to collect information 
(De cer. 657.3—12), and grudging tribute to their 
effectiveness comes from IBN Haw@at, who crit- 
icized the Arab authorities’ inattention to them 
(Configuration de la terre, tr. J.H. Kramers, G. Wiet, 
vol. 1 [Paris 1964] 193). 

LIT. F. Dvornik, Origins of Intelligence Services (New 
Brunswick 1974) 121-87, 235-58. J. Wiita, “The Ethnika 
in Byzantine Military Treatises” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Minn., 
1977). G. Dagron, “ ‘Ceux d'en face’: Les peuples étrangers 


dans les traités militaires byzantins,” TM 10 (1987) 207~ 
28. -E.M. 


INTEREST (róxos, lit. “child”). According to the 
law of Justinian I, there were two sorts of interest: 
based on a contract (agreement, stipulation}; au- 
tomatically owed by law in some kinds of trans- 
actions, such as interest on debts to minors or to 
the fisc or owed by an official of a society if he 
used the society’s funds for his own purposes. 
The 8th-C. Ecloga does not mention tokos; in the 
early gth C. Emp. Nikephoros I abolished all 
forms of interest (Theoph. 488.11) with the ex- 
ception of interest due to naukleroi (probably on 
account of their occupational risk). Basil I also 
prohibited interest as contravening Christian eth- 
ical values. Leo VI, however, revoked this prohi- 
bition in novel 83, since “the average man is 
unable to attain such heights of morality and must 
abide by human, not divine laws.” 

Maximum interest was defined by Basil. 23.3.74 
in accordance with Justinianic law: the normal 
rate of interest was set at 6 percent, but the 
illoustrioi could not ask more than 4 percent, 
whereas merchants were allowed 8 percent, in- 
creased to 12 percent if they were involved in 
maritime operations. In novel 83 Leo VI allowed 
only a standard 4 percent rate of interest. Peira 
19.1 gives a higher rate: regular interest was 6 
nomismata per pound (litra) of gold, while argy- 
ropratai could charge 8 nomismata; protospatharioi 
were limited to charging 4 nomismata. Since in 


the 11th C. there were 72 nomismata to the pound, 
the rates were 8.3, 11.1, and 5.6 percent, respec- 
tively. Circa 1400 much higher rates of 15 and 
26.6 percent are found in the decisions of Patr. 
Matthew I. (See also Usury.) 

LIT. G. Cassimatis, Les intérêts dans la législation de Justi- 
nien et dans le droit byzantin (Paris 1931). N. Matzes, “Ho 
tokos en te nomologia tou patriarcheiou Konstantinoupo- 


leos kata tous ID’ kai IE’ alonas,” EEBS 38 (1971) 71-83. 
-A.K. 


INTERIOR SPACE, the depiction of an enclosed 
area, was generally of little concern to artists in 
Byz. and was left to the spectator’s understanding 
of a scene to supply. Thus in the Rossano Gos- 
PELS no physical distinction is made between the 
room in which Judas returns the silver and the 
yard in which he hangs himself. Painters normally 
declined to define the area in which an event took 
place, even one specified in a text as occurring 
indoors. Scenes calling for an interior setting, 
such as the Last Supper or the DorMITION of the 
Virgin, were furnished with a summary architec- 
tural backdrop, occasionally supplemented with a 
swag, signifying an interior space, thrown over a 
wall or slung between piers. Other symbolic de- 
vices of this sort include open doors, thrones, 
altars, and tables. Even in the 14th C., when there 
is some evidence for the reuse of Late Antique 
motifs and of loans from the West, ancient Roman 
and new Italian PERSPECTIVE schemes were ig- 
nored; interior spaces became ever more elabo- 
rate and ever less rational. 

LIT. T. Velmans, “Le rôle du décor architectural et la 
représentation de l’espace dans la peinture des Paléo- 


logues,” CahArch 14 (1964) 183-216. Sevtenko, Nicholas 
88—go. -A.C. 


INTERLACE, a regular pattern formed of two 
or more interwoven or plaited bands, usually as a 
filler or border ORNAMENT. In contrast with the 
technical precision achieved through the use of 
compass and ruler in many Latin examples, Byz. 
versions of interlace, particularly in MSS, seem to 
have been composed freehand. Again unlike Latin 
interlace, Byz. examples are usually symmetrically 
constructed along an axis. In this they also differ 
from the arabesque, an overall decorative pattern 
based on stylized leaf- and scrollwork developed 
by the Arabs that appears in Byz. by the 1oth C. 
As a twisted rope pattern or in the form of large 


INTERPOLATIONES 1003 


and usually regular medallions alternating with 
smaller circles, a simple interlace formed of two 
strands was ubiquitous throughout the Byz. pe- 
riod; multiple band interlace also appears, partic- 
ularly in works produced in or influenced by Italy. 
Interlace was esp. popular in MSS, textiles, and 
metalwork. 

Simple, two-strand interlace is often referred to 
by scholars as guilloche. It appears on capitals 
and moldings, as at the Nea Mone on Chios, as 
well as in MSS from the 6th C. (Vienna DiosKo- 
RIDES) to the end of the Byz. period, as it was 
particularly popular as a text divider. 

uit. Frantz, “Byz. Illuminated Ornament” 50-54. Åberg, 
Occident and Orient 2:32-36. H. Bober, “On the Illumina- 
tion of the Glazier Codex,” in Homage to a Bookman: Essays 


on Manuscripts, Books and Printing written for H.P. Kraus 
(Berlin 1967) 31—49. —-L.Br. 


INTERPOLATIONES. When charging the com- 
pilers to assemble the Dicest, Justinian I autho- 
rized them to make alterations, where necessary, 
to the texts of the classical jurists (Cod.Just. I 
17.1.7). He also allowed “editorial” interventions 
of this sort in the compilation of the Conex Jus- 
TINIANUS (“Constitutio Haec,” ch.2 = CIC 2, p.1). 
These interpolations into the original texts, though 
intentional, are discreet; they have promoted con- 
siderable research aimed at reconstructing the 
original versions of the texts. The writings of the 
ANTECESSORES occasionally aid in the detection of 
the interpolations both because they were some- 
times based on older stages of the text (THALE- 
Larios) and because they were composed with 
knowledge of the pre-Justinianic legal situation. 
Conscious interpolations, which actually change 
the content of a text, are rarely encountered in 
Byz. legal literature after Justinian. In the Bası- 
LIKA the texts of the Corpus Juris CIvILis were 
incorporated usually without any intentional al- 
terations. In some cases, however, interpolations 
of the original texts of Justinian can be observed 
in the Basilika. These interpolations correspond 
to several innovations in law that Leo VI decreed 
in his novels (M.Th. Fégen, SubGr 3 [1989] 23- 


35). 


LIT. Index interpolationum, quae in lustiniani Digestis inesse 
dicuntur, eds. L. Mitteis, E. Levy, E. Rabel, 3 vols. (plus 
supp. to vol. 1) (Weimar 1929—35). Index interpolationum, 
quae in Iustiniani Codice inesse dicuntur, ed. G. Broggini 
(Cologne-Vienna 1969). S. Riccobono, “Tracce di diritto 
romano classico nelle collezioni giuridiche bizantine,” Bul- 


1004 INTERPRETER 


lettino dell'Istituto di Diritto Romano 18 (1906) 197—222. Idem, 
“Il valore delle collezioni giuridiche bizantine per lo studio 
critico del ‘Corpus luris Civilis, ” in Mélanges Fitting, vol. 2 
(Montpellier 1908; rp. Aalen-Frankfurt 1969) 465-97. 
—M.Th.F 


INTERPRETER (tpunvevrýs or ĝeepunvevrhs), 
official on the staff of the LOGOTHETES TOU 
DROMOU; in the Palaiologan period they were un- 
der the command of the megas diermeneutes and 
the praitor tou demou. Bury (Adm. System 93) iden- 
tified them with the interpretes diversarum gentium 
in the officium of the MAGISTER OFFICIORUM. Some 
interpreters, such as the protospatharios Krinites in 
the mid-1oth C., performed diplomatic duties. 
The corps of professional interpreters existed 
through the whole history of Byz., even though 
the sources rarely mention their participation in 
later embassies (I. Medvedev, VizVrem 33 [1972] 
132, n.18). The gambros and diermeneutes Loukas 
Notaras took part in negotiations with the Vene- 
tians in 1448 (Reg 5, no.3516; MM 3:224.16). 
Besides participating in embassies, interpreters 
served as translators for negotiations in Constan- 
tinople and compiled documents in foreign lan- 
guages. The epithet megas was applied to the term 
in the 12th C. (first mention ca.1160) to designate 
the chief interpreter. On seals one finds the titles 
of the interpreters of the Romans, Bulgarians, 
Varangians, and English (Laurent, Corpus 2, nos. 
469-71; Zacos, Seals 2, no.706). 

LIT. D.A. Miller, “The Logothete of the Drome in the 
Middle Byzantine Period,” Byzantion 36 (1966-67) 449-58. 
Guilland, Titres, pt.XX (1968), 17-26. Oikonomides, 
“Chancellerie” 172f. —A.K. 


INTESTATE SUCCESSION (7) KAnpovopia èë 
&Suabérov) occurs when a deceased person has 
left no wILt. If the problems that necessarily arise 
in this case—the appointment of an HEIR and 
division of the inheritance—are resolved by the 
norms of inheritance law, then intestate succes- 
sion is equivalent to legal inheritance. This was 
the situation in Byz., where, with the exception 
of a few small changes (as, e.g., the trimotria), the 
late antique regulations on legal succession estab- 
lished in final form by Justinian I remained bind- 
ing. These regulations provided that a deceased 
person be succeeded in the first place by his chil- 
dren, who took his place collectively and in equal 
shares. If there were grandchildren, they were 


excluded from the inheritance as long as their 
parents were living. If some or all of the children 
of the deceased had died, leaving children, the 
latter divided up the portion of the inheritance 
allotted to their parents. If the deceased had no 
descendants, then his parents and his siblings 
inherited equal portions. Grandparents of the de- 
ceased succeeded to the inheritance only if no 
siblings or parents survived. If there were no such 
(living) relatives left, the estate was divided among 
the stepsiblings of the deceased (who had only 
one parent in common with the deceased), fol- 
lowed by all collateral relations. Before the year 
548 (Nov. Just. 127), spouses could inherit from 
their deceased partner only when there were no 
relatives at all. Thereafter, providing they had 
children and did not remarry, they were given 
equal ranking with the children, that is, they could 
inherit, together with the children, an im capita 
portion. Adopted children were treated like legit- 
imate children. Illegitimate children inherited from 
their mother and, together with her, one-sixth of 
their father’s estate, provided that the deceased 
did not leave a wife or descendants from a legit- 
imate marriage. If there were no eligible heirs at 
hand, the inheritance fell to the state. 


LIT. Kaser, Privatrecht 2:497-512 ($287). -D.S. 


INTITULATIO. See Acts, DOCUMENTARY. 


INVECTIVE (dyos), with ENKOMION, constituted 
the genre of EPIDEICTIC oratory, according to the 
authors of rhetorical textbooks (e.g., Rabe, Prole- 
gomenon 58.15). Even though Lipanios produced 
several PROGYMNASMATA of invective, only 
APHTHONIOS (Progymnasmata, pp. 27—31) included 
a separate paragraph on the psogos. Later com- 
mentaries on both Aphthonios and HERMOGENES 
(e.g., Rabe, Prolegomenon 75.4—5) likened the pair- 
ing of enkomion-invective to judicial speeches of 
accusation and defense (APOLOGY). The term pso- 
gos, having a pejorative sense (blame or censure), 
was not employed for titles of invectives; thus, 
Libanios entitled his invective (or.46) simply 
“Against (kata) Florentios.” The genre of invective 
was popular in Byz. society, the major subject of 
blame being inclination toward paganism (see also 
Po.emic, RELIGIOUS), as in the pamphlet on Choi- 


rosphaktes by ARETHAS OF CAESAREA (1:200~12). 
The style of invective was sometimes very crude, 
consisting of accumulated curses, as in CONSTAN- 
TINE OF Ropes, who ardently formed very long 
composites, such as “Helleno-worshiper-Christ- 
blasphemer.” Elements of invective could pene- 
trate even hagiography; thus Nikeras Davip 
PAPHLAGON transformed his vita of Patr. Ignatios 
into an invective against Photios. Twelfth-century 
invective (ANACHARSIS, the “biography” of a cer- 
tain Bagoas by BastLakes) had a moral rather 
than religious emphasis, and later invectives form 
a parallel to Italian humanist invectives of the 
15th C. (P. Canivet, N. Oikonomides, Diptycha 3 
[1982-83] 21—25). 

Lit. Hunger, Lit. 1:104—06. S. Koster, Die Invektive in 


der griechischen und römischen Literatur (Meisenheim an Glan 
1980). -A.K. 


INVENTORY. Inventories, variously termed 
BREBION, apographe (Pantel. no.7.4), katastichon 
(Lavra 3, no.146.42), etc., often accompanied wills 
and lists of donations. They contain important 
information on relics, icons, textiles, manuscripts, 
bookbindings, and a great variety of liturgical 
vessels. Among the most important inventories 
are the following: 


Inventory (5th—6th C.) of a church at Ibion, 
Egypt (H. Leclercq, DACL 7.1:1408—25) 

List of regalia and relics in the Church of the 
Pharos and other chapels in the Great Palace 
at Constantinople (De cer. 640.1-641.5) 

List of donations to the Great Lavra and to 
Karyes on Mt. Athos in a Georgian Life of 
Sts. John and Euthymios (late 10th C.): Lat. 
tr., P. Peeters, AB 36—37 (1917—19) 25-27 

Will of Eustathios Boras (1059) 

Diataxis of Michael ATTALEIATES (1077) 

Inventory of the monastery of PeTRITZOS in the 
typikon of Gregory Pakourianos 

Inventory of the monastery of S. Pietro in Spina, 
Calabria (after 1135), ed. Montfaucon, Pal. 
Graeca 403-07 

Inventory of the KECHARITOMENE NUNNERY, 
ca.1120—30 

Inventory of the Xylourgou monastery on Mt. 
Athos (1142), in Pantel., no.7 

Two inventories (May 1192, 13 Oct. 1202) of 
the so-called Palace of BOTANEIATES near 
Kalybia, ed. MM 3:x—xv, 55-57 


IOANNIKIOS | 1005 


Inventory of the monastery of St. John, PATMOS 
(1200), ed. C. Astruc, TM 8 (1981) 15—30 
Inventory of the possessions of the monastery 
of the Virgin at SKOTEINE in 1247 
Will (1330/1) listing bequests of Neilos, founder 
of the monastery of the Prodromos on Mt. 
Athos, Docheiar., no.17 
List of icons, Gospel books, and textiles in the 
monastery of the Virgin Gabaliotissa at Vo- 
dena, given to the Great Lavra on Mt. Athos 
in May 1375 (Lavra 3, no.147) 
Patriarchal inventory of Hagia Sophia, Con- 
stantinople (1397), MM 2:566—70 
Inventory of the Eleousa monastery at VELJUSA 
(1449), ed. L. Petit, FRAIK 6 (1900) 114-53 
LIT. Lemerle, Cing études 20-29, 36f, 88—91. K.A. Mana- 
phes, Monasteriaka typika-diathekai (Athens 1970) 113-23. J. 
Bompaire, “Les catalogues de livres-manuscrits d'époque 


byzantine (XIle—XVe siécles),” in Mél.Dujcev 59—81. 
-A.C. 


INVOCATIO. See Acts, DOCUMENTARY. 
INVOCATION. See EPICLEsIS. 


IOANNIKIOS (I@avvixtos), saint; born in the 
village of Marykaton, near Lake Apollonias, 
Bithynia, perhaps between 752 and 754, died in 
the monastery of Antidion, 3 Nov. 846 (J. Par- 
goire, EO 4 [1900—01] 75—80); feastday 3 or 4 
Nov. He was probably of Slavic origin (Ph. Mal- 
ingoudis, Hellentka 31 [1979] 494-96). As a peas- 
ant boy Ioannikios herded swine; at 19 he joined 
the army and later fought courageously in the 
battle of MARKELLAI (summer 792) against the 
Bulgarians. After the Byz. defeat, he withdrew to 
Bithynian Mt. Olympos, wandered across Asia 
Minor, lived in solitude, and finally took the mo- 
nastic habit. An ardent Iconodule, Ioannikios was 
compelled by Leo V’s persecutions to flee to Mt. 
Alsos. Later, Ioannikios supported MEeTHopios I 
and helped him attain the patriarchate. 
Ioannikios’s vita is preserved in two versions 
and in a reworking by SYMEON METAPHRASTES, 
One hagiographer, Sabas (perhaps author of the 
Life of Peter of ATroa), claims to have known 
Ioannikios (AASS Nov. 2.1:370f) and inserts a 
number of chronological indications, not always 
sound (e.g., it is questionable that Ioannikios was 
already 40 at Markellai). Peter, the second ha- 


1006 | IOANNINA 


giographer, is indebted for his information to 
Eustratios, who was the companion of Ioannikios 
for 50 years. Both stories have much in common, 
differing sometimes in the sequence of events. 
Unlike Sabas, however, Peter severely criticizes 
the monks of Sroupios for their opposition to 
Ioannikios (Ibid., 405B, 422A). Both Lives are 
concerned with the upper class of society, men- 
tioning Ioannikios’s connections with emperors, 
magistrot, patrikiot, koubikoularioi, hypattkoi, and spa- 
thariot. 

Representation in Art. The saint is depicted as 
a monk, and in miniature paintings he is some- 
times associated with the image of a mountain; in 
two MSS of the menologion of Symeon Meta- 
phrastes, this mountain is accompanied by the 
female personification of Mt. OLYMPOS. 

SOURCES. AASS Nov. 2.1:332~—435. PG 116:35—92. 

LIT. BHG 935-37. C. Mango, “The Two Lives of St. 
Ioannikios and the Bulgarians,” in Okeanos 393—404. S. 


Vryonis, “St. Ioannicius the Great (754—846) and the ‘Slavs’ 
of Bithynia,” Byzantion 31 (1961) 245-48.  —A.K., N.P.S. 


IOANNINA (Iwávvwa), city of northern Eprros, 
situated on a peninsula on Lake Ioannina; the 
unnamed “well-fortified polis” built by Justinian I 
for the citizens of ancient Euroia (Prokopios, 
Buildings 4.1.39—42) can probably be identified as 
Ioannina. The name Joannina, however, appears 
only in the gth C. as a suffragan bishopric of 
Naupaktos (Notitiae CP 7:580). Anna Komnene 
mentions Ioannina three times without any com- 
ment. In 1082 it was temporarily taken by the 
Normans. After 1204 Venice claimed the city, but 
control fell to the despotate of Epiros, and the 
theme of Ioannina was created in 1225. Besieged 
by Nicaean troops after the battle of PELAGONIA 
in 1259, Ioannina remained in Epirot hands until 
1318, when it was taken by the Byz. and raised to 
metropolitan status (E. Chrysos, Dodone 5 [1976] 
337-48). In Feb. 1319 Andronikos II issued a 
chrysobull (Reg 4, no.2412) listing the privileges 
of the citizens of the asty Ioannina: elements of 
local administration, exemption from trade duties 
and military obligations outside the city, confir- 
mation of city customs and of its possessions. This 
chrysobull is a unique document describing city 
IMMUNITY. 

Ioannina fell to Stefan Uroš IV Dušan ca.1348 
and passed to SYMEON UROS after 1355. THOMAS 
PreELJUBOVIE ruled in Ioannina from 1366/7 on- 


ward; his tyrannical reign is described in the 
CHRONICLE OF IOANNINA. In his struggle against 
the Albanians Preljubovi¢ called upon the Otto- 
mans in 1380. Frightened by Albanian attacks, 
the citizens acknowledged Carlo Tocco as ruler, 
and he transferred his summer residence there. 
In 1430, however, soon after his death, Ioannina 
was ceded to the Turks. 

Little is left of the Byz. monuments of Ioannina. 
According to K. Tsoures (EpChron 25 [1983] 132- 
57), the walls on the so-called acropolis of the 
Demotikon Mouseion and the city walls were built 
in the 10th C.; the acropolis of I¢ Kale in 1082; 
in 1204-15 the city walls and acropolis of the 
Demotikon Mouseion were reconstructed; in 1367— 
84 additional fortifications were erected, includ- 
ing a tower with the inscription of Thomas (evi- 
dently Preljubovic). 

LIT. TIB 3:165-67, with add. D. Triantaphyllopoulos, 
BalkSt 24 (1983) 142f. L. Branouses, Historika kai topogra- 
phika tou mesaionikou kastrou ton Ioanninon (Athens 1968). 
Ph.G. Oikonomos, He en Ioanninots ekklesia apo tes hidryseos 
tes mechni ton kath’hemas chronon (Athens 1966). O. Kresten, 
“Marginalien zur Geschichte von Ioannina unter Kaiser 
Andronikos III Palaiologos,” EpChron 25 (1983) 113-32. 

~T.E.G. 


IOASAF OF VIDIN, Bulgarian bishop and writer; 
fl. ca.13975—-1400. loasaf was a monk in a monas- 
tery at or near Vidin. At the request of Prince 
Ivan Sracimir of Vidin, he was ordained metro- 
politan of Vipin in Sept. 1392 in Constantinople 
by Patr. Antony IV. He was sent on a diplomatic 
mission to Turnovo shortly after the city fell to 
the Ottoman Turks in 1393 and returned to Vidin 
with the relics of Sts. Philothea and Petka (Para- 
skeve). His panegyric on St. Philothea is pre- 
served in the Rila Panegyrikon, copied in 1479 by 
Vladislav Gramatik. It follows the stylistic model 
of the panegyrics of Evrimy oF TorNovo. Al- 
though the work contains many hagiographical 
clichés, it also provides much information on the 
condition of Bulgaria at the beginning of Turkish 
rule. 

ED. E. Katuzniacki, Aus der panegyrischen Litteratur der 
Siidslaven (Vienna 1901; rp. London 1971) 89-128. 

LIT. N.S. Kiselkov, Mitropolit Ioasaf Bdinski i slovoto mu za 
sv. Filotea (Sofia 1931). G. Danéev, Vladislav Gramatik: Kni- 
Zounik i pisatel (Sofia 1969) 73. -R.B. 


IOEL. See Jor. 


IONIAN SEA (Idviov [Iovior] méàayos), the 
closed waterway between Greece and Italy, sepa- 
rated from the ApriaTic Sea on the north by the 
straits of Otranto. The Ionian Sea provided the 
major communication link between Byz. and the 
West: ships generally sailed up the coast of Greece, 
before either crossing west to Italy or continuing 
up the Adriatic to DYRRACHION, RAVENNA, and 
Venice. In Italy the Ionian Sea bordered on Cala- 
bria and Apulia. The seven larger islands of the 
Ionian Sea, the so-called Heptanesos, were KER- 
KYRA, Paxos, Antipaxos, Leukas, Ithaca, KEPHAL- 
ENIA, and ZAKYNTHOS. In late antiquity Kerkyra 
and Leukas belonged to the administrative sphere 
of Epiros, Kephalenia and Zakynthos to the prov- 
ince of Achaia; accordingly, the northern islands 
were in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Nikopolis, 
the southern islands under Corinth. It is probable 
that the theme of Kephalenia, established before 
80g (Oikonomides, Listes 352, n.364), combined 
the islands of the Ionian Sea. The islands changed 
hands in the 13th—14th C. (despotate of Epiros, 
Manfred of Hohenstaufen, Charles I of Anjou) 
but from the end of the 14th C. the northern 
group was under Venice, while the southern group 
belonged to the house of the Tocco. 

LT. Koder, Lebensraum 21f. D. Triantaphyllopoulos, RBK 
4:1-63. TIB 3:43-46. A. Sabbides, Ta Byzantina Heptanesa, 
rros—arches 130u aionos (Athens 1986). G. Schirò, “Contri- 
buto alla storia delle isole ioniche all’epoca dei Tocco,” in 


Praktika G' Panioniou synedriou, vol. 2 (Athens 1969) 235— 
44. -T.E.G. 


IPHIGENEIA, ancient Greek goddess of fertility, 
later a heroine, the daughter of King Agamem- 
non. According to pseudo-Nonnos (PG 36:989D- 
992A), Iphigeneia had to be sacrificed by the 
Greeks in Aulis in order for them to obtain fa- 
vorable winds for their voyage to Troy; she was 
miraculously replaced, however, by a doe (elaphos; 
see DEER) and transferred to the Tauroi in Scythia 
where she ruled as the priestess of ARTEMIS, sac- 
rificing all foreigners to the goddess. The same 
myth is told by Nonnos oF PANoPOLIS and by 
Malalas, Nonnos (Dionystaka 13:186) mentioning 
also “the empty barrow of Iphigeneia” near Ath- 
ens. 

The theme of Taurian inhospitality was popular 
in Byz. literature, the Tauroi/Tauroscythians usu- 
ally being identified as the Rus’. The myth of 
Iphigeneia herself attracted some Christian lite- 


IRAN | 1007 


rati; thus Gregory of Nazianzos, in his funeral 
panegyric of Basil the Great (PG 36:504B), after 
listing some legendary hunters (Artemis, Orion, 
Actaeon), mentions “the virgin replaced by a doe,” 
a story that he is ready to accept as not completely 
fabulous. It is not clear why he used in this case 
such Christian terms as parthenos and elaphos 
(sometimes perceived as a symbol of Christ him- 
self) and whether or not he had in mind the Old 
Testament legend of the sacrifice of Jacob. On 
the other hand, the phrase in his speech against 
Julian (PG 35:592A), “the sacrifice in Troy of the 
royal girl,” has no Christian allusions and proba- 
bly does not refer to Iphigeneia, who was sacri- 
ficed in Aulis. 

An ivory panel of the 10th-C. Veroli casket 
(London, Victoria and Albert Museum) depicts 
the sacrifice of Iphigeneia at Aulis (Weitzmann, 
infra, fig.214). The iconography is probably de- 
rived from an illustrated MS of the plays of Eu- 
ripides. 

UIT. K. Weitzmann, “Euripides Scenes in Byzantine Art,” 


Hesperia 18 (1949) 199-209. Weitzmann, Gr. Myth. 18f, 
169-74. —A.K., A.M.T. 


IRAN, or Persia, a state that occupied territory 
from the frontier of the Roman Empire to the 
borders of India. Called the Parthian Empire un- 
der the Arsacid dynasty, it preserved a shaky 
balance of relations with the Roman Empire in 
the i1st—3rd C., the frontier being largely defined 
by the Euphrates. In 226 the dynasty of the Sa- 
SANIANS terminated the rule of the Parthian Ar- 
sacids and shaped a powerful empire that rivaled 
Rome and Constantinople until the 630s. Even 
though warfare dominated the relations between 
the two empires, there was also lively cultural 
exchange, active trade (see SiLK ROUTE), and ex- 
change of envoys. Christianity (notably NESTORI- 
ANISM) was entrenched in Iran, Persian cults (esp. 
MITHRAISM) and ideological movements (MANI- 
CHAEANISM) penetrated into the Roman Empire, 
and certain features of the Roman fiscal system 
and court ceremonial can be attributed to the 
influence of the Persian administrative system. 
After the Arab conquest of Iran (ca.633—50) 
the country was incorporated into the caliphate; 
subsequently, when the ‘Abbasids established their 
capital in Baghdad (750), Iran became its core 
territory. The caliphate preserved the Sasanian 


1008 IRENE 


fiscal system and the old type of officialdom, but 
changed the language of bureaucracy to Arabic. 
By the end of the ioth C. Islam replaced Zo- 
ROASTRIANISM as the religion of the majority of 
Persians. The political decline of the caliphate 
permitted the formation of independent Persian 
dynasties—the Tahirids (810-73) in Khurdsan, 
the Saffarids (867—900) in Seistan and Khurasan, 
the SAMANIDs in Bukhara, and finally the Būyids 
(Buwayhids) in western Iran (935—1055) and 
Ghaznavids (g77/8—1187) in the east. During the 
first half of the 11th C. most of these princedoms 
fell into the hands of the Great SeLjuKs of Bagh- 
dad. In the 13th C. the MoncoLs conquered the 
territory of the former Sasanian realm, and in 
1258 Hulagu seized Baghdad, ending the rule of 
the ‘Abbasids there and founding the state of the 
IIkhans, which paid nominal homage to the Great 
Khan in China. In 1335, with the death of the 
last Īlkhān, Abu Sa‘id, the Mongol dynasty of 
Persia came to an end and the country was divided 
between several minor dynasties. Timur again 
united it, but only temporarily; soon after his 
death, the Persian part of his enormous empire 
was occupied by the Turkomans before being 
conquered by the OTTOMANS. 

The Palaiologan emperors of Constantinople 
and the emperors of Trebizond engaged in trade 
and diplomatic relations with various rulers of the 
former Persian territory, ilkhans, Timurids, and 
Turkomans, and Byz. scholars of the 13th—14th 
C., like Gregory CHIONIADES, had contacts with 
their Persian colleagues. (For the literature of 
medieval Iran, see PERSIAN LITERATURE.) 

Lit. The Cambridge History of Iran, ed. E. Yarshater et al., 
vols. 3-6 (Cambridge 1968-86). B. Spuler, Iran in früh- 
islamischer Zeit (Wiesbaden 1952). Idem, Die Mongolen in 
Iran? (Berlin 1955). W. Barthold, An Historical Geography of 


Tran (Princeton 1984). V. Minorsky, Medieval Iran and its 
Neighbours (London 1982). ~A.K. 


IRENE (Eipyvn), feminine personal name (mean- 
ing “peace”). Irene, a daughter of Zeus, was the 
personification of peace in antiquity; the word 
was used, at least in Ptolemaic Egypt, as a personal 
name. In late Roman society the name was rare 
and had a mythological tinge: Justinian I dedi- 
cated to Irene (Peace) and Sorpa (Wisdom) the 
greatest churches in Constantinople. There are 
many martyrs of this name, but it is difficult to 
determine when the accounts of their passions 


were produced; in the tale of Licinius’s daughter 
Irene, who was baptized by Timotheos (St. Paul’s 
pupil), it is clearly stressed that her given name 
was Penelope and she was christened Irene by an 
angel. Only one Irene is mentioned by Sozomenos 
(Sozom., HE 1:11.4—5), and that in a legendary 
context: her father, St. Spyridon, made her talk 
after her death and burial. No Irene is listed in 
PLRE 1-2 and Prokopios knows only the Church 
of Irene. The first Irene mentioned by Theo- 
phanes the Confessor (Theoph. 410.1) is the Kha- 
zar princess, who married Constantine V and was 
given the name Irene. Thereafter, the name be- 
came more frequent: Skylitzes names four Irenes, 
Niketas Choniates seven. In the late acts of Lavra, 
vols. 2—3 (13th-15th C.), 36 Irenes appear, and 
the name holds fourth place among women. As 
in the case of the wife of Constantine V, a number 
of foreign-born empresses took the name Irene 
upon their marriage to a Byz. emperor, perhaps 
to symbolize peaceful relations between the two 
nations (cf. BERTHA OF SULZBACH; IRENE-YOLANDA 
OF MONTFERRAT; Adelaide of Brunswick, married 
to Andronikos III). —A.K. 


IRENE, empress (797—802); born Athens ca.752, 
died Lesbos 9 Aug. 803. In 768 Constantine V 
brought Irene to Constantinople, where she was 
crowned and married to Leo (IV). In 771 she 
gave birth to their only child, Constantine (VI). 
Irene was a devoted ICONOPHILE: a rumor circu- 
lated that Leo discovered two icons in her posses- 
sion and thereafter refused to sleep with her 
(Cedr. 2:19.17—20.3). After Leo’s death in 780 
Irene ruled as regent for Constantine for ten 
years. During this period Irene was cured of a 
hemorrhage by the waters of PEGE; she presented 
rich gifts to the Church of the Virgin there and 
set up mosaic portraits of herself and her son 
(AASS Nov. 3:880BC). In 790, when the army 
refused Irene’s demand for precedence over him, 
Constantine deposed her, and she resided in the 
suburban palace of Eleutherios until recalled in 
792. In 797 she dethroned and blinded Constan- 
tine, thus becoming the first female Byz. autocrat, 
but was herself toppled by Nikephoros I in 802 
and exiled to Lesbos. 

During her regency and rule Irene relied on 
advisers like the eunuchs Staurakios and AETIOS 
and weakened the empire militarily by removing 


capable Iconoclastic strategoi (e.g., Michael LA- 
CHANODRAKON) who had been appointed by Con- 
stantine V. She faced significant opposition from 
supporters of Constantine VI and Caesar 
NIKEPHOROS, and from E.pipios. Most notably, 
she restored icons by securing the election of Patr. 
Tarasios in 784 and convening the Second Coun- 
cil of NicaEa in 787. She established good rela- 
tions with Pope Haprian I, but, despite diplo- 
matic exchanges with CHARLEMAGNE and a Byz. 
invasion of Italy in 788, the Franks advanced in 
southern Italy and took control of ISTRIA and 
BENEVENTO. Irene did little against constant Arab 
attacks and in 782 (see TaTZATES) and 798 was 
forced to accept treaties with HARON AL-RASHĪD. 
The Bulgars continued to exert pressure, but 
Irene achieved some success against the Slavs in 
Greece by Staurakios’s campaign in 782. The theme 
of MACEDONIA was probably created during her 
reign (Oikonomides, Listes 349). She engaged in 
philanthropy, building hospices, xENODOCHEIA, and 
a cemetery for the poor. Her financial measures, 
including a repeal of the municipal tax in Con- 
stantinople and lowered commercial tariffs at 
Abydos and HIERoN, were popular but fiscally 
harmful. In the gth C. her remains were trans- 
ferred to the Church of the Holy Apostles, Con- 
stantinople. A 12th-C. vita is based almost entirely 
on Theophanes (W. Treadgold, ByzF 8 [1982] 
237—751). 

LIT. L. Burgmann, “Die Novellen der Kaiserin Eirene,” 
FM 4 (1981) 1—36. Treadgold, Byz. Revival 60-126. J. 
Arvites, “The Defense of Byzantine Anatolia during the 
Reign of Irene (780—802),” in Armies and Frontiers in Roman 


and Byzantine Anatolia, ed. S. Mitchell (Oxford 1983) 219- 
37. -P.A.H., A.C. 


IRENE, CHURCH OF SAINT. According to tra- 
dition, this church of Constantinople was already 
a Christian church before Constantine I enlarged 
it and gave it the name of Eirene (Peace). Before 
the inauguration of Hacia SopuHia in 360 it served 
as the cathedral of Constantinople. By the 5th C. 
the two churches were contained within the same 
precinct, served by the same clergy, and regarded 
as forming the complex of the patriarchate. Burned 
down in 532, St. Irene was rebuilt by Justinian I. 
Destroyed by the earthquake of 740, it was recon- 
structed, probably by Constantine V. The church 
was never turned into a mosque, but became an 
arsenal after the Turkish conquest. The second 


IRENE DOUKAINA 1009 


largest standing church of Constantinople, it has 
the form of a domed basilica with a flat, second 
dome covering the west bay. The lower part of 
the building is Justinianic, whereas most of the 
upper part dates from after the earthquake of 
740. The Turks altered the colonnades. The apse 
contains a mosaic cross of the Iconoclastic period; 
further remnants of mosaic remain in the narthex 
and nonfigural painting is extant in the south 
aisle. 

LIT. W.S. George, The Church of St. Eirene at Constanti- 


nople (London 1913). U. Peschlow, Die Irenenkirche in Istan- 
bul (Ttibingen 1977). -C.M. 


IRENE DOUKAINA, wife of ALEx1os I KOMNE- 
NOS, empress (1081—1118); born Constantinople 
ca.1066, died 19 Feb. 1123 (W. Hérandner, ed., 
Theodoros Prodromos: Historische Gedichte [Vienna 
1974] 188 and n.23) or 1133 (Skoulatos). Daugh- 
ter of Andronikos (son of the caesar John Dov- 
KAS) and Maria of Bulgaria, Irene married Alexios 
ca.1078. Between 1083 and 1098 she bore him 
Anna, Maria, Jonn II, Andronikos, Isaac, Eu- 
dokia, Theodora, Manuel, and Zoe (Kleinchroniken 
1:55f). Although the marriage sealed the alliance 
of the Doukas and Komnenos families, at his 
accession Alexios (urged by his mother Anna Da- 
LASSENE, and perhaps attracted to MARIA OF 
“ALANIA”) hesitated to crown Irene. After a week, 
demands by John Doukas and Patr. Kosmas I 
forced her coronation, but she remained over- 
shadowed by Anna Dalassene until the latter’s 
retirement. Although Anna KoMNENE draws an 
admiring picture of her parents’ relationship, the 
fact that from 1105 Alexios frequently insisted 
that Irene accompany him on campaign shows 
that he hesitated to leave her to intrigue in Con- 
stantinople. When Alexios was on his deathbed, 
Irene pressed him to name Anna’s husband Ni- 
kephoros Bryennios as heir. After John II's 
accession, although she had not joined the con- 
spiracy of Anna and Bryennios, Irene was forced 
to retire to her convent of KECHARITOMENE. Noted 
for her charity and intellectual accomplishments, 
she probably inspired Bryennios’s history and pa- 
tronized or corresponded with literary figures such 
as Manuel STRABOROMANOS, THEOPHYLAKTOS of 
Ohrid, MICHAEL ITALIKOoS, and Theodore Pro- 
DROMOS. Her portrait appears on the PALA D'ORO. 


LIT. Polemis, Deukai 70-74. Skoulatos, Personnages 119— 
24. Kazhdan-Franklin, Studies g6f. —C.M.B., A.C. 


1010 IRENE OF CHRYSOBALANTON 


IRENE OF CHRYSOBALANTON, 1oth-C. ab- 
bess; saint; feastday 28 July. According to her 
anonymous hagiographer, she was born in Cap- 
padocia ca.845 and died in Constantinople ca.g4o. 
The account of her life as presented in her vita 
is as follows: born to a rich and influential family 
(related to the Gouber family of Constantinople), 
she was sent as a girl to the capital to participate 
in a BRIDE SHOW designed to find a wife for 
Michael III. After arriving too late, she entered 
the convent of Chrysobalanton; within three years 
she became the hegoumene, despite her youth. She 
is depicted as an ideal ascetic, an efficient admin- 
istrator of her convent, and as a preacher who 
attracted crowds, esp. women of the senatorial 
class. On one occasion she intervened with the 
emperor to save the life of a kinsman who was 
accused of a conspiracy against the throne. She 
reportedly died at age 97 without showing any 
signs of advanced age. 

The vita of Irene (BHG 952) was probably pro- 
duced in the late 10th C. during the reign of Basil 
II; Rosenqvist (infra), who points out inconsisten- 
cies in the chronology of events, concludes that 
the biography should be treated as a work of 
fiction and terms it a “hagiographic novel.” The 
vita is an important source for Byz. magical prac- 
tices and attitudes toward sexuality, since Jrene 
had to deal with the frustrated passion of one of 
her nuns, who had abandoned her fiancé, as well 
as with a lovesick vinedresser. The Life depicts 
the triumph of image worship; churches were 
decorated with icons on their walls and on panels 
of bronze, silver, and gold. When Irene appeared 
to Emp. Basil I in a vision, he sent a protovestiarios 
to her convent with an artist to paint the abbess’s 
portrait, so that the emperor could confirm that 
the woman in his vision was really the hegoumene 
of Chrysobalanton. 

source and LIT. The Life of St. Irene Abbess of Chrysoba- 


lanton, ed. J.O. Rosenqvist (Uppsala 1986), with Eng. tr. 
--A.K., A.M.T. 


IRENE-YOLANDA OF MONTFERRAT, second 
wife of ANDRONIKOs IT PaLaloLocos; born 1273 
or 1274, died Drama 1317. Daughter of William 
VII of Montferrat, an anti-Angevin, and grand- 
daughter of Alfonso X of Castile, Yolanda was 
married in 1284 or 1285 at age 11 to the widowed 
Byz. emperor and took the Greek name Irene. 


The match was particularly desirable for Andron- 
ikos because his bride brought as her dowry the 
title to the kingdom of Thessalonike. Irene pro- 
duced three sons, John, Theodore, and Deme- 
trios, and one daughter, Srmonis. She was crowned 
empress after the birth of her first son in 1288/9. 

According to Gregoras (Greg. 1:234f), Irene 
was ambitious for her children. Retaining West- 
ern feudal ideas, she tried to persuade Androni- 
kos to divide the empire into appanages for her 
sons. When this tactic failed, she endeavored to 
secure their futures through marriage alliances, 
but most of her efforts were unsuccessful. Her 
greatest triumph was the marriage of Simonis in 
1299 to STEFAN Uroš II MituTin of Serbia. In 
1306, Theodore married the Genoese Argentina 
Spinola and inherited the marquisate of Montfer- 
rat (A. Laiou, Byzantion 38 [1968] 386—410). In 
the early 14th C. Irene became estranged from 
the emperor and from 1310 until her death made 
her residence in Thessalonike, where she con- 
ducted independent diplomatic negotiations, esp. 
with her son-in-law Milutin. 

tit. H. Constantinidi-Bibikou, “Yolande de Montferrat, 
impératrice de Byzance,” Hellénisme contemporain 4 (1950) 
425-42. C. Diehl, Figures byzantines, 2e sér. (Paris 1938) 
226-45. Papadopulos, Genealogie 35. —-A.M.T. 


IRON (cinpos), the commonest metal. M. Lom- 
bard (Les métaux dans l'ancien monde du Ve au XIe 
siècle [Paris-The Hague 1974] 125, 149f) notes 
that the eastern part of the Roman Empire had 
two major centers of iron working: the region of 
Trebizond and Sinope and the area around Bos- 
tra, Damascus, and Tyre. After the latter region 
was lost in the 7th C., Byz. needed constantly to 
import iron. Another productive area was Nori- 
cum. Iron was a strategic metal that could not be 
exported (J.-P. Sodini, Ktema 4 [1979] 85). Unlike 
precious metals, however, small amounts of ore 
were available in many places. When Edessa was 
besieged in 502/3 each household was obliged to 
deliver 10 pounds of iron. In the gth C. the 
proasteion of Tzampouros (in the Trebizond re- 
gion) sent iron annually to the nearby monastery 
of St. Phokas (A.l. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 
VizVrem 12 [1906] 140.10—-12). Stefan Uroš IV 
DuSan’s chrysobull of 1347 imposes a yearly pay- 
ment of 600 INGOTS (mazia) of iron on local smi- 
thies or stderokausia (Lavra 3, no.128.33). As pre- 
cious objects iron ingots are mentioned sometimes 


in lists of monastic properties (five siderou mazea— 
Pantel., no.7.28) or in wills (four syderon komatia— 
Xerop., n0.gA.15). 

Iron could be worked with comparative sim- 
plicity. Traces of primitive iron METALLURGY have 
been found even in rural areas of the Crimea of 
the 8th—gth C. (A. Jakobson, Rannesrednevekovye 
sel’skie poselentja Jugo-Zapadnoj Tavriki [Leningrad 
1970] 164-68). It is unclear whether sMITHS 
knowingly hardened iron into steel by the addi- 
tion of carbon; the tempering of iron by plunging 
it into water is mentioned in both classical and 
Byz. sources. 

The most important use of iron was in the 
production of weapons. Iron TOOLS, such as ham- 
mer, tongs, and anvil, were primarily used to work 
metal (Koukoules, Bios 2.1:218f); other tools were 
used for wood (borer, plane, etc.) and stone. Each 
household normally had wooden, bronze, and 
iron utensils (Lavra 1, no.59.49), and an inventory 
of 1142 lists various iron AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- 
MENTS belonging to the monastery of Xylourgou: 
hoes, plows, sickles, axes (Pantel., no.7.27). Iron 
tie rods were employed to strengthen buildings 
(A.H.S. Megaw, DOP 18 [1964] 296). Doors and 
gates were made of iron, as well as anchors, chains, 
candlesticks, coin dies, SEALING IMPLEMENTS, and 
so on. Some minor iron objects have been found 
in excavations, for example, at St. POLYEUKTOs in 
Constantinople and in Corinth: locks and keys, 
nails, dowels, clamps, etc. (Davidson, Minor Objects 
137-40, 199—203). 

LIT. W. Gaitzsch, Eiserne römische Werkzeuge (Oxford 
1980). —M.M.M., L.Ph.B. 


IRRIGATION (dpdevya). A hot climate and fre- 
quent droughts led to a constant concern in Byz. 
about water. A developed irrigation technique, 
which made use of various water-lifting devices 
(water screw, suction pump, compartmented wheel, 
bucket chain, etc.), existed in the Roman Empire, 
primarily in Egypt and, paradoxically, in the 
Western provinces (Oleson, infra 285-91); data 
referring to Syria, Palestine, or Greece are scanty— 
for instance, a water-driven wheel with compart- 
mented rim on a mosaic of 469 from Apameia. 
The Price Epict of Diocletian several times men- 
tions water MILLs, but not water-lifting machines. 
Asia Minor and Greece relied more upon collect- 
ing water in cisterns than irrigating lands by ca- 


ISAAC I KOMNENOS | 1011 


nals and water-lifting gears, even though such 
terms as “conduit” (amara) and “water pipe” (oche- 
tos) are common in Greek texts. Eusebios of Cae- 
sarea (PG 20:1345B), when speaking of ardeuma, 
means “the winter downpours.” The typikon of the 
Kosmosoteira monastery in BERA describes a com- 
plex construction for collecting water that went 
from the spring via a conduit to a receptacle 
protected from the sun and dirt. In other cases, 
as described in KALLIMACHOS AND CHRYSORRHOE, 
a cistern might be filled by special water bearers. 
Water was used for irrigation (ardeia) of VINE- 
YARDS and GARDENS (e.g., Chil., n0.54.30-31) or 
OLIVE groves, as well as for water mills; a case on 
Crete around 1118 describes a conflict between a 
mill owner and farmers tilling the “irrigated cho- 
raphia” (MM 6:96.14-22) who were deprived of 
water by construction of the mill. 

The Byz. did not build great canal networks. 
Justinian dreamed of a canal project between the 
Melas, a tributary of the Sangarios, and the har- 
bor of Nikomedeia, but the idea was abandoned 
(F.G. Moore, AJA 54 [1950] 108-10). 

uit. J.P. Oleson, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting 
Devices (Toronto 1984). T. Schigler, Roman and Islamic 


Water-Lifting Wheels (Odense 1973). Kazhdan, “Iz ekon- 
omiteskoj žizni” 1g2f. -A.K., J.W.N. 


ISAAC I KOMNENOS, emperor (1057-59); born 
ca.1007, died ca.1060 or 1061. After his elevation 
by fellow generals rebelling against MIcHAEL VI, 
Isaac was crowned on 1 Sept. 1057. He rewarded 
his supporters. The populace obtained the de- 
sired officials for their organizations, and Patr. 
MIcHAEL I KEROULARIOS gained more authority. 
Isaac’s purpose was to refill the treasury and so 
revive the army and the empire. A HISTAMENON 
(Grierson, Byz. Coins, no.g1g), representing him 
standing with unsheathed sword, gave great of- 
fense because it violated the tradition of the em- 
peror as a man of God. Isaac regularized tax 
collections; he pitilessly pursued debtors to the 
state. Monastic landholding was restricted, and 
donations by previous emperors to individuals 
were annulled. He pruned the bureaucracy’s ex- 
crescences. PSELLOS criticizes his haste and harsh- 
ness. Salaries of officials, esp. senators, were re- 
duced, yet Psellos asserts that Isaac had to rely on 
himself and other civil bureaucrats. Keroularios’s 
challenge forced Isaac to remove him (8 Nov. 


1012 | ISAAC II ANGELOS 


1058). He appointed as patriarch CONSTANTINE 
III LEICHOUDES, a leader of the bureaucrats who 
opposed the emperor. Militarily, Isaac’s threats 
overawed the SeLjuks and Egyptians; he made 
peace with the Hungarians after an incursion 
(1059). A simultaneous PECHENEG attack was re- 
pelled. In Nov. 1059, while hunting, he became 
seriously ill. Feeling isolated by hostile bureau- 
crats and Keroularios’s surviving supporters, Isaac 
accepted Psellos’s suggestion that he abdicate 
(21/2 Nov. 1059—Kletnchroniken 1:160, 170). Pass- 
ing over his relatives, he named CONSTANTINE X 
Doukas emperor. Isaac became a monk at Srov- 
bios; his wife Aikatherine (daughter of JOHN 
VLanisLav) and daughter Maria likewise entered 
religious life. 

LIT. E. Stănescu, “Les réformes d’Isaac Comnéne,” RE- 
SEE 4 (1966) 35—69. Barzos, Genealogia 1:41—47. J. She- 


pard, “Isaac Comnenus’ Coronation Day,” BS 38 (1977) 
22—30. -C.M.B., A.C. 


ISAAC II ANGELOS, emperor (1185—95, 1203— 
04); born ca.1156, died Constantinople 28/9 Jan. 
1204. He had a bookish education (Nik.Chon. 
365.72—74) but no deep intellectual interests. After 
he resisted the order of arrest issued by ANDRO- 
NIKOS I, he was acclaimed emperor by the people 
of Constantinople on 12 Sept. 1185. Despite his 
noble birth, Isaac relied on bureaucrats (notably 
Theodore KASTAMONITES, Constantine MESOPO- 
TAMITES, and Demetrios TORNIKIOS) to support 
him against aristocratic rebels such as Alexios 
Branas. He sold governorships and other offices 
but also chose some officials on merit. His at- 
tempts to make his favorite monk, Dositheos, pa- 
triarch of Constantinople proved unsuccessful. 
Niketas Choniates (Nik.Chon. 442.33—443.82) 
expatiates on Isaac’s “mad passion for erecting 
huge buildings.” The emperor added baths 
and apartments to the Great Palace and Bla- 
chernai and created artificial islands in the Sea 
of Marmara, but he also razed the GeNikxon and 
the monastery of MANGANa and looted the NEA 
EKKLESIA. 

Isaac preferred a life of ease at court, yet will- 
ingly campaigned in person when necessary. After 
defeating the invasion of WILLIAM II of Sicily, he 
arranged to take Margaret, daughter of BéLa III, 
as his second wife (his first is unknown). The tax 
levied for the wedding raised discontent among 
the Viacus and Bulgarians, which PETER oF BUL- 


GARIA and ASEN I exploited. From ca.1186, Isaac 
was involved in continual warfare with them; he 
was repeatedly defeated. The section of the Third 
Crusade led by FREDERICK I BarBarossa did much 
damage as it passed through Byz.; only by timely 
concession did Isaac avoid an attack on Constan- 
tinople. He succeeded in making peace with Ven- 
ice, Genoa, and Pisa. Around 8 Apr. 1195, near 
Kypsella, noble conspirators led by ALextos II] 
overthrew and blinded Isaac. After Alexios fled 
in 1203, the courtiers brought Isaac to rule jointly 
with his son ALEx1os IV. He soon became senile 
or demented, and, conveniently for ALEXIOS V, 
died of natural causes. 

ut. Th. Vlachos, “Aufstände und Verschwoérungen 
während der Kaiserzeit Isaakios’ II. Angelos (1185-1 195),” 
Byzantina 6 (1974) 155-67. Brand, Byzantium 69-116, 241— 
51. Ph. Malingoudis, “Die Nachrichten des Niketas Choni- 


ates über die Entstehung des zweiten bulgarischen Staates,” 
Byzantina 10 (1980) 73-134. -C.M.B., A.C. 


ISAAC KOMNENOS, basileus of Cyprus (1184- 
91); born ca.1155, died Ikonion 1195/6. Grand- 
son of Isaac, brother of MANUEL I, he was sent 
(ca.1174/5) as governor to Cilicia, where the Ar- 
menians captured and imprisoned him. About 
1182, he was passed to Bohemund III of Antioch. 
ANDRONIKOS I, influenced by his mistress Theo- 
dora, Isaac’s aunt, ransomed him with the Tem- 
plars’ help. About 1183 or 1184, Isaac falsified 
imperial letters appointing him governor and went 
to Cyprus. Once accepted, he proclaimed himself 
basileus; his coinage shows him wearing imperial 
garb (Hendy, Coinage 136-42). The uniformly 
hostile sources charge him with tyrannical acts 
rivaling those of Andronikos I: murders, maim- 
ings, abuse of wives and virgins, confiscations of 
property, harsh taxation. About 1186 or 1187, 
Isaac II ANGELOs dispatched a fleet to regain 
Cyprus, but Isaac Komnenos defeated the troops 
on land while his ally, the admiral Margaritone 
of Sicily, overcame the Byz. fleet. Cyprus’s con- 
quest by RICHARD I LIONHEART ended Isaac’s tyr- 
anny. Released ca.1194 after imprisonment in Acre 
and Margat, Isaac went to Ikon10Nn; from that 
base he sought to arouse Turkish and Byz. op- 
position to ALEx1os III. He was allegedly killed 
by poisoning. 

Lit. G. Hill, A History of Cyprus (Cambridge 1940) 1:312- 
21. W.H. Rudt de Collenberg, “L’empereur Isaac de Chypre 
et sa fille (1155—1207),” Byzantion 38 (1968) 123-79. Th. 


Vlachos, “Ho tyrannos tes Kyprou Isaakios Komnenos 
(1184-1191),” Byzantina 6 (1974) 169-77. —C.M.B. 


ISAAC OF ANTIOCH, 5th-C. Syriac writer. His 
writings, of Monophysite cast, are often confused 
with those of Isaac of Amida, who was Orthodox 
and lived in the first half of the 5th C. (died 
before 461). More than 200 poetical works are 
attributed to the two Isaacs, but it is still unclear 
exactly which works are to be attributed to which 
Isaac. Isaac of Amida wrote works on the capture 
of Rome in 410, on the city of Constantinople 
(ca.441), and on the earthquake in Antioch in 
459. Isaac of Antioch is particularly noted for a 
lengthy poem on the parrot who chanted the 
TRISAGION with the addition “Who was crucified 
for us”; he also wrote exhortations to monks on 
repentance and the perfect life. 

ED. S. Isaaci Antiocheni, doctoris Syrorum, Opera omnia, ed. 
G. Bickell, 2 vols. (Giessen 1873—77). Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri 
Antiocheni, ed. P. Bedjan (Paris-Leipzig 1903). 

uit. F. Graffin, DictSpir 7 (1971) 2010f. I. Ortiz de 


Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca? (Rome 1965) 100-02. M. van 
Esbroeck, DPAC 2:1828. —A.M.T. 


ISAAC OF NINEVEH, Syrian mystical theolo- 
gian; ft. ca.680. Born in the region of Qatar on 
the Persian Gulf, Isaac became a Nestorian monk 
and eventually bishop of Nineveh (i.e., Mosul); 
five months later, however, he abdicated and went 
to live in solitude in the mountains of Huzistan 
in southwestern Iran. He reportedly lost his sight 
during his studies. Isaac composed (in Syriac) 
treatises, dialogues, and letters on ascetical and 
mystical topics. Probably in the gth C. some of his 
works were translated into Greek by the monks 
Patrikios and Abramios, of the Lavra of St. SABAS 
in Palestine. The translators tried to make Isaac 
more acceptable to Orthodox readers by elimi- 
nating some of his references to suspect authors, 
such as Evacrios PonTIkos, and replacing them 
with references to more official church fathers. 
Isaac presented the way of salvation as consisting 
of three stages: repentance, purification, and per- 
fection. The fear of Hell serves as a strong stim- 
ulus in the search for righteousness. Isaac rarely 
thinks in terms of deification but speaks of seeing 
God as if in a mirror, an ancient image in Syriac 
religious writing. Prayer plays the major part in 
Isaac’s ideal behavior. His works were used by 
some Byz. writers (e.g., Peter DAMASKENOS, Sy- 


ISAIAH | 1013 


MEON THE THEOLOGIAN, GREGORY SINAITES); later, 
some of them were included in the PHILOKALIA. 

ED. De perfectione religiosa, ed. P. Bedjan (Paris-Leipzig 
1909). Gr. ed.—Tou hostou patros hemon Isaak episkopou Ninevi 
tou Syrou ta heurethenta Asketika, ed. Nikephoros Theotokes 
(Leipzig 1770; new ed. Athens 1895). Mystic Treatises, tr. 
A.J. Wensinck (Amsterdam 1923). Oeuvres spirituelles, tr. ]. 
Touraille (Paris 1981). 

uit. J.B. Chabot, De S$. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, scriptis et 
doctrina (Paris 1892). I. Popovic, “He gnosiologia tou hagiou 
Isaak tou Syrou,” Theologia 38 (1967) 206-23, 386-407. E. 
Khalifé-Hachem, DictSpir 7.2 (1971) 2041-54. S. Brock, 
“St. Isaac of Nineveh and Syriac Spirituality,” Sobornost’ 2 
(1975) 79-89. Baumstark, Literatur 223-25. G. Bunge, 
“Mar Isaak von Ninive und sein ‘Buch der Gnade,’ ” OstkSt 
34 (1985) 3-22. —S.H.G., A.K. 


ISAIAH (‘Hoaias), one of the four major (i.e., 
longer) PROPHETS. Much read and interpreted by 
the Byz., there are surviving commentaries on the 
Book of Isaiah attributed to, among others, Eu- 
sebios of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chry- 
sostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret of 
Cyrrhus. The major significance of Isaiah was 
seen in his prophecy, interpreted as foreseeing 
Christ’s advent. “Isaiah is the most divine of all 
prophets,” says Theodoret (PG 81:216A), “. .. 
since he clearly predicted everything—the bene- 
diction coming from Abraham and David, the 
birth of the Savior by the Virgin, various miracles 
and healing, the envy and rage of the Jews, the 
passion and the death, the resurrection from the 
dead, the ascent to heaven, the choice of the 
apostles, and the salvation of all nations.” In con- 
trast, Chrysostom mentions “Isaiah’s prophecy 
about Christ” only in passing, but strongly em- 
phasizes “the ready tongue and sublime charac- 
ter” of the prophet and his great concern for 
ordinary people with whom he sympathized and 
whose sufferings he shared (PG 56:11.12—25). 
The Synaxarion of Constantinople (g May) included 
Isaiah as a martyr whose relics were allegedly 
brought to Constantinople and placcd in the 
Church of St. Lawrence near Blachernai; here 
Isaiah worked miracles, esp., according to legend, 
for ordinary people—a laborer in a vineyard, a 
fisherman, a silversmith, etc. (H. Delehaye, AB 42 
[1924] 257-65). 

Representation in Art. Images of Isaiah among 
the Old Testament prophets are frequent in mon- 
umental art, where he is usually depicted as an 
old man, with long gray hair and beard. His 
principal appearances in a narrative context are 


1014 ISAURA 


connected with the biblical Opes. In the Paris 
PsALTER, for example, these are illustrated indi- 
vidually: the first (Is 26:g—20) literally, with Isaiah 
flanked by personifications of Night and Dawn; 
the second (Is 38:10-20) in a straightforward 
narrative supplemented by a personification of 
Prayer. Isaiah’s martyrdom, based on an apocry- 
phal legend, is represented in the Paris GREGORY 
(Omont, Miniatures, pl.4g) and his prophetic vi- 
sion (Is 6), in which a seraph places a hot coal 
upon his mouth, in MSS of Kosmas Indiko- 
pleustes. 

LIT. M. Simonetti, “Uno sguardo d'insieme sull’esegesi 
patristica di Isaia fra IV e V secolo,” Annali di storia esegetica 


1 (1984) 9—44. H. Holländer, LCI 2:354-59. Lowden, 
Prophet Books. -J.I A.K., J.H.L. 


ISAURA (TIoavpa, mod. Zengibar Kalesi near 
Bozkır), ancient capital of IsAuRIa, flourished un- 
til the 4th C. when it lost its status as city and 
bishopric because it was a center of Isaurian un- 
rest. Zeno restored both and assigned it a new 
name, Leontopolis. A mint was established at Isaura 
in 617/18 during the campaigns of Herakleios 
against the Persians. Thereafter Isaura disappears 
from history, but the bishopric still existed in the 
11th C. The site contains Hellenistic fortifications 
that show Byz. repairs; four churches, including 
a large basilica with a tower and an octagonal 
church; and numerous inscriptions. Isaura is 
sometimes confused with Isauropolis on the north 
side of the Taurus. 

LIT. TIB 4:180f, 198—200. H. Swoboda et al., Denkmäler 
aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien (Vienna 1935) 62— 
93, 119-43. -C.F. 


ISAURIA (Icavpia), mountainous district of 
southern Asia Minor, inhabited by tribes who 
lived in small towns, long resisted central control, 
and frequently descended to ravage the adjacent 
plains. Although the Constantinopolitan govern- 
ment considered these tribes barbarian and brig- 
ands, they formed the core of the imperial army 
in the 5th C. Isaurians were famed as builders 
who sent their teams as far away as Constantino- 
ple and Syria, and probably as gardeners, their 
most popular saint being Konon the Gardener. 
Diocletian joined Citicia Tracheia to the Isaurian 
homeland to form the province of Isauria, whose 
capital was SELEUKEIA; the western part was de- 


tached in 370 and assigned to LyKaonia. Because 
of constant danger from the tribesmen, Isauria 
was frequently governed by a military commander 
(comes); this situation became permanent after 535. 
The region was severely afflicted by revolts and 
military conflicts in the late 4th C., and in 403~ 
o6, after the Isaurian victory over Germanic mer- 
cenaries, the Isaurians spread throughout Asia 
Minor. Calm prevailed when an Isaurian chief, 
ZENO, was emperor (474-81) and Isauria saw much 
construction. Troubles resumed in the late 5th 
C., continuing until Anastasios I finally crushed 
the tribes in 497. These wars were the impetus 
for widespread fortification. The coast of Isauria 
was always important for trade, which was still 
active in the late 7th C., the date of seals of 
KOMMERKIARIOI Of Isauria (one of them—Zacos, 
Seals 1, no.158—combined this office with the 
military position of stratelates). Thereafter, the coast 
suffered greatly from Arab raids. Isauria was ab- 
sorbed in ANATOLIKON, then became a separate 
KLEISOURA Called Seleukeia under Theophilos, as 
part of his efforts to strengthen the frontier. Ro- 
manos I promoted it to a THEME ca.g30. Divided 
into coastal and interior regions, it had a garrison 
of 5,000. The ecclesiastical province of Isauria 
long survived, though called Pamphylia after the 
early 10th C.; the cult of the local saints THEKLA 
and Konon attracted pilgrims. According to leg- 
end, Leo III was an Isaurian, Konon by name. 
ur. F. Hild, RBK 4:182—88, 227-73. J. Rouge, “L’His- 
toire Auguste et l’Isaurie au IVe siècle,” REA 68 (1966) 


282—315. C. Mango, “Isaurian Builders,” in Polychronton 
358-65. -CF. 


ISAURIAN DYNASTY, family that ruled from 
717 to 802 and included Leo III, Constantine V, 
Leo IV, Constantine VI, and Irene; it was so 
called because a probable interpolation in The- 
ophanes the Confessor (Theoph. 391.6) says that 
its founder, Leo III, came from Isaurtia, although 
he was actually born in Syrian Germanikeia (K. 
Schenk, BZ 5 [1896] 296-98). The 19th-C. notion 
that the Isaurian dynasty was able to revive the 
empire as a result of its military and administra- 
tive reforms was questioned by Ostrogorsky (in- 
fra). The dynasty is most closely associated with 
imperial support for Iconociasm, which Leo HI 
introduced, Constantine V enforced, and Irene 
suspended. Despite the siege of Constantinople 
by MASLAMA in 717 and the campaigns of HARON 


ISIDORE OF KIEV 1015 


GENEALOGY OF THE ISAURIAN DYNASTY 


Leo HI m. Maria 


ARTABASDOS m. Anna 


Nikephoros Niketas 


CONSTANTINE VI 


m. (1) Maria 
T (2) Theodote 


Euphrosyne Leo 


Based on Grumel, Chronologie 362. 


AL-RASHID, the Isaurian dynasty resisted the Ar- 
abs and stabilized the border with the caliphate 
in eastern Asia Minor. In Italy, however, RAVENNA 
was lost to the Lombards, and the Franks suc- 
cessfully challenged waning Byz. authority. 

tit. F. Masai, “La politique des Isauriens et la naissance 
de l’Europe,” Byzantion 33 (1963) 191—221. G. Ostrogorsky, 
“Uber die vermeintliche Reformtatigkeit der Isaurier,” BZ 
30 (1929/30) 394—400. Ostrogorsky, History 147-82. Vasi- 
liev, History 234—71. —P.A.H. 


ISIDORE (‘IoiSwpos), jurist, ANTECESSOR, one of 
the eight addressees of the Constitutio Omnem of 
Justinian I from the year 533. He composed a 
Greek paraphrase of the CODEX JUSTINIANUS, sev- 
eral fragments of which (esp. those of book 8, 
titles 53—56) have been preserved among the 
scholia to the BasıLıka. Also transmitted there 
under his name are fragments of a paraphrase of 
the DIGEST (concerning book 22, titles 3—5). 


ED. Heimbach, Basil. 6:61f, 64—69. 


LIT. Scheltema, L'enseignement 29f, 40—42. -A.S. 


ISIDORE I BOUCHEIRAS (Bovxerp or Bov- 
xetpas; cf. Tinnefeld, infra 160, n.1), Palamite 
patriarch of Constantinople (17 May 1347—Feb./ 
Mar. 1350); born Thessalonike between ca.1300 
and 1310, died Constantinople. Eldest of ten chil- 
dren, Isidore was educated in Thessalonike and 
then went to Athos to study with GREGORY SI- 
NAITES. Around 1325 Turkish attacks forced his 
return to Thessalonike, where for ten years he 
led a hesychastic circle. Circa 1335 he was ton- 


LEOTV m. IRENE 





CONSTANTINE V 
m. (1) Irene 

m. (2) Maria 

m. (3) Eudokia 


Christopher Nikephoros Niketas Eudoxios 


sured by Gregory PaLamas on Athos; he accom- 
panied Palamas to the local council of Constanti- 
nople of 1341 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, 
Councils oF). He was elected metropolitan of 
Monemvasia the same year but was never conse- 
crated. In 1344 he was deposed and excommun- 
icated by JOHN XIV Katexas because of his Pa- 
lamite views. 

With the victory of Jonn VI KaNnTAkOUZENOS 
in 1347, Isidore was restored to favor: he was 
elected patriarch, performed the second corona- 
tion of John VI and the marriage of JoHN V 
PALAIOLOGOS. He also appointed Palamas as met- 
ropolitan of Thessalonike. His brief patriarchate 
was uneventful; he was taken ill in Jan. 1350, 
composed a final testament, and died soon there- 
after. Isidore was noted as a hymnographer, but 
none of his poetry has survived. 

ED. MM 1:256—94. Germ tr. by W. Helfer, “Das Testa- 
ment des Patriarchen Isidoros,” JOB 17 (1968) 76-83. 

SOURCE. Vita by Philotheos Kokkinos—ed. A. Papado- 
poulos-Kerameus, Zap/stFilFakSPetUniv 76 (1905) 52—149. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 5, nos. 2271-2310. PLP, no.3140. R. 
Guilland, “Moines de l’Athos, patriarches de Constanti- 
nople,” EEBS 32 (1963) 50-59. F. Tinnefeld, Demetrios 
Kydones: Briefe (Stuttgart 1981) 158-63. —A.M.T. 


ISIDORE OF KIEV, metropolitan of Kiev and 
all Russia (1436-39); born Monemvasia ca.1385, 
died Rome 23 (J. Gill, LThK 5 [1960] 788) or 27 
April 1463 (Gill, infra 76). Educated in Constan- 
tinople, Isidore became a monk in the Pelopon- 
nesos. In 1417 he returned to the capital, where 
he was subsequently made hegoumenos of St. De- 


1016 | ISIDORE OF MILETUS 


metrios monastery. He served as ambassador for 
Joun VIII Pacarococos to the Council of Basel 
in 1434. After his elevation to the metropolitan 
see of Kiev, Isidore attended the Council of 
FERRARA-FLORENCE and signed the decree of union. 
Shortly thereafter he was appointed cardinal and 
sent to Moscow as a papal legate. On his return 
to Moscow in 1440 (Krajcar, infra 387), however, 
Grand Duke Basil II (1425—62) imprisoned him 
for his Unionist sympathies. He managed to es- 
cape to the West, where he devoted his remaining 
years to various papal missions on behalf of the 
UNION OF THE CHURCHES. One such embassy 
brought him to Constantinople, where he pro- 
claimed the union (12 Dec. 1452). When the city 
fell several months later, he was imprisoned but 
again escaped. In 1459 Pope Pius II (1458-64) 
appointed him Latin patriarch of Constantinople. 
His literary output, in contrast with his rather 
active ecclesiastical and diplomatic career, was small. 
Some of his correspondence and speeches (at Basel 
and Florence) have been published. 

ED. Scritti d’Isidoro il cardinale Ruteno, ed. G. Mercati 
(Rome 1926). A.W. Ziegler, “Vier bisher nicht veréffent- 
lichte griechische Briefe Isidors von Kijev,” BZ 44 (1951) 
570-77. Idem, “Die restlichen vier unver6ffentlichten Briefe 
Isidors von Kijev,” OrChrP 18 (1952) 135-42. G. Hofmann, 
“Quellen zu Isidor von Kiew als Kardinal und Patriarch,” 
OrChrP 18 (1952) 143-57. 

souRCcE. M.A. Kazakova, ed. “Pervonaéal’naja redakcija 
Choidenija na Florentijskij sobor,” TODRL 25 (1970) 60- 
72. Germ. tr. G. Stöckl in Europa im XV. Jahrhundert von 
Byzantinern gesehen (Graz 1954) 149-89. 

LIT. A.W. Ziegler, “Isidore de Kiev, apôtre de l'Union 
florentine,” Irénikon 13 (1936) 393—410. Gill, Personalities 
65-78. J. Krajcar, “Metropolitan Isidore’s Journey to the 
Council of Florence. Some Remarks,” OrChrP 38 (1972) 
367-87. —A.P. 


ISIDORE OF MILETUS, architect associated with 
ANTHEMIOS OF TRALLES in the design and con- 
struction of Hacia Sopuia, Constantinople; died 
before 558. He issued a revised edition of the 
works of ARCHIMEDES, wrote a commentary on 
Heron of Alexandria’s treatise On Vaulting of the 
late ist C., and invented a compass with which to 
construct parabolas. One of his students, Euto- 
KIOS of Askalon, commented on Archimedes, while 
another added book 15 to the Elements of Eucwip. 
Isidore consulted with Anthemios and Justinian I 
on the problem of flooding at Dara. 

uit. M. Restle, RBK 3:505—-08. G. Downey, “Byzantine 
Architects,” Byzantion 18 (1946—48) 112f. J. Warren, Greek 


Mathematics and Architects to Justinian (London 1976). 
—M.J., W.L. 


ISIDORE OF PELOUSION, ascetic and writer; 
saint; born Alexandria between 360 and 370, died 
after 433; feastday 4 Feb. Isidore lived as pres- 
byter and monk in a monastery near Pelousion 
on the Nile. Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos 
(PG 146:1249-53) calls him a pupil of Jonn 
CHRYSOSTOM, which perhaps should not be taken 
literally. The Souda dubs him philosopher and 
rhetorician, while his Orthodoxy, erudition, and 
style are commended by Severos of Antioch and 
PHOTIOS (ep.207.18—19, ed. Laourdas-Westerink, 
2:107). Much of this praise is merited by his 2,000 
or so surviving letters, originally collected at the 
AKOIMETOI monastery in Constantinople—ac- 
cording to U. Riedinger (ZNTW 51 [1960] 157), 
a pseudonymous work by some Akoimetoi monks. 
The prime interest of the letters is theological, 
revealing Isidore as a careful, rather than hyster- 
ical, opponent of heresy, rebutting Arianism and 
Manichaeanism in elegant Greek, while address- 
ing CYRIL of Alexandria on the hypostatic union 
and also warning against contemporary tenden- 
cies toward Monopnysitism. Isidore is equally 
level-headed on biblical exegesis (resisting ex- 
treme allegorism) and on ascetic and moral prin- 
ciples. A lost work, Agaznst the Hellenes, may have 
shown him in a less temperate mood. Some of his 
letters were translated into Church Slavonic (I. 
Dujéev, BS 23 [1962] 327f). 

ED. PG 78:9—1674. Partial Latin .—Quarante-neuf lettres 
de saint Isidore de Péluse, ed. R. Aigrain (Paris 1911). 

LIT. P. Evieux, “Isidore de Péluse, Etat des recherches,” 
RechScRel 64 (1976) 321-40. C. Fouskas, St. Isidore of Pe- 
lustum, His Life and His Works (Athens 1970). A. Schmid, 
Die Christologie Isidors von Pelusium (Fribourg 1948). M. 
Kertsch, “Isidor von Pelusion als Nachahmer Gregors von 
Nazianz,” JOB 35 (1985) 113-22. —B.B. 


ISIDORE OF SEVILLE, bishop of Seville (from 
ca.600); prolific author and churchman in Visi- 
gothic Spain; born in Byz. Spain? ca.570, died 
636. His attitudes toward the VisiGoTHs and Byz. 
appear to have been complex. In Constantinople, 
Leander, his brother and predecessor at Seville, 
had negotiated an alliance between Byz. and the 
Visigothic usurper Hermenegild (579-84) and 
become friends with the papal apocrisiarius Gre- 
gory (the future GREGORY I THE GREAT) as well 
as a correspondent of Patr. Jonn IV NESTEUTES. 
How far Isidore’s Etymologies, or Origines (ed. W.M. 
Lindsay [Oxford 1911])—the basic encyclopedia 
of the medieval West—reflects contemporary 


reality is controversial, but it certainly records the 
Visigothic destruction of Byz. CARTAGENA (15,1,67; 
cf. H.J. Diesner, Philologus 119 [1975] 92—97) and 
mentions the Byz. ship type durcon (dorkon, 19,1,10; 
cf. D. Claude, Der Handel im westlichen Mittelmeer 
während des Frithmittelalters [Göttingen 1985] 47). 
Both recensions of the aggressively pro-Gothic 
The History of Goths, Vandals, and Suevi narrate the 
Goths’ confrontations with the Byz.—sometimes 
called simply milites—from the 4th to 7th C., par- 
ticularly the contest for southern Spain. Events in 
the History are dated by the provincial era and the 
regnal year of Byz. emperors. Isidore cites the 
burden of Byz. TAXATION as a cause of loyalty to 
the barbarians (ch.15). His chronicle draws largely 
on VicToR Tonnensis but implicitly develops an 
anti-Byz. theme (M. Reydellet, MEFR 82 [1970] 
363-400); its final section notes Byz. events from 
Justin IY to Herakleios, including Avar attacks, 
strife between FACTIONS, and the loss of “Greece” 
to the Slavs (P. Charanis, BZ 64 [1971] 22—25). 
The literary biographies of Famous Men treat Latin 
authors of Byz. Spain, Justinian I, JoHN oF Bi- 
cLaR, Victor Tonnensis, and Patr. John IV of 
Constantinople. 

ED. Las historias de los godos, vandalos y suevos, ed. C. 
Rodriguez Alonso (Leon 1975), with Sp. tr. T. Mommsen, 
MGH AuctAnt 11:267-303, 424-81. Famous Men—ed. C. 
Codoñer Merino (Salamanca 1964). 

LIT. Wattenbach, Levison, Löwe, Deutsch. Gesch. Vorzeit 
u. Karol. 86—88. J. Fontaine, Isidore de Séville et la culture 
classique dans l'Espagne wisigothique, vol. 2 (Paris 1959) 846- 
61, vol. 3 (1983) 1174—80. —M.McC. 


ISIDORE OF THESSALONIKE. See GLasas, 
ISIDORE. 


ISIDORE THE YOUNGER, architect; fl. mid- 
6th C. He was the nephew of Is1poRE oF MILETUS 
and chief architect (mechanopoios) of the commis- 
sion responsible for rebuilding the dome of Hacia 
Sorna, Constantinople, after its first collapse in 
557 (Prokopios, Buildings 2.8.25; Agath. 5.9). Of 
his work there remain im situ 12 ribs in the north 
and south sectors of the present dome (the west 
sector exhibits the restoration of Trdat, 986—94; 
the east sector, the restoration of 1347-54). The 
younger Isidore’s dome is about 6 m higher than 
the original; his work shows greater care and 
precision than was exercised in later restorations. 
Isidore the Younger collaborated with John of 
Constantinople in building new fortifications at 


ISLAM, POLEMIC AGAINST 1017 


ZENOBIA on the Euphrates, and he may be the 
Isidore named in an inscription of 550 from Chalkis 
ad Belum (/GLSyr 2 [1939] nos. 348—49). 

LIT. M. Restle, RBK 3:508-10. W. Emerson, R.L. Van 
Nice, “Haghia Sophia, Istanbul,” AJA 47 (1943) 404, 423- 
36. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia 89-91. -W.L., M.J. 


ISLAM, POLEMIC AGAINST. Attacks on Islam 
were written by both Christians living within the 
caliphate and those in Byz. territory. The polemic 
produced in Arab-controlled lands was predomi- 
nantly apologetic and decreased after the 11th C. 
Byz. polemic, on the other hand, continued until 
the end of the empire, and its goal was refutation 
rather than apology. The amazing success of the 
Muslims in the 15th C., however, diverted the 
focus of the discussion; the defeat of the Chris- 
tians was certainly to be explained not by the 
superiority of Islam but by the sins of the Greeks. 

Vestiges of early polemic are attributed to the 
8th C., but their MS tradition is questionable. The 
letter of Leo III to the caliph ‘Umar IJ (717-20) 
survives only in translation (the Armenian version 
is preserved in LEwonpD), and among works on 
the subject by Jonn or Damascus only a chapter 
in his book On Heresies seems to be authentic, 
albeit interpolated. THEODORE ABU-QURRA tried 
to defend Christianity in a pragmatic form acces- 
sible to his Muslim audience. Nikeras BYZANTIOS 
launched an attack on Islam; he was followed by 
the monk Bartholomew of Edessa. The most im- 
portant polemicists of the later period were John 
VI Kantakouzenos, who composed a treatise against 
Islam, and Manuel II, who wrote a Dialogue with 
a Persian. 

Earlier Byz. polemic relied primarily on hearsay 
information about Islam, and John of Damascus 
was content to ridicule outlandish legends. Nike- 
tas Byzantios, on the other hand, studied the 
Qur’An, probably in a Greek translation, The 
discussion concentrated on theological, moral, and 
political problems. The central theological prob- 
lem was the consistent monotheism of Islam that 
could not be reconciled with the Christian concept 
of the Trinrry and the incarnation of the Logos. 
The Christian apologists responded that such an 
approach deprives God of his reason (Logos) and 
spirit, and implicitly severs the link between man- 
kind and the Godhead; Niketas called the God of 
Islam holosphairos, “all-spherical,” or holosphyros, 
“solid,” emphasizing matter as his essence. In the 


1018 


field of morality, Christian apologists stressed the 
superiority of the Christian monogamous family 
over Islamic polygamy and sodomy; they also 
criticized the hedonistic tendencies of Islam as 
reflected in its image of Paradise. Another Chris- 
tian argument was the defense of the thesis of 
free will against the belief in predestination that 
contributed so much to the idea of the Islamic 
holy war. 

Politically, each side tried to demonstrate the 
lack of unity in its adversary: the Muslims criti- 
cized the Christians for being split into 72 races, 
while the letter of Leo III asserts that Islam is 
torn apart by schisms more serious than those 
that used to rage in the Christian world. While 
defending the truth of their religion, Christian 
apologists affirmed that MUHAMMAD was a false 
prophet and a licentious man and that the Qur’an 
was a false book. The Byz. church required Mus- 
lim converts to anathematize the God of Muham- 
mad, the prophet himself, the caliphs, and some 
tenets of Muslim dogma. Manuel I, who settled 
many Turks in Byz. territory, encountered strong 
resistance from the clergy when he tried to have 
the anathema of the “solid” (helosphyros) God of 
Muhammad deleted from the catechetical books. 
With difficulty he prevailed and an anathema 
against Muhammad and all his teachings was sub- 
stituted (Nik.Chon. 213.51—219.70). 

LIT. A.T. Khoury, Polémique byzantine contre l'Islam (Lei- 
den 1972). J. Meyendorff, “Byzantine Views of Islam,” 
DOP 18 (1964) 113-32. S. Vryonis, “Byzantine Attitudes 
toward Islam during the Late Middle Ages,” GRBS 12 
(1971) 263—86. O. Mazal, “Zur geistigen Auseinanderset- 
zung zwischen Christentum und Islam in spatbyzantin- 
ischer Zeit,” Miscellanea mediaevalia 17 (198%) 1-19. R. 
Haddad, La Trinité divine chez les théologiens arabes (Paris 
1985). —A.K. 


ISLAMIC INFLUENCE ON BYZANTINE ART. 
Islam as a religion and political entity had an 
impact on Byz. as early as the mid-7th C., but it 
hardly affected the arts during the UMayyapb CAL- 
IPHATE, which adopted Byz. forms rather than 
transmitting its own. Although scholarly opinion 
is divided on these issues, early Islam may also 
have had some effect on the changes in coinage 
introduced by Justinian II and on ICONOCLASM. 
No significant impact of a new Islamic art was in 
fact possible before the appearance of techniques, 
styles, and subjects that were consciously and for- 
mally new and different from Byz. ones or before 


ISLAMIC INFLUENCE ON BYZANTINE ART 


the growth of centers of taste, production, and 
consumption that could compete with Constanti- 
nople and the other major cities of the empire. 

The usually accepted time for the appearance 
of a coherent new Islamic art is the end of the 
8th C. when BaGupap, the recently founded ‘Ab- 
basid capital, began to outstrip Constantinople in 
wealth and resources. Later, CorpDoBA, Cairo (al- 
Fustar), and many other North African, Syrian, 
Mesopotamian, and Iranian cities developed as 
centers of artistic production competing with both 
Baghdad and Byz. The preponderant impact, 
however, would always be from the East, as the 
Islamic world inherited from Sasanian Iran the 
partly real and partly mythic function of repre- 
senting to the Mediterranean world the exotic 
East and because more consistent—friendly or 
hostile—Byz. relationships existed, with Eastern 
rather than Western Muslim societies. The most 
important post-‘Abbasid Islamic dynasties and pe- 
riods for which significant official or commercial 
contacts with Byz. can be assumed or shown to 
have had artistic components are the FATImIDs, 
the SeLjuxs, and, from the 13th C. onward, the 
Turkish beylzks of Anatolia, among whom the Or- 
TOMANS became the most prominent. 

A chronology or typology of the impact of Is- 
lamic art on Byz. is difficult to establish, but some 
specific examples outline its probable pattern. 

One of the earliest examples is the palace of 
Emp. Theophilos in Constantinople with its wild 
animals, AUTOMATA in the shape of birds or lions, 
and garden of artificial trees made of precious 
metals. According to textual descriptions, this pal- 
ace was similar to ‘Abbasid palaces in Baghdad. 
Ruins of a palace on the Asian side of the Bos- 
poros (possibly Bryas) with a domed audience 
hall can also be related to a sequence of partly 
earlier Islamic palaces (S. Eyice, CahArch 10 [1959] 
245-50). Possibly, however, these Byz. or Muslim 
examples and the stories around them simply 
derive from the same antique sources. 

More complete series of objects with Islamic 
motifs appear during the Macedonian and Kom- 
nenian periods, and in fact down to the Latin 
conquest of 1204. Textiles, esp. SILKS, use roun- 
dels with animals or hunting scenes typical of 
Islamic and earlier Iranian designs, just as cloth- 
ing, esp. official or expensive COSTUME, tends to 
adopt “oriental” cuts and motifs. CERAMIC vessels 
and TILEs used for the decoration of buildings 


pick up several techniques (SGRAFFITO, splash, lus- 
ter imitation) developed in the Muslim world and 
at times even some of their motifs. ENAMELS used 
on the crown of Constantine IX and on the Pata 
D'Oro show dancers and hunters typical of Is- 
lamic objects, even though the technique itself is 
not Islamic. A rather remarkable series of silver 
objects with courtly and other scenes found in 
Central Russia has been interpreted as Byz. but 
contains many Islamic features (Darkevic, Svetskoe 
iskusstvo 232). 

The imitation of Arabic writing, esp. its angular 
style known as Kufic, becomes a common deco- 
rative motif in Greek churches; this type of or- 
nament has been called “pseudo-Kufic.” By 1200, 
according to Nicholas MEsariTEs, a palace known 
as the Mouchroutas (probably some misunder- 
standing of the Ar. mahritah, “cone”) or “Persian 
house” stood to the west of the CHRYSOTRIKLINOS; 
it was covered by a stalactite dome with paintings. 
A curious glass cup looted by the Venetians in 
1204, now in the Treasury of S. Marco in Venice, 
contains, next to beautifully copied antique mo- 
tifs, the imitation of an Arabic inscription so well 
done that it seems legible (Le trésor de Saint-Marc 
de Venise [Paris 1984] 180-83). The underwater 
excavations at Serce Liman off the coast of south- 
ern Turkey (G. Bass, JGS 26 [1984] 64—69) un- 
covered a Byz. ship, probably of the 11th C., 
carrying thousands of objects in GLass and other 
techniques originating from the Byz. Empire as 
well as Iran, Syria, Egypt, and perhaps even China. 
As early as the 11th C., a donor in a Cappadocian 
church is represented wearing a turban (Thierry, 
Nouvelles Églises, pl.g4). 

Such examples could easily be multiplied and 
from the gth C. onward traces of Islamic influ- 
ences are found in Byz. Nevertheless, in compar- 
ison with the art of other Christian groups in 
western Asia (Armenians, Georgians, Syrians, 
Copts), who were under Islamic political domina- 
tion, Byz. art was less consistently affected. Islamic 
influences hardly ever occur in religious art and 
never affect style and expression, the formal means 
by which Byz. art differentiates itself from other 
medieval traditions. In other words, Islamic forms 
played almost no role in the Byz. visual expression 
of Christianity. 

Islamic themes are most apparent in the secular 
art of emperors and in many aspects of material 
culture. There are several explanations for this 


ISRAEL 1019 


phenomenon. One is that, in the 8th—12th C., 
Islamic artisans and a Muslim patronage devel- 
oped, originated, and sponsored a large number 
of technical inventions in ceramic, textiles, glass- 
making, and METALWORK; these were, for the most 
part, easily transmissible and improved the quality 
of objects used in daily life. The ship of Serçe 
Liman was one example of a widespread trade in 
practical objects and, wherever these objects were 
made, they share the very Islamic objective of 
enhancing the potential of everyday activities. Both 
Byz. and Islam used the same Late Antique sources, 
and resemblances are therefore sometimes mis- 
leading. What Muslim princes introduced into the 
language of imperial art is an emphasis on rep- 
resentations of pleasure (dancing, singing, music, 
hunting) as an expression of power and wealth. 
Thus, the Islamic impact was first thematic, then 
functional or technical, and more rarely formal. 

In a phenomenon somewhat similar to the im- 
pact of classical art, Islamic elements appear as 
significant components of Byz. art in the gth— 
12th C., when the Byz. felt strong enough to 
incorporate such exotic themes as seemed inter- 
esting. Islamic influence is less immediately ap- 
parent in later times. When Byz. was weaker, its 
material culture more consistently shared with 
neighboring Turkish or turkified establishments; 
the maintenance of an unadulterated Christian 
art was an unwritten necessity for self-identity and 
survival. 

LIT. Grabar, Fin Ant. 1:265—go. G.C. Miles, “Byzantium 
and the Arabs: Relations in Crete and the Aegean Area,” 
DOP 18 (1964) 1-32. E. Coche de la Ferté, “Décors en 
céramique byzantine au Musée du Louvre,” CahArch g 


(1957) 187-217. N.P. Ševčenko, “Some Thirteenth-Century 
Pottery at Dumbarton Oaks,” DOP 28 (1974) 353-60. 


ISOCHRISTOI. See ORIGEN. 


ISRAEL (Iopana), the chosen people of the Bi- 
ble. The etymology of the name was explained by 
the church fathers as either “seeing” (“the mind 
seeing God” in MAKARIOS THE GREAT, PG 34:800B) 
or “conquering” (Justin Martyr, PG 6:765D). The 
church fathers distinguished the old Israel, whose 
rejection of Christ caused their subsequent suf- 
ferings, from the new chosen people, the Chris- 
tians; Israel became a designation of the church 
and also of the Byzantines. In Byz. rhetoric of the 


1020 | ISTAKHRI, AL- 


12th C. the image of Israel often appears in a 
context of expectations: after present miseries 
“the new Israel” will be elevated by the “wise 
architect,” just as the old Israel was liberated by 
Moses (e.g., Nikephoros BasiLakes, ed. Garzya 
61.34~—62.3). Niketas Choniates, while describing 
the defeat at Myriokephalon (Nik.Chon. 188.19- 
26), recalls “a seed left for Israel,” so that God’s 
inheritance should not utterly disappear. 

In OLD TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATION the chosen 
people were often seen as allusions to Byz. ideol- 
ogy and current events. Triumphs and epiphanies 
experienced by leaders such as David, Moses, and 
Joshua frequently include assemblages of men, 
women, and children; elaborations upon their 
respective biblical accounts, these suggest the for- 
tunes of the Byz. themselves. The CROSSING OF 
THE RED SFA, depicted in MSS such as the Bible 
of LEO SAKELLARIOS, was interpreted as the living 
Christian’s entry into the Promised Land through 
the grace of baptism. The ode (Ex 15:1) sung by 
the Israelites on this occasion is prescribed in De 
cer. (610.3—5) as appropriate to the celebration of 
triumphs over the Arabs and received special at- 
tention in aristocratic Psalter illustration. The 
theme is translated from a particular historical 
setting to a transcendental plane in the liturgy. 
Most developed among such biblical metaphors is 
the JosHua Rott, which has been interpreted as 
an epic of Holy Land conquest by Nikephoros II 
Phokas or John I Tzimiskes (M. Schapiro, GBA 
35 [1949] 161-76), even though neither of these 
emperors ever reached Palestine. -J.1., A.K., A.C. 


ISTAKHRI, AL-, more fully Ibrahim ibn Mu- 
hammad al-Istakhri, geographer and cartogra- 
pher of Persian origin who wrote in Arabic; born 
Istakhr (near ancient Persepolis) late gth C., died 
Baghdad after 952. His Routes and Kingdoms (writ- 
ten 933-50) is the earliest surviving work of the 
systematic school of Islamic geography (see ARAB 
GEOGRAPHERS). It is based partly on the now lost 
Maps of the Regions by al-Balkhi (died after 920), 
on written and oral reports as well as al-Istakhri’s 
own observations as a traveler throughout the 
Islamic East. Beginning with a map of the world, 
it then concentrates on Islamic territory, dividing 
it into 20 regions with maps, and includes a map 
and brief description of the Mediterranean. It is 
unclear whether he traveled in the Mediterranean 


regions. His first maps of Egypt and North Africa 
were criticized and updated by his junior contin- 
uator, ibn Hawgqal. Several later cartographers 
redrew al-Istakhri’s maps. His work was exten- 
sively used by later Arab and, more particularly, 
by Persian and Turkish geographers. 

His information on Byz., the frontier regions 
(prior to the Byz. capture of Melitene, 934), and 
the Mediterranean is less detailed than that of ibn 
Hawaal, the latter often entirely superseding it in 
this respect. It is, however, still valuable for Byz.’s 
northern neighbors, particularly the Khazars, Rus’, 
Slavs, and Bulgarians. 

ED. Al-Masdlik wa-l-Mamaltk, ed. M. al-Hini (Cairo 1961). 

Lit. Kratkovskij, Geog. Lit. 196-98. A. Miquel, EJ? 
4:222f. —A.Sh. 


ISTANBUL. See CONSTANTINOPLE. 


ISTHMOS. See CORINTH; HEXAMILION. 


ISTRIA ('Iortpia), peninsula extending into the 
northeastern Adriatic Sea, part of the Roman 
provincia Venetiarum et Histriae, which bordered on 
DaLmMaTtIa to the south. The TABULA PEUTINGER- 
IANA presents Istria as an area of numerous cities. 
The region lay south of the mainstream of bar- 
barian raids and retained its Roman character 
until the end of the 6th C. Ostrogothic domina- 
tion (493—539) did not leave substantial traces in 
the material culture, and excavations on the 
peninsula have uncovered both Byz. coins of the 
6th C. and traditional Roman houses (G. Borden- 
ache in Rendiconti. Accademia d’Archeologia, Lettere 
e Belle Arti, Napoli 34 [1959] 1777—96). The resto- 
ration of Byz. rule in Istria in the mid-6th C. was 
of short duration: the LomBarps invaded it in 
568 and gradually reduced Byz. territory to the 
littoral. In 680 the Lombards took Friuli and 
established the border between themselves and 
the empire; the remaining Byz. section formed a 
part of the exarchate of Ravenna until the fall of 
the latter to the Lombards in 751. Thereafter 
Istria constituted an independent administrative 
unit under the authority of a local tribunus but 
was not a theme (Ferluga, Byzantium 68—70). 
Archaeological excavation has revealed the pre- 
carious situation in Istria during the Lombard, 
Avar, and Slav invasions: on the one hand, tombs 


of soldiers, for example, a cavalryman from Bre- 
zac of ca.600; on the other hand, strongholds with 
rural population, some of them episcopal centers 
(Pola, Parentium, Tergeste, etc.). In Parentium 
(Poreč), Bp. Eufrasius completed a complex of 
ecclesiastical buildings in the 6th C. The slaviza- 
tion of Istria began at the end of the century; 
there were two streams of Slavs—Slovenians (in 
the north) and Croatians. The Roman population 
maintained its position primarily in the region of 
Pola; while cemeteries of the 7th—8th C. are pre- 
dominantly pagan, several churches were built 
during this period (e.g., St. Sophia in Dvograd 
dated by a lost inscription to 770). 

In 788 CHARLEMAGNE took Istria and, in the 
treaty of Aachen (812), made Byz. formally re- 
nounce this territory. Eventually Istria became a 
base for Venetian penetration of the Balkans. 

LIT. E. Klebel, Uber die Städte Istriens (Lindau-Konstanz 
1958). L. Bosio, L’Istria nella descrizione della Tabula Peutin- 
geriana (Trieste 1974). B. Marušić, Istrien im Frühmittelalter 
(Pula 1960). M. Kos, O starejši slovenski kolonizaci v Istri 
(Ljubljana 1950). L. Margetić, Histrica et Adriatica (Trieste 
1983). G. Cuscito, Cristianesimo antico ad Aquileia e in Istria 


(Trieste 1977). S. Mlakar, Istra u antici (Pula 1962). 
—1.D}. 


ISTROS. See DANUBE. 


ISTVÁN II (Stephen), king of Hungary (1116- 
31); born ca.1100/1, died 1 Mar. 1131. Son of 
Kalman (Coloman, r.10g5—1116), Istvan was a 
rival of his uncle Almos, who (with his infant son 
Béla) had been blinded by Coloman. At the start 
of Istvan’s reign, Almos fled to Constantinople, 
where Alexios I and John II supported him. 
Around 1127, because of a trade dispute or be- 
cause John refused to yield Almos, the Hungarian 
king raided Byz. territory, destroying Belgrade, 
and plundering Niš (Narssus) and Serdica. Around 
1128 John responded with an expedition that 
took Chramon (Kama) and the land between the 
Sava and the Danube and defeated the Hungari- 
ans north of the Danube. Once he had withdrawn, 
the Hungarians retook Chramon and destroyed 
Braničevo. John returned (ca.1129) and rebuilt 
Braničevo. Although Istvan’s plans were betrayed, 
John was forced to withdraw. Around 1129 or 
1130 peace was concluded between Istvan and 
John. 


_ ur. Chalandon, Comnéne 2:56-63. G. Moravesik, Byzan- 
tium and the Magyars (Amsterdam 1970) 78f. -C.M.B. 


ITALY 1021 


ITACISM, incorrect representation in writing of 
the high front vowel i, and in a wider sense 
incorrect representation of vowels, in Medieval 
Greek. Greek orthography became fixed in the 
classical period and was not modified to take ac- 
count of the radical phonological changes, partic- 
ularly in the vowel system, which took place be- 
tween Hellenistic and Byz. times. Papyrus 
documents show frequent confusion of ec and t 
by the and C. B.C. and of 7 and ¢ a little later. 
Confusion of ot and v appears from the ist C. 
A.D. Confusion of both of these with ¢ is infre- 
quent before the gth C. The outcome is that from 
the gth C. t, et, n, nt, ot, v, and ve represented 
the same sound and were frequently substituted 
for one another in writing. In the same way o and 
w, ae and €e were confused. Manuals of ORTHOG- 
RAPHY laid down rules for correct spelling of 
words containing these phonemes. The ordinary 
man, however, cared less about accuracy than the 
schoolmasters, and incorrect substitution was 
common in documents, MSS, and even in inscrip- 
tions and on the seals of high officials throughout 
the Middle Ages and later. The reason is that 
most copyists carried their text from exemplar to 
copy in the form of an auditory image, which they 
then wrongly translated into visual symbols in the 
act of writing. Although these errors rarely gave 
rise to misunderstanding, occasionally they caused 
serious corruption, often worsened by the at- 
tempts of subsequent copyists to make sense of 
the text they found in their exemplars. Thus goùr 
oiotioty becomes avvicrycty, Tt ov Tov becomes 
To.tovTov, and daira becomes è Ta. 

uit. F.T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the 
Roman and Byzantine Periods, 1: Phonology (Milan 1976) 183— 
294. F.W. Hall, A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford 1913) 


184. N.A. Macharadse, “Zur Lautung der griechischen 
Sprache der byzantinischen Zeit,” JOB 29 (1980) 144-58. 
—-R.B. 


ITALOS, JOHN. See Jonn ITALOS. 


ITALY (Iraia). In the 4th—5th C. the dioecesis 
Italiciana consisted of two vicariates: the regio an- 
nonaria (with its capital at Milan), encompassing 
the provinces of Venetia-Istria, Emilia-Liguria, 
Alpes Cottiae, and RAETIA, and the regiones sub- 
urbicanae (capital at Rome), composed of Tuscany- 
Umbria, Picenum-Flaminia, CAMPANIA, Samnium, 
CALABRIA-APULIA, LucCANIA-Bruttium, SICILY, 


1022 ITALY 


Gulf of 
Genoa 


LIGURIAN 
SEA 


T Y R R{H ENILAN 





CITIES AND 
REGIONS OF 


ITALY 


Vy, 
Tye 


nice 
Gulf of 
Venice 














jignano 
eS lentino 





2 ©% a *Lipari 
Q islands 

















Sarpinia, and Corsica. The traditional assump- 
tion that Italy went through an economic crisis in 
the 4th—5th C. has been questioned; ancient muni- 
cipia survived in Italy at least through the 6th C., 
and agricultural production remained stable in 
the Annonarian vicariate in northern Italy (L. 


Ruggini, Economia e società nell’ “Italia annonana” 


(Milan 1961]); K. Hannestad (12 CEB, vol. 2 [Bel- 
grade 1964] 155—58) assumes that after the crisis 
of the 4th C. Italian agriculture flourished under 
Ostrogothic rule. 

In the 4th and 5th C. Rome (and later MILAN) 





served as the residence of the Western Roman 
emperors. The Western emperor was at first the 
colleague and often the younger brother of the 
(senior) Eastern augustus (Maximian Herculius 
under Diocletian, Constans I under Constantius 
II, Valentinian I and Gratian under Valens, 
Honorius under Arkadios) but subsequently be- 
came an independently elected ruler. The au- 
thority of the Western Roman emperors in Italy 
ended in 476 with the overthrow of RoMULUS 
AuGusTuULus by the Herulian Opoacer. Soon 
thereafter, in 488, the Osrrocotus invaded Italy; 


by 493 they took Ravenna and established their 
kingdom. Under THEODORIC THE GREAT the Os- 
trogoths enjoyed de facto independence of Con- 
stantinople but still acknowledged its suzerainty. 
The economic and social changes of the Gothic 
period (493—555) are as yet inadequately under- 
stood. Archaeological evidence in conjunction with 
the works of Casstoporus, however, indicates a 
general separation of Italy from the unified Med- 
iterranean economy and the emergence of re- 
gional economies throughout the peninsula. Jus- 
tinian I expended great effort to restore Byz. rule 
over Italy; his lengthy war against the Ostrogoths 
caused much hardship for the local population. 
After the Byz. reconquest, Justinian’s measures, 
esp. the SANCTIO PRAGMATICA, were aimed at re- 
storing the prewar situation and latifundia of Ro- 
man landowners, which had been partially seized 
and divided by the Goths and their Italian allies. 
Byz. rule in Italy was soon challenged; in 568 the 
LomBarps invaded Italy and quickly occupied its 
northern part. The Byz. retained Ravenna and 
VENICE in the north and Apulia, Calabria, Lu- 
cania, and Campania in the south. Sicily was able 
to repel the Lombard attacks and also stayed in 
Byz. hands. The remaining Byz. possessions 
formed an administrative unit—the EXARCHATE of 
Ravenna. Gradually, a third factor emerged on 
the scene—the Papacy, which expanded its juris- 
diction in Sicily and elsewhere. 

The political makeup of Italy changed again 
during the 8th C. Byz. lost Ravenna to the Lom- 
bards in 751, but strengthened its position in 
southern Italy and esp. Sicily, transferring their 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Constantinople and 
confiscating the papal estates; the territory was 
substantially hellenized and firmly incorporated 
into the Byz. administrative system based on 
THEMES. The Lombard kingdom became decen- 
tralized, resulting in the establishment of several 
independent duchies (BENEVENTO, SALERNO, and 
later Capua); in the mid-8th C. its northern part 
was conquered by the Franks, who became a new 
factor in the struggle for hegemony in Italy. Re- 
lying on Frankish support, the papacy rejected 
Byz. suzerainty and gradually formed an inde- 
pendent state (by 800). 

Arab raids, which began (in Sicily) as early as 
the mid-7th C., increased in the 8th and gth C. 
and forced the Byz., popes, Franks, Lombard 
rulers, and semi-independent cities (NAPLES, 


ITALY | 1023 


AMALFI, GAETA, Venice) into an anti-Muslim alli- 
ance (although in some cases Italian cities and 
principalities preferred the support—or peace 
terms—granted by the Arabs). The alliance was 
not effective, however, and by the beginning of 
the 10th C. Sicily was essentially lost to the Arabs. 
In the 10th-C. political struggles, two major pow- 
ers predominated in Italy: Byz., which retained 
firm control in southern Italy, and the Ottonians, 
who inherited Frankish claims and interests in 
Italy. Before 969 the Byz. KATEPANATE of Italy 
was created, later (ca.1040) replaced by the dou- 
katon of Italy. The administrative term Italia, which 
was used in Greek sources synonymously with 
LONGOBARDIA, did not include Calabria and Sicily: 
thus ArGyros, son of Melo, was titled “doux of 
Italy, Calabria, Sicily, and Paphlagonia” (Falken- 
hausen, Dominazione 48—63). At the same time the 
term could be applied to the whole peninsula 
(without Sicily) and to the Frankish kingdom of 
Italy. 

Abundant Greek and Latin private documents 
reveal much about the southern Italian villages of 
the oth—11th C. They did not employ the open 
field system; the peasantry paid rent predomi- 
nantly in kind; free and semifree peasants were 
numerous; and villages often concluded contracts 
with the lords that fixed payment amounts and 
defined the rights of peasants (M.L. Abramson, 
VizVrem 7 [1953] 161—93). 

In the 1oth C. neither Germany nor Byz. was 
sufficiently successful at subjugating Italy; the early 
11th C. saw a peaceful but unstable situation in- 
terrupted by the short-lived campaign of George 
MANIAKES. In the same century appeared a new 
power that replaced both the Byz. and the Ar- 
abs—the Normans, who established their state in 
southern Italy and Sicily. At the same time an- 
other new factor emerged, namely, the commer- 
cial cities of northern Italy (Venice, GENOA, Pisa, 
etc.), which eventually came to dominate trade in 
the eastern Mediterranean. In the 12th C., Byz., 
for the last time, attempted to recover its posses- 
sions in southern Italy. The empire often had the 
support of Italian cities (Ancona, Milan, Venice), 
but the Norman resistance, the lack of mutual 
understanding with the papacy, and esp. the pow- 
erful interference of the German emperors made 
the Byz. efforts fruitless. 

The conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth 
Crusade in 1204 deprived Byz. of its status as a 


1024 ITINERARIUM PEREGRINORUM 


world power, making any further intervention in 
Italy impossible. In contrast, Italian republics be- 
gan to penetrate the territory of “Romania”; they 
had been granted commercial privileges and tax 
exemptions since the late 10th C., but during the 
12th C. Byz. maintained control over the Italian 
colonies and skillfully played off their rivalries. 
The defeat of 1204 opened up the Levant to the 
Venetians, who together with the Genoese exer- 
cised domination over both Constantinople and 
the Byz. provinces. Sicily, esp. under CHARLES I 
oF Anjou, served as a base for hostile operations 
against Byz. Both Italian trade domination and 
the transformation of Byz. into a source of food 
supply for Italy contributed to the empire’s grow- 
ing poverty, although individual Greek merchants 
and artisans maintained their activity and oper- 
ated with substantial capital. Cultural contacts be- 
tween Byz. and Italy developed in the 14th and 
15th C., with Greek books and scholars penetrat- 
ing the Italian intellectual milieu. The Ottoman 
threat fostered discussion of a political and reli- 
gious alliance, but Italian military assistance re- 
mained insignificant and could not prevent the 
fall of the empire to the Turks. 

LIT. A. Chastagnol, “L’administration du diocèse Italien 
au Bas-Empire,” Historia 12 (1963) 348-79. T.S. Brown, 
“The Background of Byzantine Relations with Italy in the 
gth C.,” ByzF 13 (1988) 27—45. I Bizantini in Italia, ed. G. 
Cavallo et al. (Milan 1982). R. Hiestand, Byzanz und das 
regnum italicum im 10. Jahrhundert (Zurich 1964). G.A. Loud, 
“Byzantine Italy and the Normans,” ByzF 13 (1988) 215- 
33. Lamma, Comneni. M. Balard et al., Les Italiens à Byzance 
(Rome 1957). —A.K. 


ITINERARIUM PEREGRINORUM (Account of 
the Pilgrims’ Journey), a Latin history of the Third 
Crusade probably written by an English Templar 
in the Holy Land (at Tyre?) between 1 Aug. 1191 
and 2 Sept. 1192, and certainly before 1194 (H. 
Möhring, Innsbrucker historische Studien 5 [1982] 
149-67). In addition to firsthand experience and 
oral sources, the author used a lost account of the 
Crusade of FREDERICK I. The Itinerarium Peregni- 
norum describes Frederick’s crossing of the Byz. 
Empire and his difficulties with Isaac II’s Peche- 
negs and Bulgars (291.20-296.7), insisting on 
Greek inferiority and their hatred of innocent 
Latins (292.12—293.9). It also treats the conflict 
with the Seljuk sultanate (296.1 1—300.6) and GREEK 
FIRE (323.20—324.18). Between 1216 and 1222, 
Richard, canon and later prior of Holy Trinity, 
London, revised the Itinerarium Peregrinorum and 


combined it with a Latin translation of the Estoire 
de la guerre sainte (History of the Holy War), ma- 
terial from ROGER oF HoveEDEN, and a lost English 
account of the Crusade to produce a new version 
(ed. W. Stubbs, Chronicles and Memorials of the 
Reign of Richard 1, vol. 1 [London 1864; rp. 1964]). 

ED. Das Itinerarium peregrinorum, ed. H.E. Mayer (Stutt- 
gart 1962) 245-357. 

LIT. H.E. Mayer, “Zur Verfasserfrage des Itinerarium 
peregrinorum,” ClMed 26 (1965) 279-92. A. Gransden, His- 
torical Writing in England ¢.550 to c.1307 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974) 
230f. —M.McC, 


IVAJLO, Bulgarian tsar (1278—79). Known to the 
Byz. as Lachanas (“cabbage”), he was a swineherd 
who believed that he had a mission from God to 
save Bulgaria from the Tatars. A series of vic- 
tories brought him broad popular support. He 
overthrew CONSTANTINE TICH in 1277, but Tùr- 
novo held out under Tich’s wife Maria (Nicol, 
Kantakouzenos 19—20, no.15). She preferred to 
marry Ivajlo and bring him to the throne, rather 
than allow her uncle MıcHarL VIII PALAIOLOGOS 
to impose his own nominee. She was overthrown 
while Ivajlo was away fighting the Tatars. He 
inflicted a series of defeats on the Byz. armies 
sent to support John Asen III (1279—80), but was 
forced to turn to the Tatars for help. Khan Nogay 
had him murdered at a banquet. 

LIT. Zlatarski, Ist. 3:543—75. D. Angelov, Ivajlo (Sofia 


1954). P. Petrov, Viistanieto na Ivajlo (Sofia 1956). NI 


IVAN III, grand duke of Moscow and Vladimir 
(co-ruler from 1450, prince from 1462); born 22 
Jan. 1440, died Moscow 27 Oct. 1505. Son of 
Basil II, Ivan substantially expanded Muscovite 
territory during his reign, annexing both Great 
Novgorod (1478) and the principality of Tver’ 
(1485). In 1472 Ivan took as his second wife 
SopHiA PALAIOLOGINA, niece of Emp. Constantine 
XI. Thereafter he occasionally called himself “tsar” 
and began to use the emblem of the two-headed 
EAGLE on his seals. In 1492 Metr. Zosima referred 
to Ivan as a “new Constantine” and called Moscow 
a “new city of Constantine.” In the aftermath of 
the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, Ivan as- 
sumed the role of defender of Orthodox Chris- 
tianity and declared (in 1470) that the patriarch 
of Constantinople had no jurisdiction over the 
church of Moscow. Current scholarship (Obol- 
ensky, Commonwealth 364-67; Meyendorff, Russia 


274), however, rejects earlier theories that Ivan 
claimed to be the heir to the Byz. Empire. 

LIT. G. Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age 
(New Haven, Conn., 1959) 13-133. K.V. Bazilevic, Vneš- 


njaja politika Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva. Vtoraja 
polovina XV veka (Moscow 1952). -A.M.T. 


IVAN ALEXANDER, Bulgarian tsar (1331—71). 
Descended from the Asen dynasty on his mother’s 
side, Ivan Alexander reached the throne as a 
result of a coup d’état supported by a faction 
among the boyars. Throughout his reign he strove 
to prevent formation of an anti-Bulgarian coali- 
tion in the Balkans. Allied from 1332 with STEFAN 
Uroš IV Dušan, Ivan inflicted a severe defeat on 
the Byz. in that year and regained some territory 
south of the Balkan range. During the Byz. Cıvıl 
WAR OF 1341—47 he supported John V Palaiolo- 
gos against John VI Kantakouzenos and as a re- 
sult added to his dominion a number of towns 
north of the Rhodope mountains, including Pxi- 
LIPPOPOLIS. Later his hostility to Byz. led him to 
ally himself with the Ottoman Turks and with 
their help to recover several fortresses on the 
Black Sea coast. In 1365, however, he was de- 
feated by AMADEO VI oF Savoy and the Hungar- 
ians, both of whom supported papal plans for 
church union. He maintained good relations with 
Dubrovnik and Venice. His policy of giving parts 
of his kingdom as appanages to his sons con- 
tributed to the fragmentation of the Second Bul- 
garian Empire and to its inability to resist Turkish 
pressure. A notable patron of literature and art, 
Ivan made Tdrnovo the seat of a flourishing 
Slavic literary culture, which later influenced the 
development of Russian culture. Several MSS 
written and illuminated for him survive. He was 
married twice, to Theodora, daughter of the Ru- 
manian prince Ivanco Basarab, and later to Sarah- 
Theodora, a converted Jew. 

Lit. P. Mutaftiev, /storya na bilgarskya narod, vol. 2 (Sofia 
1943) 241-87. Kosev et al., Bùlgarija 1:218-—41. I. Božilov, 
Familijata na Asenevci (1186—1460) (Sofia 1985) 149-78, 
435-51. K. Mecev, “Car Ivan Aleksandur kato darzaven i 
kulturen stroitel,” in Velicieto na Tiirnovgrad, ed. A. Popov 
(Sofia 1985) 122-43. J. Andreev, “Ivan Alexandar et ses 
fils sur la derniére miniature de la Chronique de Ma- 
nassès,” EiBalk 21.4 (1985) 39—47. -R.B. 


IVANKO (‘IBaykés), nephew of Asen I (Akrop. 
1:21.1f) and founder of an independent Bulgar- 
ian principality; died after 1200. In 1196 Ivanko 
assassinated Asen. Niketas CHONIATES attributes 


IVERON MONASTERY 1025 


this murder to Ivanko’s involvement in a love 
affair with the sister of Asen’s wife. He also sug- 
gests (Nik.Chon. 471.86) that Ivanko was possibly 
incited by the sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos. Ivan- 
ko’s attempt to establish his power in Tarnovo 
failed: Asen’s brother, PETER oF BULGARIA, be- 
sieged the city, and, lacking assistance from Byz., 
Ivanko had to flee to Constantinople. There he 
was betrothed to the emperor’s granddaughter 
Theodora and received the name Alexios. Alexios 
III appointed him governor of Philippopolis. 
Around 1198 or 1199 Ivanko proclaimed his ter- 
ritory independent, allied himself with KALOJAN, 
and assisted a Cuman raid into Macedonia. After 
some unsuccessful expeditions against Ivanko 
(during which the protostrator Manuel KAMYTZES 
was taken captive), Alexios III lured him into a 
trap (1200). Deceived by a false oath, Ivanko 
entered the imperial camp, where he was imme- 
diately seized. His brother Mitos (Mitja?) fled, and 
Ivanko’s ephemeral principality in Rhodope was 
annexed by Byz. 


LIT. Zlatarski, Ist. 3:89—120, 132-34. Brand, Byzantium 
125-31. —A.K., C.M.B. 


IVERON MONASTERY, Iberian (Georgian) es- 
tablishment on the northeast coast of the penin- 
sula of Mt. ATHOS, approximately 4 km from 
Karyes. Until between 1010 and 1020 Iveron 
(IBjpwrv) was called the “monastery of the Iber- 
ian” or “of Euthymios”; thereafter it was called 
the “lavra of the Iberians.” The first Georgians to 
come to Athos were John the Iberian and his son 
EUTHYMIOS THE IBERIAN, who entered the Great 
Lavra of Athanasios in the g6os before moving to 
nearby kellia. In 979/80 the ascetic/general John 
Tornikios, after winning a battle over the rebel 
Bardas SKLEROS and amassing vast amounts of 
booty, returned to Athos to found a new lavra for 
Iberians at the site of the monastery “tou Kie- 
mentos.” At this time Tornikios received the Ko- 
LOBOU MONASTERY from Emp. Basil IJ. Under the 
first hegoumenoi—John the Iberian (g80—1005), 
Euthymios (1005—1019), and Euthymios’s cousin 
George (1019—29)—a scriptorium was established 
for the translation of Greek religious texts into 
Georgian and the copying of Greek and Georgian 
MSS. Thereafter Iveron continued to be an im- 
portant center of Byz.-Georgian cultural interac- 
tion and the dissemination of texts in Georgian. 
In the mid-11th C. the translator and hagiogra- 


1026 IVEROPOULOS, JOHN 


pher GEORGE MT‘aC’MINDELI served as hegoume- 
nos. The number of monks at the monastery re- 
portedly grew to 300, and Iveron initially owned 
more land than Lavra. In addition to extensive 
properties on Athos, Iveron had possessions in 
Chalkidike, the Strymon valley, and Thessalonike. 

Throughout the Byz. period there was rivalry 
at Iveron between the community of Greek monks, 
who were in the majority, and the Georgians; the 
two groups celebrated the liturgy separately. The 
Georgians were in authority in the early period, 
and held their services in the katholikon, even 
though they were outnumbered. In the 14th C., 
however, the Greeks gained dominance at Iveron; 
an act of 1356 (RegPair, fasc. 5, no.2396), noting 
that the Greek monks were “more numerous and 
capable,” stated that the hegowmenos was to be 
Greek and that the Greeks were entitled to hold 
their services in the principal church. Although it 
appears no typikon was ever written, chapters 34— 
70 of the vita of John and Euthymios, which 
describe the organization of Iveron, resemble a 
monastic rule. 

The archives contain over 150 documents of 
Byz. date; those published to date (the earliest is 
of 927) deal primarily with sales and donations of 
property; they provide valuable information on 
the topography and prosopography of Mace- 
donia. The will of Kale Pakouriane (of 1090) 
contains a long list of liturgical vessels and textiles 
given to the monastery. Iveron’s library preserves 
a major collection of 337 Byz. MSS, in addition 
to 86 Georgian MSS, including unique hagio- 
graphical codices. The most important Byz. books 
are cod. 463, a lavishly illustrated 12th-C. copy of 
BARLAAM AND IOASAPH (Treasures 2:60—91, 306— 
23), and the 13th-C. Gospel book cod. 5 (ibid. 
34-53, 296—303). 

The katholikon, which has undergone numerous 
restorations and modifications, was originally built 
in 980-83 and is one of the oldest surviving 
Christian structures on Athos. Dedicated to the 
Virgin, it is a cross-in-square church, with side 
chapels added later. Its pavement probably dates 
to the mid-11th C. 

SOURCES. J. Lefort et al., Actes d'Iviron, I. Des origines au 
milieu du XIe siècle (Paris 1985). Dölger, Sechs Praktika. 
Dölger, Schatz. 35-38, 43-47, 69-71, 153-170, 180-84, 
193—209, 230-32, 234-50, 255-61, 263—79, 292—308. (For 
ed. of vita of John and Euthymios, see EUTHYMIOS THE 
IBERIAN.) 


Lit. BK 41 (1983)—entire issue devoted to 1,cooth 
anniversary of foundation of Iveron. Lampros, Athos 2:1— 


279. R. Blake, “Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la 
bibliothèque de la laure d’Iviron au Mont Athos,” ROC? 8 


(28) (1931-32) 289-361; 9 (29) (1933-34) 114-59, 225- 
71- -A.M.T. AC, 


IVEROPOULOS, JOHN. See PerrITzos Mon- 


ASTERY. 


IVORY (¿àéġas), made from ELEPHANT tusks, the 
principal organic material used in the creation of 
ceremonial and useful objects, icons, and appli- 
qués for furniture and doors. Dependent on com- 
merce with Africa and India, the availability of 
ivory varied greatly, although the appeal of its 
exotic origin and lustrous nature never waned. 
Its reputation in late antiquity as an imperial 
material is indicated by the barbarian offering of 
a giant tusk on the BARBERINI Ivory. In fact, from 
the beginning of the 4th C. until at least the mid- 
6th, ivory was relatively cheap: in Diocletian’s 
Price EDICT, its cost per pound is one-fortieth 
that of an equivalent weight in silver. 

Abundant statuettes, CASKETS AND BOXES for 
medications and other items, and decorative 
plaques were carved in Egypt and exported, as 
were the 8 stools and 14 chairs sent by Cyril of 
Alexandria to the court of Theodosios II. Egypt 
as a source of worked ivory (as against BONE 
CARVING), which is attested by both papyri and 
excavations, had been contested but is now con- 
firmed by finds at Abū Mina (J. Engemann, JbAChr 
30 [1987] 172—186). By the 4th C. ivory was also 
carved in Constantinople. An edict of 337 (Cod. 
Theod. XIII 4.2) includes ivory workers in a list of 
artisans who were exempted from civil obligations 
so that they might improve their craft and teach 
it to their children—a clause that suggests the 
means by which techniques were transmitted. The 
widespread manufacture of ivory DIPTYCHS Is ap- 
parent from an edict of 384 (ibid. XV g.1) forbid- 
ding all but ordinary consuls to issue them. While 
many consular diptychs can be ascribed with cer- 
tainty to Constantinople, the place of origin of 
the cathedra of Maximian and the so-called five- 
part diptychs remains disputed, as does that of 
the scores of surviving pyxides (see pyxis) deco- 
rated with pagan or Christian subjects. While the 
consular diptychs can be precisely dated, other 
pre-Justinianic ivories cannot. 

It is probable that Constantinople’s access to 
ivory was disrupted in the late 6th and 7th C. 
There is no evidence for ivory carving in the 


ensuing “Dark Age,” although such activity has 
been claimed for Christian workshops in Syria- 
Palestine. When the ivory trade resumed—possi- 
bly no earlier than the reign of Leo VI—East 
Africa was in Arab hands. Thereafter, ivory was 
a coveted substance, used in the fabrication of far 
fewer types of objects than before the 7th C. and 
generally reserved for sacro-political emblems and 
ecclesiastical artifacts. The aulic connections of 
the material are epitomized in a relief in Moscow 
(Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, Elfenbeinskulpt. II, no. 
35), apparently made in direct response to the 
beginning of Constantine VII’s sole rule in 945. 
The dates of other pieces with imperial images 
and/or inscriptions are disputed, but their func- 
tion is perhaps indicated by three relatively large 
TRIPTYCHS. Few in number compared to the more 
than 200 smaller icons that survive, they are much 
more elaborately carved and may have been re- 
vered in private chapels of the imperial court and 
the urban elite. The only ivory staurotheke (ibid., 
II, no.77) has a later inscription that says it was 
used by an emperor Nikephoros (Botaneiates?) to 
put the barbarians to flight. 

Many ivories were sent to the West, where they 
were applied to the covers of books, the contents 
of which provide termini ante quem for these plaques. 
Such exports continued until ample Western ac- 
cess to raw ivory, occurring in and after the 11th 
C., put an end to this commerce. No Byz. pieces 
have been shown to belong to the 12th C., a 
period when emperors and other dignitaries com- 
missioned their portraits in other expensive ma- 
terials. This absence suggests that supplies of ivory 
were diverted at their source to the West. Substi- 
tutes were then prized: John Tzetzes records his 
gratitude for a “Russian-carved” inkwell (or ink- 
stand?) made of walrus (or narwhal) tusk that he 
received from Leo, metropolitan of Dorostolon 
(J. Shepard, ByzF 6 [1979] 215-21). Only one 
object with imperial likenesses, a tiny circular box 
at Dumbarton Oaks that depicts members of the 
family of John VIII, can be attributed with con- 
fidence to Palaiologan craftsmen. 

No ivories are listed in preserved wills and very 
few in monastic INVENTORIES and TYPIKA. Nothing 
is known of modes of production. Since the cor- 
pus of Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, pieces dated 
to the 10th and 11th C. have been divided into 
five groups, supposed to be the products of dif- 
ferent ateliers, but there is no basis on which to 
assume the existence of workshops in this medium 


IZBORNIKI 1027 


other than the fact that craft practices were trans- 
mitted to successive generations. That ivory work- 
ers also carved bone and STEATITE is a more plau- 
sible hypothesis, given the technical, iconographical, 
and formal resemblance between products in these 
three media. A late reference to ivory is made by 
Anna Komnene (An.Komn. 1:112.21f) who com- 
pares the grace of her mother’s hands to ivory 
carved by some artificer. For this workman she 
uses the generic term technites, whereas in late 
antiquity this craft had been practiced by special- 
ists known as elephantourgot. 

LIT. W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spatantike und des 
frühen Mittelalters’ (Mainz 1976). A. Goldschmidt, K. Weitz- 
mann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.—XIII. 
Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Berlin 1930-34; rp. 1979). A. Cutler, 
The Craft of Ivory (Washington, D.C., 1985). J.-P. Caillet, 
“L'origine des derniers ivoires antiques,” Revue de l'Art 72 
(1986) 7—15. -A.C. 


IZBORNIKI (lit. “Selections”) of 1073 and 1076, 
the two earliest extant dated nonliturgical MSS 
from Rus’; also known as the Izbornik: of Svjatoslav 
(i.e., Jaroslavit of Kiev, 1073—76) from the eulogy 
in the 1073 MS and the colophon in the 1076 MS. 
The 1073 Izbornik (Moscow, Hist. Mus. Sinod. 
Sobr. 1043) contains a translation of a Greek 
FLORILEGIUM close to that of Vat. gr. 423 and 
Paris, B.N. Coisl. gr. 120. The 1073 MS is one of 
more than 20 MSS of this translation. The core 
of the work is a version of the Erotapokrisis as- 
cribed to ANASTASIOS OF Sinar. This is flanked by 
briefer theological, rhetorical, and chronological 
articles by, for example, Michael Synkellos, Theo- 
dore of Raithou, George Choiroboskos, and Patr. 
Nikephoros I. Its prototype was Bulgarian: the 
enkomion to Svjatoslav was originally addressed to 
Tsar SYMEON OF BuLcaria (but cf. L.P. Žukov- 
skaja, ed., Drevnerusskij literaturnyj jazyk v ego ot- 
noseni k staroslavjanskomu [Moscow 1987] 45—62). 

The 1076 Izbornik (Leningrad, Publ. Lib., So- 
branie Ermitaznoe 20) is the only complete MS of 
its type and does not reflect an equivalent Byz. 
florilegium. Rather it contains extracts from pre- 
vious Slavonic translations, at least in part via 
previous Slavonic compilations (including pas- 
sages from the florilegium represented in the 1073 
Izbornik). In character it is gnomic and hortatory, 
with substantial segments of, for example, Ec- 
clesiasticus, the Centuria ascribed to Patr. Genna- 
dios I, the Sententiae ascribed to HESYCHIOS OF 
JERUSALEM, JOHN KLIMAX, AGAPETOS, and APO- 


1028 IZMARAGD 


PHTHEGMATA PATRUM. Some of its sources are 
unidentified, and its provenance—Kievan or Bul- 
garian—is disputed. 

ED. Izbornik Svjatoslava 1073 goda. Faksimil’noe izdanie 
(Moscow 1983). Izbornik 1076 goda, ed. S.1. Kotkov (Moscow 
1965). 

LIT. Izbornik Svjatoslava 1073 g., ed. B.A. Rybakov (Mos- 
cow 1977). H.G. Lunt, “On the Izbornik of 1073,” in 
Okeanos 359-76. W.R. Veder, “The Izbornik of John the 
Sinner,” in Polata kiinigopis’naja 8 (June 1983) 15-37. 

-S.C 


IZMARAGD (from Gr. opuápayõðos, “emerald”), 
a compendium of ethical instruction compiled in 

us’, probably in the early 14th C., initially in 88 
chapters. The precepts in /zmaragd, aimed mainly 
at laymen and priests, concern the life of a Chris- 
tian in society: marriage, work, relations with au- 
thority, charity, and the blessings derived from 
reading. The sources of /zmaragd overlap with 
those of other Slavonic compilations (the IzBor- 


NIKI of 1073 and 1076, ZLATOSTRUJ, Zlatoust) 
and include translated extracts from pseudo- 
Chrysostom, the Centuria ascribed to Patr. Gen- 
nadios I, the Pandektes of ANTIOCHOS and of Nı- 
KON OF THE BLACK MOUNTAIN, EPHREM THE SYR- 
IAN, ANASTASIOS OF SINAI, pseudo-Athanasios, 
Ecclesiasticus, the vita of Niphon of Constantia, 
and BARLAAM AND IOASAPH. /zmaragd also contains 
works ascribed to KirILL of Turov, FEODOSIJ oF 
PEČERA, and SERAPION OF VLADIMIR. A second 
version in 165 chapters probably dates from the 
late 15th C. It draws on a similar range of sources 
(though only 50 chapters are borrowed directly 
from the first version), with additional material 
from PaLiapios, John Moscuos, and the Dia- 
logues of GREGORY I THE GREAT. 

LIT. V.A. Jakovlev, K literaturnoj istorii dreunerusskich sbor- 
nikov. Opyt izslédovanya “Izmaragda" (Odessa 1893; rp. Leipzig 
1974). V.P. Adrianova-Perec, “K voprosu o kruge čtenija 
drevnerusskogo pisatelja,” TODRL 28 (1974) 3-29. O.V. 


Tvorogov, “Izmaragd,” TODRL 39 (1985) 249-53. Fedo- 
tov, Mind 2:36—-112. ~S.C.F. 





JABALA, the first attested GHassANID chief in the 
service of Byz.; died ca.,28. Around 500 he ap- 
peared as a warrior in occupation of the island of 
Iotabe, which had been captured in the reign of 
Leo I by AMorkesos. After hard-fought battles, 
Romanos, the energetic doux of Palestine, was able 
to force Jabala out of Lotabe and restore Byz. 
rule. In the general settlement with the Arab 
tribes who attacked the frontier, Anastasios I con- 
cluded a peace with the Ghassanids in 502 that 
made them the dominant federate group in Or- 
iens. Jabala remained the principal figure in Byz.- 
Arab relations for another quarter of a century. 
The Ghassanids became staunch Monophysites, a 
fact reflected in the appearance of the Mono- 
physite firebrand Simeon of Beth-Arsham at Ja- 
bala’s camp in Jabiya ca.520, invoking the exten- 
sion of aid to the Christians of NAJRAN and South 
Arabia. Jabala probably died at the battle of Than- 
nuris (528) while fighting in the Byz. army against 
the Persians. 


LIT. I. Shahid, The Martyrs of Najran (Brussels 1971) 
272-76. -1.A.Sh. 


JACOB BARADAEUS (Bapaéaios, Syr. Bur- 
de’ana, “man in ragged clothes’), Monophysite 
bishop of Edessa (from 542/3); born Tella, Os- 
rhoene, ca.,00, died Kasion, near the Syro- 
Egyptian frontier, 30 July 578. He was the orga- 
nizer of the Monophysite church, called JACoBITE 
after him. In 527/8 the monk Jacob went to Con- 
stantinople, where he became a favorite of the 
empress Theodora and also gained the support 
of the Arab chieftain Harith ibn-Jabala (ARE- 
THAS). When Ephraim of Antioch (527-45) 
launched a severe attack against the Monophys- 
ites, Theodora urged Theodosios, Monophysite 
patriarch of Alexandria, to consecrate two bishops 
in Syria to counterbalance Ephraim’s activities— 
Theodore in Bostra and Jacob in Edessa (542/3). 

According to John of Ephesus (PO 19:154), 
Jacob’s diocese extended over most of the East, 
where the Monophysite cause had been severely 
weakened by Justinian’s persecution. Jacob was 


tireless in his missionary activity, appointing Mon- 
ophysite bishops in many cities, including Chios, 
Ephesus, and Antioch. Although much of his work 
was in Asia Minor and along the coasts of the 
Mediterranean, most of the bishops were drawn 
from Syrian monasteries, giving the Monophysite 
hierarchy a distinctly Syrian character. Justinian 
attempted to arrest Jacob, but he was frequently 
in disguise (hence his sobriquet) and was never 
caught. Some of Jacob’s letters, written originally 
in Greek, have survived in Syriac. 

ED. See CPG, vol. 3, nos. 7170—99. 

LIT. H.G. Kleyn, Jacobus Baradaeiis de stichter der syrische 
monophystetische kerk (Leiden 1882). D.D. Bundy, “Jacob 
Baradaeus. The State of Research,” Muséon gt (1978) 45- 
86. E. Honigmann, Evéques et évéchés monophysites d’Asie 


antérieure au Vle siècle (Louvain 1951) 157-245. A. van 
Roez in Grillmeier-Bacht, Chalkedon 2:339-60. -T.E.G. 


JACOBITES, Syrian MonopnysitTes, followers of 
Jacos Barapaegus. Although Monophysitism had 
individual followers from the time of the Council 
of CHALCEDON, the movement was not given firm 
institutional form until the missionary activity of 
Jacob Baradaeus beginning ca.542. The Jacobite 
church traced its roots to Patr. Theodosios of 
Alexandria (535-66), who consecrated Jacob. Al- 
though many Jacobite churches were established 
in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands, the hier- 
archy of the church was made up largely of Syrian 
monks who brought with them their language and 
spiritual ideals. Jacobite missionaries spread their 
teachings as far as Persia, but their real centers 
were the villages and monasteries of Syria. and 
many bishops lived in desert monasteries rather 
than cities. The Jacobite church survived the Per- 
sian and Islamic conquests, although with de- 
creased numbers, into modern times. 

LIT. Frend, Monophysite Movement 285-87, 318-20, 326. 


S.P. Kawerau, Die jakobitische Kirche im Zeitalter der syrischen 
Renaissance (Berlin 1955). -T.E.G. 


JACOB OF SARUG (or Serugh), Syriac poet and 
theologian; born Curtam, near Sarug on the Eu- 
phrates, ca.451, died Batnan 29? Nov. 521. Edu- 


1029 


1030 | JACOB’S LADDER 


cated in the Nestorian school of Edessa, he never- 
theless became a follower of CYRIL of Alexandria. 
He served as chorepiskopos in the district of Sarug 
and in 519 was elected bishop of Batnan. Jacob’s 
religious creed was attacked by his contemporar- 
ies: Nestorian chroniclers characterized him as a 
turncoat who accepted the beliefs of the ruling 
emperor (P. Krüger, OstkSt 13 [1964] 15-32); an 
anonymous Monophysite accused Jacob of falling 
at the end of his life into a horrible heresy, that 
is, the creed of Chalcedon (P. Kriiger in Weg- 
zeichen [Würzburg 1971] 245-52). In his works 
Jacob did not follow the final formula of Chalce- 
don but taught that the incarnate Christ was “one 
nature out of two.” 

A prolific author, Jacob left homilies in prose 
and verse as well as numerous letters; not all of 
these have survived. He interpreted Scripture in 
an allegorical or typological manner: Moses had 
to place a veil over his face after the Theophany 
on Mt. Sinai because the Israelites were not ma- 
ture enough to receive the divine truth; it was 
removed, according to Jacob, after the Incarna- 
tion that allowed the world to see the Son of God 
openly (S. Brock, Sobornost 3 [1981] 70—85). The 
theme of the Incarnation attracted Jacob: he per- 
ceived it symbolically as “three wombs”: Mary’s 
womb, the womb of the Jordan (baptism), and 
the womb of Sheol (death, or the baptism on the 
cross), and discovered the prefigurations of these 
baptisms in the Old and New Testaments (S. Brock, 
OrChrAn 205 [1976] 325-47). A man of Christian 
culture, Jacob strongly opposed any remnants of 
classical civilization and sharply criticized theatri- 
cal performances (W. Cramer, JbAChr 23 [1980] 
96-107). 

ED. Homiliae Selectae, ed. P. Bedjan, 5 vols. (Paris 1905- 
10). Six homélies festales en prose, ed. F. Rilliet (Turnhout- 
Brepols 1986). Epistulae, ed. G. Olinder [= CSCO, Scripto- 
res Syri, 57] (Paris 1937). . 

LIT. A. Védbus, Handschrifiliche Uberlieferung der Memre- 
Dichtung des Ja’qob von Serug, 4 vols. (Louvain 1973-80). T. 
Jansma, “Die Christologie Jakobs von Serugh,” Muséon 78 
(1965) 5-48. P. Peeters, “Jacques de Saroug, appartient-il 
à la secte monophysite?” AB 66 (1948) 134-98. Chesnut, 
Three Christologies 113-41. -T.E.G. 


JACOB’S LADDER, a ladder ascending to heaven 
seen by the Hebrew patriarch Jacob during his 
dream (Gen 28:10—22). John Chrysostom (PG 
59:454—-55), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Histoire des 
moines de Syrie, ed. P. Canivet, A. Leroy-Mol- 


inghen, vol. 2 [Paris 1979] 216, ch.27.1.4—5), and 
others interpreted it as a metaphor for the ascent 
to God. As an image for the Virgin, it figures in 
the AKATHIsTos Hymn; the biblical account was 
read at the Great Feasts of the Virgin (Birth, 
Annunciation, Dormition). 

Representation in Art. The ladder was illus- 
trated already by the 4th C., for example, at Dura 
Europos and the Via Latina catacomb, and ap- 
pears in 5th- and 6th-C. Genesis MSS and the 
OCTATEUCHS. It was the explicit model for illus- 
trations to the Heavenly Ladder of JOHN KLIMAX, 
and icons based on this text. Jacob is shown as- 
cending the ladder on the Brescia Casket (Vol- 
bach, Elfenbernarbetten, no.107), depicting the as- 
cent to God rather than the details of the Old 
Testament account. In Palaiologan painting (e.g., 
in the CHora) the ladder appears as a prefigura- 
tion of the Virgin (S. Der Nersessian in Under- 
wood, Kariye Djami 4:334—36). 

LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 3:519~-25. C.M. Kauffmann, LCI 
2:370—83. M. Putscher, “Die Himmelsleiter. Verwandlung 


eines Traums in der Geschichte,” Clio medica 13.1 (1978) 
13-37- —J-H.L., C.B.T. 


JAMES ('Iékwßos). Three individuals named James 
were associated with Jesus; as a result there has 
been confusion over their identities. (1) The apos- 
tle James Major (“the Great”), the son of Zebedee, 
was the elder brother of the apostle Jonn; he 
preached in Palestine, was beheaded, and was 
commemorated on 15 Nov. and go Apr. (2) The 
apostle James Minor (“the Less”), son of Al- 
phaeus, was martyred by clubbing and was com- 
memorated on g Oct. (3) James, the “brother of 
the Lord” (adelphotheos), was Christ’s half-brother. 
He became the first bishop of Jerusalem, was 
martyred when the Jews pulled him from the 
height of the Temple, and was commemorated 
on 23 Oct. The last two Jameses are sometimes 
conflated. 

The Epistle of St. James in the New Testament 
is usually attributed to James adelphotheos; John 
Chrysostom wrote a commentary on this epistle 
(PG 64:1039—52). Several other works were as- 
cribed to this James: the PROTOEVANGELION OF 
James, a homily on the Dormition (actually a com- 
pilation of Jonn I, archbishop of Thessalonike 
[M. Jugie, PO 19 (1926) 344—438]), and a dia- 
logue with John the Theologian on the departure 
of the soul (Anecdota graeco-byzantina [Moscow 1893], 


ed. A. Vassiliev, 317-22). The ancient liturgy of 


St. James is also traditionally ascribed to the brother 
of the Lord. James was praised by various authors, 
including Andrew of Crete, Hippolytos of Thebes, 
and Niketas Paphlagon. The center of his cult in 
Constantinople was the Church of the Virgin Mary 
in Chalkoprateia. 

Representation in Art. James the adelphotheos, 
although not an apostle, was conflated with them 
in artistic representations: James Major and James 
Minor often wear his episcopal robes, and his 
white hair sometimes replaces their brown hair. 
The figure of James Major—known with his 
brother, John, as “thunder-voiced’”—illustrates 
Psalm 76:19 in several marginal PsALTers; here, 
as in the scene of their calling, both are beardless 
youths. In the scene of the TRANSFIGURATION, 
James Major is brown-haired; it is as a mature 
man with brown hair and beard that he is shown 
preaching at Psalm 19 in the marginal Psalters 
and at his martyrdom in a MS in Paris (B.N. gr. 
102—H. Kessler, DOP 27 [1973] pl.1). 

ut. R.A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und 
Apostellegenden, vol. 2.2 (Braunschweig 1883—84) 201-57. 
F. Halkin, “Une notice byzantine de apôtre saint Jacques, 


frère de saint Jean,” Biblica 64 (1983) 565-70. BHG 763y-— 
766i. J.L, A.K., A.W.C. 


JAMES OF KOKKINOBAPHOS (an unidenti- 
fied monastery), the author, probably of the 12th 
C., of six homilies on the Virgin. Nothing is known 
of his life. A. Kirpičnikov (Letopis 2 [1892] 255- 
80) identified him with another James, the author 
of letters addressed to the sebastokratorissa Irene 
KoOMNENE; this identification remains debatable. 
The homilies are devoted to the life of the Virgin 
from her conception to her visitation with Eliza- 
beth. They are preserved in two deluxe MSS, 
Paris, B.N. gr. 1208 and Vat. gr. 1162, probably 
from the second quarter of the 12th C., which 
were profusely illustrated by the major atelier 
then active in Constantinople. Their numerous 
INITIALS, both floral and zoomorphic, and their 
elaborate HEADPIECES are hallmarks of this atelier, 
which also produced the Conex EBNERIANUS. 

ED. PG 127:543—700. 

LIT. E.M. Jeffreys, “The Sevastokratorissa Eirene as Lit- 
erary Patroness: The Monk lJakovos,” JOB 32.3 (1982) 63- 
71. J.C. Anderson, “The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kok- 


kinobaphos Master,” DOP 36 (1982) 83-114. Anderson, 
“Sinai. Gr. 339.” —R.S.N., A.K. 


JARMI, AL- | 1031 


JANISSARIES (y:avi7fapor). According to the 
traditional etymology, a term deriving from the 
Turkish yeni ceri, “new army,” which was the OT- 
TOMAN sultan’s personal army or Kapnkullari (lit. 
“slaves of the Porte”), the troops of the palace. 
The army of the Janissaries was the result of the 
devshirme (Turk. “collection, recruiting”), an Ot- 
toman institution, namely the periodical levy of 
Christian boys living within the sultan’s territories 
(dhimmi) for training to fill the ranks of the Jan- 
issaries and later to enter palace service or the 
administration. The same term is used in the 
earliest Ottoman sources with the meaning of 
pencik, that is, the collection of the fifth part of 
the prisoners, an old Islamic institution, called by 
the Byz. méparov (Kantakouzenos) or mevra- 
popia (Chalkokondyles) and by the Latins pen- 
dameria (Veneto-Cretan text of 1402). The earliest 
reference to the devshirme as an institution applied 
to the sultan’s subjects appears in the Life of St. 
PHILOTHEOS OF ATHOS, apparently composed in 
the second half of the 14th C. (B. Papoulta, SüdostF 
22 [1963] 259-80), and in a sermon of Isidore 
GLABAS, metropolitan of Thessalonike, delivered 
in 1395 (S. Vryonis, Speculum 31 [1956] 433-43). 
The Greek term gianitzaroi also designated the 
Christian guards of the Byz. emperor ca.1437. In 
that case it probably constituted the Greek ren- 
dering of the Latin or neo-Latin ginetan, giane- 
tario, janizzert, etc. 

LIT. Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica 2:110f, 113. G.T. Den- 
nis, “Three Reports from Crete on the Situation in Ro- 
mania, 1401—1402,” StVen 12 (1970) 243-65. V.L. Ménage, 
EI? 2:210-13. Idem, “Some Notes on the Devshirme,” 
BSOAS 29 (1966) 64-78. E.A. Zachariadou, “Les ‘janis- 


saires’ de l'empereur byzantin,” in Studia turcologica memo- 
riae Alexii Bombaci dicata (Naples 1982) 591-97. -E.A.Z. 


JARMI, AL-, more fully Muslim ibn Abi Muslim 
al-Jarmi, Arab official and warrior who wrote 
books on Byz. based on information obtaincd as 
a prisoner of war; fl. gth C. His biography is only 
known from al-Mas‘tpi, who describes him as an 
eminent man in the Arab-Byz. frontier region. 
He was captured by the Byz. ca.837 and was 
released in 845. His writings on Byz. are now lost. 
They were used by IBN KHURDADBEH, QUDAMA, 
and al-Mas‘tdi (and probably ibn al-Faqīh, ca.goo). 
According to al-Mas‘udi (Tanbih 191), al-Jarmi 
was well informed on Byz. His writings dealt with 
historical, political, administrative, topographical, 


1032 | JAROSLAV 


and strategic matters as well as the northern 
neighbors of Byz. Al-Jarmi’s description of Byz. 
THEMES and other aspects of the Byz. army and 
administration are extremely accurate and de- 
tailed, forming the core of practically all such 
accounts in Arab geographers. Of special impor- 
tance are his descriptions of routes into Byz. Asia 
Minor and practical instructions on the suitable 
times for raids into Byz. territory. 

LIT. W. Treadgold, “Remarks on the Work of Al-Jarmi 
on Byzantium,” BS 44 (1983) 205-12. F. Winkelmann, 
“Probleme der Informationen des al-Garmi über die by- 
zantinischen Provinzen,” BS 43 (1982) 18—29. Miquel, Géo- 
graphie 1:xviii, 2:391-95. A. Shboul, Al-Mas‘udi and His 
World (London 1979) 234. —A.Sh., A.M.T. 


JAROSLAV (‘lepoc6@\aBos), prince of Kiev; son 
of VLADIMIR I of Kiev; baptismal name George; 
born 978, died Kiev 20 Feb. 1054. Victorious in 
his war for the succession, Jaroslav became the 
ruler of all Rus’ in 1036. In 1037 he began to 
construct the new city of Kiev on the Constantin- 
opolitan pattern, with its own “Golden Gate” and 
stone churches. The Cathedral of St. Sophia (see 
KIEv) contains a fragmentary fresco of the foun- 
der Jaroslav and his family. His victory over the 
PECHENEGS turned their main raids toward the 
DANUvBE and the Byz. provinces. In 1043 he sent 
a naval expedition of about 400 vessels and up to 
20,000 men against Constantinople; defeated in 
the Bosporos by the Byz. general THEOPHANES, 
the fleet returned home with serious losses. Six 
thousand warriors lost their boats, but reached 
shore and were taken prisoner; many were blinded. 
The attack on Constantinople can be seen as either 
a belated attempt to support George MANIAKES 
or a trade conflict. The peace treaty of 1046 
restored the alliance, sealed by the marriage of 
Constantine IX’s daughter to Jaroslav’s son, VSE- 
VOLOD. 

In 1051, after Jaroslav nominated ILARION as 
metropolitan of Kiev, the bishops of the Russian 
eparchy elected and consecrated him, basing their 
action on the NOMOKANON OF FOURTEEN TITLES. 
Although they ignored the designative and con- 
secratory rights of the patriarch of Constantino- 
ple, Byz. jurisdiction itself was not in question 
since, no later than 1054, a Greek named Ephraim 
who bore the title of protoproedros ton protosynkellon 
was metropolitan of Kiev. 


LIT. Shepard, “Russians Attack.” Poppe, Christian Russia, 
pts.IV (1981), 15—66; V (1972), 5-31. —An.P. 


JEREMIAH (‘lepeyias), one of the four great 
PROPHETS, also considered to be the author of the 
Old Testament Book of Lamentations; feastday , 
May or 4 Nov. (Halkin, infra 111). ORIGEN wrote 
commentaries on both books (Jeremiah and Lam. 
entations), offering an allegorical rather than a 
“historical” interpretation; thus in some cases (e.g,, 
Werke 3” [1983] 5.8) he discarded the exegesis of 
Jeremiah as a reference to Christ and insisted on 
explaining his words as allusions to mankind’s 
moral infamy. After John Chrysostom and esp. 
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the image of Jeremiah as 
prophet of Christ’s advent became entrenched in 
Byz. The Synaxarion of Constantinople and the im- 
perial Menologion of the 11th C. (Halkin, infra) 
have Jeremiah announce to the Egyptian priests 
the fall of their idols and the birth of the Savior 
in the manger. Byz. legend ascribed to Jeremiah 
a miraculous power to expel asps (identified as 
crocodiles). He is described as a short man with a 
sharp-pointed beard. His memory was celebrated 
in the Church of Apostle Peter, near Hagia So- 
phia (Janin, Eglises CP 398). 

Representation in Art. Images of Jeremiah are 
found principally among the prophets in monu- 
mental art and in the PRopHeT Books. The de- 
piction of Jeremiah with long dark hair and beard 
in Florence Laur. 5.g (late 10th C.) is one of the 
most monumental images of Byz. illumination, 
but his book offered little to the repertoire of 
narrative iconography, even in contexts such as 
the Sacra Parallela. 

uit. BHG 777-79. Y. Congar, “Ecce constitui te super 
gentes et regna (Jér.1.10) ‘in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ” 
in Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Munich 1957) 671- 
96. F. Halkin, “Le prophète ‘saint’ Jérémie dans le méno- 
loge impérial byzantin,” Biblica 65 (1984) 111—16. A. Hei- 
mann, LCI 2:387—92. Lowden, Prophet Books. H. Belting, 


G. Cavallo, Die Bibel des Niketas (Wiesbaden 1979) 45. 
-J.L J.H.L., A.K. 


JERICHO ('lepıxø, Hebr. Yeriho), ancient city in 
the southern Jordan Valley that flourished during 
the late Roman period: the MADABA MOSAIC MAP 
represents it with ramparts, gates, and palm trees. 
By 325 Jericho was a bishopric. After the earth- 
quake of 551 Justinian I ordered the repair of its 
churches of Elisha and the Virgin; the latter is 
identified as a large 6th-C. basilica uncovered at 
Tell Hassan. The remains of successive churches 
of the 4th—gth C. were discovered at Khirbat en- 
Nitla, as well as an 8th-C. synagogue. The city 
became a monastic center, with a hospital and 


several hospices; a mosaic floor with a Nestorian 
inscription was found. Among the city’s attrac- 
tions for pilgrims was Elisha’s spring. 

Jericho was destroyed by Persian and Arab in- 
vasions and became a village: John PHoxas (ch.20) 
describes the area as countryside covered with 
gardens and vineyards, but Constantine Ma- 
nasses (ed. K. Horna, BZ 13 [1904] 333.280—87) 
saw only a stifling sandy valley. The Crusaders 
built a castle and Church of the Trinity at Jericho. 

LIT. Abel, Géographie 2:359f. G. Beer, RE g (1916) 928. 


Wilkinson, Pilgrims 160. Ovadiah, Corpus 72-75. EAEHL 
2:570—75- -G.V., Z.U.M. 


JEROME, more fully Eusebius Hieronymus, bib- 
lical exegete and translator, saint; born Stridon in 
Dalmatia 331 (Kelly) or ca.348, died Bethlehem 
30 Sept. 420. Jerome was early exposed to both 
classical and Christian culture at Rome, being 
baptized and studying under the scholar Donatus. 
Years of travel and asceticism in the West and 
East followed. He learned Hebrew as a hermit in 
the Syrian desert. Jerome was ordained at Anti- 
och, where he studied Greek and heard Apo.tti- 
NARIS lecture. A visit to Constantinople in 381 
acquainted him with GrecoRrY OF Nazianzos. Back 
in Rome he became secretary to Pope Damasus 
(366-384), also functioning as spiritual and worldly 
adviser to wealthy Roman ladies, such as MELANIA 
THE YOUNGER. After the death of Damasus, re- 
newed travels ended at BETHLEHEM where he ruled 
a newly founded monastery and devoted himself 
to scholarship. 

Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin 
(Vulgate) is preeminent among his writings. Vo- 
luminous biblical commentaries are enriched by 
the secular learning brought to bear on sacred 
texts. Equally important for his contemporaries 
were his De viris illustribus (On Famous Men) of 
392, a catalog of 135 Christian authors, both Greek 
and Latin, from St. Peter to himself, and his Latin 
paraphrase and expansion of the Chronicle of Eu- 
SEBIOS OF CAESAREA, a world history from the 
birth of Abraham to 325, with much emphasis on 
chronology and synchronization of events. His 
many letters mirror the social and intellectual life 
of the times. He also wrote vituperative attacks 
on heresies and heretics, the fruit of his passionate 
involvement against Arianism, Origenism, and 
Pelagianism. Jerome’s famous dream, in which 
God invited him to choose between Cicero and 


JERUSALEM | 1033 


Christianity, crystallizes the dilemma of how to 
reconcile the old Roman culture with the new 
Christian religion. 

ED. PL 22—30. Opera, ed. G. Morin, P. Antin, 2 vols. 
(Turnhout 1958—59). Die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. R.W.O. 
Helm (Berlin 1956). Hieronymus liber De viris inlustribus, ed. 
E.C. Richardson (Leipzig 1896). Select Letters of St. Jerome, 
ed. F.A. Wright (London—New York 1933), with Eng. tr. 
The Homilies of Saint Jerome, tr. M.L. Ewald, 2 vols. (Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1964—66). Saint Jerome, Dogmatic and Polemical 
Works, tr. J.N. Hritzu (Washington, D.C., 1965). 

LIT. J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: his Life, Writings, and Contro- 
versies (London 1975). K. Sugano, Das Rombild des Hierony- 
mus (Frankfurt 1983). D.S. Wiesen, St. Jerome as a Satirist 
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1964). A.S. Pease, “The Attitude of Jerome 
towards Pagan Literature,” TAPA 50 (191g) 150-67. 


JERUSALEM (‘Iepocodvpa), the present Old City, 
lies near the summit of the Judaean Hills on a 
pair of rocky spurs sloping south toward the junc- 
tion of two valleys, the Hinnom (Gehenna) to the 
west and south and the Kidron (Valley of Jeho- 
sophat) to the east. The eastern spur includes the 
ancient Temple Mount, now the Haram al-Sharif. 
The broader and higher western spur, in anti- 
quity nearly bisected by a transverse valley, ter- 
minates in Mt. Sion (Zion), towering above the 
Hinnom Valley. 

In the late Roman period Jerusalem retained 
the plan and the name of Aelia Capitolina, a 
Roman colony founded by Hadrian between 130 
and 135. On the existing street grid Hadrian had 
imposed two monumental colonnaded streets, one 
leading south from the main north gate (the pre- 
sent Damascus gate) along the western spur, and 
the other descending the Tyropoean Valley be- 
tween the two spurs. The Temple Mount lay in 
ruins, and Aelia’s principal temple, to Capitoline 
Jupiter, dominated the city from the higher west- 
ern spur, adjacent to the colonnaded street. To 
the south of the temple opened the city’s forum, 
part of it over the transverse valley, which Ia- 
drian had filled in to provide the needed space. 
Another major street, perhaps not colonnaded, 
extended from the main west gate (now the Jaffa 
gate) east across the western spur and the Tyro- 
pocan Valley to the Temple Mount. 

Roman Aelia’s small Christian community had 
venerated caves in Bethlehem g km to the south, 
and at Gethsemane and on the Mount of Olives 
just east of the city. Outside the walls stood a 
house church and a small suburban community 
on Mt. Sion. The Christians played no role in the 


1034 | JERUSALEM 


city, of which the empire’s Christians were scarcely 
aware. 

This changed dramatically in 326 when, accord- 
ing to tradition, HELENA reached Jerusalem. The 
year before, Bp. Makarios of Jerusalem had se- 
cured permission from Constantine I at the Coun- 
cil of Nicaga to destroy the Capitoline temple. 
While removing the foundations, in Helena’s 
presence, workmen uncovered an empty tomb 
which was identified as that of Christ. A rock 
nearby was taken to be Golgotha. This discovery 
created a sensation among Christians and quickly 
stimulated PILGRIMAGE from as far away as the 
western provinces. Constantine ordered a basilica 
(which became the city’s episcopal see) con- 
structed just to the east of the tomb. 

Retaining its Roman plan, Aelia now became a 
Christian city and, in common parlance, was once 
again called Jerusalem or “the Holy City.” An 
outpouring of public and private wealth gave the 
city’s topography a Christian appearance. Besides 
the complex surrounding the Holy SEPULCHRE, 
Constantine built the Eleona church on the Mount 
OF OLIVEs and a great basilica in BETHLEHEM. By 
the end of the 4th C. the Roman noblewoman 
Poimenia had financed the Ascension Church 
(Imbomon) near the Eleona, and unknown bene- 
factors the Church of the Apostles on Mt. Sion 
and a church in Gethsemane. Bishops such as 
CYRIL of Jerusalem became the most powerful 
men in the city. 

Constantine enforced Hadrian’s edict excluding 
Jews from Jerusalem but permitted them en- 
trance to mourn the destruction of the Temple— 
in Christian eyes salutary proof of Christianity’s 
triumph. With similar symbolism but opposite in- 
tentions, Julian the Apostate lifted the Hadrianic 
ban and resolved to rebuild the Jewish Temple. 
Work began in 362/3 but was soon suspended. 
Christian pilgrims to the Temple Mount were 
shown the bloodstains of Zacharias there (Proto- 
evangelion of James 23.2—3) as well as the standing 
Herodian retaining walls (of considerable height) 
and the various underground chambers said to 
belong to Solomon’s palace. 

By the end of the 4th C., virtually the entire 
pagan population had embraced the victorious 
faith. By 381—84, when Ecerta visited Jerusalem, 
asceticism had struck root, and monks and con- 
secrated virgins, many from abroad, formed an 
important part of the populace. Mainly Western 


ascetic communities existed on the Mount of Ol- 
ives by 375, and a decade later St. JEROME and his 
protégé Paula founded rival monasteries in Beth- 
lehem. Immigrant ascetics like MELANIA THE 
YOUNGER helped the city’s economy with generous 
endowments to churches, monasteries, and XE- 
NODOCHEIA. 

Like PALESTINE as a whole, Jerusalem profited 
from traffic in RELICS. Rich in ordinary “blessings” 
(see EULOGIA), Jerusalem also possessed the wood 
of the True Cross; bits of it, acquired for a price, 
or stolen, or given as presents, soon made their 
way across Christendom. Similarly, Bp. Jonn II 
of Jerusalem took control of the relics of St. Ste- 
phen the Protomartyr, which came to light in 415. 
In 420 or 421 John’s successor dispatched Ste- 
phen’s right arm to Constantinople, in return for 
which Theodosios II sent money to Jerusalem and 
dedicated a gem-encrusted cross on Golgotha. 

Melania influenced ATHENAIS-EUDOKIA, Consort 
of Theodosios, who first came to Jerusalem on 
pilgrimage in 438/9 and then, exiled from the 
court, settled permanently (ca.443—60). Eudokia 
endowed monasteries, founded hostels for pil- 
grims and the poor, and built churches to the 
Virgin at Siloam—on the south flank of Jerusa- 
lem’s eastern spur—and perhaps at the Sheep 
Pool, the latter commemorating Mary’s birth. Eu- 
dokia’s Basilica of St. Stephen, north of the city, 
remained the largest church for a century. Above 
all, the exiled empress built a new fortification 
wall whose defensive perimeter finally incorpo- 
rated Mt. Sion and the southern suburbs as far as 
Siloam. In the mid-s5th C., Jerusalem reached a 
pinnacle of population and wealth unequaled since 
the Herodian period. Despite this, CAESAREA 
MaritiMa held primacy among the sees of Pal- 
estine until 451, when Bp. JuvEeNaL of Jerusalem 
secured the patriarchate (see JERUSALEM, Pa- 
TRIARCHATE OF). 

After Constantine and Eudokia, Justinian I ranks 
as Jerusalem’s third imperial benefactor. He built 
the Nea Ekklesia of Mary Theotokos, the city’s 
largest church, and extended the main colon- 
naded street south to its west façade. This com- 
pleted the urban plan of Jerusalem as depicted 
on the MADABA MOSAIC MAP. 

In 614 the Persians besieged and captured Je- 
rusalem with heavy destruction and loss of life, 
gave the city over to the Jews, and carried off the 
True Cross (Expugnationts Hierosolymae AD 614 re- 


censiones arabicae, ed. G. Garitte, 2 vols. [Louvain 
1974]). Herakleios forced the Persians to with- 
draw; the return of the city’s talisman is variously 
dated to 629, 630, and 631 (V. Grumel suggests 
21 March 631 (ByzF 1 (1966) 139—49]); within the 
decade, however, Jerusalem fell to the Arabs. 
About March 638, after a long siege, Patr. So- 
PHRONIOS surrendered Jerusalem to the Caliph 
‘Umar, who refrained from praying at the Lord’s 
Tomb and thus preserved the site for Christianity. 
The Muslims, who likewise called Jerusalem “the 
Holy City” (al-Quds), built their shrines, the Dome 
of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque, on the 
Temple Mount. Christian pilgrimage continued 
ona smaller scale. In 1009 the mad Fatimid caliph 
al-Hakim leveled the Holy Sepulchre, but Con- 
stantine IX soon restored it (R. Ousterhout, /SAH 
48 [1989] 66—78). 

The Crusaders entered Jerusalem in 1099 and 
established the Kingdom of Jerusalem (see JERU- 
SALEM, KINGDOM OF). Europeans ruled the city 
from 1099 to 1187 and from 1229 to 1243, gave 
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre its present 
form and built the Gothic Church of St. Anne. 
They turned the Dome of the Rock temporarily 
into a church, the Templum Domini, and the knightly 
Order of Templars established itself in al-Aqsa. 
Despite subsequent rebuilding, the Old City today 
retains the urban plan of the Roman and Byz. 
periods. 

In art, biblical exegesis, and theology a celestial 
Jerusalem paralleled and sometimes reflected the 
terrestrial city. Conforming to biblical prophecies 
about Jerusalem, this conception became an ar- 
chetype of the human soul, of the Christian church, 
and of individual church buildings. It provided 
an image of paradise, as in Revelations 21—22 and 
the 10th-C. vision of the Monk Kosmas (Synax.CP 
111-14), where the heavenly city with golden 
streets and a palace could equally be Constanti- 
nople, sometimes called by the Byz. the New Je- 
rusalem. 

Pilgrimage Sites. In addition to the Holy Sepul- 
chre, six sites in Jerusalem were of special interest 
to pilgrims. 

1. The House of Caiaphas, where part of Jesus’ 
trial took place and Peter denied him (Mt 26:57- 
75), was east of Mt. Sion. Peter’s repentance (Mt 
26:75) was remembered there in the early sta- 
tional liturgy of Holy Thursday. By the 6th C. at 
the latest, a church of St. Peter replaced “ruins” 


JERUSALEM 1035 


of at least the house and continued to be a focus 
of interest through the Latin Kingdom. 

2. The Garden of Gethsemane, just east of the 
city, was the site where Jesus prayed (Mk 14:32- 
42) and was betrayed by Judas (Mk 14:43-50). 
Early pilgrims used Gethsemane as a place of 
prayer. By the late 4th C. a church was built there; 
probably the earthquake of 746 destroyed it. 
Sources refer to a rock or a cave of the betrayal. 
The Breviarıus, Patr. Eutychios of Constantino- 
ple, and the Piacenza PILGRIM held that Jesus 
had a supper at Gethsemane; Eutychios distin- 
guishes this “first supper” from the “second” meal 
at Bethany (Jn 12:2) and the “third,” that is, the 
Last Supper (see Lorp’s SupPER). A certain Theo- 
dosius set the WASHING OF THE FreEr at Gethse- 
mane, which was also identified with the tomb of 
the Virgin’s DorMITION. 

3. The Praetorium, or residence of Pontius Pi- 
late (Mk 15:16), was in fact in the area of the 
Tower of David, but the place pointed out to Byz. 
pilgrims was in the Tyropoean Valley. A church 
existed there from the mid-5th C., decorated per- 
haps with murals depicting the narrative of Mark 
15:16—20. From the 6th C., pilgrims were shown 
the stone (with footprints) upon which Christ stood 
during his trial, Pilate’s seat, and a portrait of 
Christ. 

4. The Sheep Pool (pool of Bethesda, John 5:2) 
was located near the east gate of the city. Exca- 
vations have shown that the site was originally a 
pagan healing shrine; porticoes enclosed its two 
pools during the Roman period. By the mid-sth 
C. a “Church of the Sheep Pool” was on the spot, 
with a courtyard overhanging the pools. It was 
the Locus SANCTUS not only of the healing of the 
paralytic (and preserved his couch), but also of 
the birth of the Virgin. 

5. Siloam was a pool on the south side of the 
city where Jesus sent the blind man to wash and 
be healed (John g:7). A traditional healing shrine, 
it was enclosed by a square colonnade in Roman 
times, and, in the 5th C., marked by a church 
that attracted the sick (PIACENZA PILGRIM, Travels 
24) seeking the EuLocra of the waters. Remains 
of both stages have been found by excavation. 

6. The Tower of David, on the site of the pres- 
ent Citadel, is portrayed on the Madaba mosaic 
map as two towers to the right of the west en- 
trance to the city. The name was applied generally 
to the originally three-towered fortress built there 


1036 | JERUSALEM, ASSIZES OF 


by Herod the Great, where Byz. pilgrims believed 
David had composed or recited the Psalms. 

LIT. J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, rev. 
ed. (Jerusalem-Warminster 1981). Wilkinson, Pilgrims. H. 
Vincent, F.-M. Abel, Jerusalem: Recherches de topographie, 
darchéologie et d’histoire, 2 vols. in 4 (Paris 1912—26). N. 


Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville, Tenn., 1983) 205- 
46. ~K.G.H., GV. 


JERUSALEM, ASSIZES OF, designation given to 
a group of treatises, chiefly of the 13th C., which 
record the procedures, customs, and laws of the 
kingdom of JERUSALEM; some of the royal laws 
(“assizes”) incorporated data from the 1ath C. 
The principal group of treatises, composed in Old 
French by Jean d’Ibelin and others, relates to the 
usages of the High Court of the kingdom, which 
judged cases involving the king and his barons. 
These represent Western feudal law, interpreted 
by the baronial jurists so as to weaken royal power. 
A second, smaller group of treatises records the 
practices of the Court of Burgesses, esp. that at 
Acre, which tried cases involving nonnobles, chiefly 
merchants. Of these latter treatises, the Livre des 
Assises des Bourgeois was strongly influenced by a 
Provençal compilation ultimately deriving from 
the CopEx THEODosIANUS. Because these codifi- 
cations continued in use on Cyprus, parts of them 
were translated into Greek for the benefit of the 
formerly Byz. inhabitants. Jean d’Ibelin’s treatise 
influenced the Assizes of RoMANIA. 

ED. French—RHC Lois. Greek—Sathas, MB 6. 

uit. J. Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom 


of Jerusalem 1174-1277 (London 1973) 121-84. J. Prawer, 
Crusader Institutions (Oxford 1980) 343—468. -C.M.B. 


JERUSALEM, KINGDOM OF, Crusader state 
that existed from 1100 to 1187. Following the 
Crusaders’ capture of Jerusalem in 1099, the 
kingdom was established with the coronation of 
Baldwin I, 25 Dec. 1100. Its kings claimed suze- 
rainty over other Crusader leaders, the princes of 
ANTIOCH and the counts of Epessa and TRIPOLI. 
While Byz. claimed sovereignty over some Cru- 
sader states in Syria-Palestine, only in the reign 
of Manuel I was an effort made to assert suprem- 
acy over the kingdom. In order to secure assis- 
tance against Nur al-Din and Saladin, BALDWIN 
III and Amatric I sought an alliance with Man- 
uel. The latter’s patronage at Bethlehem is com- 
memorated by the mosaicist EPHRAIM in a Greek 


inscription (116g). But Byz. exercised no real sov- 
ereignty over the kingdom. Initially, the Greek 
Christians of Palestine accepted Crusader rule, 
By 1187, however, those in Jerusalem were suf- 
ficiently alienated to be willing to help Saladin 
take the city (2 Oct. 1187). After the Third Cru- 
sade, the kingdom was reestablished at ACRE. 
LIT. J.L. La Monte, “To What Extent Was the Byzantine 
Empire the Suzerain of the Latin Crusading States?” By- 
zantion 7 (1932) 253-64. R.-J. Lilie, Byzanz und die 
Kreuzfahrerstaaten (Munich 1981). Prawer, Royaume latin, 
vol. 1. —C.M.B., A.C. 


JERUSALEM, PATRIARCHATE OF. The see’s 
prestige, as the original mother church of Chris- 
tendom, was first formally recognized at NICAEA 
I (canon 7). The extensive building program and 
support of the emperors, beginning with Con- 
STANTINE I, were crucial in its eventual rise to 
patriarchal status. Despite Nicaea’s acknowledg- 
ment, however, its incumbents remained subject 
to the metropolitan see of CAESAREA MARITIMA 
(under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of an- 
TIOCH), which had precedence as the capital of 
the administrative province of Palestina Prima. 
Finally, at the Council of CHaLcEepon, Jerusalem 
was ranked fifth as an independent patriarchate 
with power of jurisdiction over the three prov- 
inces of Palestine: Caesarea, Skythopolis, and Pe- 
tra (cf. S. Vailhé, ROC 4 [1899] 44-57), compris- 
ing 59 bishoprics. The skillful diplomacy of Patr. 
JUVENAL was largely responsible for this change. 
Still, the new patriarchate never became a force 
in church politics or achieved the prominence of 
the other major sees. Its decline began with the 
Persian attack on the city (614) and its conquest 
by the Arabs (638), when most of the bishoprics 
disappeared. Vacancies, as in the other patriar- 
chates under Muslim rule, were frequent, al- 
though in 1027 an agreement with the caliph 
allowed the installation of imperial candidates. 
Jerusalem kept direct relations with Rome, and, 
during and after the events of 1054, was not 
automatically anti-Latin. Nonetheless, with the ar- 
rival of the Crusades and the establishment of a 
rival LATIN PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM, relations 
with the Latins gradually deteriorated. Many of 
the patriarchs during this period lived as exiles in 
Constantinople. 


LIT. Papadopoulos, Hierosolym. G. Fedalto, “Liste vesco- 
vili del patriarcato di Gerusalemme I. Gerusalemme e Pa- 


lestina prima,” OrChrP 49 (1983) 5~41. A. Michel, Amalfi 
und Jerusalem im griechischen Kirchenstreitt (1054—1090) (Rome 
1939). —-A.P. 


JESSE, TREE OF. See TREE OF JESSE. 
JESUS PRAYER. See HesycHasm. 


JEWELER. The Byz. distinguished the goldsmith 
(chrysochoos) from the silversmith (argyrokopos) 
(Koukoules, Bios 2.1:225, 228). Often they used 
the word chrysochoos in the broad sense of a jew- 
eler, for example, chrysochooi were ordered to make 
crowns (Kantak. 2:564.12—13). Sometimes (as in 
TheophCont 450.17—19) a clear distinction is made 
between craftsmen working in gold (chrysostiktaz) 
and those working in silver (argyrokopoz). In the 
vita of Theodore of Sykeon, an argyrokopos seems 
to be an individual who sells silver vessels, but 
employs others to make them. 

A passage in John Moschos (PG 87:3088CD) 
describes the production of JEWELRY and METAL- 
worRK in Constantinople: the artisan began his 
career aS an APPRENTICE; after mastering the craft, 
he worked under the supervision of an epistates 
who directed clients to him. The precious mate- 
rials were rigorously controlled and the object was 
weighed before the gems were set in the metal. 
The prestige of goldsmiths in the 6th C. is shown 
by their taking precedence over all other mer- 
chants and artisans in adventus ceremonies (De cer. 
484.9). Some jewelers were clerics, such as the 
argyrokopos Romylos, a deacon of the church of 
Gethsemane, who worked in Jerusalem (CYRIL OF 
SKYTHOPOLIS, ed. Schwartz 184.21—23). Cyril of 
Jerusalem (PG 33:349A) describes experienced 
chrysochoot who worked with minute tools and 
melted gold over a fire, while John Tzetzes (Hist. 
4:887-88) refers to their tiny clay smelting fur- 
naces. He also states that chrysochooi made tar 
models that they then covered with silver or gold. 

Some jewelers plied their craft in state work- 
shops under the supervision of the archon ton 
chrysochoeion (Laurent, Corpus 2:341—43), whom 
Oikonomides (Listes 317) likens to the chrysoepsetes 
mentioned in the Kletorologion of Philotheos and 
other texts. In an edict of 1202 (MM 3:57.27—28) 
the archon ton chrysochoeion is a high-ranking offi- 
cial titled megalodoxotatos who was the owner of 
several houses. 


JEWELRY | 1037 


The chapter on the guild of the aRGYROPRATAI 
in the 10th-C. Book of the Eparch refers frequently 
to chrysochooi; the relationship between the two 
terms is unclear. Chrysochooi were specifically pro- 
hibited from working in their own houses and 
had to set up their workshops on the Mese. They 
were also forbidden to purchase more than one 
pound of uncoined gold (bullion) at a time. 
Sjuzjumov (Bk. of Eparch 136) considered the chry- 
sochoot jewelers and the argyropratai inspectors who 
controlled the sale of precious metals, jewelry, 
gems, and so forth, while Stéckle thought that the 
argyropratai were both jewelers and inspectors. 

LIT. Stéckle, Ziinfte 20—22. J. Ebersolt, Les arts somptuaires 
de Byzance (Paris 1923) 6f. Kazhdan, Derevnja i gorod 199- 


202. Rudakov, Kul’tura 150-53. Sodini, “L'artisanat ur- 
bain” 94—97. Smetanin, Viz.obséestvo 81f. -AK., A.C. 


JEWELRY (xooyos, lit. “ornament”). Byz. jewelry 
continued Greco-Roman traditions but was also 
influenced by Eastern decorative and nonfigural 
types, with an admixture of local elements wher- 
ever in the empire it was produced. The forms 
of objects made by JEWELERS in Rome, Constan- 
tinople, Athens, Antioch, or Alexandria thus var- 
ied considerably. Byz. jewelry may generally be 
distinguished by its extensive use of color, usually 
achieved with GEMS or ENAMELS. In his preface to 
the best-known medieval handbook on artistic 
technique, the Western monk Theophilus 
(ca.1110—40) specifically associates color with the 
Greeks. This 12th-C. notice is late witness to a 
tradition reverting to the grd or 4th C., when 
NIELLO. seems first to have been applied to gold 
and silver. But the association of gems and orna- 
ment with Byz. in the Western mind persisted at 
least down to the time when German envoys to 
Constantinople in 1196 pointed out that they were 
not “worshipers of ornaments and garments se- 
cured by brooches suited only for women” 
(Nik.Chon. 477.82—83). 

Our knowledge of Byz. jewelry comes from 
examples found in TREASURES, accounts of items 
that have not survived, and illustrations in mo- 
saics, painting, textiles, metalwork, and MS illu- 
mination. The procession of female saints in the 
mosaics of S. Apollinare Nuovo, RAVENNA, shows 
matching sets of HAIR ORNAMENT, EARRINGS, NECK- 
LACE, BRACELET, RINGS, and BELT FITTINGS. Gold 
plaques and gems were sewn on clothing, and 
antique coins were incorporated into other items 


1038 | JEWISH ART AND ARCHITECTURE 


of personal adornment. The importance of pre- 
cious stones is indicated by their frequent imita- 
tion in the borders of miniatures in MSS and on 
mosaic pavements and wall panels as much as by 
the jeweled walls in depictions of the heavenly 
cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and gem- 
encrusted thrones, crosses, liturgical vessels, and 
book covers. 

Byz. jewelry is further characterized by the ex- 
tensive use of Christian iconography and sacred 
objects, worn thus for protection as well as orna- 
ment. These pieces could incorporate an inscrip- 
tion or symbol, an image, a cross or Christogram, 
or be carried in an ENKOLPION, an invention of 
the Byz. Jewelry was not only an outward symbol 
of faith or wealth but also served as a badge of 
office. Special FIBULAE, rings, and belt buckles, 
awarded by the emperor and often inscribed, 
indicated status within the civil service or the 
army. Belisarios rewarded his soldiers with ARM- 
BANDS and TORQUES (Prokopios, Wars 7.1.8). Jew- 
elry was also made to adorn and protect animals. 
FLooR MosalIcs show race horses wearing jeweled 
trappings and hunting dogs with gem-studded 
collars. Apotropaic devices (e.g., ivy leaf, swastika, 
sunburst, crescent) as well as Christian symbols 
decorate charms and AMULETS worn by animals. 

A great variety of techniques was used in the 
manufacture of jewelry. Gemstones were mainly 
polished. They might then be drilled and/or carved 
aS a CAMEO or engraved as a SEAL. Metal might be 
cast or worked in repoussé, then have added 
niello, enamel, or engraving, or be cut into opus 
INTERRASILE. It could also be made into a simple 
wire, which was worked as filigree or drawn 
through successively smaller holes in a wooden or 
metal board. This wire was used in fine gold work 
and incorporated into textiles. 

While members of the imperial court adorned 
themselves with crowns, necklaces, great ropes of 
pearls, and large gems, ordinary people also had 
access to the work of jewelers. Their products, 
known from archaeological excavation, were usu- 
ally made of gilded bronze imitating gold or had 
colored glass paste simulating gems in rings and 
earrings. Bracelets in this category tend to be 
fairly plain; there are surprisingly few traces of 
necklaces, with the exception of fragments of chain 
and ornaments, such as amulets or crosses, that 
may have been suspended on the chain. Glass 
bracelets—a form of jewelry probably invented 


for the mass market in Roman times or intended 
as a substitute for ivory or precious metal—are 
found in large numbers, sometimes in contexts 
that suggest local manufacture. 

Because of the mixture of styles in many pieces, 
dating is often hard to establish. Gems were often 
set into a new ring or even recarved. Antique 
coins included in jewelry provide only a terminus 
post quem for dating. An inscription on an item 
often helps, as may controlled excavation. Rep- 
resentations of jewelry in datable works of art can 
also provide a base for comparison. 

In very broad, general terms, the evolution of 
Byz. jewelry was from simple to complex, from 
light to heavy, from small to large, but these 
criteria must be applied with care. Earrings started 
out in the 4th C. as simple hoops and, by the 
1oth—12th C., were open filigree work with mul- 
tiple projections in a three-dimensional form. They 
were complex but light. Bracelets changed from 
narrow, solid, or cutwork bands to wide, hinged 
bands, sometimes worked in repoussé. Necklaces 
developed from simple chains or strands of beads, 
made of polished and drilled stones and pearls, 
to more complex forms with multiple hanging 
elements. Early gold and silver gem-mounts were 
made in an openwork technique; by the 11th- 
12th C. they were solid and rather heavy in ap- 
pearance. In all cases, however, the combination 
of influences listed above must be studied along 
with techniques used in cutting stones by wheel 
or burin, types of enamel, working of metal (e.g., 
cast, opus interrasile, granulation), and methods of 
working links in a chain. The study of this tech- 
nology is still at a very early stage. When sufficient 
context is lacking, as is often the case with “mass- 
produced” work—the so-called costume jewelry 
of gilded bronze and glass—one can only try to 
fit such pieces as far as possible into this general 
typology. 

LIT. T. Hackens, R. Winkes, Gold Jewelry: Craft, Style and 
Meaning from Mycenae to Constantinopolis (Louvain 1983) 
141-60. E. Coche de la Ferté, Antiker Schmuck vom 2. bis 8. 
Jahrhundert (Bern 1961). L. Niederle, Pyispévky k vývoji by- 


zantských šperků ze IV.—X. století (Prague 1930), with rev. M. 
Andreeva, BS 2 (1930) 121f. ~S.D.C., A.C. 


JEWISH ART AND ARCHITECTURE. The in- 
fluence of Jewish art and architecture on the 
history of Byz. art is a much debated problem. 
The fact that, in spite of Exodus 20:4, Jews had 


developed artistic practices by the 1st C. B.C. al- 
lows the possibility that Jewish models helped 
shape Christian art, which first arose only in the 
late 2nd/early grd C. Key to the whole discussion 
has been the synagogue at Dura Europos (before 
A.D. 256), the only Jewish monument with an 
elaborate program of narrative and symbolic art. 
According to Weitzmann (K. Weitzmann, H.L. 
Kessler, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and 
Christian Art [Washington, D.C., 1990]), the paint- 
ings at Dura were derived from an illustrated 
Septuagint, from which, in turn, came motifs and 
compositions in Christian art that strikingly re- 
semble the Dura paintings. Since direct evidence 
of illustrated Jewish MSS in late antiquity is lack- 
ing, however, other scholars have inferred other 
means of transmission (oral or literary tradition, 
the tradition of monumental art itself, or of cer- 
tain minor arts [finger rings], etc.) or have argued 
against the possibility of any influence at all. H. 
Brandenburg (9 IntCongChrArch, vol. 1 [1978] 331— 
60), for instance, has described the Christian and 
Jewish arts of Late Antiquity as arising out of the 
koine of the late Roman world, this common source 
accounting for their similarities. After the 6th C. 
evidence of Jewish artistic practices in Byz. vir- 
tually disappears. 


LIT. No Graven Images, ed. J. Gutmann (New York 1971). 
-W.T. 


JEWISH LEGENDS, ILLUSTRATION OF. Ever 
since the discovery in the 1930s of the synagogue 
at Dura Euroros with its extensive decorative 
program of anthropomorphic religious scenes, art 
historians have enthusiastically debated the pos- 
sible existence of biblical and nonbiblical illustra- 
tion among hellenized Jews of late antiquity and 
its potential role in the formation of Early Chris- 
tian Old Testament iconography. The accepted 
approach has been to isolate nonbiblical icono- 
graphic elements among Christian Old Testament 
picture cycles and to match them with their ap- 
propriate textual tradition within the vast body of 
Jewish legends. Thus, the hitherto unexplained 
“court official” going through a gate in the min- 
iature of Joseph’s promotion by Pharaoh in the 
Vienna Genesis (ed. Gerstinger, pl.32) is identi- 
fied on the basis of Jewish legendary texts as 
Potiphar hurrying home to tell his wife of Joseph’s 
exaltation (O. Pacht in Festschrift Karl M. Swoboda 


JEWISH LITERATURE 1039 


[Vienna 1959] 219). Usually left unresolved, how- 
ever, is whether the sources were visual or tex- 
tual—that is, by way of lost JEWISH ART or by way 
of Jewish textual traditions adopted by and pop- 
ularized among Christians. The Potiphar legend 
cited above, for example, is attested in several 
Christian authors whose works were popular at 
the time and in the region (Syria-Palestine, 6th 
C.) where the Vienna Genesis may have been 
produced (H. Naf, Syrische Josef-Gedichte [Zurich 
1923] 73—75). 

LIT. J. Gutmann, “Prolegomenon,” in No Graven Images: 
Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible, ed. J. Gutmann (New 
York 1971) xi-lxiii. R. Stichel, “Ausserkanonische Ele- 
mente in byzantinischen Illustrationen des Alten Testa- 
ments,” RQ 6g (1974) 159-81. C.-O. Nordström, “Rabbinic 
Features in Byzantine and Catalan Art,” CahArch 15 (1965) 
179—205. -G.V. 


JEWISH LITERATURE used by Byz. Jews and 
Christians included the Hebrew Bible, Hellenistic 
apocrypha—in Judeo-Greek translation—Jubilees 
(Little Genesis), and Old Testament and some 
New Testament pseudepigrapha. Along with the 
Greek works of JosEpHusS and PHILO, these influ- 
enced subsequent Byz. language, style, and cul- 
ture. After a.p.70, Jews wrote down and further 
developed their oral tradition, which was ency- 
clopedic for internal Jewish intellectual and social 
concerns. This Hebrew and Aramaic literature 
included Mishnah (2nd-C. code) and Talmud (grd— 
5th-C. commentary); responsa; midrash (ethical and 
historical folklore, e.g., “Throne and Hippo- 
drome of King Solomon”); apocalypse (e.g., 10th- 
C. Hazzon Daniel, which comments on emperors 
from Michael III to Constantine VII); mystical 
works (e.g., Eben Saphir, a 14th-C. kabbalistic and 
Aristotelian commentary on the Bible that in- 
cludes contemporary historical data); numerous 
commentaries on the Bible; and oral tradition by 
Rabbanite and Karaite Jews. This extensive liter- 
ature contains valuable linguistic and historical 
material for Byz. studies, esp. the demotic trans- 
lations of biblical books, bilingual dictionary aids, 
and extant marriage contracts. Of particular in- 
terest are Megillat Ahimaaz, an 11th-C. family 
chronicle from southern Italy in rhymed prose; 
Sepher Yosippon, a unique 10th-C. history of an- 
cient Israel based on the Vulgate and Hegesippus, 
which Judah ibn Moskoni of Ohrid reedited and 
expanded (ca.1356); a Hebrew translation of 
pseudo-Kallisthenes’ Alexander Romance; and 


1040 | JEWS 


abbreviated Hebrew translations of nonextant Byz. 
chronicles that preserve unique historical data. A 
prolific religious and secular poetic tradition fol- 
lowed Jewish patterns and contemporary styles. 
Secular studies include monographs on medicine, 
astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy, esp. by 
Shabbetai Donollo (g13—ca.g82) and Shemaryah 
Ikriti (1275—ca.1355), who castigated Byz. philos- 
ophers for failing to understand Creation. A 
number of valuable historical sources are extant, 
such as BENJAMIN OF TUDELA and Jacob ben Elia’s 
unique account of 13th-C. persecutions in Epiros 
and Nicaea. 

LIT. Anthology of Hebrew Poetry in Greece, Anatolia, and the 
Balkans, ed. L. Weinberger (Cincinnati 1975). E. Lieber, 
“Asaf’s Book of Medicines, A Hebrew Encyclopedia of Greek 
and Jewish Medicine, Possibly Compiled in Byzantium on 
an Indian Model,” DOP 38 (1984) 233—49. Starr, Jews 50- 
65. Bowman, Jews 129-70. Ankori, Karaites. T. Reinach, 
“Un contrat de mariage du temps de Basile le Bulgaro- 


ctone,” in Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger, vol. 1 
(Paris 1924) 118-32. —S.B.B. 


JEWS (‘Iovéaior, ‘EBpator), also called Israelites, 
term used for the ancient inhabitants of Judah 
and Israel as well as for Byz. citizens who prac- 
ticed JUDAISM. Byz. Jewish history has two aspects: 
the history of the Jews in Israel, where their 
autonomy was recognized, and that of the Jews 
of the Greek-speaking diaspora, where they formed 
an integral part of the Byz. population. 

The Jewish Community of Israel. This com- 
munity was organized under a bureaucracy of 
scholars headed by a nasi, called in Greek “patri- 
arch of the Jews.” After the destruction of Jeru- 
salem (A.D.70), Jews established new administra- 
tive centers in the Galilee (Usha, Sepphoris, 
Tiberias), where they flourished until the 7th C. 
Christian-Roman legislation periodically re- 
stricted their right to hold slaves, proselytize, build 
new synagogues, work for the government, teach 
in public institutions, or serve in the army. These 
discriminatory laws, summarized in the codes of 
the 5th—6th C. and epitomized in the Ecloga and 
Basilika, were designed to limit the Jews’ enfran- 
chisement, separate them from Christians, and 
support the view that God rejected the Jews. Rab- 
binic leadership also erected social barriers to 
preserve the Jewish community. Christian impe- 
rial policy in Palestine paralleled these restrictions 
and emphasized the church’s claim as the New 
Israel: churches and monasteries were built on 


biblical holy sites, and Hadrian’s ban on Jewish 
settlement in Jerusalem or its environs was pe- 
riodically enforced. During the Muslim conquest, 
SoPpHRONIOS still argued that Jews had no right to 
settle in Jerusalem; they were allowed, however, 
to mourn one day a year (gth of Ab) at the ruins 
of the Temple (the Byz. city dump) as a demon- 
stration of God’s rejection of Old Israel. 

The ability of the Jews to survive the Christian 
onslaught in their own land slowly deteriorated 
despite sporadic revolts (most important of which 
was in 351) and an attempt to rebuild the Temple 
with Julian’s permission. In 429 the office of nasi 
was recognized as vacant by Theodosios II; as a 
result the autonomous central Jewish leadership 
in the empire was effectively abolished. Justinian 
I clashed with the Jews on many fronts. His Code 
repeated a number of Jewish liabilities and intro- 
duced new restrictions. He also interfered with 
Jewish religious practices (nov.146; Prokopios, 
Buildings 6:11.22). Jews fought alongside the Van- 
dals and the Ostrogoths against Byz. attempts to 
reconquer the Western Empire; they participated 
also in the Nika revolt in Constantinople and the 
rioting of 580. Justinian ended their autonomous 
rule of Jotaba (ca.535), which had lost its inde- 
pendence under Anastasios I (498). They rebelled 
in 556, again in 578 (together with SAMARITANS), 
and assisted the Persian conquest of Palestine in 
614-17. Herakleios slaughtered many in revenge 
after his reconquest and even forcibly baptized 
Jews, despite his promise to Benjamin of Tiberias 
not to harm them. 

The Jewish Diaspora. The Jews flourished in 
both commercial and administrative centers and 
in smaller locales. Their quarter, called Hebraike, 
was usually located near the market and running 
water. Many of these communities dated from the 
Hellenistic period, for example, Berroia in Ma- 
cedonia, Patras, Thessalonike, Crete; many are 
known from southern Italy: Bari, Oria, Siponto, 
Venosa, Otranto. Jews also lived in Ioannina, 
Ohrid, Kastoria, Adrianople, Serres, Mistra, Ni- 
caea, Attaleia, Ephesus, and Philadelphia. Benya- 
MIN OF TUDELA visited some 25 Byz. Jewish com- 
munities and describes Patras, Krissa, Thebes 
(2,000 inhabitants), Corinth, Chalkis, Armylo, 
Drama, Kallipolis, Constantinople (2,500 inhabi- 
tants), and the islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, 
and Rhodes. Modern scholars extrapolate Benja- 
min’s unique population data (approximately 


g,000) to a Byz. Jewish population ranging from 
12,000 to 100,000 based on differing interpreta- 
tions of his numbers (individuals, heads of fami- 
lies, families, or guild members) and adding lo- 
cales not mentioned. In Constantinople Jews lived 
at various times along either shore of the Golden 
Horn (e.g., Hebraike skala and Pera) and in the 
Chalkoprateia and Vlanka quarters. Under the 
Palaiologoi, some Byz. Jews obtained Venetian 
and Genoese privileges and lived in their quarters. 
Jews worked as dyers and weavers (silk and wool), 
tanners, furriers, smiths and glassmakers, whole- 
sale and retail merchants both international and 
local, real estate agents, physicians, translators, 
scribes, and agriculturalists. 

The Jewish communities, led by rabbis ap- 
pointed with government consent, enjoyed auton- 
omy in religious and social affairs. The rabbi was 
chief judge and spokesman for the community 
and in larger cities was assisted by various func- 
tionaries (e.g., teachers, ritual slaughterers) sup- 
ported by a communal tax system. The commu- 
nity supplied social services: education, care of 
the sick, dowries for orphans, burial in a Jewish 
graveyard, etc. Part of the communal taxes went 
to the government, although whether there was a 
special Jewish tax is undetermined despite much 
scholarly speculation. Financial support to the nasi 
was diverted after 429 to the imperial treasury 
and called aurum coronarium. When and if this tax 
was abolished is uncertain. Jews contributed to 
the archipherekitai of the Sanhedrin in Israel, which 
flourished until the Muslim conquest, and to the 
1oth- and 11th-C. academies. 

Jews regularly immigrated into the empire from 
Muslim and western Christian lands. These im- 
migrants rapidly became culturally assimilated and 
strongly identified with Byz. culture, although 
there was occasional social tension with native 
Jews. There was close contact with KHAZARIA, 
whose Jewish kings welcomed refugees from Ro- 
manos I’s persecution of Jews, ard later with 
Crimean Karartes. The attitude of Jews toward 
Byz. was ambivalent. Predating Christianity in many 
Greek-speaking areas, they now lived among a 
triumphant, arrogant, and multiethnic Christian 
population whose literature, religion, liturgy, and 
art derived in part from Jewish sources. They 
experienced ANTI-SEMITISM through imperial pol- 
icy, intellectual snobbery, and ecclesiastical po- 
lemic. Byz. religious art, save for canonical Old 


JOB | 1041 


Testament figures and scenes, confined represen- 
tations of Jews to such pejorative contexts as among 
the Damned in the Last JupGMEnt. There were 
Jewish scholars with whom Christians (e.g., Ple- 
thon) studied privately and who occasionally re- 
sponded through biblical commentary and litur- 
gical verse; they were forbidden, however, to insult 
Christianity. Their doctors, skilled in Greek and 
Arabic medicine, treated the general population: 
an Egyptian Jew was physician to Manuel I. Yet 
Byz. ecclesiastics consistently denigrated Jewish 
doctors: even though gth- and 1oth-C. hagiogra- 
phy shows some respect for Jewish doctors, it 
expresses suspicion of their education and disdain 
for their religion. 

Occasional debates with Christians are re- 
corded; some may have led to conversion, which 
the church heartily encouraged. Still, few volun- 
tary conversions are attested, the most famous 
being CONSTANTINE THE JEW; Makarios, spiritual 
adviser to Manuel I]; and possibly ROMANOS THE 
MELopE. The Byz. church consistently opposed 
forced baptism of Jews (such as those effected by 
Herakleios, Leo III, Basil I, Romanos 1 Leka- 
penos) for theological reasons and upheld the 
right of Jews to practice their ancestral religion. 
Jews replied to imperial persecution by identify- 
ing government with Esau/Edom, the biblical ad- 
versary of Israel. In nearly every century, but esp. 
during periods of international tension, there were 
messianic hopes for and occasional movements 
toward the repatriation of Jews to an independent 
Israel. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was 
marked both by such messianic expectations and 
by a moving Hebrew lament for the city. 

LIT. J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'empire romain, 2 vols. (Paris 
1914). M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine 
Rule (Jerusalem-New York 1984). Starr, Jews. Bowman, 
Jews. Ankori, Karaites. E. Werner, The Sacred Bridge, 2 vols. 
(New York 1959—84). Jacoby, Société, pt.II (1967), 167— 
227. Greek Orthodox—Jewish Consultation (GOrThR 22.1 [1977] 
= Journal of Ecumenical Studies 13.4 [1976)). —S.B.B. 


JOB (‘I@f). To judge by the number of surviving 
MSS, the Book of Job, an account of the suffering 
of an innocent man, was read significantly more 
in Byz. than in the West. Origen led the church 
fathers in distinguishing three types of just man, 
represented by Noah, Daniel, and Job. A CATENA 
on Job was compiled, probably in the 6th-C. circle 
of Prokopios of Gaza. The COMMENDATIO ANIMAE 


1042 | JOB 


includes Job, and references to him in hagiogra- 
phy were frequent. For instance, the Life of St. 
Jonn ELEEMON (ch.28) compared the saint to Job 
in his virtuous response to catastrophic loss. The 
monk Niketas patterned the opening of his Life 
of St. PHILARETOS THE MERCIFUL on the Book of 
Job (L. Rydén, 17 CEB, Major Papers [Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1986] 542f). 

Representation in Art. The scene of Job on his 
dung heap (Job 2:8) was widely illustrated, occur- 
ring already in the 4th C. (e.g., sarcophagus of 
Junius Bassus, died 359) and as the frontispiece 
to Job in the 7th-C. Syriac Bible of Paris (B.N. 
syr. 341) and the 1o0th-C. Bible of Leo SAKELLARI- 
os. It occasionally appears later in monumental 
art (e.g., Hagia Sophia, Trebizond). After the 
Psalter, Job was the most frequently illustrated 
Old Testament book in Byz. A large group of 
catena MSS were illustrated with an extensive 
cycle. These fall into an early group (Patmos 171; 
Vat. gr. 749; Venice, Marc. gr. 538, dated 905; 
Sinai gr. 3) and a more numerous group of 12th- 
through 14th-C. MSS. All contain a dense narra- 
tive illustration interspersed with the text of Job 
1 and 2—the subject of lengthy comments in the 
catena—and a repetitive, formulaic treatment of 
Job’s discussions with his visitors. The miniatures 
in the first group, esp. Sinai gr. 3, treat the setting 
illusionistically, which suggests an early model; 
the Patmos Job may be a product of the years of 
Iconoclasm. 

Job is usually represented as a patriarchal figure 
with long white hair and beard, cut short in due 
course (Job 1:20). His youthful appearance in the 
Leo Bible may be explained as a misunderstand- 
ing of this shaven-headed type. Job may also ap- 
pear as an ancestor of Christ, even as a king, 
owing to the SEPTUAGINT conflation of Job with Jo- 
bab, King of Edom (Job 42:17d, Gen 30:32-33). 

LIT. K. Wessel, RBK 3:131—52. R. Budde, LCI 2:407~ 
14. P. Huber, Hiob. Dulder oder Rebell? (Düsseldorf 1986). 
S. Papadaki-Okland, “The Illustration of Byzantine Job 


Manuscripts” (Ph.D. diss., Heidelberg, 1979). 
-J-H.L., C.B.T. 


JOB (‘I#8), monk who wrote a Life of St. THEo- 
DORA OF ARTA and hymns for the Nativity, Epi- 
phany, and Pentecost; fl. second half of 13th C. 
He has been identified with the monk Job IasiTEs, 
known from George PacHYMERES also as [asites 
Melias, an adviser of Patr. JosePH I and author 


of a tomos against the Latins, written for that 
patriarch with the help of Pachymeres (Pachym., 
ed. Failler 2:487.10-17, 489.15—18). Job Iasites 
was punished in 1273 with Manuel HoLosotos 
for opposing the Union and was exiled to Bithynia 
in 1275 (Pachym., ed. Failler 2:503.25—505.4, 
535-1—3). Perhaps two exegeses, one on the Psalms 
(PG 158:1053-56) and one on the sacraments, 
which bear the name of Job Hamartolos, are to 
be ascribed to Job. 

ED. Life of Theodora—PG 127:904—08. M. Petta, “Inni 
inediti di lob monaco,” BollBadGr n.s. 19 (1965) 81-139. 

LIT. S. Pétridés, “Le moine Job,” EO 15 (1912) 40-48. 
PLP, n0.7959- —R.J.M. 


JOEL (Iw7A), compiler of a world chronicle be- 
ginning with Creation and ending in 1204; fl. first 
half of the 13th C. The work is basically a list of 
rulers (Jewish, Oriental, Roman, and Byz.), their 
length of reign, and the cause of their death. The 
period from the reign of Alexios I Komnenos to 
1204 is treated most briefly; the rapid changes in 
ruler from Manuel I’s death to 1204 demonstrate 
the inevitability of the blow of divine justice in 
the form of the Latin conquest. Joel is perhaps 
also the author of an unpublished THRENOS on 
the Latin conquest of Constantinople. 


ED. Cronografia compendiaria, ed. F. ladevaia (Messina 


1979). 
Lit. Hunger, Lit. 1:476. Eu. Tsolakes, “He cheirographe 


paradose tou chronographikou ergou tou Ioel,” Byzantina 
8 (1976) 449-61. E. Kojčeva, “Srednovekovnata bilgarska 
istorija v svetlinata na edin neispolzuvan dosega istoriceski 
izvor,” IstPreg 40 (1984) no.6, 84—89. -RJ.M. 


JOHN (Iwavyvns), Semitic personal name (etym. 
“God’s grace”). The name appears in the Old 
Testament in the form Ioanas (1 Chr 3:15, 26:3, 
etc.); in the New Testament, Johns play an im- 
portant role, esp. JOHN THE BAPTIST and JOHN 
the apostle. From the end of the 4th C. onward 
we meet the name in Rome and Asia Minor (O. 
Seeck, RE 9 [1916] 1743-47; PLRE 1:459), at first 
infrequently—Ammianus Marcellinus does not 
mention a single John. Then the name acquired 
popularity. Sozomenos cites 11 Johns, including 
the Baptist and the Apostle—second only to Evu- 
SEBIOS (14); in Prokopios there are already 32 
Johns, followed far behind by THEODORE (11) and 
PauL (10). The name maintains its dominance in 
Theophanes the Confessor (67), but in Skylitzes 


(48) and Anna Komnene (14) John is second to 
Constantine, with 60 and 15, respectively. In the 
acts of Athos, however, it remains dominant: Lav- 
ra, vol. 1, encompassing the 1oth—12th C., lists go 
Johns ahead of NicHoxas (42) and GEORGE (41), 
while Lavra, vols. 2—3 (13th—15th C.) includes 350 
Johns and 275, Georges. John was the third most 
common imperial name and the most frequently 
used by patriarchs of Constantinople (14 individ- 
uals). In panegyrics the typical epithet of John 
was charitonymos, “named after grace”; another, 
“the son of thunder” (after Mk 3:18) was applied 
specifically to the apostle. By the 12th C., if not 
earlier, the composite Kaloioannes (“good John”) 
was created. -A.K., A.M.T. 


JOHN, apostle and saint; often called John the 
Theologian; feastdays 26 Sept., 8 May, and oth- 
ers. The son of Zebedee, he was considered to be 
the author of the fourth GospeL and of three 
epistles in the New Testament canon; already in 
the 3rd C. Dionysios of Alexandria had rejected 
the possibility of John’s authorship of the Aroc- 
ALYPSE (Book of Revelation). His Gospel was widely 
commented on: ORIGEN compiled a lengthy com- 
mentary in order to refute the views of the Gnos- 
tics; he was followed by DipymMos THE BLIND, JOHN 
CHRYSOSTOM, CYRIL of Alexandria, AMMONIOS of 
Alexandria, and THEODORE oF MopsugsTIA. The 
major problem for ExEcESIS was the difference 
between John and the three synoptic gospels, so 
that some doubts concerning its authenticity were 
expressed, esp. by the so-called alogoi: EPIPHANIOS 
of Cyprus censured this heresy and tried to show 
that the Gospels did not disagree. NONNOS OF 
PANOPOLIS compiled a metrical paraphrase of the 
Gospel of John. The epistles attracted less atten- 
tion. 

John was popular in hagiography and homilet- 
ics; numerous apocryphal acts as well as homilies 
survive, among others by pseudo-Chrysostom, 
ANDREW OF CRETE, Cyril of Alexandria, and later 
writers such as Constantine AKROPOLITES, PALA- 
Mas, and Makarios CHRYSOKEPHALOS. Byz. legend 
made John a grandson of Joseph the Carpenter 
and thus nephew of Jesus; after Mary’s Dormition 
he preached throughout Asia Minor and was ex- 
iled by Domitian to the island of Patmos. Frus- 
trated by the apostasy of his disciple (a local bishop 
who became a robber), John attempted suicide by 


JOHNI | 1043 


poison, but the cross he wore negated its effect. 
From Patmos John went to Ephesus where he 
worked miracles and died peacefully. At least 
eight churches in Constantinople were dedicated 
to John (Janin, Églises CP 264-70). 

Representation in Art. John has two guises in 
art: young and beardless as the beloved disciple; 
white-haired, balding, and long-bearded as the 
visionary evangelist. As the disciple, John appears 
in scenes of his calling, his mother’s plea, the 
‘TRANSFIGURATION, Last Supper (see Lorp’s Sup- 
PER), CRUCIFIXION, and at Christ’s tomb. In this 
guise, he is indistinguishable from the young dis- 
ciple who witnesses Christ’s actions in countless 
scenes. John barely figures in Acts illustration and 
his further imagery draws on apocrypha: his 
prominent role in the Doririon of the Virgin; 
his voyage to Patmos (Copex EBNERIANUS, fol. 
302v), where he dictated his Gospel under divine 
inspiration; and his self-burial at Ephesus (MENO- 
LoGION OF Basi II). As an evangelist, John is 
shown seated before a desk (see EVANGELIST POR- 
TRAITS) or standing and dictating to his secretary, 
Prochoros—an image also drawn from his apoc- 
rypha. Consistently in the latter composition and 
sometimes in the former, the divine inspiration 
he receives is shown by an arc of Heaven or the 
Hann oF Gop. In Paris, B.N. gr. 93, the hill 
behind him becomes a mandorla, stressing his 
ecstatic condition. The frontispiece of a lectionary 
in the Skeuophylakion at Iviron, Athos, likens him 
to Moses on Sinai (Xyngopoulos, infra, pl.54). 
Only rarely (e.g., Moscow, Univ. Lib. 2280, fol. 
347r, of 1078) is he portrayed as the author of 
the Apocalypse. 

LIT. BHG 899-9321. M. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (Cam- 
bridge 1960). E. Junod, J.-D. Kaestli, L’histoire des Actes 
apocryphes des apôtres du llle au IXe siècle: Le cas des Actes de 
Jean (Geneva-Lausanne-Neuchatel 1982). H. Buchthal, “A 
Byzantine Miniature of the Fourth Evangelist and Its Rel- 
atives,” DOP 15 (1961) 127-39. A. Xyngopoulos, “Euange- 


listes loannes-Moiises,” DChAE * 8 (1975—76) 101~08. 
-J.L, A.K., A.W.C. 


JOHN I, patriarch of Antioch (429—441/2). Be- 
fore his elevation John had been a student at 
Antioch with Nestorios. Although John disap- 
proved of his friend’s repudiation of the title 
THEOTOKOS and even wrote to him counseling 
moderation, he supported him against CYRIL of 
Alexandria in the ensuing controversy over NEs- 


1044 | JOHNI 


TORIANISM. John’s unintentionally late arrival for 
the opening of the Council of EpHEsus (431) 
prompted Cyril to proceed with Nestorios’s con- 
demnation. This resulted in a countercouncil, in 
which the Antiochian delegation headed by John 
had Cyril condemned. The moderates of both 
parties, however, desired peace and, in 433, signed 
the so-called Symbol of Union that ended the 
schism. In effect, John implicitly agreed to the 
condemnation of Nestorios in return for Cyril’s 
toleration of Antiochian terminology regarding 
the duality of the nature of Christ. Also, both 
men accepted the legitimacy of the term Theotokos. 
Nevertheless, their more extreme followers re- 
jected the settlement. The resulting tension led 
directly to the “Robber” Council of EpHesus (449) 
and the Council of CHaLcepon. Some of John’s 
correspondence with ProkLos of Constantinople, 
Cyril, and Tueoposios II dealing with the Nes- 
torian dispute has survived. 

ED. Letters—ACO_ 1,1,1:93-96, 119; 1,1,4:7-9, 33; 
1,1,5:124-35; 1,1,7:84, 146, 1521—61; III, IV, passim. 


Lit. P.T. Camelot, Ephése et Chalcédoine (Paris 1962). 
—A.P. 


JOHN 1, pope (from 13 Aug. 523); born Tuscany, 
died Ravenna 18 May 526. In 525/6 the Ostro- 
gothic ruler THEODORIC THE GREAT sent John to 
Constantinople as head of a delegation to protest 
imperial measures against the Arians. After the 
end of the AKAKIAN ScHIsM Emp. Justin I sought 
rapprochement with Rome and arranged a spec- 
tacular welcome for the pope: the wording of the 
LIBER PONTIFICALIS humiliavit se pronus suggests 
that the emperor performed PRoskyNEsIs. John 
celebrated the Easter liturgy in Constantinople, 
while Patr. Epiphanios (520-35) was relegated to 
a secondary role in the service. All of this made 
Theodoric suspicious, and, despite the success of 
John’s mission, he detained the pope in Ravenna 
where he died several days later. The recorded 
details of John’s imprisonment and martyrdom 
appear to be fictitious. 

LIT. W. Ensslin, “Papst Johannes I. als Gesandter Theo- 
derichs des Grossen bei Kaiser Justinos I.,” BZ 44 (1951) 
127-34. P. Goubert, “Autour du voyage à Byzance du 
Pape Saint Jean I,” OrChrP 24 (1958) 339-52. H. Löwe, 


“Theoderich der Grosse und Papst Johann 1.,” Hist/b 72 
(1953) 83—100. —A.K. 


JOHN I, archbishop of Thessalonike, politician, 
writer, and local saint; died ca.630 (Stiernon) or 
ca.649 (Jugie). John participated in the defense 


of Thessalonike against the Avars and Slavs and 
was responsible for introducing the feast of the 
DormirTIon to that city. He wrote the first version 
of the miracles of St. DEMETRIOs and several hom- 
ilies, among which those on the Dormition were 
the most popular. In them John, having promised 
to remove all heretical elements from the narra- 
tive of Mary’s death, placed an unusual emphasis 
on the filial affection of Christ for his mother. He 
also stressed St. Peter’s primacy over the other 
apostles. 

ED. M. Jugie, “Homélies mariales byzantines,” PO 
19.3:289—526. 

LIT. D. Stiernon, DictSpir 8 (1974) 778—80. M. Jugie, La 
mort el l'assomption de la sainte Vierge (Vatican 1944) 139- 
54. Idem, “La vie et les oeuvres de Jean de Thessalonique: 
son témoignage sur les origines de la fête de l'Assomption 
et sur la primauté de saint Pierre,” EO 21 (1922) 293-307. 


JOHN I DOUKAS, sebastokrator of Thessaly (1267/ 
8?—1289?); born Epiros? ca.1240?, died 1289 or 
earlier. He was the illegitimate son of MicHaeEt II 
Komnenos Doukas of Epiros and half-brother of 
NIKEPHOROS I Komnenos Doukas of Epiros. Mar- 
ried to the daughter of the Thessalian VLACH 
chieftain Taron, John led a contingent of Vlach 
troops to support his father at the battle of Pe- 
LAGONIA (1259). According to George Akropolites 
(Akrop. 170.5—9), John surrendered to the Ni- 
cene commander after the Epirot army fled in 
despair. Pachymeres (Pachym., ed. Failler 1:119— 
21), on the other hand, relates that John treach- 
erously agreed to attack the Latin forces after 
being insulted by Wittiam II VILLEHARDOUIN. 
After the battle John repented his actions and 
returned to his father. 

Upon Michael II’s death (1266 or 1268), John’s 
rule over Thessaly was confirmed, with its capital 
at Neopatras. Although Micuaex VIII Patato- 
Locos married his nephew to John’s daughter 
and granted John the title sebastokrator in the ef- 
fort to secure an alliance, John became an im- 
placable enemy of the Byz. emperor. He defeated 
an imperial army sent to besiege Neopatras (1272- 
73), entered into commercial agreements with the 
Angevins, and ardently opposed the UNION OF 
THE CHURCHES. He convened a synod at Neopa- 
tras in 1277, attended by anti-Unionist exiles, 
which anathematized Michael VIII and Patr. JoHN 
XI Bexkkos (R.-J. Loenertz, OrChrP 31 [1965] 374- 
408). It was on a campaign against John in 1282 
that Michael VIII fell ill and died. The Church 


of Porta Panagia near Trikkala, built by John in 
1283, contains portraits of the sebastokrator and 
his family (A. Orlandos, ABME 1 [1935] 8, 33- 


35)- 


LIT. Nicol, Epiros 1 154f, 172-81, 186-89. Nicol, Epiros 
II g-11, 19-21, 31—36. Geanakoplos, Michael Pal. 64~73, 
231. PLP, no.208. —A.M.T. 


JOHN I TZIMISKES (Tors), emperor (g69— 
76); born Chozana, Armenia, ca.g25, died Con- 
stantinople 10 Jan. g76. John was a general of 
Armenian origin; according to LEO THE DEACON 
(p.g2.1—5), his name was an Armenian version of 
the Greek Mouzahites, meaning “of short stature.” 
He was related to the Kourkouas family; his 
mother was the sister of NIKEPHOROS II PHOKAS; 
and his first wife Maria was the sister of the 
magistros Bardas SKLEROS. John first distinguished 
himself under ConsTanTINE VII by capturing Sa- 
mosata in 958. He was the staunchest supporter 
of Nikephoros II but later changed sides. Head 
of an aristocratic coup, he murdered the emperor 
on the night of 10/11 Dec. 96g with the help of 
Nikephoros’s wife THEOPHANO. Yielding to the 
demands of Patr. Potyeuxtros, John banished 
Theophano; he then married Theodora, Con- 
stantine VII’s daughter and the aunt of the legit- 
imate emperors, BasıL I] and CONSTANTINE VIII. 
Acting in close concord with the church, John 
cancelled Nikephoros’s legislation against church 
land ownership. Two rescripts (sigillia) of 974 and 
975 manifest John’s flexible policy toward monas- 
tic land ownership: although his fiscal function- 
aries proclaimed the necessity of restoring “to the 
emperor” state-controlled peasants who fled to 
the pyNATOI! and onto church property, they per- 
mitted a number of peasants to remain on mo- 
nastic proasteia “by virtue of previous chrysobulls.” 

John conducted an energetic foreign policy: he 
repelled SvjaTtosLav from Bulgaria (971), sub- 
duing part of this country; concluded an alliance 
with Orro I (972); and fought successfully in 
Syria. In 970/1 the patrikios Nicholas, a eunuch, 
defeated the Fatimid army near Antioch (P. 
Walker, Byzantion 42 [1972] 431-40), and in 975 
John led a victorious campaign into Syria, forcing 
Damascus to pay tribute and capturing Beirut. 
The unsuccessful siege of Tripoli, however, was 
a setback, and John’s claim of conquests in Pal- 
estine (in a letter to the Armenian king Asor III) 
does not find support in Arabic sources (P. Walker, 


JOHN IT | 1045 


Byzantion 47 [1977] 301-27). MATTHEW OF EDESSA 
preserves a legend that at the end of his reign 
John returned the crown to Basil II and retired 
to a desert monastery (M. van Esbroeck, BK 41 
[1983] 71); on the other hand, there were rumors 
that he had been poisoned by Basi, THE NOTHOS. 

Apart from his coins, only one portrait of John 
is known. The Madrid Sky.tirzes MS, however, 
richly illustrates his career with 41 miniatures, 
including his conspiratorial arrival at the Bouko- 
LEON palace, arranged by Theophano, and her 
subsequent expulsion—both by boat. John’s 
triumphal entry into Constantinople in 971 (Gra- 
bar-Manoussacas, Skylitzés, fig.221) shows him ac- 
companied by a horse-drawn icon of the Virgin. 

LIT. G. Schlumberger, L'épopée byzantine a la fin du dixième 
siècle? (Paris 1925). Ostrogorsky, Paysannerie, 11-19. V. 
Tupkova-Zaimova, “Les frontiéres occidentales des terri- 
toires conquis par Tzimiscés,” Recherches de géographie his- 
torique, 2 (Sofia 1975) 113-18. N. Thierry, “Un portrait de 


Jean Tzimiskés en Cappadoce,” TM g (1985) 477-84- 
- A.K., A.C. 


JOHN H, bishop of Jerusalem (386/7—417), suc- 
ceeding CYRIL of Jerusalem; born ca.356. He was 
a monk in Jerusalem before his election to the 
episcopate. His Origenist sympathies were de- 
nounced by EpiPHANIOS of Salamis, both in a 
sermon delivered in his presence in Jerusalem in 
392 and in two letters, one of which survives in a 
Latin translation made by JEROME. His pro- 
Origenist position also caused John to break with 
former friends such as THEOPHILOS of Alexandria 
when the latter switched from support to condem- 
nation of that belief. 

John may be the author of the five Mystagogical 
Catecheses, addressed to neophytes in Easter week, 
that form part of the collection of Cyril of Jeru- 
salem’s 24 catechetical lectures. One MS does at- 
tribute them to John, others give joint credit to 
Cyril. Possibly John revised these lectures, which 
Cyril had written and delivered. 

ED. Catéchéses mystagogiques, ed. A. Piédagnel (Paris 1966), 
with Fr. tr. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian 
Sacraments, ed. F.L. Cross (London 1951; rp. Crestwood, 
N.Y., 1977), with reproduction of Eng. tr. by R.W. Church 
(Oxford 1838). 

uit. E. Yarnold, “The Authorship of the Mystagogic 


Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem,” Heythrop Jour- 
nal 19 (1978) 143-61. —B.B. 


JOHN II, metropolitan of Kiev (ca.1077-89), of 
Greek origin. A writer on canon law, John was 
praised in the POVEST’ VREMENNYCH LET for his 


1046 | JOHN II KOMNENOS 


erudition (PSRL 1:208); the belief that he was the 
uncle of Theodore Propromos is probably incor- 
rect (A. Kazhdan in Okeanos 357f; S. Franklin, BS 
45 [1984] 40—45). John addressed a letter (with a 
treatise on the AZYMES appended in the Greek 
version) to the (anti-)pope Clement HI (1080— 
1100) and wrote a set of Canonical Responses to the 
monk James. The letter focuses on Latin “inno- 
vations,” mainly as listed in the 867 encyclical of 
PHoTIos (Saturday fasts; the eating of cheese, 
eggs, and milk during Lent; celibate clergy; con- 
firmation exclusively by bishops; the filioque), but 
with additional emphasis on the azymes. The tone 
is firm but conciliatory. John’s Canonical Responses 
treat miscellaneous practical difficulties encoun- 
tered by the propagandists of Byz. Christianity in 
Rus’: pagan customs in public and private life, 
marriages and other contacts with non-Orthodox 
foreigners, and the proper behavior and organi- 
zation of the clergy. John’s main source is the 
NOMOKANON OF 14 TITLES, but the suggestion that 
he was responsible for its translation (R.G. Pi- 
choja, ADSV 11 [1975] 133-44) is tenuous. Some 
scholars believe that John composed the extant 
office to Boris AND GLEB. 

ED. Tou hosiou patros hemon Ioannou, metropolitou Rosias, 
epistole pros Klementa, papan Romes, ed. S.K. Oikonomos 
(Athens 2868). Kritičeskie opyty po istorii dreunejsej greko-russkoj 
polemiki protiv latinjan, ed. A.S. Pavlov (St. Petersburg 1878) 


169-86. Kirchenrechtliche und kulturgeschichtliche Denkmäler 
Altrusslands, ed. L.K. Goetz (Stuttgart 1905; rp. Amsterdam 


1963) 114-70. 

LIT. B. Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du XIe siècle 
(Paris 1924) 32—41. J. Spiteris, La critica bizantina del Primato 
Romano nel secolo XII (Rome 1979) 38—44. Podskalsky, Rus’ 
174-77, 186f, 286f. —-S.C.F. 


JOHN II KOMNENOS, emperor (from 15 Aug. 
1118); born Constantinople 13 Sept. 1087, died 
near Anazarbos 8 Apr. 1143. John succeeded his 
father Alexios I against the wishes of IRENE Dou- 
KAINA and Anna KoMneNE; the latter conspired 
on behalf of Nikephoros Bryennios. Byz. histo- 
rians describe John’s reign only briefly. His do- 
mestic policy is little known. Austere in manner, 
John tried to regulate even the costume of his 
courtiers; he was nonetheless tolerant and es- 
chewed maiming as a punishment. He entrusted 
military command to noble relatives but put civil 
administration in the hands of men of obscure 
origin, such as JOHN OF PouTzE and Stephen Meles, 
the logothetes tou dromou. John centralized the ad- 





Joun I] Komnenos. Portrait of the emperor and his 
wife Irene; mosaic. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. 


ministration of the army and navy and for this 
purpose charged the state treasury with maintain- 
ing vessels and their crews, previously the burden 
of the maritime regions (Lemerle, Agr. Hist. 234— 
36). He founded the monastery of the PANTOKRA- 
TOR and wrote its typikon. The dynastic sense that 
underlay this foundation also prompted other 
works, including a lost mosaic of John mourning 
his dead father whose victories were depicted 
(Magdalino-Nelson, “Emp. in 12th C.,” 126-30). 
A mosaic in Hagia Sophia portrays John, his wife, 
Irene, and, to one side, his son, Alexios. 

John capitalized on Alexios I’s military suc- 
cesses. Most of John’s wars were in Anatolia, esp. 
against the DANISMENDIDS (he captured Kastamon 
and Gangra after the death of GHAzi in 1134). 
He subdued the Rusenips of Cilicia (1137) and 
made RAYMOND OF POITIERS his vassal (1138), but 
the ensuing campaign from Antioch to inner Syria 
failed before the walls of Aleppo and Shayzar, In 
the northwest, John crushed the Pechenegs in 
1122 (not 1123 as in B. Radojičić, ZRVI 7 [1961] 
178) and defeated the Serbians and Hungarians 
in 1127—29 (not 1125 as in Radojičić, 182f). He 
attempted to annul Venice’s privileges but in 1126 
was forced to yield to a Venetian expedition. 
Theodore PRopRomos was John’s official eulogist. 
Allegedly John died in a hunting accident, but 
one cannot rule out the possibility of assassination 
(R. Browning, Byzantion 31 [1961] 229-35). 

Lit. Chalandon, Comnéne 2:1-193. Angold, Empire 150— 
60. A.P. Kazhdan, “ESée raz o Kinname i Nikite Choniate,” 


BS 24 (1963) 9—23. G. Ostrogorsky, “Autokrator Johannes 


II. und Basileus Alexios,” SemKond 10 (1938) 179-83. 
—-C.M.B., A.K., A.C. 


JOHN II KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebizond 
(1280-97); born ca.1262/3, died Limnia, near 
Trebizond, 16 or 17 Aug. 1297. Son of MANUEL 
I Komnenos of Trebizond, John succeeded his 
brother GEoRGE Komnenos as ruler of Trebizond. 
He initially incurred the anger of the Byz. em- 
peror Michael VIII by styling himself “emperor 
and autokrator of the Romans.” Michael sent fre- 
quent embassies to the “ruler (archegos) of the 
Lazes,” as Pachymeres (Pachym., ed. Bekker 
2:270.9) calls John, to criticize his wrongful use 
of the imperial title. In 1282 John went to Con- 
stantinople and married Michael’s daughter Eu- 
dokia, receiving the Byz. title despotes; he then 
changed his imperial title to “emperor and auto- 
krator of all the East, the Iberians, and the trans- 
marine provinces.” The chief events of John’s 
reign were the siege of Trebizond in 1282 by the 
Georgian king David IV (V) and the brief usur- 
pation of the throne in 1284/5 by John’s half- 
sister Theodora (M. KurSanskis, REB 33 [1975] 
187—210). John was a patron of the SOUMELA 
monastery. 


LIT. Miller, Trebizond 27-32. PLP, no.12106. ~A.M.T. 


JOHN III, patriarch of Antioch (4 Oct. gg6—July 
1021). His surname Polites perhaps derives from 
the fact that he was a native of Constantinople. 
Originally chartophylax of Hagia Sophia, he was 
elevated to the see of ANTIOCH by Emp. Basil II 
following the abdication of Agapios (978—96). Since 
John feared that, before he reached his see, his 
predecessor might attempt to recover the throne, 
he agreed to be consecrated in Constantinople 
and thus to renounce (in writing) his right to be 
ordained by the metropolitans of Antioch. This 
questionable act, by which Antioch became eccle- 
siastically subject to Constantinople, was later re- 
voked by Patr. PETER III, but it is not known with 
what success. The practice probably continued. 
During his tenure John also chose to surrender 
to Orestes, patriarch of Jerusalem (986—1006), 
the annual sum of money sent by the church of 
GEORGIA to Antioch for the preparation of the 
Holy Chrism, which the Georgians now received 
from Jerusalem. John did not, however, abandon 


JOHN III VATATZES 1047 


his privilege of confirming the KATHOLIKos of 
Georgia, or the right to be commemorated by the 
Georgian episcopate in the liturgy. An extract of 
John’s only known work, Responsa de baptismo, 
addressed to Theodore of Ephesus, was published 
by Allatius. This reply was probably written while 
John was still chartophylax; normally, canonical 
questions requiring no synodical decision were 
referred to this official. 

ED. L. Allatius, De aetate et interstitiis in collatione ordinum 
(Rome 1638) 215. 

LIT. V. Grumel, “Les patriarches grecs d'Antioche du 
nom de Jean (XJ* et XII® siécles),” EO 32 (1933) 281-84. 
Papadopoulos, Antioch. 837-39. —-A.P. 


JOHN III SCHOLASTIKOS, patriarch of Con- 
stantinople (31 Jan. 565-31 Aug. 577); born Sir- 
mis near Antioch ca.503 (L. Petit, DTC 8 [1947] 
830), died Constantinople. First a lawyer (SCHO- 
LASTIKOS) in Antioch, in 548/g he was sent to 
Constantinople as apokrisiarios of the patriarch of 
Antioch. Justinian I, shortly before his death, 
selected John to replace Eurycuios as patriarch. 
John crowned Justin I] and supported his policy. 
John of Ephesus presents the patriarch as an 
eager anti-Monophysite who ordered persecution 
of the Monophysites through all the provinces; 
John of Nikiu, on the other hand, ascribed to him 
a book, Mystagogia, that allegedly dealt with a 
single substance of Christ, both divine and human 
(Beck, Kirche 423). Photios (Bibl., cod.75) men- 
tions a catechetical sermon of John on the Trinity, 
delivered in 567/8, that was refuted by John 
PHILoPoNos; the doubts of W. Kroll (RE g [1916] 
1792) concerning this evidence are not valid. 
Probably while still in Antioch, John composed 
the SynacoGe oF Firry Tires. Haury (infra) 
identified him with John Maratas on the basis of 
the similarity in names, origin, and scanty bio- 
graphical data. Although possible (Hunger, Lit. 
1:319f), the identification is far trom certain. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 1, nos. 250-59. J. Haury, “Johannes 
Malalas identisch mit dem Patriarchen Johannes Scholas- 
tikos?,” BZ g (1900) 337—568. Cf. E. Stein, Jahresberichte der 


klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 184 (1920) 86f, no.232. L. 
Petit, DTC 8 (1947) 829-31. -A.K. 


JOHN III VATATZES, emperor of Nicaea (from 
ca.15 Dec. 1221); born ca.1192, died Nymphaion 
3 Nov. 1254. He married Irene, daughter of 
THEODORE I LASKaRIS, and ca.1244 Constance 


1048 | JOHN IV KOMNENOS 


(“Anna”), an illegitimate daughter of FREDERICK 
II HoHENSTAUFEN. His succession was opposed by 
Theodore’s brothers, who had Latin backing. John 
defeated them at the battle of PoOIMANENON in 
1224 and was able to drive the Latins out of 
northwestern Asia Minor, thus rounding off the 
Nicaean territories in Asia Minor. His bid to se- 
cure control of ApRrIANOPLE, the key to Thrace, 
was thwarted by THEODORE Komnenos Doukas. 
Only in 1234 was John able to establish a per- 
manent bridgehead in Thrace, thanks to an alli- 
ance concluded with Jonn Asen II. The latter’s 
death left a power vacuum in the southern Bal- 
kans, which John was quick to exploit. An astute 
campaign made him master of the region in 1246 
and brought him his greatest prize—the city of 
Thessalonike. His remaining years were devoted 
to protecting and extending his European terri- 
tories and seeking ways of recovering Constanti- 
nople. 

When alliance with Frederick II Hohenstaufen 
brought him little material reward, he turned to 
the papacy in 1248. He was willing to make un- 
precedented concessions over papal claims to PRI- 
macy in the hope that the papacy would withdraw 
its backing for the Latin Empire of Constantino- 
ple, but these plans came to nothing. Still, John 
had created the conditions that made the eventual 
recovery of Constantinople possible and had turned 
the Nicaean Empire into the strongest power of 
the region, with territories stretching from the 
Turkish frontier to Albania. At the end of his 
reign his relations with the aristocracy were soured 
by the need to secure the succession of his son 
THEODORE II Laskaris. In 1252 he had the leader 
of potential aristocratic opposition, MicHaEL (VIII) 
PALAIOLOGOS, arraigned on a charge of high trea- 
son. 

John III was a ruler of the highest ability and 
of great tenacity of purpose. Remembered as “a 
kind and gentle soul” (Akrop. 1:103.19—20), he 
was revered after his death as a saint by the 
Greeks of Asia Minor (D.J. Constantelos, Klero- 
nomia 4 [1972] 92—104). He was buried in the 
monastery of Sosandra near Nymphaion. 

LIT. Polemis, Doukai 106-09, no.72. D.I. Polemis, “Re- 
mains of an Acoluthia for the Emperor John Ducas Ba- 
tatzes” in Okeanos, 542-47. P. Zavoronkov, “Nikejskaja im- 
perija i Vostok,” VizVrem 39 (1978) 93-97. J. Langdon, 
“John IH Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Imperium in Anato- 


lian Exile, 1222-54,” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Calif., Los 
Angeles, 1978). —M.J.A. 


JOHN IV KOMNENOS, emperor of Trebizond 
(1429—1459/60?); born before 1403 (KurSanskis) 
or ca.1404/5, died 1460. Son of ALexıios IV Kom- 
NENOS and Theodora Kantakouzene, as a youth 
he murdered his mother’s suspected paramour 
and rebelled against his father. He then fled to 
Georgia, where he married the daughter of King 
Alexander I (1412—42). In 1427 he went to Kaffa 
and in 142g returned to Trebizond where, with 
Genoese assistance, he overthrew his father and 
had him assassinated (V. Laurent, ArchPont 20 
[1955] 138-43). John’s reign was preoccupied 
with defending Trebizond against the continuing 
onslaughts of the Turks, both Turkomans and 
Ottomans. He evidently favored union with Rome 
in hopes of Western assistance against the Turks 
(A. Bryer, ArchPont 26 [1964] 305f). After the fall 
of Constantinople, the Ottomans attacked Trebi- 
zond by land and sea in 1456 and forced John to 
pay tribute to MEHMED II. By his second wife, a 
Turk, John had a daughter Theodora whom he 
married to Uzun Hasan, chief of the White Sheep 
Turkomans, in exchange for the Turkoman pledge 
to defend Trebizond against the Ottomans (M. 
KurSanskis, ArchPont 34 [1977-8] 77-87). 

LIT. Miller, Trebizond 81-96. KurSanskis, “Descendance 
d’Alexis IV,” 239-47. PLP, no.12108. K. Barzos, “He moira 


ton teleutaion Megalon Komnenon tes Trapezountos,” By- 
zantina 12 (1983) 270f. ~A.M.T. 


JOHN IV LASKARIS, emperor in Nicaea (1258— 
61); born Nymphaion? 25 Dec. 1250, died ca.1305, 
He was the only son and heir of THEoporE II 
Laskaris, whom he succeeded in Aug. 1258. The 
boy’s rights were progressively set aside by MI- 
CHAEL VIII PaLaloLocos. Once the latter had 
recovered Constantinople, he felt secure enough 
to have John blinded on Christmas Day 1261 and 
confined in the fortress of Dakibyze on the south 
shore of the Sea of Marmara. Patr. ARSENIOS 
AUTOREIANOS excommunicated Michael in pro- 
test. This prompted the people around Nicaea to 
rise up in support of a pretender claiming to be 
John. The rebellion was quickly crushed, but a 
strong current of support for the Laskarid cause 
endured, esp. in Asia Minor. When ANDRONIKOS 
II PataroLocos visited Asia Minor in 1284, he 
found it politic to placate those with Laskarid 
sympathies by visiting John in his dungeon and 
begging forgiveness for what his father had done. 
With John’s death, the Laskarid cause withered 


away. A cult seems to have grown up around 
John; the Russian pilgrim Stefan of Novgorod 
recorded that in the mid-14th C. it was centered 
on the monastery of St. Demetrios at Constanti- 
nople, where his body was to be seen (I. Ševčenko, 


StidostF 12 [1953] 173-75). 


LIT. Polemis, Doukai 111, no.76. —M.J.A. 


JOHN IV NESTEUTES (Nnorevrýs, “Faster”), 
patriarch of Constantinople (12 Apr. 582-2 Sept. 
595); born and died Constantinople. According 
to the Synaxarion of Constantinople (Synax.CP, col. 
7.22), he was a coinmaker by profession, then 
joined the clergy and was elected patriarch. The 
legend preserved by Theophylaktos Simokattes 
(Theoph.Simok., bk.7.6.4) described him as living 
in extreme poverty, owning only a wooden pallet, 
thin blanket, and plain cloak. John was very close 
to Emp. Maurice, whose son Theodosios was 
crowned at the age of four and a half by the 
patriarch. John fought against heresies and, de- 
spite Maurice’s resistance, introduced capital pun- 
ishment for magicians. His claims to the title of 
ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH led to a conflict with Pope 
Pelagius II (57g—go) and Grecory I. 

Little of his writing is preserved; his long speech 
on penitence, temperance, and chastity (PG 
88:1937—78) is a collection of citations from John 
Chrysostom. Several penitentials are preserved 
under John’s name (a Kanenarion, the Akolouthia 
and Order for Penitents [PG 88:1889—1918], and 
the Indoctrination of Nuns), but all three are spu- 
rious, having been written several centuries later. 

ED. N. Suvorov, “Verojatny] sostav drevnejsego ispoved- 
nogo i pokajannogo ustava v Vostotnoj cerkvi,” VizVrem 
8 (1901) 357—434; 9 (1902) 378—417. N.A. Zaozerskij, A.S. 
Chachanov, Nomokanon Ioanna Postnika v ego redakcijach: 
gruzinskoj, greceskoj i slavjanskoj (Moscow 1902). 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 1, nos. 264—72. Beck, Kirche 423-25. 


R. Janin, DTC 8 (1947) 828f. E. Herman, “Il più antico 
penitenziale greco,” OrChrP 19 (1953) 71—127. —A.K. 


JOHN IV (V) OXEITES, Chalcedonian patriarch 
of Antioch (ca.1089—1 100); died after 1100. All 
we know about John before his patriarchate is 
that he was a monk; the conclusions of Ch. Papa- 
dopoulos (EEBS 12 [1936] 361—78) should be 
treated with caution. Appointed patriarch before 
Sept. 1089, he remained in Constantinople until 
1091. John’s situation in Antioch under Seljuk 
rule was miserable, esp. during the Crusaders’ 


JOHN V KATHOLIKOS 1049 


siege of the city; after their victory he had under 
his jurisdiction both the Greek and Latin clergy 
of Antioch. Eventually he was charged with plot- 
ting to surrender the city to the emperor, left for 
Constantinople, and in Oct. 1100 officially re- 
nounced his patriarchate. John retired to the 
HobEGon monastery but incited the hatred of the 
monks and probably moved to the island of Oxeia 
(Princes’ Islands), where he was later buried. 

John’s works had a clear political imprint. In 
1085 or 1092 he issued a treatise on CHARISTIKIA, 
which he blamed for the decline of monasticism. 
He also wrote a diatribe accusing Alexios I of 
responsibility for all the internal and international 
problems of Byz. His invectives were addressed 
also against those who possessed “cities within the 
cities” (P. Gautier, infra) and esp. against tax col- 
lectors, whereas he lamented the plight of poor 
peasants, merchants, and craftsmen (p.33.19—22). 
John also wrote a treatise on AZYMES, possibly in 
connection with the Byz. dispute against Peter 
GROSSOLANO in 1112. 

ED. P. Gautier, “Diatribes de Jean l’Oxite contre Alexis 
I™ Comnéne,” REB 28 (1970) 19-55. Idem, “Réquisitoire 
du patriarche Jean d’Antioche contre le charisticariat,” 
REB 33 (1975) 91—131. B. Leib, “Deux inédits byzantins 
sur les azymes au début du XIIe siècle,” OC 2 (1924) 244— 
63. 

ote P. Gautier, “Jean V I’Oxite, patriarche d’Antioche. 
Notice biographique,” REB 22 (1964) 128-57. —A.K. 


JOHN V KATHOLIKOS, patriarch of Armenia 
(897—925) and historian; born Drasxanakert mid- 
gth C., died Vaspurakan soon after g25. As katho- 
hhkos, John (Arm. Yovhannes) played a role in 
diplomacy both between the BAGRATID Armenian 
kings and their Armenian rivals, and between 
Armenia and both Byz. and Muslim rulers. 

The first third of his History is primarily a ré- 
sumé of earlier sources. John developed the con- 
cept of the strong royal power of the Bagratid 
dynasty and justified it by reference to the Bagra- 
tids’ succession from previous royal houses (M.O. 
Darbinian-Melikian, [FZ [1982] no.3, 119-25). The 
History contains the earliest Armenian reference 
to Bagratid descent from King Davin of Israel, 
although earlier Moses XoRENAC'! had claimed a 
Jewish origin for that family. The main part is an 
eyewitness account of John’s own times and of his 
role in Armenian politics. It includes a letter to 
him from NicHorass I Mystixos, patriarch of 
Constantinople, and one from John himself to 


1050 | JOHN V PALAIOLOGOS 


Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, written in 914. 
The History is the most important source for the 
reigns of Smbat I and his son Ašot II. 

ED. Patmut'twn Hayoc’, ed. M. Emin (Moscow 1853; Tbi- 
lisi 1912), rp. with introd. K. Maksoudian (Delmar, N.Y., 
1980). Histoire d'Arménie par le patriarche Jean VI [sic] dit Jean 
Catholicos, tr. J. Saint-Martin (Paris 1841). —-R.T. 


JOHN V PALAIOLOGOS, emperor (1341-91); 
born Didymoteichon 18 June 1332, died Constan- 
tinople 16 Feb. 1391 (cf. Barker, Manuel II 80f, 
n. 214). During his 50-year reign John faced nu- 
merous rebellions and a civil war; he actually 
ruled only about 30 years. Nine years old at the 
death of his father ANDRONIKOs III (1341), John 
came under the control of his empress-mother 
ANNA OF Savoy, Patr. JOHN XIV KALEKAS, and 
Alexios APOKAUKOS. The same year JOHN VI KAN- 
TAKOUZENOS was proclaimed emperor at Didy- 
moteichon and began the Civi. WAR OF 1341- 
47. After the victory of Kantakouzenos, John 
married the usurper’s daughter Helena and re- 
mained in the background until he forced Kan- 
takouzenos’s abdication in 1354. Shortly there- 
after his mosaic portrait was set up in Hagia 
Sophia, Constantinople (Mango, Materials 74—76, 
fig. 97). 

During the 1350s and 1360s John attempted to 
gain Western assistance against the Turks. To this 
end he journeyed in 1366 to Hungary (J. Gill, BS 
38 [1977] 31-38) and in 1369 to Rome, where he 
declared his personal conversion to Catholicism. 
On his way home he was detained in Venice 
because of his debts and was forced to promise 
the cession of TENEDOs to the Venetians (R.-J. 
Loenertz, REB 16 [1958] 217-32). After the Ser- 
bian defeat at Marica (1371), John realized the 
necessity of seeking an accommodation with the 
Turks and became an Ottoman vassal. His re- 
maining years were troubled by the rebellions of 
his son ANDRONIKOS IV (1373, 1376-79) and 
grandson JOHN VII (1390). To conciliate his heirs, 
John had to allocate to them appanages and di- 
vide the empire into semi-independent principal- 
ities, while he retained rule in the capital. 

uT. O. Halecki, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome (Warsaw 
1930). Barker, Manuel II 1—83. F. Tinnefeld, “Kaiser loannes 


V. Palaiologos und der Gouverneur von Phokaia 1356- 
1358,” RSBS 1 (1981) 259-71. -A.M.T., A.C. 


JOHN VI KANTAKOUZENOS, emperor (8 Feb. 

1347-3 Dec. 1354 [A. Failler, REB 29 (1971) 293- 
302]); born ca.1295, died Mistra 15 June 1383. 
The son, probably posthumous, of a Peloponne- 
sian governor of the aristocratic KANTAKOUZENOS 
lineage, John Kantakouzenos was about the same 
age as ANDRONIKOS (III) PALAloLoGos and was 
his close friend until the emperor’s death in 1341. 
His first known title was that of megas papas (1320); 
he became megas domestikos ca.1325. He supported 
Andronikos’s rebellion against his grandfather 
(1321-28) and was his principal general and ad- 
viser during his reign. 

After Andronikos died, leaving a nine-year-old 
heir, Joun V PaLaloLocos, Kantakouzenos failed 
to secure the regency. His power struggle with 
ANNA OF Savoy, Alexios APOKAUKOS, and Patr. 
Jonn XIV Ka.ekas ended in the Cıvıl WAR oF 
1341-47, and Kantakouzenos was proclaimed co- 
emperor at Didymoteichon (26 Oct. 1341). Thanks 
to his extraordinary wealth (in land and livestock), 
the support of landed magnates in Thrace and 
Thessaly, and military aid from Serbs and Turks, 
Kantakouzenos eventually emerged victorious. On 
21 May 1346 he was crowned at Adrianople and 
in Feb. 1347 entered Constantinople. He was 
crowned a second time (21 May) and married his 
daughter Helena to John V. 

During his brief reign Kantakouzenos crushed 
the ZEALoTs in Thessalonike (1349) and sup- 
ported PALAmIsM at the local council of Constan- 
tinople of 1351 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, 
Councits oF). The relatively peaceful relations 
between John V and John VI lasted until 1351; 
in 1352 a new civil war broke out. Although 
Kantakouzenos used Ottoman troops (who estab- 
lished themselves at KALLIPOLIS, their first Euro- 
pean foothold), he was defeated by John V, who 
assumed sole power (M. Živojinović, ZRVI 21 [1982] 
127-41). After his abdication Kantakouzenos be- 
came the monk Ioasaph, retiring first to the Man- 
GANA monastery, then to CHARSIANEITES. He made 
at least two trips to MISTRA, where his son MANUEL 
KANTAKOUZENOS was despotes (1347—80). He con- 
tinued to influence both political and religious 
affairs until his death (cf. Lj. Maksimović, ZRVI 9 
[1966] 119-93; J. Meyendorff, DOP 14 [1960] 
147-77): 

He also devoted himself to the preparation of 
his lengthy memoirs, the Historiai, one of the 





JOHN VI KantakouzeEnos. Portrait of the emperor at 
the Council of 1351. Miniature in a manuscript of his 
works (Paris gr. 1242, fol.5v); 14th C. Bibliothèque Na- 
tionale, Paris. 


principal sources for the first half of the 14th C. 
In four books he treated events from 1320 to 
1356, drawing on personal reminiscences and 
perhaps on a diary. The remarkable homogeneity 
of composition is a result of the subordination of 
the historical material to an overall structural 
theme. He used this very subjective work to justify 
his own actions and policies and to present himself 
as a tragic hero and as the central figure of events. 
At the same time his history is a useful comple- 
ment to the account of Nikephoros GREGORAS. 
The bias of Kantakouzenos is offset by the au- 
thor’s first-hand knowledge of events, his precise 
chronology, and citation of original documents. 
His work is characterized by a belief in ananke 
(necessity) and TYCHE (fate or fortune); he be- 
lieved that his eventual defeat was not caused 
solely by human factors, but by transcendent and 
cosmic forces. Kantakouzenos wrote in a simple 
style marked by the absence of rhetoric. His work 
was influenced by THucypipes (T. Miller, GRBS 


JOHN VII | 1051 


17 [1976] 385-95, and H. Hunger, JOB 25 [1976] 
181-93) and includes an unusual number of 
speeches. 

Kantakouzenos also wrote treatises attacking Is- 
lam and Judaism, and pro-Palamite theological 
works, refuting John Kyparisstores and Procho- 
ros Kypones. Portraits of Kantakouzenos as em- 
peror and monk survive in a deluxe MS of his 
theological writings, Paris, B.N. gr. 1242, fols. 5v 
and 123V. 

ED. Historiarum Libri IV, ed. L. Schopen, 3 vols. (Bonn 
1828-32). Germ. tr. G. Fatouros, T. Krischer, Geschichte 
(Stuttgart 1982). Theological works—PG 154:372—-710. Re- 
futationes duae Prochori Cydonit et Disputatio cum Paulo Patriar- 
cha Latino epistulis septem tradita, ed. E. Voordeckers, F. 
Tinnefeld (Turnhout-Leuven 1987). 

LIT. G. Weiss, Joannes Kantakuzenos—Aristokrat, Staats- 
mann, Kaiser und Mönch—in der Gesellschaftsentwicklung von 
Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden 1969). Délger, Para- 
spora 194—207. Nicol, Kantakouzenos 35—103. A.P. Kazhdan, 
“L'Histoire de Cantacuzène en tant qu'oeuvre littéraire,” 
Byzantion 50 (1980) 279-335. Hunger, Lit, 1:465—76. Beck, 
Kirche 731. PLP, no.10973. —A.M.T. 


JOHN VII, pope (1 Mar. 705-18 Oct. 707). Greek 
by birth, he was the son of a curator sacri palati 
named Plato who moved to Rome from Constan- 
tinople. John inherited from his predecessors the 
problems of the canons of the Council in TRULLO, 
which Pope Sercius I had refused to sign. Emp. 
Justinian IT took up the issue, sending copies of 
the canons to the pope and urging him to approve 
those that were acceptable and reject those that 
were not. John returned them without emenda- 
tion or signature, causing the author of the LIBER 
PONTIFICALIS to accuse him of cowardice. A fresco 
in the Church of S. Maria Antiqua in Rome, 
commissioned by John, may reflect his acceptance 
of the canons, however; instead of the Adoration 
of the Lamb of God, it represents Christ in human 
form. The canons of Trullo were not formally 
accepted in Rome until the pontificate of Con- 
stantine I (708-15). Both the frescoes in S. Maria 
Antiqua and the mosaics of John’s oratory in Old 
St. Peter’s are generally attributed to Byz. artists 
(M. Andaloro, RIASA 19-20 [1972-73] 183f). 
The latter program included John’s portrait, to- 
day preserved in the Vatican grottoes, offering 
his foundation to the Virgin clad as a Byz. em- 
press. 


LIT. Richards, Popes 211f. P.J. Nordhagen, The Frescoes 
of John VII (A.D. 705—707) in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome 


1052 | JOHN VII GRAMMATIKOS 


[ActaNorv 3] (Rome 1968) with add. J.D. Breckenridge, BZ 
65 (1972) 364-74. J-M. Sansterre, “Jean VII (705-707): 
idéologie pontificale et réalisme politique,” in Rayonnement 
grec 377-88. -A.K., A.C. 


JOHN VII GRAMMATIKOS (the Grammarian), 
patriarch of Constantinople (21 Jan. 837?—4 Mar. 
843 [V. Grumel, EO 34 (1935) 162-66, 506)); 
born Constantinople late 8th C., died western 
shore of Bosporos before 867. John was born to 
a family (perhaps of Armenian origin) whose name 
is variously given as Morokardanios, Morochar- 
zamios, and Morocharzianos. He began his cleri- 
cal career ca.81 1—13 as an anagnostes in the Hode- 
gon monastery; according to PHoTios (homily 15, 
ed. Laourdas, 140.25-27) he was also an icon 
painter. Three letters addressed to him by THEO- 
DORE OF STOUDIOS are further proof of his origi- 
nal Iconodule position (V. Grumel, EO 36 [1937] 
186). The epithet GRAMMATIKOS indicates that he 
was respected for his learning. By 814 he had 
become an Iconoclast and was chosen by Emp. 
Leo V to head a committee to collect a florilegium 
of patristic texts in support of ICONOCLASM, in 
preparation for the local council of 815 in Con- 
stantinople (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUN- 
CILS OF), which again condemned the veneration 
of images. He was rewarded with the post of 
hegoumenos of the Sergios and Bakchos monastery, 
which served as a center where recalcitrant Icon- 
odules were “rehabilitated.” 

John had a reputation for persuasive rhetorical 
skills, and debates with him became a hagiograph- 
ical topos of the second Iconoclastic period. Under 
Michael II, John tutored the crown prince THEO- 
PHILOS and is usually credited with inculcating 
strong Iconoclastic sympathies in his pupil. Upon 
Theophilos’s accession to the throne, John be- 
came synkellos, and went on an embassy to the 
Arab caliph al-Ma’Mon, probably in 829/90. Little 
is known of his actual patriarchate; he was de- 
posed in 843 as a preamble to the restoration of 
images, excommunicated, and exiled from Con- 
stantinople. In some of the marginal PSALTERs, 
John is depicted as the principal adversary of the 
Orthodox patriarch NrkEPHOROS I who, as a pen- 
dant to St. Peter crushing Simon Magus, tramples 
John underfoot (Grabar, Iconoclasme 226-28, 287f, 
figs. 150, 155). John was probably the compiler 
of a collection of Gyomal that served as the major 


source for the Gnomologion of John Georgides (A. 
Kambylis, JOB 37 [1987] 95, n.1). 

LIT. Lemerle, Humanism 154-68. V. Laurent, “Jean VII 
le Grammairien,” Catholicisme hier, aujourd’hui, demain, fasc. 
24 (Paris 1964) 513-15. Lipšic, Očerki 296-301. 

—A.M.T., A.C. 


JOHN VII PALAIOLOGOS, emperor (1390); 
born ca.1370, died Thessalonike 22 (23?) Sept. 
1408. According to E. Zachariadou (DOP 31 [1977] 
339-42), he was also called Andronikos. Eldest 
son of ANDRONIKOS IV, as a small child he devel- 
oped a grudge against his grandfather Jonn V, 
who partially blinded him and his father after the 
latter’s rebellion. John viewed himself as rightful 
heir to the throne and opposed his uncle MANUEL 
II, who had “usurped” his claim to the empire. 
Upon Andronikos’s death in 1385, John inherited 
his appanage in Selymbria. In April 1390 he seized 
Constantinople with Genoese and Turkish sup- 
port and reigned briefly until his deposition in 
September. After a reconciliation with Manuel, 
John served as his regent from 1399 to 1403 and 
was entrusted with the defense of Constantinople 
against the siege of Bayrzip I. The capital was 
saved by Bayezid’s defeat at Ankara in 1402; the 
next year (3 June 1403) John signed a treaty with 
the Turks whereby the Byz. regained Thessalo- 
nike. His triumphal entry into the city and his 
family may well appear on a tiny ivory at Dum- 
barton Oaks. Shortly after Manuel’s return from 
the West, John was made “basileus of all Thessaly” 
and despotes of Thessalonike, where he spent his 
final years quietly. 

John was married to Irene Gatritusio, daugh- 
ter of Francesco II of Lesbos. The union pro- 
duced one son, ANDRONIKOS V, who predeceased 
his father. John thus died without an heir, leaving 
the lineage of Manuel unchallenged in its claim 
to the throne. 

ur. F. Délger, “Johannes VII., Kaiser der Rhoméer 
1390-1408,” BZ 31 (1931) 21—36, corr. by P. Wirth, Byzan- 
tion 35, (1965) 592—600. Oikonomides, “Ivory Pyxis” 329— 
37- -A.M.T., A.C. 


JOHN VIII, pope (14 Dec. 872-16 Dec. 882); of 
Roman origin. John was elected despite the future 
pope Formosus’s opposition, which continued 
during the first years of John’s pontificate. John 
faced the Arab invasions of southern Italy, often 


supported by the rulers of Gaeta and other small 
Lombard princedoms; the pope built a navy to 
deter the Arabs, and until the death of Louis II 
the anti-Arab war proceeded successfully. After 
875, however, Emp. Basil I was the most effective 
ally. The situation was complicated since John 
actively tried to establish papal control over Mo- 
ravia (by supporting MerHoptos), Croatia, and 
Bulgaria. At a council in Constantinople in 879/ 
80, the pope’s legates were coerced into yielding: 
they joined the rehabilitation of Photios (the leg- 
end of the “second Photian schism” under John 
is a forgery—F. Dvornik, Byzantion 8 [1933] 425- 
36) and also had to accept Byz. claims over Bul- 
garia, although the pope still tried to influence 
the Bulgarian khan Boris I. Defeats by the Arabs, 
who gained a stronghold at GARIGLIANO and 
burned MONnTECASSINO, as well as failures in Bul- 
garia and Moravia, gave new impetus to the op- 
position to the pope. The Annals of Fulda preserve 
a rumor that John was murdered. 

LIT. F. Engreen, “Pope John the Eighth and the Arabs,” 
Speculum 20 (1945) 318-30. F. Dvornik, Les légendes de 


Constantin et de Méthode (Prague 1933) 313-30. Zlatarski, 
Ist. 1.2:169—209. —A.K. 


JOHN VIII CHRYSOSTOMITES (Xpvoooro- 
ims), or Merkouropolos (Mepkoupé7rwAos), pa- 
triarch in Jerusalem (ca.1098—1106/7?; on the 
name see B. Englezakis, Byzantion 43 [1973] 506- 
08). Although his personality and patriarchate 
remain obscure, John must be identified with the 
anonymous metropolitan of Tyre who fled his 
own see to Jerusalem and was subsequently ele- 
vated to patriarch succeeding SyMEON II (cf. XAN- 
THOPOULOS in PG 146:1196D). Despite the Cru- 
saders’ election of a Latin patriarch, John continued 
in his office. In 1107/8 he went to Constantinople, 
where he was recognized as the legitimate patri- 
arch of Jerusalem (RegPatr, fasc. 3, no.g86). Gru- 
mel suggests that his patriarchate ended before 
1122. 

Of the three treatises on AZYMES attributed to 
him, only the last two are from his pen; the first 
is probably by Eustratios oF NICAEA. An unpub- 
lished work on the origins of the scHism of 1054 
may be his, although this seems rather doubtful 
(cf. J. Darrouzés, REB 21 [1963] 54). 

John is sometimes confused with John IX of 
Jerusalem, who was present at the local council 


JOHN VIII PALAIOLOGOS 1053 


of Constantinople of 1156-57—the only known 
evidence of his patriarchate (I. Sakkelion, Pat- 
miake bibliotheke [Athens 1890] 327). Englezakis 
has tentatively suggested that it was John IX who 
was actually John Chrysostomites, the monk men- 
tioned in the typikon of the monastery at Koutzo- 
vente in Cyprus. One of these two Johns wrote 
the “dual” vita of John of Damascus and Kosmas 
THE HYMNOGRAPHER, which includes a rare at- 
tempt to evaluate Kosmas’s literary activity. 

ED. Treatises on azymes—Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tomos 
agapes (Jassy 1698) 516—938. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ana- 
lekta 4:303—50; 5:405—07. 

LIT. Papadopoulos, Hierosolym. 394. Th. Detorakes, Kos- 


mas ho Melodos: Bios kai ergo (Thessalonike 1979) na 
BHG 395. -A.P., A.K. 


JOHN VIII PALAIOLOGOS, emperor (1425- 
48); born 17/18 Dec. 1392 (cf. Barker, Manuel I 
104 n.28), died Constantinople 31 Oct. 1448. Eld- 
est son of MANUEL II and Helena Dragaš, he was 
made co-emperor before 1408 (Oikonomides, 
“Ivory Pyxis” 332-34) and became autokrator on 
1g Jan. 1421 (F. Dölger, BZ 36 [1936] 318f). He 
was the effective ruler during the final four years 
of Manuel’s life and succeeded him in mid-1425. 
John took active part in two successful campaigns 
in the Peloponnesos. During his reign the Byz. 
regained control of most of the Morea and began 
to expand into Attica and Boeotia. Nonetheless, 
Thessalonike fell to the Turks in 1430 and, after 
the Turkish campaign of 1446, the Morea had to 
pay tribute to the sultan. 

John pursued a policy of seeking rapproche- 
ment with the West in order to stave off further 
Ottoman advances. He was eager to achieve UNION 
OF THE CHURCHES and personally participated in 
the Council of FERRARA-FLORENCE, where he signed 
the decree of Union. After his return to Constan- 
tinople in 1440, however, he found much popular 
opposition to the decisions of the council. More- 
over, the Crusade of 1444, a reward for the Union 
of Florence, never reached Constantinople, but 
was crushed by the Turks at Varna. John died 
without ever implementing the Union. Despite 
three marriages, he was childless and was suc- 
ceeded by his brother, CONSTANTINE XI. 

John appears as co-emperor with his father in 
the Louvre MS of the works of pseudo-Dionysios 
THE AREOPAGITE (Spatharakis, Portrait, fig.g3) and, 


1054 | JOHN VIII XIPHILINOS 


again identified as basileus, with his first wife, 
Anna of Moscow, on the so-called Large Sakkos, 
probably sent to Moscow between 1411 and 1417. 
A number of portraits by Western artists (minia- 
tures and bronzes) commemorate John’s visit to 
Italy (ibid., figs. 21-22, 178-79). 

LIT. Papadopulos, Genealogie, no.go. Gill, Personalities 104— 
24. D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern Europe 
(London 1982), pt. X (1972), 141—446. C. Walter, “A 
Problem Picture of the Emperor John VII and the Patri- 
arch Joseph,” ByzF 10 (1985) 295-302. ~A.M.T. 


JOHN VIII XIPHILINOS, patriarch of Constan- 
tinople (1 Jan. 1064-2 Aug. 1075); born Trebi- 
zond ca.1010, died Constantinople. John was born 
to the XIPHILINOS family, which was reportedly of 
humble origin. After an education in Constanti- 
nople, he joined the circle of John Mauropous 
and PsELLos and was granted the post of nomo- 
phylax of the law school in the capital. J. Cvetler’s 
hypothesis (Eos 48.2 [1956] 297—328) that Xiphi- 
linos composed the novel on the foundation of 
the law school does not prove valid. In the late 
1040s Xiphilinos fell out of favor with Constan- 
tine IX and was attacked by a certain Ophrydas 
who accused him of “freethinking.” Psellos de- 
fended Xiphilinos and praised his love of knowl- 
edge. When ConsTAnTINE (III) LEICHOUDES was 
replaced as mesazon by the eunuch John ca.1050, 
Xiphilinos and friends were forced to leave Con- 
stantinople. Xiphilinos took the monastic habit 
and was—unlike Psellos—content with his new 
situation; he soon began to retreat from the 
“emancipated” ideals of his youth. This created a 
tension in his relations with Psellos, who, even in 
his enkomion of Xiphilinos (Sathas, MB 4:42 1—62), 
was unable to refrain from criticism, conventional 
though it may be. 

After the death of Leichoudes, who had become 
patriarch (1059—1063), Emp. Constantine X (al- 
legedly at the recommendation of Psellos) sum- 
moned Xiphilinos from Mt. Olympos and ap- 
pointed him patriarch. Under the difficult 
conditions of the growing Seljuk menace, Xiphili- 
nos tried to establish union with the Armenian 
church. He also abolished a decision of Patr. Mi- 
chael I Keroularios prohibiting metropolitans who 
resided in Constantinople from electing in the 
capital new bishops for vacant sees (N. Oikono- 
midés, REB 18 [1960] 55—78). Xiphilinos wrote a 
number of legal works—according to W. Wolska- 


Conus (TM 7 [1979] 13—53), scholia to the Bası- 
LIKA, TRACTATUS DE CREDITIS, DE PECULUS, and 
MEDITATIO DE NUDIS PACTIS. He also wrote the 
Miracles of St. EUGENIOS. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 3, nos. 893—906. K. Mpones, loannes 


ho Xiphilines (Athens 1937). Ljubarskij, Psell 49-55. Lau- 
rent, Corpus 5.1, no.18. -A.K. 


JOHN X, pope (Mar./April g14—June 928); born 
Tossignano in the Romagna, died Rome 929. He 
owed his elevation to the noble Roman family of 
Theophylact. The major problem he had to face 
was the Arab threat; to fight them John advocated 
an alliance of Rome, Lombard princedoms in 
Italy, and Byz. In Aug. 915 the allies captured 
the Arab stronghold of GARIGLIANO. In g20 John’s 
legates attended the council in Constantinople 
where the Tomos oF UNION was signed; the next 
year, the envoys of Romanos I Lekapenos and 
Patr. NicHotas I MysTIKOs were sent to the pope 
to suggest that contacts between Rome and Con- 
stantinople be reestablished (Nicholas, ep.53). John, 
however, taking advantage of the tense situation 
in the Balkans resulting from the war with Sy- 
MEON OF BULGARIA, tried to force papal influence 
on both Dalmatia and Bulgaria: in 925 TOMISLAV 
convened a synod in Split undei John’s direction 
(F. Šišić, Pregled povijesti Hrvatskoga naroda [Zagreb 
1962] 123); Zlatarski (Zst. 1.2:507) surmised that 
the pope had promised to recognize Symeon’s 
imperial title and the autocephaly of the Bulgar- 
ian church. John was deposed and imprisoned by 
Marozia, Theophylact’s daughter. 


ur. T. Venni, “Giovanni X,” ASRSP 59 (1936) 1-136. 
—A.K. 


JOHN X KAMATEROS, patriarch of Constanti- 
nople (5 Aug. 1198—Apr./May 1206); died Didy- 
moteichon June 1206. A member of the KAMA- 
TEROS family, John was related to the empress 
EUPHROSYNE DouKAINA KAMATERA, wife of Alex- 
ios III Angelos. Well versed in classical literature, 
his training included rhetoric and philosophy. 
After holding a series of ecclesiastical positions, 
he was chartophylax when chosen as patriarch to 
succeed George II XrrHILINOS. Between 1198 and 
1200 he exchanged letters with INNOcENT III on 
the question of papal primacy; he attacked the 
FILIOQUE clause and asserted that Rome held first 
place in the pentarchy not on account of the 


apostle Peter but because it was the imperial cap- 
ital in the early Christian centuries. John inter- 
vened with Alexios III to gain the release of the 
banker KaLomopios. After Alexios’s flight in July 
1203, and the accession of Isaac II and Alexios 
IV, John continued to serve as patriarch. Accord- 
ing to Western sources, he and Alexios IV sub- 
mitted to the authority of Innocent III that same 
year. When Constantinople fell to the Crusaders 
in 1204, John took refuge at Didymoteichon. 
THEODORE I Laskaris invited him to Nicaea to 
join the government-in-exile but John refused, 
perhaps because of old age. 

ED. A. Papadakis, A.M. Talbot, “John X Camaterus 
Confronts Innocent IIl: An Unpublished Correspon- 
dence,” BS 33 (1972) 26—41. 

LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 3, nos. 1193-1202. R. Browning, “An 
Unpublished Address of Nicephorus Chrysoberges to Pa- 


triarch John X Kamateros of 1202,” BS/EB 5 (1978) 37- 
68. -A.M.T. 


JOHN XI BEKKOS, patriarch of Constantinople 
(26 May 1275—26 Dec. 1282); born Nicaea? be- 
tween 1230 and 1240, died in fortress of St. Gre- 
gory on the Gulf of Nikomedeia, March 1297 (V. 
Laurent, EO 25, [1926] 316-19). First mentioned 
as chartophylax of Hagia Sophia (1263—75), John 
twice served as Michael VIIs ambassador: to 
Stefan Uroš I in Serbia in 1268 and to Louis IX 
in Tunis in 1270 (L. Bréhier in Mélanges offerts à 
M. Nicolas lorga [Paris 1933] 139f). At first John 
opposed plans for the UNION OF THE CHURCHES 
and in 1273 was imprisoned; after further study 
of the Latin fathers, he changed his views and 
was released from prison. He became head of the 
Unionist party and was soon chosen patriarch. 
Throughout his patriarchate John supported Mi- 
chael VIII, but he urged the emperor to be more 
lenient toward his opponents. As a result of this 
dispute John temporarily withdrew from the pa- 
triarchate between March and August 1279. He 
was deposed after Michael’s death and thereafter 
bore the brunt of attacks from the anti-Unionist 
party that then came to power: in Jan. 1283 a 
synod at Constantinople formally charged him 
with heresy and banished him to Prousa. He was 
again condemned at the Council of Blachernai in 
1285 (see under CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF), 
by the tomos of Grecory IJ or Cyprus and im- 
prisoned, together with Constantine Meliteniotes 
and George Metochites. 


JOHN XIV KALEKAS 1055 


ED. PG 141:g—-1032. 

LIT. PLP, no.2548. RegPatr, fasc. 4, nos. 1424-1452. 
N.G. Xexakes, Joannes Bekkos kai hai theologikai antilepseis 
autou (Athens 1981). Papadakis, Crisis in Byz. 18—22, 48- 
57, 66-73- —A.M.T. 


JOHN XIII GLYKYS, patriarch of Constantino- 
ple (12 May 1315-11 May 1319), writer, civil 
servant; born ca.1260, died Constantinople soon 
after May 1319. John studied in Constantinople 
with Gregory (IJ) oF Cyprus in preparation for 
a civil service career; ca.1282—1295/6 he was epi 
ton deeseon. He accompanied Theodore METO- 
CHITES to Cyprus and Armenia in 1294 to find a 
bride for MicHAEL IX; his account of this em- 
bassy, the Presbeutikos, has been lost. He then 
served as logothetes tou dromou until 1315 when he 
was made patriarch, despite the fact that he was 
a married layman with several children. John was 
already ill when he ascended the patriarchal throne 
and after four uneventful years was forced to 
resign for reasons of health. He spent his final 
days in the monastery of Kyriotissa in Constanti- 
nople. 

John was active as a writer and teacher; his 
pupils included Nikephoros Grecoras. He cor- 
responded with many contemporary literati, for 
example, Maximos PLaNoupes, Nikephoros 
CHouMNOS, and Metochites. His most important 
surviving work is a treatise on SYNTAX; his enko- 
mion of Constantinople is not preserved. He was 
also a copyist of MSS. John is to be distinguished 
from the homonymous composer (PLP, no.4267). 

ED. Hunger-Kresten, PatrKP, pt.1:100—398, with Germ. 
tr. Opus de vera syntaxeos ratione, ed. A. Jahn (Bern 1849). 

LIT. S.I. Kourouses, “Ho logios oikoumenikos patri- 


arches Ioannes IG’ ho Glykys,” EEBS 41 (1974) 297-405. 
RegPatr, fasc. 5, nos. 2028—99. PLP, no.4271. -A.M.T. 


JOHN XIV KALEKAS, patriarch of Constanti- 
nople (Feb. 1334—between 2 and 8 Feb. 1347); 
born Apros, Thrace, 1283, died Constantinople 
29 Dec. 1347. John began his career as a married 
priest in the entourage of Jonn (VI) KANTAKOU- 
ZENOS; he then became a member of the palatine 
clergy. Despite John’s marital status, Kantakou- 
zenos supported his election as patriarch in 1334, 
after first arranging his pro forma election as met- 
ropolitan of Thessalonike. He presided over the 
local council of Constantinople of 13.41 (see under 
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF), which con- 


1056 | JOHN AKTOUARIOS 


demned BARLAAM OF CALABRIA and exonerated 
Gregory PALAMAS. 

After the rebellion of Kantakouzenos and his 
coronation at Didymoteichon, the patriarch ex- 
communicated his former patron and became re- 
gent for JOHN V PALAIoLocos, whom he crowned 
in Nov. 1341. He then turned against Palamas 
and threw his support to the anti-Palamite Gre- 
gory AKINDYNOS. In 1344 he excommunicated 
Palamas and deposed Isiwore (I) BoucHErRaAs from 
the see of Monemvasia. By 1346 the tide began 
to turn against John, after the murder of Alexios 
APOKAUKOS and Kantakouzenist victories in the 
Cıvıl WAR OF 1341—47. On 2 Feb. 1347, just 
before Kantakouzenos entered Constantinople, 
John was deposed by Anna oF Savoy and con- 
demned by the synod (G. Dennis, JOB g [1960] 
51-55). He was briefly exiled to Didymoteichon 
but then returned to Constantinople, where he 
died. 

ED. MM 1:168—242. P. Joannou, “Joannes XIV. Kalekas 
Patriarch von Konstantinopel, unedierte Rede zur Krén- 
ung Joannes V.,” OrChrP 27 (1961) 38—45. 


LIT. RegPatr, fasc. 5, nos. 2168—2270. PLP, no.10288. 
~A.M.T. 


JOHN AKTOUARIOS, or John Zacharias, chief 
physician at court of Andronikos II Palaiologos; 
born ca.1275, died after 1328. When first men- 
tioned in 1299 in a letter from George LAKA- 
PENOS, John was studying medicine in Constanti- 
nople; sometime between 1310 and 1323, he 
received the title of akTrouarios. He corre- 
sponded with Michael Gagras and taught astron- 
omy to George OINAIOTES (S.I. Kourouses, Athena 
77 [1978—79] 291-386; 78 [1980-82] 237-76). 
One of John’s teachers was JOSEPH THE PHILOS- 
OPHER, to whom he dedicated his treatise On the 
Workings and Illnesses of the Spirit of the Soul. The 
last of the great Byz. physicians, John was well 
acquainted with the medical classics and Greek 
literature and philosophy. The Method of Medicine, 
written for his friend Alexios APOKAUKOS, is gen- 
erally based on GALEN, but the work is innovative 
on colics from lead poisoning, whipworm infes- 
tations, and the combination of several techniques 
of bloodletting. John’s Urines, a masterpiece of 
Byz. diagnostics, is divided into four basic parts: 
various urines and their physiological character- 
istics; diagnostics; etiology; and prognosis (K. 
Dimitriadis, Byzantinische Uroskopie [Bonn 1971] 


55—64). John’s meticulous gradations of colors, 
consistency, sediments, and floating substances in 
given levels of the urine flask (amis, Lat. matula) 
are in a MS diagram (Ideler, infra 2:22). Much of 
his work is still unpublished. 

ED. De spiritu animali, De urinis, and De diagnosi in 
PhysMedGr 1:312-86; 2:3-192, 353—463. 

tir. A. Hohlweg, “Johannes Aktouarios: Leben—Bil- 
dung und Ausbildung—De Methodo Medendi,” BZ 76 (1983) 
302—21. Eng. version in DOP 38 (1984) 121-33. PLP, 
no.6489. —J.S., A.M.T. 


JOHN ALEXIOS III KOMNENOS. See ALexros 
III Komnenos. 


JOHN ANAGNOSTES, early 15th-C. writer. 
Nothing is known of his biography; the name 
ANAGNOSTES is probably not a family name but 
an indication of the clerical rank of reader. John 
lived in Thessalonike during the siege of Murap 
II in 1430, and composed a brief eyewitness ac- 
count (Diegesis) of the failure of the city’s Venetian 
occupiers to resist the Turkish onslaught. The 
most recent editor of the Diegesis, G. Tsaras, be- 
lieves that John’s account breaks off suddenly with 
the entrance of the Turks into Thessalonike, and 
that it was completed ca.1453 by an editor who 
also composed the Monody on the fall of Thessa- 
lonike that has been attributed to John. The nar- 
rative is presented in literary language, but in a 
simple, straightforward manner, with precise de- 
tails. A. Kazhdan (BZ 71 [1978] 301-14) has 
pointed out similarities between the account of 
John and the narrative of John KAMINIATES, which 
is traditionally assigned to the 10th C. 

ED. G. Tsaras, Diegesis peri tes teleutaias haloseos tes Thes- 
salonikes. Monodia epi te halosei tes Thessalonikes (Thessalonike 
1958), with modern Gr. tr., rev. by J. Irmscher, BZ 52 
(1959) 364-67. PG 156:588—632. 

LIT. Hunger, Lit. 1:484f. PLP, no.839. 1. Tsaras, “Ho 
tetartos katholikos naos tes Thessalonikes sto Chroniko tou 


Ioannou Anagnoste,” Byzantina 5 (1973) 165-85. 
-A.M.T. 


JOHN ASEN II, Bulgarian tsar (1218—41); born 
ca.1195/6, died 1241. John was the eldest son of 
AsEN I, one of the founders of the Second Bul- 
garian Empire. In 1207, when the Bulgarian throne 
was seized by his cousin BoriL, John was forced 
to flee to Galicia (GALITzA), but he overthrew his 
rival in 1218. He was married to a Hungarian 


princess and was content to allow the Bulgarian 
churcìı to remain under papal auspices. On the 
strength of his Western ties he put himself for- 
ward in 1228 as a regent for BALDWIN II. The 
Latins of Constantinople rejected his offer, con- 
fident in the truce they had concluded with his 
erstwhile ally, THEODORE Komnenos Doukas. This 
was the prelude to the latter’s invasion of Bulgaria 
in 1230, but John defeated and captured him at 
the battle of KLoxotnica. An inscription John 
had erected at TURNovo soon after recorded that 
his conquests stretched from Adrianople in the 
east to Dyrrachion in the west and set out his 
claim to the overlordship of Constantinople. He 
now styled himself tsar of the Bulgarians and the 
Greeks, reviving the claims of Symeon of Bul- 
garia. 

Seeking patriarchal status for the Bulgarian 
church, John turned to Jonn III Vatatzes. The 
Nicaean emperor was willing to arrange this in 
return for a joint undertaking against the Latins 
of Constantinople. This alliance was sealed by the 
marriage of John’s daughter Helena to THEODORE 
II Laskaris, heir to the Nicaean throne. The head 
of the Bulgarian church was duly accorded pa- 
triarchal rank by a church council meeting at 
Kallipolis in 1235 (I. Tarnanidis, Cyrillometho- 
dianum 3 [1975] 28—52). The allies launched an 
assault on Constantinople. Such concrete gains as 
there were, however, went to the Nicaeans. John 
was therefore happy to come to an understanding 
with the Latins of Constantinople, until the sud- 
den death of his Hungarian consort in 1237 con- 
vinced him that he was guilty of perjury; he has- 
tened to make peace with the Nicaeans. In yet 
another turnabout he married Irene, daughter of 
Theodore Komnenos Doukas, whom he allowed 
to return to Thessalonike. These vacillations were 
forced upon him by the large-scale settlement in 
his territories of Cumans, seeking refuge from 
the Mongols. They presaged the collapse of the 
Bulgarian state which followed his death. 

LIT. Zlatarski, Ist. 3:323—418. 1. Dujéev, Tsar Ivan Asen 
II (Sofia 1941). Idem, Prinosi kim istorijata na Ivan Asienja 


II (Sofia 1943). V. Gjuselev, “Bulgarien und das Kaiserreich 
von Nikaia (1204—1261),” JOB 26 (1977) 143-54. 


JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (Xpvoaco7opos, “golden- 
mouth”), bishop of Constantinople (26 Feb. 398— 
20 June 404); saint; born Antioch between 340 


JOHN CHRYSOSTOM | 1057 


and 350, died Komana 14 Sept. 407; feastday 13 
Nov., translation of his relics 27 Jan. Born to a 
rich family, John received an excellent education, 
esp. under Lisanios and Dioporos oF Tarsos. 
He became a monk and retired briefly to the 
desert, then returned to Antioch, where he was 
ordained deacon (381) and priest (386) and be- 
came a popular preacher. Invited to Constanti- 
nople to succeed NEkTARIOs as bishop, John be- 
came involved in a series of political struggles, 
acting in opposition to court favorites (EUTRO- 
rros), the growing power of the Arian Goth mer- 
cenarie